"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
John_LeBlanc wrote:
But the problem is lots of people do what I just did; quote the entire
article.
And now it gets archived anyway.

That's rude. Also top-posting is a bad idea.

It was a demonstration in the spirit of the thread. Even a cursory search will
show I very rarely ever quote an entire article, or top post.

John

On 2005-03-14 (ScottDorsey) said:
But the problem is lots of people do what I just did; quote the
entire article. And now it gets archived anyway.
That's rude. Also top-posting is a bad idea.
The "gentleman's agreement" system that used to be part and parcel
of the Internet is not only dead and gone, but many never even
knew it existed to begin with.
And so what are we doing about it? SOMEBODY has to keep it alive.
I sure try to educate the newcomers I come across about such
gentlemen's agreements just as I do those I come across on the high
frequencies on ham radio. Such gentlemen's agreements also served in
fidonet etc. SUch things as post your comments under those you're
replying to and use the editor to trim out the unnecessary garbage
such as sig files and software brag lines. Guess with these new point
and click user interfaces they don't provide editors g.


Back in the days when I ran a Fidonet bulletin board system I used to
explain it to newbies with the welcome screens newcomers had to read
before they got access to much of anything on the board. sUch
newcomers usually got their start through such networks as fido then
moved on to Usenet hence they'd learned the conventions. Then came
aol and ...




Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



A rollercoaster goes nowhere, but it's judged WHOLLY on
how AMAZING it feels taking you there.

You should be able to set your news reader to X-archive=no, or somesuch and
eliminate your concerns about being archived. I can't really say that what
I've written above is the correct method, but there's something within any
newsreader that should allow you to eliminate your words coming back to
haunt you.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
oups.com...

John_LeBlanc wrote:
Well, there's also the fact that your words are being posted on web
sites
without your permission. Google does this, but they also allow you to
remove
your posts from their archives. They also abide by the no-archive
directive. I'm
wondering what happens when you request your posts be deleted from
one of those
web sites.


I'm not so sure I like the fact that you can request your posts be
archived. Part of the appeal of Usenet discourse (for me) is
accountability; stupid folks are forever punished by an eternal
archived reminder of their stupidity!

****, John, you've been talking to people for years whose names you don't
know. All of us have. Although I agree with the idea of using one's own
name, I can conceive of reasons someone wouldn't want to.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"John_LeBlanc" wrote in message
...

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
oups.com...

I'm not so sure I like the fact that you can request your posts be
archived. Part of the appeal of Usenet discourse (for me) is
accountability; stupid folks are forever punished by an eternal
archived reminder of their stupidity!

Well, no-archive has been part of Usenet for quite a while, but I'm with
you on
this. But I'd go a step further and suggest people should be using their
real
names when posting, too. But back here in the real world...

So far as I know, posting to Usenet is not deemed putting something in the
public domain. You have to do that explicitly. What you write is yours and
covered by copyright.

There is a distinction to be made, though: providing transitive, temporary
web
access to Usenet, and maintaining an archive. The former, in my opinion,
is just
another color of Usenet. You post to Usenet, you expect other machines to
play
the store-and-forward game until messages expire. (Expiration is another
matter.
My news service has some 200,000 RAP posts going back nearly a year still
ready
to download as though they were posted yesterday.) The latter --
archiving -- on
the other hand, is something altogether different. Add in commercial gain
and
that's yet another layer.

While Google -- and Deja before them -- used Usenet archives for
commercial
purposes, they were very clear that you may remove anything you yourself
have
posted. Now, removing follow-ups that quote what you wrote is between you
and
the guy(s) who quoted you.

Given the climate over the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and NET act, my
guess
is these independent web sites would do well to happily honor removal
requests
on any archived material. DMCA is a big, long, heavy stick. I can't
imagine any
of those sites sell enough banner ads to make a challenge worth the
trouble.

John

Man I hate getting old.

X-No-archive: yes

That's it. Sucks because it's backwards, but then geeks never get anything
right! g It should have been X-archive: no, but someone had to develop a
stupid routine for X-No-archive which would be the exact opposite of what
one wanted. Kinda like "And you finally stopped beating your wife? Answer
yes or no".

