If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Barbara-
I think you are confused here. Bob is the one who is 'campaigning' for control of the cat keeping world (including us nasty Americans!) Some Brenchly wretchings: "As such it needs the same treatment. I will not stand by and allow American's to ill-treat cat just because they are Americans." "What gives me the right to make personal attacks is the ill-treatment of cats. You should be ashamed of yourself for not only standing by and allowing it to happen, but for also in part condoning it." I have to agree with you. This certain proves the truth in one of your statements.... there's no end of people who try to draw the lines for the whole world. now that's selfish & self-centered. D. "No One But Me" wrote in message ... just because people disagree with you, kaeli, doesn't mean they are wrong. your world view is your world view and you do not have the right to draw the lines for the whole world. the only portion of the world you can change is your little world view. gawd! i'm glad i have the RIGHT to do with my animal as i please & no one else gets a say. FYI, the declawed cat that goes out is not one i declawed. that one was abandoned in the front yard in a city 350 miles from my home by an owner who just up and moved & left him there to fend for himself. my daughter rescued him & brought him to me. and those were good folks just like you. so don't talk to me about selfish. i have 11 cats, nine of which were other people's throwaways. Nine of which were abandoned by good folks just like you. i would say they're lives are infinitely better now than they were before their owner just threw them out, even if they were declawed by me. in order to have a home, food in your bowl, water to drink, regular medical care, and an owner to take care of them & love them, prices have to be paid. i don't think my cats hate the price (declawing) they paid for a home. they seem very happy to me. and they would never leave with someone else. that someone else would have to come into my yard & take them. they wouldn't go willingly. there's no end of people who try to draw the lines for the whole world. now that's selfish & self-centered. Barbara "kaeli" wrote in message ... In article , enlightened us with... just because something is not your world view does not make him wrong for his world view. all you have control of is your world not his. quit trying to control the whole world & you'll be a whole lot happier. although i do not agree with a lot of what brenchley writes, based on my own personal experience, I agree with allowing cats outdoors. of my own 11 c ats, 7 are allowed to go outside (1 of them is even declawed). i would not dream of keeping them indoors only. they would not be happy there. whatever i wish for my cats, i wish them to be happy. of the other 4 cats, 2 are kittens who will never go out (destined for declawing both of them), 1 is an adult tabby who has never gone out (& is declawed), and 1 is kept indoors for his own protection. he is not the brightest bulb in the package so he is not allowed outside. besides, at 3 he still has not learned to come when he is called, everytime he is called ... & that is a big requirement for going outside. the other 7 always come when they are called ... every single time they are called. my ultimate goal with all my pets is their happiness not my happiness. i guess i'm just not that selfish by nature. barbara You aren't selfish enough to keep them in, but you'll amputate the last digit on the toes, a procedure that is painful, can be debilitating, and has no benefits to the cat whatsoever? Yeah, okay. You keep on telling other people how selfish they are. ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ Found God? If nobody claims Him in 30 days, He's yours to keep. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
In , "DeAnna"
wrote: | Like everything else, everyone has their own favorite flavour and | style. Usenet is a medium for communication. The conventions for effective communication were developed by people smarter than you and me, long before you or I got here. It is not a loss of individuality to learn something and put it into practice. Please see: http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post http://www.digital-web.com/tutorials..._1999-12.shtml |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
[DeAnna]
[Wed, 6 Aug 2003 00:18:36 -0500] : Moronic posting style corrected. You have been charged $50 for this : service, please remit by international money order as a donation to : Cats Protection (cats.org.uk) within the next 7 days. Be warned that : repeated use of this service will incur a escalating rate of charges. : :When you can prove fit to judge my posting style, I will remit a payment. Until then, you :may be compensated exactly what your opinions are worth. Consider that amount as having :been posted to your account. As was proven last year via repeated mailings to their attorney, Cats Protection is in no way affiliated with the poster to whom you are replying. If you wish, you can e-mail them and let them know that he is once again making demands in their name. I was told last year that they were seriously considering legal action against him. -- Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net "To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know." |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
In , "bewtifulfreak"
wrote: | Regardless of the rules apparently set down by some apparently supreme | beings, Ponderous sarcasm aside, this was about conventions: customs and usages. Not about rules. That's a strawman. | I don't think there is anything wrong with top posting, providing | your comments are self-contained. Then don't quote at all. That's what happens when new topics are started. There's a new Subject header and no Reference headers. Brand new context. | It's merely a way of giving those who haven't been following the | conversation the option of reviewing, No, it is not. This is not cover-your-ass corporate memoing, where it might be prudent to attach a proof of receipt. The purpose of quoting is to establish the context of your followup. Communication on usenet is all about context. Threads are ongoing conversations with many participants. You shouldn't assume that your prose is immortal, good enough to stand on its own, or that you will have the Last Word On The Subject. There will always be a next poster, and there will always be people who will find contextual cues helpful. And wonder of wonders, it's all made possible by this