Re: site updated, live location info added

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > Einstein wrote:
> > However, the disadvantage is phase distortion
>
> What exactly is phase distortion?

When did Einstein come back to life, and why hasn't he learned to
use the Enter key to create paragraphs?





--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 02:48:43 -0600, "Einstein" >
wrote:

> A pure horn can approach 50% efficiency in the
>frequency range where it's properly loaded

This is correct. The best compression drivers with appropriate
horns have a thermal conversion efficiency of 30% in the range
below mass cutoff, then fall at about 6dB per octave.

Bass horns don't approach this for various reasons. Incidentally,
Paul Klipsch repudiated his early published figures,
ultimately settling for numbers of 10% or less.

He did also note that if you could get to 100% efficiency,
it would mean that it was perfectly flat.

Chris Hornbeck

"Second star to the right,
Then straight on 'til morning."

[Svante Pettersson]

In article >, Einstein@nospam.
net says...
>See in your text:

Huh?

>People a who are familiar with the thread have no need to re-read posts in
>order to get to the current post, and scrolling down to get to the current
>post is a huge time waster when one has to browse through several hundred
>posts every day.

People who are familiar with the thread does not need to see it all quoted.
Sure, top posting might look more efficient when all you add is two lines but
then adding all the stuff quoted below is really bad for the bandwidth we all
have to share.

>rather feeble attempt at humor, because it's 3AM and I'm tired, and when I
>get tired,

Why are you posting here then? Get some sleep!

/Svante

[Einstein]

That was true several years ago, but now there is plenty of bandwidth to go
around, server space is also no longer a problem. These are dead issues that
keep getting handed down from old timers to newbies, even though they no
longer have any relevence. Do you realize that every single text message
ever posted to every newsgroup that has ever existed would fit on a hard
drive that you can buy for a hundred bucks or less. (That is text only, it
does not include attachments.)

"Svante Pettersson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
Einstein@nospam.
> net says...
> >See in your text:
>
> Huh?
>
> >People a who are familiar with the thread have no need to re-read posts
in
> >order to get to the current post, and scrolling down to get to the
current
> >post is a huge time waster when one has to browse through several hundred
> >posts every day.
>
> People who are familiar with the thread does not need to see it all
quoted.
> Sure, top posting might look more efficient when all you add is two lines
but
> then adding all the stuff quoted below is really bad for the bandwidth we
all
> have to share.
>
> >rather feeble attempt at humor, because it's 3AM and I'm tired, and when
I
> >get tired,
>
> Why are you posting here then? Get some sleep!
>
> /Svante
>

[Ian Bell]

Einstein wrote:

> That was true several years ago, but now there is plenty of bandwidth to
> go around, server space is also no longer a problem.

On the contrary, there is still a large number of people on dial up
connections for whom bandwidth *is* important. I have even taken steps to
ensure I can delete spam mail at the server because whenever there is a M$
virus going round it can take over an hour just to download my mail if I
don't.

Ian

[Bob Cain]

Einstein wrote:

> That was true several years ago, but now there is plenty of bandwidth to go
> around, server space is also no longer a problem.

Bandwidth isn't the problem here, it's trying to figure out
what the hell you are addressing without scrolling down and
sorting through to figure it out. I won't try any longer.
If you're too lazy to care about the effort we have to
expend to do that or to find the organization of your
thoughts that paragraphs could easily accomplish then I
could hardly care what you've got to say. It's your call.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Einstein]

If you've followed the thread, then you know exactly what is going on. As
I said, I use "in text" posting when addressing multiple points, but for one
or two points top posting is much more efficient.
My thoughts aren't that hard to follow, if I can keep up with them, then
anyone can.:-)

"Bob Cain" > wrote in message
...
> Einstein wrote:
>
> > That was true several years ago, but now there is plenty of bandwidth to
go
> > around, server space is also no longer a problem.
>
> Bandwidth isn't the problem here, it's trying to figure out
> what the hell you are addressing without scrolling down and
> sorting through to figure it out. I won't try any longer.
> If you're too lazy to care about the effort we have to
> expend to do that or to find the organization of your
> thoughts that paragraphs could easily accomplish then I
> could hardly care what you've got to say. It's your call.
>
>
> Bob
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
> simpler."
>
> A. Einstein

[Peter Larsen]

Einstein wrote:

> If you've followed the thread, then you know exactly
> what is going on.

