MF wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> On a lighter note, anyone that can't handle a mix of bottom/inline
> /top posting has very serious problems of anal retentiveness. What
> we might in ordinary language call obsessive-compulsive rigidity.
> And someone who corrects everyone who top posts, and someone who
> usually reinforces that correction should clearly seek at least
> semi-professional help. You might start by saying "I AM A USENET
> MAVEN AND EVERYONE MUST DO WHAT I SAY, please help me, Doctor, I
> can't stop saying that."
On a more serious note, I try to limit those posts to newer
Usenetters, where they may be hoped to have some effect. I don't
keep lists, so obviously there are many mistakes in this
objective. You may have noticed that I often go to the trouble of
correcting such top-posts.
It is totally unnecessary to cope with mixed top/bottom posting or
top-posting in general. The objective is clear - snip and
bottom/inline post.
I haven't kept statistics, but I believe my campaign has had a
positive effect.
--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 23:43:25 -0400, "MF"
<cheatsandlies@spammersbl0w.com> wrote:
>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:b8s46318ls6fr0059fdak6d1eecubflut1@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:28:30 -0400, "MF"
>> <cheatsandlies@spammersbl0w.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, but think of it like this.
>>>>
>>
>> There's no "think of it like this". The proper form was
>> explained so at this point you're just inable to learn
>> anything. There is nothing you could post that changes
>> this.
>
>Well, what I said in the post that _you improperly snipped_ was a joke.
>
>But, dolt, there is _always_ "think of it like this."
>
Boo hoo, you're unhappy, write a letter to someone who
cares.
Truongs wrote:
> Hi All.
>
> I just bought a Sony Vaio Notebook VGN-FE880E. Under System my CPU is shown
> as Intel Core 2 CPU T5500 @1.66 GHz. But, under Device Manager, it's shown
> as Intel Core 2 CPU T7600 @2.33 GHz (twice). Which one is my correct CPU?
> Your assistance will be very much appreciated.
>
>
When I bought my dual core processor I was told that the processor was
faster than the speed it was named at . So it is probably running at the
faster speed.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:39:12 -0500, ProfGene
<mfevs@winco.net> wrote:
>Truongs wrote:
>> Hi All.
>>
>> I just bought a Sony Vaio Notebook VGN-FE880E. Under System my CPU is shown
>> as Intel Core 2 CPU T5500 @1.66 GHz. But, under Device Manager, it's shown
>> as Intel Core 2 CPU T7600 @2.33 GHz (twice). Which one is my correct CPU?
>> Your assistance will be very much appreciated.
>>
>>
>When I bought my dual core processor I was told that the processor was
>faster than the speed it was named at . So it is probably running at the
>faster speed.
Avoid use of "faster".
Corrected you would mean when you bought it you (might've
been) told the processor was higher performing relative to
the same frequency parts of older processor generations. At
least, that would be somewhat accurate and possible but I
guess you could have been told *anything* by an overzealous
salesperson/etc.
On 3 Jun, 04:28, "MF" <cheatsandl...@spammersbl0w.com> wrote:
> Yeah, but think of it like this. If you bottom post, someone cruising
> through the thread has to read the same drivel over and over before reaching
> your well thought out opinion.
>
no they don't. It's marked with a ">"
They can scroll down at lightning speed.
And if they want to refer back, they can.
> You might counter by suggesting the use of snippage - but as someone who
> once got paid to write, I can tell you, snipping is a __very__ delicate
> operation. Slip when you snip and the snippee screams foul at the top of
> his/her lungs. In fact, if I were braver, or just more primitive, I would
> have killed an editor I once had......
>
> Thus one cruising thru the thread must also judge the quality of snippage -
> way too much work for usenet.
>
> And I have seen folks on usenet snip to avoid a point/argument in the
> previous post - so perhaps one should have to post a bond or get a license
> before one is allowed to perform that sensitive operation.
>
Well top posting doesn't really solve that either. It's only slightly
more convenient than not including the prior post at all.
On Jun 2, 11:28 pm, "MF" <cheatsandl...@spammersbl0w.com>
wrote:
> Yeah, but think of it like this. If you bottom post, someone cruising
> through the thread has to read the same drivel over and over before reaching
> your well thought out opinion.
They don't "have" to read anything. If you buy a newspaper,
are you somehow FORCED to read every article? All that's
required are markers to distinguish it, and the only
repetition should be the points being discussed.
>
> You might counter by suggesting the use of snippage - but as someone who
> once got paid to write, I can tell you, snipping is a __very__ delicate
> operation.
You're trying way too hard to stretch a point. This is a
casual conversational medium, not a for-pay print article.
>Slip when you snipand the snippee screams foul at the top of
> his/her
Scream away.
> In fact, if I were braver, or just more primitive, I would have killed an editor I once had......
That's just ridiculous. You have the option to "opt out",
to leave or take it up with superiors if you think your
point of view on the matter has merit. Send out some
resumes, get a different job, if the editor can't agree with
your vision of how the article should be. Remember, you're
getting paid for it, it's not all perfume and roses 24/7.
> Thus one cruising thru the thread must also judge the quality of snippage -
> way too much work forusenet.
Self-imposing excessive ideals then arguing about what
you've self imposed is like a dog chasing it's tail. If you
don't want to do the amount of work _you_ feel you should
then don't participate, or read fewer threads spending more
time on each.
>
> And I have seen folks on usenet snip to avoid a point/argument in the
> previous post - so perhaps one should have to post a bond or get a license
> before one is allowed to perform that sensitive operation.
>
If a loon walks up to you in a store parking lot and says
"your car is purple", are you REQUIRED to argue that it's
not until the loon agrees (which s/he might never concede)?
Of course not, it is only ego that makes one think that
whatever they write, a respondant is required to counter it.
On the one hand, legitimate points should be countered and
if the respondant makes no effort to do so to a significant
extent, it could be a sign of a failing argument, but on the
other hand, this is usenet, brief posts not a lengthly,
professionally peer reviewed scientific research endeavor,
and anything read can be taken or ignored for what it's
worth (remembering all the while that we're not getting paid
and have no particular quality standards to meet in order to
avoid employment related repercussions with only rare
exceptions).
You've gone off on a tangent instead of seeing that *most*
people manage to use usenet effectively enough. It remains
an effective forum by realizing what minimal effort is
required to keep things orderly, while simultaneously
realizing nobody answers to anyone else, it is more similar
to peereer, not an employee:employer/boss/etc relationship
between participants.
top-posting (was: What is my real CPU?) 
eer, not an employee:employer/boss/etc relationship
Linear Mode
