Joost Kremers wrote:
> Mr. I.M. Kitty wrote:
>
>>I remember you. I don't like you specifically for that reason.
>
>
> must be tough living your life like that, not liking people because you
> remember them.
>

I'm just not a hardline-conformist in that regard. As long as I get the
info I need to respond, I honestly don't care if someone copies the
Bible itself in the message. It often helps to use better tact towards
people who are obviously not in tune with "how netiquette applies to
Usenet..."

The majority of people who use Usenet are often new people or people who
weren't here for the netiquette wars and torts like, "Stop quoting so
much because it costs me money per character!" That no longer really
applies (unless you use GigaNews).

Mr. I.M. Kitty wrote:

> The majority of people who use Usenet are often new people or people
> who weren't here for the netiquette wars and torts like, "Stop quoting
> so much because it costs me money per character!"**That*no*longer
> really applies (unless you use GigaNews).

The fact that it is no longer a question of cost is not a consideration.
Unless quoted material is trimmed, then each post grows larger and
larger, I seem to remember a post of 160 plus lines, (including at
least one GPG signature), to which the last poster had added one line
signifying his agreement.

Its that kind of mess which ensues when some can't or won't trim
quotes, that others object to.

If your post is difficult to follow, then you may find that someone who
might have replied has passed on to another post.

You may find the following helpful

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html
http://tinyurl.com/64nrf
http://www.catb.org/~esr//jargon/html/T/top-post.html

--
Two Ravens
"...hit the squirrel..."

Two Ravens wrote:
> The fact that it is no longer a question of cost is not a consideration.
> Unless quoted material is trimmed, then each post grows larger and
> larger, I seem to remember a post of 160 plus lines, (including at
> least one GPG signature), to which the last poster had added one line
> signifying his agreement.
>

That's not what I originally quipped about.

> Its that kind of mess which ensues when some can't or won't trim
> quotes, that others object to.
>

I wholeheartedly agree.

> If your post is difficult to follow, then you may find that someone who
> might have replied has passed on to another post.
>

I also agree with this.

> You may find the following helpful
>
> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html
> http://tinyurl.com/64nrf
> http://www.catb.org/~esr//jargon/html/T/top-post.html
>

And it's THIS kind of information can be passed to others without the
necessity for namecalling, which is what should have been done in a
tactful manner to begin with.

When someone like Hicks states, "Not doing so makes you look like
an ass," it disuades others from putting in their (probably valuable)
two cents by wondering if what they're replying to is relevant to begin
with and if they're doing it correctly.

There is no correct way to post to Usenet. That being said, there IS a
way to let others know how they might be more efficient in posting the
heart of the original replied-to content without being a whiney little
asshole about it. THAT is what I was getting at.

Two Ravens wrote:

> If your post is difficult to follow, then you may find that someone
> who might have replied has passed on to another post.

Therein lies the key, and perhaps the best response from those of us who
prefer not to sift through a bunch of quoted text to find new material
....

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

Systems analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2005-03-11, Mr. I.M. Kitty <blah@blah.com> wrote:
>
> And it's THIS kind of information can be passed to others without the
> necessity for namecalling, which is what should have been done in a
> tactful manner to begin with.
>
> When someone like Hicks states, "Not doing so makes you look like
> an ass," it disuades others from putting in their (probably valuable)
> two cents by wondering if what they're replying to is relevant to begin
> with and if they're doing it correctly.

<pedantic>

Since Alan said it makes him *look* like an ass, that's not really
namecalling, is it? Perhaps Alan is saying he knows the guy's not
really an ass, but posting that way might cause others to believe that
he is an ass.

</pedantic>

At any rate, I don't know that anyone remembers you, so perhaps you want
to establish your own reputation as a helpful poster before whinging
about the unhelpfulness of others.

No, that's not particularly fair, but it's what happens. I have no idea
who you are, so you get no benefit of the doubt. I know Alan's posting
history, know he knows his stuff, so he gets some of that benefit of the
doubt. Consider that if Joost had felt it necessary to rebuke Alan, I'm
sure both Alan and others would have carefully considered the reply
(since Joost also knows his stuff). As it is, well-intentioned your
original reply to Alan may have been, most people write it off because
they have no clue who you are.

To make a long story short, generate a positive posting history, and
*then*, not before, you can bitch all you want about Alan. Without the
posting history, you look like (note I'm not namecalling here!) a
whinger, and few people want to read posts from a whinger.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information

Keith Keller wrote:
> to establish your own reputation as a helpful poster before whinging
[...]
> whinger, and few people want to read posts from a whinger.
[...]

and here i am, thinking that whinge is UK english...

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:38:45 -0800, "Mr. I.M. Kitty" <blah@blah.com> wrote:

.. . .
>This is a given. The moment you stick a box on the net, be it OSX,
>Unix, BSD, Windows, Linux, BeOS, etc, it'll get probed and prodded like
>a lab rat in a needle testing facility.

Yep. The 'background radiation' of the Internet: "Mostly Harmless"
....
>Public key authentication is also a good security measure for SSH.

And convenient, startup your ssh-agent, enter passphrase once and
every ssh terminal connect to a lan/remote machine opens without
asking for a password.

Private key is on the machine opening others which hold the
matching public key -- that was the point had me confused
until I tried a couple or three times.

Or did I get it backwards again )

Cheers,
Grant.

Joost Kremers wrote:

> and here i am, thinking that whinge is UK english...

No I think its fairly widespread amongst the 'English' speaking
cultures, in particular I understand it is widespread in Australia,
where they refer to English immigrants as whinging poms.
--
Two Ravens
"...hit the squirrel..."

On 2005-03-11, Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Keith Keller wrote:
>> to establish your own reputation as a helpful poster before whinging
> [...]
>> whinger, and few people want to read posts from a whinger.
> [...]
>
> and here i am, thinking that whinge is UK english...

"Whinge" is my favourite UK english variant!

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Mr. I.M. Kitty dared to utter,
> Bitching makes people look like asses, too.

Pot, kettle, black.

> I remember you.

Funny, I don't remember you. Of course, I haven't seen you post
anything in this thread worth remembering so that's not surprising.

> I don't like you

You're not the first and you won't be the last. SYFM[0], GAFC,
CBUYR[1].

*PLONK*

[0] Shut your fsckin' mouth.
[1] Crawl back under your rock.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCMiLYvgVcFKpJf4gRAgDTAJ9++3WMY3lh8oQQ2M7iHE RZiDLI6gCeNE4i
d3vFFwdhAWKkEzbo6cKQInQ=
=8F4I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----