Hit gravel, broke leg

Edward Dolan wrote:
snip
Jeff, I will admit that you do treat me fair even though you refuse to
quote me. You also are responsive, but I do worry that others are not
picking up on what I have said to you. They pick up just fine on what you
say to me because I include your entire message in my replies. But you do
not do that.

Why are you so afraid readers will skip articles of which you are the
author? So afraid that you feel a deep need to be quoted in full within
an article penned by another?

The only logical reason you might have such worry would be if you fear
you've been kill filed by most readers and thus they'd never see your
original articles... Hmm, that would explain a lot...

So I ask you - from the reader's point of view - who has the advantage? I
think we both know that you do. It is quite unfair!

If they understand you more clearly because you use proper form, and
don't understand Jeff as well because he doesn't use proper form, the
person at a disadvantage is clearly Jeff, not you. Which, of course, is
then Jeff's problem (if it is a problem, which is easily debatable).

But of course if you are getting yourself kill filed that's your
problem.

-Zenin

"Zenin" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Zenin" wrote:
snip
A moderator could ensure fairness, but Usenet is a free for all. Hence,
the importance of the rules and the importance of observing them.

Wait, is it a free for all or are there rules? I'm confused...

It is a free for all when others choose not to observe the rules. A
moderator would enforce the rules like a dictator - which is good
provided
everyone is agreed on the rules.

No moderated group I've ever seen enforced style conventions, they've
only moderated for content. FYI, Usenet has quite a few moderated
groups as well.

I have never used a moderated group and have no interest in them. I have to
be free to say what I want content wise. The style is a no brainer because I
have the brains to conform to any style and still get said what I want to
get said. But a fair playing field is what matters most to me and that is
where style (the rules) considerations come in.

Furthermore the way to handle someone who posts in a form wildly
incomprehensible is for the reader to kill file them. Bitching as
you
do, especially publicly, does no one any good. The only form of
Usenet life lower then a spelling nazi is a style nazi.

Well, I have finally got you posting correctly at long last. Keep up the
good work!

*You* have? Google has some seven thousand plus articles of mine
archived going back over a decade. Care to find an example where I
didn't "follow the rules"?

I confused you here with Jeff Grippe. I lumped you together by mistake.
Sincere apologies.

Your violations of the rules (conventions) is not as bad as some others I
will admit as you do give some context when you are engaged in a reply.

Huh? To what "violations" are you referring? Now this should be
funny.

I was thinking of Jeff, not you.

Nevertheless, it is far better to have the complete passage quoted in
your
reply in your correspondent's own words.

If you're replying to anything of serious length, it's a waste of
expensive electrons (and a *disservice* to the reader).

Judicious editing is what is required. Many here on ARBR do not have any
idea at all how to edit. It is always necessary to orient the reader message
by message regardless of length. Those who fail to do this are being
dishonest - usually intentionally.

Again, you need to consider the interested reader more than anyone else.
What makes it easiest for him? Reviewing a thread is a non-starter for
anyone except for types like you and me.

99% of readers are following the thread, which means they are already
familiar with the context. The rest are searching history via Google,
where context is pretty clear regardless.

No, most readers are not following the thread. They are reading hit or miss
the same way they conduct their lives overall. That is why it is so
important to provided context with every single message. You provide context
by bottom posting and including the appropriate quoted passages. This is
just all so elementary.

The rules are actually more important by far than what is being said,
because content can be refuted if everyone is following the rules.

"Following the rules" has nothing to do with refuting anything,
that's
what article retention is for.

But no one will go back and read former messages (articles). That is why
we have the rules we have.

Actually it's not, but you're pretty new to Usenet so it's
understandable that you're confused as to the rational of quoting.
Perhaps if you asked what the rational was instead of using conjecture
you'd be better informed. Remember, it was only a couple days ago that
you learned Outlook Express isn't Usenet.

It is not necessary to know about Usenet in order to know what is fair and
what is not fair. Correspondence that the public is going to read is just
that. It has nothing to do with Usenet or computers. The rules were there
from time immemorial. Why do others think they can just make up their own
rules? Personal letters (email) are one thing; public letters (Usenet) are
something else altogether.

PS, top posting has its, pragmatic, place. You yourself have even
top
posted a few times in the last couple days.

I only top post when I am engaged in a criticism of someone else's top
posting in order to call it to the attention of the reader. I will ALWAYS
include the relevant previous message to which I am responding. It is
only
elementary courtesy to do this and quite rude (and unfair) not to do it.

I still don't grasp the "unfair" claim. It puts the *followup* author
at a disadvantage, not the first author. How is it unfair to put
yourself at a disadvantage? Dumb maybe, but unfair?