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Ben Bradley" wrote in message
...
X-No-archive: yes
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:15:01 GMT, wrote:


On 2005-03-11 said:
I'm not so sure I like the fact that you can request your posts be
archived. Part of the appeal of Usenet discourse (for me) is
accountability; stupid folks are forever punished by an eternal
archived reminder of their stupidity!
Well, no-archive has been part of Usenet for quite a while, but I'm
with you on this. But I'd go a step further and suggest people
should be using their real names when posting, too. But back here
in the real world... So far as I know, posting to Usenet is not
deemed putting something in the public domain. You have to do that
explicitly. What you write is yours and covered by copyright.
I'm curious how this no archive is supposed to work. I understand it
to be the dash followed by the letter x then a space then
no-archive=yes or something. SCott or one of the old timers can
correct me as I'd really like to know.

Google documents it he
http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html#prevent

In short, do what I did (as an example) in the first line of this
post.



REgards,




Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



if its supposed to move but doesn't, use wd40
if it moves but shouldn't use duct tape

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

You forget, John, that it wasn't the internet back then. Things were
different. Bandwidth was limited, as was access. People were proscribed by
having a certain format, some of which was endowed by the application, some
of which was accepted as the norm.

I was around in the DARPA days. In fact, I worked on DARPA (an eye opener
to say the least), but I haven't held myself to the norms presented during
the days of opening up the net to universities and such. I have an email
package that allows me to do things differently. I have a newsreader that
allows me to do things differently (although during those days mostly
everything was a "mail list"). As much as it ****es some people off, I
don't worry about the top posting situation. There's more than enough
bandwidth for most people to simply answer posts and if they need to address
a specific point, then it's just as easy to cut and paste. If anyone wants
to know specifically what post I'm answering, it's down below.

Its a matter of expedience. By doing things the way I do it, the answers
get to the forefront quicker and if someone doesn't know what I'm answering,
they can do further research below. How not? To leaf through some tons of
quotes from multiple people simply to get to the post you want to read is
ridiculous in today's environment.

When I find it necessary to address specific circumstances, I cut and paste
quotes. Otherwise the reseach is left to those who wish to do the research.
Besides, most won't/don't do the reading on those quoted posts anyway, so
what's the difference? A form of the normal? Information requires people
to take an interest. The most recent thing said is what people are looking
at and the research becomes incumbent upon them.

But in reference to the archive question, if one doesn't want to be
archived, the best bet is simply not to post. I have tons of posts that I'd
rather not have in the environment, but like words spoken, they can't be
taken back. And that's a good thing. So no matter whether I dislike being
archived on somethings, the archives are much better than not being
archived. If one wants to reseach me, as a person and what I stand for,
then the archives should give them a means to determine whether I'm talking
out of my ass or not.

Of course, there's always the option that I'm ALWAYS talking out of my ass!
g

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"John_LeBlanc" wrote in message
news
But the problem is lots of people do what I just did; quote the entire
article.
And now it gets archived anyway.

The "gentleman's agreement" system that used to be part and parcel of the
Internet is not only dead and gone, but many never even knew it existed to
begin
with.

John


"Ben Bradley" wrote in message
...
X-No-archive: yes
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:15:01 GMT, wrote:


On 2005-03-11 said:
I'm not so sure I like the fact that you can request your posts be
archived. Part of the appeal of Usenet discourse (for me) is
accountability; stupid folks are forever punished by an eternal
archived reminder of their stupidity!
Well, no-archive has been part of Usenet for quite a while, but I'm
with you on this. But I'd go a step further and suggest people
should be using their real names when posting, too. But back here
in the real world... So far as I know, posting to Usenet is not
deemed putting something in the public domain. You have to do that
explicitly. What you write is yours and covered by copyright.
I'm curious how this no archive is supposed to work. I understand it
to be the dash followed by the letter x then a space then
no-archive=yes or something. SCott or one of the old timers can
correct me as I'd really like to know.