You come across as indolent and arrogant. You don't want to use the time
and effort required to make it easy to read your posts and you assume
that all the internet has read all you have ever posted. Fix your
attitude towards the world around you, it appears to be broken.


Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

pH wrote:

> Peter, have you seen this?

> http://www.royaldevice.com/custom3.htm

Yes, I found that site a couple of months ago ...

> One of the most intriguing approaches to... "enclosures",
> I've ever seen.

At least something sensible to do with a cellar that is not deep enough
to be of any real use .... O;-) .... perhaps one could put a some
akvavit down there in sherry barrels and save the ocean voyage ... O;-))

> Jeff
>
> http://www.jefftturner.com

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Ian Bell]

Peter Larsen wrote:

> Einstein wrote:
>
>> If you've followed the thread, then you know exactly
>> what is going on.
>
> You come across as indolent and arrogant. You don't want to use the time
> and effort required to make it easy to read your posts and you assume
> that all the internet has read all you have ever posted. Fix your
> attitude towards the world around you, it appears to be broken.
>
>
> Peter Larsen
>

Hear, hear.

Ian

[Einstein]

I made a statement. It was a simple statement of fact and therefore
neither indolent nor arrogant. I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it. If you want
to stick to an out-dated, antiquated method then that is your prerogative,
Personally, I recognize progress when I see it, and I'm willing to adapt
when necessary. I've been getting along just fine with the world around me
for a bit over fifty five years now. Perhaps it isn't my attitude that is
broken........
I came to this group because I thought I might have something to
contribute concerning its topic. However people here seem bent on starting
arguments concerning everything but the topic.

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> You come across as indolent and arrogant. You don't want to use the time
> and effort required to make it easy to read your posts and you assume
> that all the internet has read all you have ever posted. Fix your
> attitude towards the world around you, it appears to be broken.

I

[hank alrich]

Einstein wrote:

> I made a statement. It was a simple statement of fact and therefore
> neither indolent nor arrogant. I make it very easy to read my posts by
> placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
> them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it. If you want
> to stick to an out-dated, antiquated method then that is your prerogative,

Stuff your indolent, arrogant concept of outdated. Stuff your concept of
what's obvious when sorting through threaded discussion. Reality is that
you'rea lazy and conceited ass who can't be bothered to edit, can't take
the precious time to put comments in context.

--
ha

[Bob Cain]

hank alrich wrote:

> Einstein wrote:
>
>
>> I made a statement. It was a simple statement of fact and therefore
>>neither indolent nor arrogant. I make it very easy to read my posts by
>>placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
>>them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it. If you want
>>to stick to an out-dated, antiquated method then that is your prerogative,
>
>
> Stuff your indolent, arrogant concept of outdated. Stuff your concept of
> what's obvious when sorting through threaded discussion. Reality is that
> you'rea lazy and conceited ass who can't be bothered to edit, can't take
> the precious time to put comments in context.
>

Einstein, are you beginning to get the point that the modern
majority you refer to ain't been seen hereabouts?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Peter Larsen]

Einstein topposted, fixing the darn shjit:

I wrote:

>> You come across as indolent and arrogant. You don't want
>> to use the time and effort required to make it easy to
>> read your posts and you assume that all the internet has
>> read all you have ever posted. Fix your attitude towards
>> the world around you, it appears to be broken.

> I made a statement. It was a simple statement of fact
> and therefore neither indolent nor arrogant.

Let us examine that closely.

> I make it very easy to read my posts by placing them
> at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
> them

That is what you think. Point of arrogance made by you yourself.

> and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

YEEEEEES, even you can be right on something. The first screenful all
quote is bad manners and wrong too, but it does not cause people wanting
to follow up to the newest point as well as to the previous point to
have to do a lot of getting things back in context editing.

> If you want to stick to an out-dated, antiquated method
> then that is your prerogative,

You come here like a good microserf wanting to do the usenet as per the
microsoft reinvention of it.