I write carefully and choose my words with discretion. I do not like it when
others paraphrase me and do not acknowledge my deathless prose at all. All
of my style is gone when this is done and my content is usually screwed up
too. It takes brains to think you know what someone else has said and then
to assume that the reader has the same understanding as you do. It is better
to let the writer speak for himself by providing the quotation. That is what
I do and that is what I expect of others.

Quoting is a friendly courtesy to the reader and aid to the followup
author, nothing more nothing less.

But that is the essence of communication when the public is reading what has
been written. Admittedly, it would not be necessary if only the participants
were involved, such as two people communicating with one another via email
for instance. But the minute you bring the public into it, everything
changes.

A scholar would not only bottom post including the relevant passages, but
would also include the complete previous message at the very bottom of
his
post.

Actually a scholar would reference it as a foot note and leave it at
that, most especially when following such a reference is so trivial.

Footnotes are all about trivialities. Most readers will not pay any
attention to footnotes. But even otherwise well intentioned scholars will
take shortcuts they should not take.

Scott (Freewheeling) is the fairest poster on ARBR I have ever encountered.
We could all learn a thing or two from him. Tom Sherman was also a very fair
poster, although he would sometimes edit me too severely.

Or would you like to show me what scholarly article or book includes
the
complete work of everything it happends to reference?

I am talking about scholars communicating with one another via Usenet. See
any of Freewheeling's posts to know what I am talking about.

That is a bit much for Usenet, but it is absolutely the most correct way
to be fair to someone else. Discourse that is not honest is not worth
bothering with.

You seem to believe the entire article history of a thread is deleted
as
soon as a follow up article is posted. That is simply not the case.

Including quoted context is only useful as a reminder of the
sub-topic
at hand. If such a reminder is not going to be useful, then they
conventional curtesy actually call for excluding it. Oh, and
convention also says it's actually better to quote too little then
too
much (because the thread is intact and the article being followed up
available for review if needed). This is in contrast to email form
convention. The reason being email is commonly deleted quickly,
where
newsgroup articles are retained at least for a week or three.

You have got it all backwards. Everything you say in the above paragraph
is either wrongheaded and/or irrelevant.

I like to believe I'm rather familiar with the ins and outs of Usenet,
considering I've been both an avid user and news server administrator
for a considerable amount of time.

I think you may have grown accustomed to taking shortcuts. However, you are
posting properly if these present series of posts of yours are any example.
It is Jeff Grippe that I am having a problem with, not you. Let me ask you a
question. Do you think Jeff is being fair to me or to the group when he
never provides any of my content by quotation in his replies?

You discovered Usenet in 2003 it looks like, yes?

I am a newbie of the first rank. What I know about computers you could put
in a thimble. But I have read the rules that are on the Google website and
they make sense to me. I have noted that those who do not follow these rules
turn out invariably to be scoundrels.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Jeff Grippe" jeff@door7 wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

False humility is many times worse than presumed Greatness.

Well I've always been a fan of Uriah Heep (and I don't mean the rock band.
If I've heard any of their music then I certainly don't know it by name).
Please tell me if the reference eludes you. If it does then you are
missing one of the world's greatest books. Y'know it might be time to
re-read it. I'll bet I've forgotten so much. Ain't age grand? "I'm so very
humble Mr. Dolan."

Nobody but nobody reads Dickens anymore - or any kind of novels. Are novels
still even being written I wonder?

Speaking of quotes here's one from the Ed Dolan hit list earlier in this
thread.

UK cyclists are in a class by themselves. They are pigheaded and cannot
brook disagreement. They are the first to become unpleasant and then cry
like babies when you become unpleasant back at them. The only groups worse
than the UK are the Canadians and the Australians The latter is especially
the pits. They are into nothing but obscenities and when you are obscene
back at them they take a holier than thou attitude and cry foul, i.e., if
they are not otherwise acting like criminals.

Newsgroups are full of idiots and scoundrels. ARBR is no exception, but
not as bad as some others. I attribute this to our being an older age
group. Many on this group are ready for the grave. And thank God we do not
have any stupid women cluttering up this group like some others. We are
fortunate indeed!

Ed, you say this kind of thing just a little too often to simply call it
being witty. If you are just doing it to get a raise out of me or Buck or
Peter or someone else, why bother? You already know that this kind of talk
is going to set me off. It can't be that interesting to do it again and
again. At some point Pavlov but down his bell and called the experiment
done.

Nonethelss, I can defend such statements as the above without any trouble at
all. You say you are not into political correctness, but you seem to have
every prejudice that goes along with PC. I am waiting for you to say
something that is NOT politically correct.

You know how to push some of my buttons. Good for you! Is it really that
interesting to do so? You've played this card a time or ten and we all
reacted as you know we would. Move on. I'll publicly confirm what you
already know. It is very easy to get me going with comments like these. I
don't fnd them funny or witty. I do find them objectionable. You will get
a predictable knee jerk response from me when you post them. But you've
seen my knee jerk a bunch. How much fun could it be?