Google documents it he
http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html#prevent

In short, do what I did (as an example) in the first line of this
post.



REgards,




Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



if its supposed to move but doesn't, use wd40
if it moves but shouldn't use duct tape

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

You just got used to top posting as a bad idea. Get over it. Top posting
gets the newest information to the reader the quickest. Nobody reads tons
of cut and pasted material because it's too time consuming. Where you been
these past ten years, bud?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
John_LeBlanc wrote:
But the problem is lots of people do what I just did; quote the entire
article.
And now it gets archived anyway.

That's rude. Also top-posting is a bad idea.

The "gentleman's agreement" system that used to be part and parcel of the
Internet is not only dead and gone, but many never even knew it existed
to begin
with.

And so what are we doing about it? SOMEBODY has to keep it alive.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

You are always welcome back here, no matter how you got here.

But your post proves my point. If it's necessary to observe "rules" then
the idea has gone away.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Fletcher" wrote in message
...

Richard Crowley Wrote:
It might help people participate who can't figure how to use Usenet
directly. Not sure that is a good thing. :-)

Maybe you're right... I'm one of the people who hasn't been able to
figure out how to use Usenet directly for the past couple of years...
hence my lack of participation in rec.audio.pro.

I bumped into a site called "audiobanter" that lead me back to
rec.audio.pro... is this a good thing? ...or a bad thing? I'm not
sure... but here I am particpating on r.a.p for the first time in a few
years.

http://www.audiobanter.com/showthread.php?t=52544


--
Fletcher

Yeah, well the political conversations may have died down, but it's somewhat
like living with the Nazis. Either shut up or go away.

Personally, I'd rather make music, but if it's possible anymore, I don't
have a problem with political discussions either.

But we love ya bud, so stick around. Honestly. We're looking forward to
the unveiling of the Flame-O-Matic 2005.

You can start on me if you'd like. Please, please?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Fletcher" wrote in message
...[color=blue][i]

Willie K.Yee, M.D. Wrote:


This is funny as **** . There was not a nanosecond of doubt in my mind
that Fletcher had left because of the signal/noise ratio on this
group. It simply was taking too much to flame every asshole who
wandered into these parts and ****ed him off.

Now it turns out he just couldn't figger out out to use Usenet.

It was two fold... the signal to noise thing was absolutely abysmal
with they myriad of 'politico' theads bouncing around... coupled with a
new internet service at the house led to the ah who needs that **** in
my life approach.

BTW, John [as in Mr. Rice]... my email address hasn't changed in
years... ; Sue's is: they're
in the final stages of Girl Scout cookie mode... I don't think it's
done yet but I have a feeling it's close. If you're jonsing [as some
folks are] just email Sue and she'll get you squared away. We used to
have it up on the website but the national GS office harassed Sue into
pulling it off [I'd a said '**** um'... but it's her gig so down it
came].

It's nice to be back... it's even nicer that the political bull****
seems to have died down a bit.


--
Fletcher

why even bother quoting if you're going to top-post? or are "modern"
news readers so ****-poor that they don't know how to find an article's
parent?

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
The United States is the one true country. The US is just. The US
is fair. The US respects its citizens. The US loves you. We have
always been at war against terrorism.

Aaron J. Grier wrote:

why even bother quoting if you're going to top-post? or are "modern"
news readers so ****-poor that they don't know how to find an article's
parent?

Excellent point. If one isn't going to bother to trim quotes, or to
intersperse reply comments in context, why not just toss the quotable
material?

--
ha

Joe Sensor wrote:

So what's with the *****? The Fletcher I remember would just let it all
hang out.

Sue has some 'ware on the box that's to protect sensitive young minds
from verbal pollution. Enjoy it, as it's just another wonderful element
of random entertainment, as in the 'ware finding the **** in
swee-****-er. That's just really good.

The monkeys typing Shakespeare thing might work out yet.

--
ha

In article writes:

You just got used to top posting as a bad idea. Get over it. Top posting
gets the newest information to the reader the quickest. Nobody reads tons
of cut and pasted material because it's too time consuming. Where you been
these past ten years, bud?