> Personally, I recognize progress when I see it,

Do you work in sales or in customer support?

> and I'm willing to adapt when necessary.

Just when is that?

> I've been getting along just fine with the world around me
> for a bit over fifty five years now.

And how do you feel your modify the usenet quest to modernize it is
working out for you?

> I came to this group because I thought I might have
> something to contribute concerning its topic. However
> people here seem bent on starting
> arguments concerning everything but the topic.

This is because you screw every thread you participate in up so that
following up in a sensible manner in it gets very difficult and time
consuming because of your poor usenet manners.

You seem to think that the more you type the better - no need to waste
time doing it properly, nor indeed to properly think about the points
you address, skimreading of what people write to you in various contexts
suggests that your followups generally also would benefit from more
thorough thought, rather than from speed.

A posting style like the one demonstrated here for the benefit of you
gets the points across in the context of what is commented on and
ensures that it is easy to follow them, also for new readers. It is a
bit slower, yes, and it is a bit more work, yes. It also yields better
quality postings.

What do you want from Life ...

to be known as yatp

OR

to be known to be preferable to read because your posts are generally
well thought ought and easy to read and a good way to start
understanding a previously skipped thread?

?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Dick Pierce]

"Einstein" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You come across as indolent and arrogant. You don't want to use the time
> > and effort required to make it easy to read your posts and you assume
> > that all the internet has read all you have ever posted. Fix your
> > attitude towards the world around you, it appears to be broken.
>
> I made a statement.

No, you stated conjecture and opinions

>It was a simple statement of fact

No, you stated opinion as fact. You stated opinions about "reference
monitors" which, by the experience of a large number of readers of
this thread, suggest that your experience is limited.

>and therefore neither indolent nor arrogant.

That's not something you get to pass opinion on and have it stand
as fact.

> I make it very easy to read my posts by placing them at the top
> since that is the most obvious place to look for them and it
> doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

You did NOT make it easy to read, indeed, you have ignored, in a
quite inodlent and arrogant fashion, the opinion of a large number
of people that your posts are NOT easy to read.

> If you want to stick to an out-dated, antiquated method then that
> is your prerogative,

If you want to stick to your indolent, arrogant methods that are
contrary to both convention and logical ordering of thought and
discussion, that is your perogative.

You have utterly failed to address a central issue of the objections
to your posting style, as exemplified in the following example:

Because I think it is easier that way.
> Why do you insist on top posting?

Please show us how completely inverting the logical order and thus
destroying the context of a discussion makes it easier and is not
indicative of an indolent and arrogant attitude.

> Personally, I recognize progress when I see it,

We have seen no evidence of that to this point, kind sir.


> I've been getting along just fine with the world around me
> for a bit over fifty five years now.

We have seen on evidence of that to this point.

> Perhaps it isn't my attitude that is broken........

Indeed, we are witnessing evidence to the contrary.

> I came to this group because I thought I might have something to
> contribute concerning its topic.

Well, it appears, thus far, your opinion of yourself is not well-
founded in the demonstrable fact in evidence.

[hank alrich]

Dick Pierce wrote:

> "Einstein" > wrote...

<snipitty doo dah>

> You have utterly failed to address a central issue of the objections
> to your posting style, as exemplified in the following example:

> Because I think it is easier that way.
> > Why do you insist on top posting?

> Please show us how completely inverting the logical order and thus
> destroying the context of a discussion makes it easier and is not
> indicative of an indolent and arrogant attitude.

Perhaps "Einstein" is afflicted with a new and special type of vertical
dyslexia.

<snipitty yay>

--
ha

[Dick Pierce]

"Einstein" > wrote in message >...
> I make it very easy to read my posts by
> placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
> them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

[Einstein]

Or perhaps, since the posts are in chronological order, and the question
appears in the post to which I'm replying, and I'm free of the text
st-st-stutter that seems to affect bottom posters.