I do not think you know how to think outside the box of PC. If you do, prove
it here on ARBR! Castigating me will get you nowhere. That has already been
done in excelsis.

You must remember that I am not writing to you so much as I am to the group.
You are merely my instrument at the moment. It is a big mistake to take
anything I say to anyone personally. I am always thinking of the masses
hanging on my every word. I am a frustrated orator at heart.

But I am delighted that you are finally quoting me in full. All I ever ask
of my sparing partners is that they be fair.

I think you have some interesting things to say but they get a bit lost in
this game you play. I think you have some interesting opinions and some
boneheaded ones. But that is probably what you think of me and that would
mean that things are as they should be.

So I said many message ago that we were done with the Ed Dolan topic. Then
I continued the topic (I did call myself a liar, however). So now I say
once again that we are done with it. I caution you, however, that it
wouldn't take much to keep it going as I am and have always been quite
predictable. That has got to lose its appeal once we all know it, however.

g'night again

Jeff

Jeff, all topics only last so long on ARBR and then they die like they
should. Posters come and go too as they should. We all of us wear out our
welcome sooner or later and then we should leave. I myself have taken many
farewells here on ARBR, some of them stormier than others.

But as long as I have interesting persons like you to spare with, I will
stay. You are now posting correctly and so I hope the problem I had with you
is now over. Remember, no top posting and lots of quotations. Then I shall
be one happy camper.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Zenin" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
snip
Jeff, I will admit that you do treat me fair even though you refuse to
quote me. You also are responsive, but I do worry that others are not
picking up on what I have said to you. They pick up just fine on what you
say to me because I include your entire message in my replies. But you do
not do that.

Why are you so afraid readers will skip articles of which you are the
author? So afraid that you feel a deep need to be quoted in full
within
an article penned by another?

The only logical reason you might have such worry would be if you fear
you've been kill filed by most readers and thus they'd never see your
original articles... Hmm, that would explain a lot...

So I ask you - from the reader's point of view - who has the advantage? I
think we both know that you do. It is quite unfair!

If they understand you more clearly because you use proper form, and
don't understand Jeff as well because he doesn't use proper form, the
person at a disadvantage is clearly Jeff, not you. Which, of course,
is
then Jeff's problem (if it is a problem, which is easily debatable).

The reason for proper form is so that the content will be there for others
to read unfiltered by an inferior intelligence.

But of course if you are getting yourself kill filed that's your
problem.

My contempt for kill filers is boundless. The only reason to ever kill file
anyone is if you think they are crazy and/or are stalking you. Otherwise, it
is just foolishness and quite childish.

Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They are
like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and their
asses in the air, they make very tempting targets.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"Zenin" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
snip
I understand you perfectly, but I am concerned about the readers.

Readers have been taking care of themselves long before you got here in
'03 and will be just fine long after you've turned to dust. If readers
can't grasp Jeff's posts that's Jeff's problem, not yours. If a reader
is sick of Jeff's posts the Usenet Way(tm) is for the reader to simply
killfile him.

You do not have an inkling about Usenet.

And you are projecting.

Funny how you do not know what Usenet is all about.

Funny how those that know the least preach the most.

The above quotes are examples of very selective editing - single sentences
taken out of context. But that is ever the way of a Usenet scoundrel. Having
been around the Internet and Usenet for a long time does not mean that you
have any morality.

The quoting thing has its place and I use it when I feel it helps make
my
content clearer. When it does not, I discard it. If that make me a
scoundral then I'm guilty as charged. But I'm here and your either going
to have to but me on your bozo list or tolerate my posting style.

Your posting style is fine for email, but it is not fine for Usenet. You
are wrong and you are dishonest not to play the game of Usenet by the
rules. I wil never accept the way you post and I will reprimand you about
it until Hell freezes over. Get use to it because I am not going to go
away either.

Getting you to go away is trivial, a single keystroke away. If you
knew
much about Usenet you'd know that.

I have never kill filed anyone and I never will, unless I determine that
such a person is a crazy criminal type. I read and respond to those that I
so choose and I do not read or respond to those that I so choose. What could
be simpler?

On the first day god created the Internet, and it was good.

On the second day god created Usenet, and it was good.

On the third day god created kill files, and Usenet was oh, so much
better.

Ed, the only reason I haven't kill filed you yet is because you amuse
me. The moment you are no longer an amusement, *poof*, you will vanish
from the Usenet earth.

I can make you vanish without kill filing you. I will simply stop reading
you. What could be simpler?

Read what I had to say about kill filers in a previous message in this
thread. You sure do fit the mold!

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"Zenin" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
snip
The one thing Clinch does do right is post properly (other than his
idiotic signature).

Er, Peter's .Sig is textbook perfect*. ASCII, max 4 lines, max 80 char
width, with the correct prefix/delimiter ("-- \n").