Uh . . . what were we talking about? Remind me next time before I read
what you have to say about what I don't remember. That's why we don't
like top-posting.

But we also don't like total bottom-posting. It's silly to read a
whole message (often for the second or fifth time) just to see a two
line resopnse. But it's helpful to extract the two lines to which
you're responding.

It's so easy to add your comments to the original message (and delete
parts that aren't relevant to your answer) that I don't understand why
you (Roger) don't do it. It's just like carrying on a conversation,
and I know you can do that.




--
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

why even bother quoting if you're going to top-post? or are "modern"
news readers so ****-poor that they don't know how to find an article's
parent?

My news reader is so old that it can't. But even when using a modern
newsreader, why should I need to open another message to figure out
why a posted said what he did?

--
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

It's so easy to add your comments to the original message (and delete
parts that aren't relevant to your answer) that I don't understand why
you (Roger) don't do it. It's just like carrying on a conversation,
and I know you can do that.

He's preoccupied ragging JohnnyVee about learning to type.

--
ha

John L Rice wrote:

I'll try again but the last couple times I tried to email you, and once to
Sue, the email bounced back. Maybe I'm blocked or something? ( a couple
people here on RAP told me they received and email from me that contained a
virus but I didn't send the email or the virus. Maybe what ever protection
you have setup auto blocked me? )

Or maybe your last name makes his filter think of Honda motorcycles.

The virus was sent from the computer of someone to whom you sent email,
your name in their addy book. Everybody there got it.

--
ha

"John L Rice" wrote in message
...
Hi Fletcher,

I'll try again but the last couple times I tried to email you, and once to
Sue, the email bounced back. Maybe I'm blocked or something? ( a couple

Maybe Fletcher's 'puter has a rude-filter on it, which bounces all his
emails back into it !


geoff

FYI - trying to send an email to Mercenary.com returned the following
messages.


----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

(reason: 554 5.7.1 Command rejected)

(reason: 554 5.7.1 Command rejected)

----- Transcript of session follows -----
.... while talking to milter1.store.vip.sc5.yahoo.com.:
DATA
554 5.7.1 Command rejected
554 5.0.0 Service unavailable


--
John L Rice


"John L Rice" wrote in message
...[color=blue][i]
Hi Fletcher,

I'll try again but the last couple times I tried to email you, and once to
Sue, the email bounced back. Maybe I'm blocked or something? ( a couple
people here on RAP told me they received and email from me that contained
a virus but I didn't send the email or the virus. Maybe what ever
protection you have setup auto blocked me? )

--
John L Rice


"Fletcher" wrote in message
...

Willie K.Yee, M.D. Wrote:


This is funny as **** . There was not a nanosecond of doubt in my mind
that Fletcher had left because of the signal/noise ratio on this
group. It simply was taking too much to flame every asshole who
wandered into these parts and ****ed him off.

Now it turns out he just couldn't figger out out to use Usenet.

It was two fold... the signal to noise thing was absolutely abysmal
with they myriad of 'politico' theads bouncing around... coupled with a
new internet service at the house led to the ah who needs that **** in
my life approach.

BTW, John [as in Mr. Rice]... my email address hasn't changed in
years... ; Sue's is: they're
in the final stages of Girl Scout cookie mode... I don't think it's
done yet but I have a feeling it's close. If you're jonsing [as some
folks are] just email Sue and she'll get you squared away. We used to
have it up on the website but the national GS office harassed Sue into
pulling it off [I'd a said '**** um'... but it's her gig so down it
came].

It's nice to be back... it's even nicer that the political bull****
seems to have died down a bit.


--
Fletcher

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
John L Rice wrote:

I'll try again but the last couple times I tried to email you, and once
to
Sue, the email bounced back. Maybe I'm blocked or something? ( a couple
people here on RAP told me they received and email from me that contained
a
virus but I didn't send the email or the virus. Maybe what ever
protection
you have setup auto blocked me? )

Or maybe your last name makes his filter think of Honda motorcycles.

More likely my name is associated with PreSonus . . . not sure which would
be less tolerated ;-)

John