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Dick Pierce wrote:
>
> > "Einstein" > wrote...
>
> <snipitty doo dah>
>
> > You have utterly failed to address a central issue of the objections
> > to your posting style, as exemplified in the following example:
>
> > Because I think it is easier that way.
> > > Why do you insist on top posting?
>
> > Please show us how completely inverting the logical order and thus
> > destroying the context of a discussion makes it easier and is not
> > indicative of an indolent and arrogant attitude.
>
> Perhaps "Einstein" is afflicted with a new and special type of vertical
> dyslexia.
>
> <snipitty yay>
>
> --
> ha

[Einstein]

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
om...
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
>...
> > I make it very easy to read my posts by
> > placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
> > them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.
>
> Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
> have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
> not a single person come to your defense.
>
> YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
> declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
> so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

[hank alrich]

Einstein > wrote:

> I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
> the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
> representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

You are a stupid and arrogant prick; if you had clue one about who is
Dick Pierce, you'd shut the **** up with yoru bull****. You don't have
brains enough to sharpen his pencil. If I can in any way encourage you
to simply go away, be my guest. You're right this time: you are wasting
your time here, and everywhere else, too.

--
ha

[Kurt Albershardt]

Einstein wrote:
>
> "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>"Einstein" > wrote in message
>
> >...
>
>>> I make it very easy to read my posts by
>>> placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
>>> them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.
>>
>> Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
>> have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
>> not a single person come to your defense.
>>
>> YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
>> declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
>> so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?
>
> I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
> the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
> representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

It's quite a bit more than four or five--most of us just have better things to do than school you in basic Netiquette.

[Peter Larsen]

Einstein wrote:

> Kurt, as I pointed out, bottom posting is no longer
> concisdered to be proper Netiquette.

You come here, everybody tell you that you have misundertood this, and
you say that:

> In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

Which?

> and this is the the first group

Protests have come from all over aapls, rap, rat, am4t and amh-s. Nobody
there have disagreed in the voiced dissatisfaction.

> that has brought this up in close to a year. The last time
> I saw this argument, databases were queried,

Which?, by whom?, where are the results?

> and there were a couple of usenet wide surveys

They have not been usenet wide, they have not been in these groups.

> published which showed that bottom posting was no longer
> considered proper Netiquette,

It never was, this is the way to do it.

> and while it was considered still acceptable,
> it was in the distinct minority usenet wide,

In as much as this posting style is also the preferred posting style on
microsofts newsserver your claim seems to be not very credible.

> and I believe it was by a factor of around 30/70.

Not beliefs, facts.

> I don't remember the exact figures and I'm not about
> to wast my time looking them up,

You wanna claim facts exists, provide them or provide links to them.

> feel free to look yourself if you doubt me.

According to google you have posted in alt.music.home-studio,
rec.audio.pro, alt.music.4-track and rec.audio.tech. Google has 177
references to mentionings of the email-adress used in your posts. This
means that you are what you appear to be by your behavior: a newbie.

You claim that facts exist that support you, but fail to provide them
and the facts that DO exist contradict your claims.

For _that_ reason I have cross-posted this to the newsgroups google have
noticed your partipication in so that readers there can be aware of the
way facts and your statements seem to correlate.

It is, as has been pointed out over in alt.music.4-track not really on
topic in any newsgroup, so a followup-to has been added pointing to
rec.audio.tech.

> If you wish to ask me a technical question concerning
> studio and recording techniques, feel free to do so,

I once did make a simple request to you, no follow up from you was seen.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Dick Pierce]

"Einstein" > wrote in message >...
> "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Einstein" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > I make it very easy to read my posts by
> > > placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
> > > them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.
> >
> > Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
> > have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
> > not a single person come to your defense.
>
> I count the "number" as four or five,

Fine, let's take your number at four or five.

Now, Mr. Einstein, precisely how many in this thread have
defned your position? That number, save for yourself, is
precisely ZERO.

> I'm wasting my time here,

No, sir, you clearly miss the point. You're wasting everybody
ELSE'S time here. And that is the very root of your problem:
you think it's all about you, whether you are wasting YOUR
time, whether YOUR method is better, that YOUR opinion is
congruent with fact.

You further completely failed to address the other comment:

>> YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
> > declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want.

Top posting is a great way of avoiding the issue, isn't it?