electronic medium, to *interleave* ones commentary with what has come before, so that everything can be read in its correct context. No one has to figure out what you might be talking about by going elsewhere and poring over a whole bunch of irrelevant material to find the cue. Instead, the correct context is right there, in logical and chronological sequence. People who want to follow up can simply delete irrelevant material and interleave their own. It's a participatory and ongoing system that with due care works for *everybody*. Except when top-posters **** it all up for their own ignorant "reasons", more on which below. | I dislike having to scroll through the same huge post a thousand times | just to read the response at the bottom Deleting irrelevant material is an important part of communicating effectively. In fact, quoting too much is the essence of the problem that top posting only makes even worse. There is almost never a reason, let alone a good one, to quote comprehensively. (Never mind that what Outlook Express users mindlessly leave hanging off the end of their posts, is some linewrap mangled totally unnreadable mishmash that no one could make sense of even if they *tried* to.) | So, while I do think we should all try to post with a sense of nettiquette, That's part of the problem too. A lot of newcomers to the net have absolutely no idea that there is such a thing as netiquette, or that the internet could have existed long enough before they got here to have evolved *working* customs and usages that it might, just might, have been courteous of them to at least find out about. This is the "Ugly American" syndrome writ large - an atttitude that anything one doesn't know already is not worth finding out about, never mind adopting, even out of common courtesy. | live and let live. Sure, in a killfile. Top-posters got into the habit because as newbies they didn't know enough to distinguish good software from bad. They just used a program that came preinstalled on their computer, and when that program made top-posting the *easiest* thing to do (thanks to a cursor on a blank line at the top), they just fell into that "flow". Only later, when they find out that their "style" makes them look silly (sort of like walking in public with ones fly open), they cope with the embarassment with denial and bluster, a bunch of bull about how they "like it this way" and how it suits their oh so important sense of being an individual and so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is that people who can't be bothered to put their remarks in context aren't worth reading anyway. Because usenet is all about context. -- Netiquette Pointers: http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post http://www.digital-web.com/tutorials..._1999-12.shtml http://www.expita.com/nomime.html |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Killfile away.
I don't killfile anyone, because everyone has something important to say at one point or another. But the newsreader presents the top of the post visibly first, and it makes no sense to me to have to dredge through a ton of "conversation" I have already read, to get to that one tiny "LOL" or "I agree! Signed Joe Schmoe". I could never figure the point behind it, except some people are doing it because it is what they have always done? Quoting often makes no sense to me, because what is quoted is often snipped beyond recognition, and if you don't have all the thread downloaded, you have to keep going back for more headers until you do. It is much simpler to me to just jump to the bottom-most post, and read back through the latest post to catch up on what was said. In the longest thread on my newsgroups, it was only 2KB for the bottom most posts of these "bandwidth" and "hard drive space" "wasters". I see a lot more bandwidth and hard drive space wasted on sheer verbosity in some self-righteous top-posting, "my newsreader is better than yours" sermons. And I don't have problems with excessive spool file size to contain the newsgroups, even though I don't expire the posts, and there are posts dating back over a year. All my newsgroups contain mostly top posters, and we have a couple that bottom post, and everyone complains, because it simply seems like a waste of time, wading through what THAT person deemed fit to regurgitate, even though it had all been read before. Since I have to read ALL posts, in order to admin, it is MUCH simpler if I open the post and INSTANTLY see what that person said, saving me scrolling and sorting, instead of trying to figure out if a violation of our Code of Conduct was directly from that poster, or was a snip cut and paste quote from a post before. If you are that worried about post sizes, snip it all. But then again, if the posts get mis-grouped somehow, it makes it hard to figure out where they fit in. And my groups users range from OE newreader users to Forte Agent, XNews, and Gravity users. I think accusations of poor "netiquette" could equally be tossed out against people who do nothing but criticize other people's every perceived mistake. That doesn't seem like good etiquette online, or offline, to this gentle reader. Just my .01 female opinion, of course. D. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"DeAnna" wrote in message
... Killfile away. DeAnna's well-written rebuttal snipped for saving of space and ease of reading Now I feel like a right wimp for caving, LOL, but that is my people-pleasing side, and the ease with which I can be made to feel wrong. Really, though, I don't care how I post, I'm happy to snip and bottom post if that is the preference (and I don't know what the preference is, really, because only two people have expressed their opinions so far, and they're both different!), though I, too, don't give a rat's ass if anyone wants to go ahead and killfile me. I'm as polite as can be, even when I strongly disagree with someone, and, to me, that's the part of netiquette that counts the most, and I see from your post that you agree. As far as reading, though, again, I'm with you, DeAnna; I actually prefer reading top posts, as I see the message right away, so whether I've followed the thread or not, I get the gist right off. Then, if I haven't seen the previous or original message and don't get enough of an idea from the current message, I can always go over the quoted text and see what I've missed (and, like you said, you can often read a good portion of a thread in one post by reading the bottom-most post with the quotes at the bottom). But I guess because my preference is not within the conventions that have been set up, I am stuck with accepting others' prefered style of reading, except for when someone else is as incourteous as I am. Ann |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
