Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 

On 8 Jan 2006 20:44:27 -0800, "Blair P. Houghton"
> wrote:

>>This whole thread would be a great case study for an "Effective
>>Communication Skills" seminar.
>
>Only in the sense that nobody quite understands that
>I'm perfectly happy with not making things easier for you.
>
>If you need a threaded newsreader, get one.
>
>--Blair

Actually I have one of the finest threaded newsreaders available for
the Windows platform (Forte Agent). Unfortunately it does not
compensate for inconsiderate people who stubbornly refuse to observe
proper protocol.

On the other hand "Forte Agent" does include a very effective
killfile. You see, if you don't care enough to even attempt to observe
proper netiquette then I really don't care what you have to say......
Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net

Gloss on Contextualizing Posts - Lew's pretty much said it all
 

[Blair]
> Girls, when you're done trying to pretend that I am required to
> care what you think, we'll get on with things.

[Michael]
Actually, most of the participants in this
thread have been boys. Lew made a
cogent argument, and a friendly one,
saying that efficiency and common
courtesy suggest that you place a little
contextualizing quote to carry the
discussion forward in the post you
are writing. Pilo suggested a viable
and easy way to do this. As I said before,
we can agree to differ, but at this point
your credibility is shot to hell.

The discussion though has been
valuable for me and perhaps others
in that we are now more conscious of the
need to quote a bit to create an easily
assessible context for comments we
might make.

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 

Michael /9/06


> 1/7/06
>
>> dickface
>
> Great comment, crymad! No need for context
> here?
>
> Best,
> michael
>

Meant: "No need for context here!"
The above is a typo.

Michael

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 

Michael Plant wrote:
> Meant: "No need for context here!"
> The above is a typo.

I'm Ron Burgundy?

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 

Ya know, Blair, I started out this little flame war on your side. I agree
that Google can be cumbersome. Unfortunetly the below comment "I'm perfectly
happy with not making things easier for you" turned the tide. You could have
kept me rooting on your side (whether you cared I did or not) by simply
being polite. I'm sorry Google groups makes that difficult for you as well.
Also "If you need a threaded newsreader, get one." is an interesting one,
seeing as I have a threaded newsreader, and I still have no clue to what
your original post was in reference to.
Marlene
> >This whole thread would be a great case study for an "Effective
>>Communication Skills" seminar.
>
> Only in the sense that nobody quite understands that
> I'm perfectly happy with not making things easier for you.
>
> If you need a threaded newsreader, get one.
>
> --Blair
>

Gloss on Contextualizing Posts - Lew's pretty much said it all
 

>need to quote a bit to create an easily
>assessible context for comments we
>might make.

Which I do, where I find it necessary. When I don't, it likely wasn't.
Anyone wishing to determine what they can't contextualize is, again,
invited to use the "up one level" method on their newsreader rather
than writing a long and pointless post about nonexistent protocols.
In terms of economics, ****ing at me and starting this argument
was a hell of a lot more expensive than doing that.

--Blair
"I know which side my teacup is yak-buttered on."

P.S. Oh, and the "girls" crack was purely pejorative. My
apologies to any actual girls involved.

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 

Ignore whatever you want, just don't come crying to me when you turn up
ignorant.

--Blair

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 

irae wrote:
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Top-posting is not the same as saying things backwards. In fact, most
people skip the quoted text entirely and read the most recent text,
regardless of lexical order, then refer backwards, so top-posting is
the more efficient order for introductory postscripts or loosely
connected replies.

And if you consider top-posting annoying, much less the most annoying
thing on usenet or email, you're really not getting enough spam.

--Blair