[John Fields]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:24:24 -0600, "Einstein" >
wrote:

>I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
>the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
>representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

---
"When in Rome..." seems generally to be the least onerous way to
conduct one's self in a new environment until one becomes recognized as
a member of that environment with opinions that matter.

Being as perceptive as you claim to be, you should have noticed that
neither the form nor the content of your communications meets the
criterion outlined above, as evidenced by the protests your entries have
garnered so far.

Consequently, if you're interested in helping, I would suggest that you
follow the posting conventions which are accepted here and make your
rhetoric less confrontational.

Just a thought...

--
John Fields

[Iowa Recorder]

Peter Larsen > wrote in message

<snip>

Einsteins post was origionally intended for alt.music.home-studio.

Somehow your post Peter crossposted to
alt.music.home-studio,alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech.
You might have something set up in your reader doing this. Just a
heads up.

Regards
IR

[Bluesman]

Apologies for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the people
who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive -
As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him. Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.

If you would rather look past whether or not anyone top- or bottom- or
mid-posts, you may all bring your blood pressure down a couple of notches.

Time to grow up and move on.

Bluesman.


"John Fields" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:24:24 -0600, "Einstein" >
> wrote:
>
> >I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority
of
> >the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
> >representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.
>
> ---
> "When in Rome..." seems generally to be the least onerous way to
> conduct one's self in a new environment until one becomes recognized as
> a member of that environment with opinions that matter.
>
> Being as perceptive as you claim to be, you should have noticed that
> neither the form nor the content of your communications meets the
> criterion outlined above, as evidenced by the protests your entries have
> garnered so far.
>
> Consequently, if you're interested in helping, I would suggest that you
> follow the posting conventions which are accepted here and make your
> rhetoric less confrontational.
>
> Just a thought...
>
> --
> John Fields

[John Fields]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:23:07 -0500, "Bluesman"
> wrote:

>Apologies for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the people
>who respond to this are from.
>
>Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
>you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive -

---
And _you're_ helping to bring it to an end?
---

>As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
>him.

---
No. He neither "rightly proposes" as you would like to suppose, nor is
ignorance a proper reponse to an error. Errors need to be corrected
instead of propagated.
---

>Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as they
>post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
>people may have different preferences to my own.

---
Then you should be adult enough to realize that what you consider a
valuable response may seem to others to be garbage and to accept that
those with opinions about Einstein's posting preferences are as free to
criticize those preferences as you are to criticize the criticizers.
---

>If you would rather look past whether or not anyone top- or bottom- or
>mid-posts, you may all bring your blood pressure down a couple of notches.

---
If you'd look past the need to critcize others' criticisms, this thread
could come to the end you advocate more quickly.
---


>Time to grow up and move on.

---
Lead by example.


--
John Fields

[Ian Bell]

Bluesman wrote:

> Apolpeopleeee for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the
> people who respond to this are from.
>
> Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
> you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive
> - As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
> him. Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as
> they
> post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
> people may have different preferences to my own.
>

That's fine until some people decide they prefer to drive on the other side.

Ian

[TonyP]

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
om...
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
>...
> > I make it very easy to read my posts by
> > placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
> > them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

> Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
> have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
> not a single person come to your defense.

Whilst I think *progressive order* is the proper method NOT top OR bottom
posting, I don't think anyone should dictate how he posts. If they find it
so objectionable, then simply add him to the blocked senders list.
Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text, to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

> YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
> declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
> so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.
(And I'm not having a go at you Dick.)

TonyP.

[Jim Carr]

"TonyP" > wrote in message
...

> When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I would
> have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most
people
> reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

Like everything else, it all depends. If you are reading a thread from start
to finish, this might make it easier to follow. If you read a lot of threads
every day, trying to remember the context can be tough, so you end up doing
the scroll down then scroll up thing.

> Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those
who
> include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text, to
> be far worse than just putting it at the top.

I find that hugely annoying myself.

> Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
> because they prefer it.

Actually, I think that taking the suggestions of regulars on how to
participate is a good step. In some newsgroups people are very particular.
In other groups it's just a mess. If people gave me a hard time one way or
the other, I'd like to think I'd try to fit in. I've *never* had anybody
object to my in-line replies to snipped quotes, so it's never been an issue.

