OK to use inkjet paper in a laser printer?

[UCLAN]

These days, we can log on and scan the whole bloody thread in a few
minutes. If you can't remember what you read 10 seconds ago there's no
point in you being here!

Many servers don't have terabytes of memory or long retention times.
You forget Usenet is a worldwide entity.

Sure, post within the earlier article to respond to specific points, but if
you're making a general comment (and *especially* if it's just one of those
"Great stuff" or "Junk this" comments) then FFS put it at the effn' TOP and
save us *all* time. We've all just read the previous article, why make us
scroll through it again?

We all have? You're assuming the reply is to the previous article, not one
posted days ago. Such is usually not the case.

Reading a reply and *then* having to scroll down a page or two to determine
to what the reply was directed is ludicrous. Simply quote the statement to
which you are responding, and follow it with your reply. Simple, really.

 

[Phred]

Many servers don't have terabytes of memory or long retention times.
You forget Usenet is a worldwide entity.

Mate, I go back to the days when you were discouraged to use "world"
in the Distribution header because it was likely to cost "hundreds if
not thousands of dollars" or somesuch quote built into newsreaders
back then. (Come to that, I don't think I've even seen a Distribution
header in posts for years now; all articles simply go everywhere they
are welcome. USENET is now such a trivial part of the Internet as we
know it today that it's not worth worrying about -- especially if you
ignore the binary junk.)

We all have? You're assuming the reply is to the previous article, not one
posted days ago. Such is usually not the case.

Oh FFS, don't talk crap. Just have a quick scan through this and many
other groups. These days it's more of a conversation than detailed
advice about anything. And, if the topic is anything like the latter,
then I'm perfectly happy to see in-line posting. (I'm doing it now
for god's sake; and always do where appropriate.)

Reading a reply and *then* having to scroll down a page or two to determine
to what the reply was directed is ludicrous. Simply quote the statement to
which you are responding, and follow it with your reply. Simple, really.

When the "conversation" is at the end of a couple of screens of the
original article -- which has long become irrelevant anyway in many
cases -- then it *is* a pain in the arse to be scrolling down for no
reason at all. And even if the original is still relevant, most
people only need to read it once; they don't have "to scroll down a
page or two to determine to what the reply was directed" for every
friggin' article in a thread!

Anyway, I'm not saying one approach or the other should be used
exclusively. People should post *appropriately*, and it's pretty easy
to figure out the best way in any specific example.

Cheers, Phred.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I answer literally thousands of posted requests and more thousands of
private emails regarding questions people have on printing, imaging and
scanning every year.

If you had even the slightest inkling of the amount of time, energy and
funds I donate to not just this process, but to dozens of other causes
you'd realize how little sense your comments make regarding my not
caring about the rest of the world. If I didn't care, I'd just be
lurking around and perhaps complaining about people being bottom posters.

Your logic is like someone in a small village which has no doctor
complaining when a doctor flies in to vaccinate all the children that he
didn't also open up a 24 hour clinic and offer fruit drinks with little
umbrellas while he was at it.

Some people as spoiled enough to toss a serving of food out because the
plate has a chip in it. I really can't help them.

I've had one case where someone told me they "would have nuked me
because I top post, but my information was too valuable, so they gave me
a "reprieve" I've had several people filter me on this bases, but they
apparently have very unique priorities, or simply do need the
information I provide, which is also fine. Other than that, the
majority of people seem content to get the information I provide without
complaint because it offers them some value beyond whatever minimal
inconvenience they might perceive in my top posting "habit".

Since this issue is very much open for debate, since the people who care
are minimal in number, and most cope well in spite of any assumed
protocol, and it allows me to answer many more questions, I find it a
reasonable compromise and I am unapologetic for it fitting into my time
management.

Art

 

[Phred]

In an ideal world I would always go for bottom posting. But the world
isn't. And if top posting enables you to dispense more of your
invaluable wisdom than bottom posting would, I will happily live with
that.

Having just read the previous article and skipped on to yours, it
would have saved me valuable time if your somewhat irrelevant comment
had been at the top. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

The facts are most people don't use inkjet printer paper in their laser
printers because either it is unnecessarily costly and so why bother
when there are perfectly good coated papers designed for laser printers
which supply superior results, or because some people actually read the
instructions to their laser printers, or they read the notices on the
inkjet papers, and therefore most people don't use inkjet printer paper
in their laser printers.