Edward, you've got a lot to learn about Usenet... You might try doing
so
before you go around preaching to others about it.

*The signature delimiter and format is not part of RFC822, the standard
which governs the format of Usenet messages, but rather it is a well and
long recognized (by both human and machine) convention.

-Zenin

I am not the least bit interested in any technical specifications. Peter is
an idiot to have his signature the way it is to a cycling newsgroup. The
fact is no one else has such a stupid signature except for this nut from
Scotland. Talk about wasting electrons!

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"Zenin" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
snip
Jeff, I will admit that you do treat me fair even though you refuse to
quote me. You also are responsive, but I do worry that others are not
picking up on what I have said to you. They pick up just fine on what you
say to me because I include your entire message in my replies. But you do
not do that.

Why are you so afraid readers will skip articles of which you are the
author? So afraid that you feel a deep need to be quoted in full
within
an article penned by another?

The only logical reason you might have such worry would be if you fear
you've been kill filed by most readers and thus they'd never see your
original articles... Hmm, that would explain a lot...

Here is Zenin being too cute and smart for words. Is it possible that Zenin
and Jeff do not quote me because they mean to ingratiate themselves with the
kill filers? Do they fear if they do quote me that they will in turn be kill
filed themselves? Are such cowards born that way or are they made that way
by society? Nature or nurture?

I would just as soon not have a response from anyone who refuses to quote me
for fear of offending a kill filer, a most despicable type of human flotsam.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

Nonethelss, I can defend such statements as the above without any trouble
at all. You say you are not into political correctness, but you seem to
have every prejudice that goes along with PC. I am waiting for you to say
something that is NOT politically correct.

Since when exactly did speaking out against rudeness and insulting behavior
become synonymous with PC, I think your insistence on proper form is far
more PC than my insistence on well-mannered content.. Since I used proper
form lets look at your content and give you the chance to defend it. We will
get numbingly detailed (well I will anyway).

Quoth the Dolan (again):

UK cyclists are in a class by themselves. They are pigheaded and cannot
brook disagreement. They are the first to become unpleasant and then cry
like babies when you become unpleasant back at them. The only groups worse
than the UK are the Canadians and the Australians The latter is especially
the pits. They are into nothing but obscenities and when you are obscene
back at them they take a holier than thou attitude and cry foul, i.e., if
they are not otherwise acting like criminals.


Now if you were going to make a defendable statement if would have to be
something like...

"The UK cyclists that I have met..."

I would imagine that you think that is implied but it isn't. You also
imagine that the readers are as intelligent as you are, they aren't. Lets
assume for a moment that you are not a racist and don't actually think badly
about everyone from the UK, Canada, and Australia.

You who are so concerned with how the reader understands you should
understand that it won't be clear to everyone. Actually it won't be clear to
many people at all.

If on the other hand I misunderstand you and you actually are a Xenophobe
then you deserve the racist tag and I delight in returning it to you.


On another subject...I'm going to ignore the Dickens crack although not
entirely since I'm going through the ridiculous step of telling you that I'm
ignoring it. You knew I couldn't not respond to that one. I don't know what
your fascination is with making my knee jerk. You can come over, open up my
skull, attach the electrodes, and we'll map out all of Jeff's knee jerk
reactions. That could keep us busy for weeks, maybe longer.

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They are
like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and their
asses in the air, they make very tempting targets.


Well this liberal idiot (who denies the pc label) will never kill file you.
You are way too much fun. I'm not sure where my head and ass are but please
be gentle (which has been my admonition to you all along hasn't it).

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...
Here is Zenin being too cute and smart for words. Is it possible that
Zenin and Jeff do not quote me because they mean to ingratiate themselves
with the kill filers? Do they fear if they do quote me that they will in
turn be kill filed themselves? Are such cowards born that way or are they
made that way by society? Nature or nurture?

Now you see this is good. You are attacking the people whose ideas and
behaviors you don't like. You generalize to others who think and behave as
they do, which is fine. It is a rational basis upon which to discriminate.

When you say "I don't like the way you think" or "I don't like the way you
act" it is a fairly straight forward step to "And I don't like other people
who think and act that way either".

I say "Bravo Ed", you have finally gotten the content as correct as I got
the form (note the properly quoted text above).

But when you say all Brits, or All Canadians, or All insert favorite
nationality and then attibute the very idea or behavior that you don't like
to them you have crossed a line and my knee will jerk.

Now personally I don't care who kill files me. I also don't mind saying
publicly that I like you and I'm glad you're her. This group would be less
interesting without you. I don't like some of what you do, however.

And in your opinion my attitude is PC? Liberal yes. PC? I don't think so.
They aren't the same idologies and they don't go together. My liberal pals
and I all hate PC. We blame it on the conservatives (just kidding).