[Hawkins Johnson Beckett Hood]

I don't gripe about anybody's method of posting, I just consider top posting
for simple points and in-text posting for comples/multiple points to be the
most efficient. BTW, does anybody here know what the most used news reader
is?

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:Wxv6c.42635$506.36974@fed1read05...
> "TonyP" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I
would
> > have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most
> people
> > reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.
>
> Like everything else, it all depends. If you are reading a thread from
start
> to finish, this might make it easier to follow. If you read a lot of
threads
> every day, trying to remember the context can be tough, so you end up
doing
> the scroll down then scroll up thing.
>
> > Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those
> who
> > include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text,
to
> > be far worse than just putting it at the top.
>
> I find that hugely annoying myself.
>
> > Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
> > because they prefer it.
>
> Actually, I think that taking the suggestions of regulars on how to
> participate is a good step. In some newsgroups people are very particular.
> In other groups it's just a mess. If people gave me a hard time one way or
> the other, I'd like to think I'd try to fit in. I've *never* had anybody
> object to my in-line replies to snipped quotes, so it's never been an
issue.
>
>

[Blind Joni]

>I don't gripe about anybody's method of posting, I just consider top posting
>for simple points and in-text posting for comples/multiple points to be the
>most efficient

OK..one more time. One BIG problem is for those who are vision impaired and
must use voice software to read the posts. If you top post the voice software
has no way of finding what you are refering to.so the listener is literally in
the dark.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Joel Farris]

Einstein wrote:
> Or perhaps, since the posts are in chronological order, and the question
> appears in the post to which I'm replying, and I'm free of the text
> st-st-stutter that seems to affect bottom posters.


Who ever said that the posts were in chronological order? If I had found
your posting via google by searching for the word "stutter", I would have
found a mess of text that made no sense at all to me. The post you
permanently flung onto USENET was cluttered with extra junk headers, out of
context quotes, and a reply from you that addressed nothing at all, since
it occurred before the question had ever been asked.

Einstein, you need to watch some movies tonight. Start with "Back To The
Future", then move on to "The Terminator", and finally, rent 2001, A Space
Oddessy". Once you've gotten a grasp on 'chronological order' and
space-time, come back here and apologize to our resident blind sound guy
who by now is probably flinching every time his screen reader announces
another post from "Einstein".
--
Joel Farris
twinkledust Designs
http://twinkledust.com

AIM chat: FarrisJoel

Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?

[Laurence Payne]

> Once you've gotten a grasp on 'chronological order' and
>space-time, come back here and apologize to our resident blind sound guy
>who by now is probably flinching every time his screen reader announces
>another post from "Einstein".

Knowing a little of the incredible ingenuity of blind guys, he'll have
a reader that can be set to skip all quoted material and get straight
to the new, just as I can with a glance. If not, I'm sure he'll be a
top-posting fan :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Peter Larsen]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> Knowing a little of the incredible ingenuity of blind guys,

John already did comment.

> he'll have a reader that can be set to skip all quoted

No, he hasn't.

> If not, I'm sure he'll be a top-posting fan :-)

His stated preference is different. This post, with tersely edited
quote, Relaynet(tm) style, is designed so as to meet what is likely to
be easiest for him.

Back in the old days on Relaynet(tm), aka RIME, we had some simple rules
that made life easy for all, including for the Conference Hosts: no more
than 20 percent quoted content and no more than two lines in a .sig.

The "20 percent quote" was not always realistic, but beyond some 40
percent quote people would get either a gently guiding comment in the
conference or a "Routed Receiver Only" message, at least in the
conferences I was in charge of.

> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect


Kind regards

Peter Larsen



--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Svante Pettersson]

In article >, SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.
tele.dk says...
>> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
>> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

I agree with all you say about quoting and top posting but why do you
quote people's sigs?

/Svante

[Peter Larsen]

Svante Pettersson wrote:

> I agree with all you say about quoting and top posting but
> why do you quote people's sigs?

Because it can be useful as a way to make it possible to see who is
quoted in a post with multiple quote layers.

> /Svante


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************