In , "bewtifulfreak"
wrote: | "Arjun Ray" wrote in message | ... | I realize courtesy is important, I just think you're making the whole | posting method thing sound vastly more important than it is. Hardly. I killfile inveterate top-posters as not worth reading. End of story. | I tend to find your blatant personal attacks on those you disagree with | just as lacking in courtesy, Animal abusers get no courtesy from me, sorry. | And, for the record, I don't think my words are end all be all, I'm not sure what brought this up. Top-posted material is necessarily out of context (you used the phrase "self-contained"). It gets a "be all end all" air from the fact that the poster didn't even care about context. Isolated, free-standing - thus irrelevant and ignorable. | but if a subject header asks for support for something specific, and | you post your support, I didn't think I needed to post the initial | message, but just left it 'just in case'. Am I correct to think that you meant to write "and I post my support"? | I realize now that, in the interest of following 'protocol' [...] I | would be better off just quoting a snip of the support request, Or summarizing it with suitable editing. Various methods are covered he http://www.digital-web.com/tutorials..._1999-12.shtml | I just made an incorrect assumption about what was acceptable, as top | posting is so commonly done, Of late, yes. Thanks to millions of newbies unleashed on usenet with bozoware like Outlook Express. Top-posting was unknown when most people used competent software. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Arjun Ray" wrote in message
news In , "bewtifulfreak" wrote: | "Arjun Ray" wrote in message | ... | I realize courtesy is important, I just think you're making the whole | posting method thing sound vastly more important than it is. Hardly. I killfile inveterate top-posters as not worth reading. End of story. As is your right. | I tend to find your blatant personal attacks on those you disagree with | just as lacking in courtesy, Animal abusers get no courtesy from me, sorry. I think you're very quick to judge someone as an animal abuser without knowing all the facts (and I'm not just talking about declawing, which I agree is abusive). | And, for the record, I don't think my words are end all be all, I'm not sure what brought this up. Your quote: You shouldn't assume that your prose is immortal, good enough to stand on its own, or that you will have the Last Word On The Subject. This is what brought that up. Top-posted material is necessarily out of context (you used the phrase "self-contained"). It gets a "be all end all" air from the fact that the poster didn't even care about context. Isolated, free-standing - thus irrelevant and ignorable. In certain cases, it is free-standing; the context is the header (as in the support example). | but if a subject header asks for support for something specific, and | you post your support, I didn't think I needed to post the initial | message, but just left it 'just in case'. Am I correct to think that you meant to write "and I post my support"? See, now you're just pointing out petty, pedantic grammar mistakes; I didn't realize that, not only am I expected to post to a predetermined standard, but I'm expected to do so with flawless grammar. Actually, I meant the 'general' you, as in anyone who did this, not 'you' Arjun. I could also have said 'I', yes, but I think most people could get the gist of what I meant. These are conversational newsgroup posts we're writing, not news articles; if you want a job as an editor, contact a newspaper or publishing house. | I just made an incorrect assumption about what was acceptable, as top | posting is so commonly done, Of late, yes. Thanks to millions of newbies unleashed on usenet with bozoware like Outlook Express. Top-posting was unknown when most people used competent software. Complain to Bill Gates on that one; I use what comes with my browser. However, if you'd like to recommend some superior-ware, by all means, do so. You've already told everyone how to post, why not tell us what to use to do it? Ann |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
In , "DeAnna"
wrote, in cinemascope: | I could never figure the point behind [reams and reams of quotage], There isn't any. | except some people are doing it because it is what they have always | done? Exactly right, they never learned any better. | Quoting often makes no sense to me, because what is quoted is often | snipped beyond recognition, Where? Weren't you just now pointing out the annoyance of having to scroll through scads of quoted material? | and if you don't have all the thread downloaded, you have to keep | going back for more headers until you do. That's a failing of your "choice" of software. (Actually, Micro$oft would turn around and accuse you of not "configuring it properly"). Go to Tools - Options - Read, and uncheck the box that says "Get ____ headers at a time". | And I don't have problems with excessive spool file size to contain | the newsgroups, even though I don't expire the posts, and there are | posts dating back over a year. Bandwidth is an issue for servers, not your hard disk. | Since I have to read ALL posts, in order to admin, Admin? Usenet newsgroups are not administered. Some may be moderated, but newsadmins (those who run servers) generally don't monitor specific newsgroups in any official capacity. | it is MUCH simpler if I open the post and INSTANTLY see what that | person said, saving me scrolling and sorting, instead of trying to | figure out if a violation of our Code of Conduct was directly from | that poster, or was a snip cut and paste quote from a post before. If | you are that worried about post sizes, snip it all. But then again, | if the posts get mis-grouped somehow, it makes it hard to figure out | where they fit in. And my groups users range from OE newreader users | to Forte Agent, XNews, and Gravity users. Code of Conduct? "Misgrouped somehow"? "My groups"? Seriously, what *are* you talking about? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cat licking patio | The Mermaid | Cat health & behaviour | 32 | September 12th 04 06:09 AM |
Screened patio | John Biltz | Cat anecdotes | 8 | March 3rd 04 07:34 AM |
Best wet food for keeping cystitis away? | Brian or Sharon Beuchaw | Cat health & behaviour | 550 | October 10th 03 08:53 PM |