Of those who do, a large enough percentage end up with damaged fusers,
or at least a service repair that repair technician note this as a
regular occurrence.

And with that, I'm not going to continue this thread, because it is very
obvious you need to have the last work, so please just get it out of
your system, so we can more on to other matters.

Speak to some laser printer repair technicians if you need more information.

Art

 

[Phred]

When that happens the poster has been extremely lax in failing to
snip his quotations. With just minimum care there is no need for
such to ever occur.

1. It's not "the poster", all too often it's a friggin' string of
posters -- all of whom are basically talking to each other rather than
having any relevance to the original thread.

2. If the poster is *not* "extremely lax" and does in fact snip the
original thread, then who cares whether it's a top, bottom, or middle
post -- they're all the same when the original article is gone. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

 

[Phred]

At 15:24:32 on Wed, 9 Apr 2008 Phred opined:-

I note that you bottom-posted.

That's because my comment was relevant. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

 

[John Beardmore]

Please don't infer to know what the majority of people wish my
answering protocol to be on these newsgroups. I have explained the
reasons I top post numerous times in various groups I post within, and
you'll find them, at the top, intermingled and at the bottom of such
previous requests or comments. Top postings saves me valuable time
which allows me to respond to many more queries.

I doubt it saves you much time, and it may waste the time of your
readers.

It also saves times for many readers of my replies.

I don't really see how.

Set posting positions are an old and outdated protocol,

You opine...

and if you find how I post more important that the information I
provide, then I suggest you simply filter my posts out, if they are
disturbing to you. I get VERY few complaints from people who care
about this,

I wouldn't normally mention it, but as it's come up...

As far as I recall, what you write is generally interesting and
sensible, so it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bath
water.

and I actually get an equal number of people who have told me they
prefer top posting in this type of forum to that of intermingled or
bottom posting.

There will always be people who didn't grow up with these conventions
that will resent them, or that will resent being told about them.

Not all of them will be a waste of space, but it's a good indicator IME.

Bottom posting perhaps had it's purpose when computers were slow, text
was big and bulky, and systems and users required more convention.

This from the man who thinks top posting saves time ? I don't see your
logic here.

With today's much more sophisticated email clients and readers, the
issue is almost moot.

Not unless they can tell you if material has been added in places other
than the top of the message commented on without looking at the whole
message.

Also, anyone following a thread will find top posting considerably
faster to read.

Only if they know in advance that you, and some other subset of
contributors, have undertaken never to post below the top.

It is a bit like sexual positions; different strokes for different
folks, and although there are still many out there who think they
should dictate to the world just what strokes to use, I'm of the school
that they should stick to making those decisions for themselves, in the
bedroom, or kitchen, or hallway, or office desk, or elevator, or...

It seems to me that there is value in everybody using the same
convention because it makes threads easier to read if messages are
generally the same way up. It's one thing less to think about.

Especially where there are many layers of comments, it seems to make
things much more comprehensible if older text is more indented, with
comments local and sequential to the points commented on.

At the end of the day though, it's up to you to work out if the way you
are communicating your very excellent points is better or worse than the
accepted convention. It may be wise when you get feedback however, to
consider which is based on years of experience, which is based on a
bloody minded but pointless aversion to being told what to do, and which
is based on blissful or wilful ignorance and inexperience.


Cheers, J/.

 

[John Beardmore]

I explained to you why bottom posting became a standard,

I'm not sure that what you said did explain it.

and why it no longer has its place in these types of discussion
groups.

I don't think you had any cause and effect, just an assertion really.

Unfortunately, we are in the midst of this transition before everyone
decides to switch to top posting,

I'm not sure that we are !

and that creates a certain amount of chaos. But much more to the
point, the CONTENT of the information is a heck of a lot more important
that the format. Form over function is often a poor value choice.

Indeed, but better form still makes for better communication.

I don't spit of the sidewalk or nor clear my nasal passages while in
public, and I'd hardly consider top posting inconsiderate, abusive,
inappropriate or insulting or disrespectful.

Nor it seems, do you seem keen to consider why some people do.

I don't even smoke.

Nobody said you did.

It doesn't hurt to learn a bit more tolerance and acceptance.

Nor does it hurt for you to invest a little more effort in seeing where
other people are coming from.

The context of the discussion is there for those who require it; it is
just underneath the new and more topical information.

It is, but in complex threads, this may not easily reflect the history
of the discussion.

Net police sound like people who were scandalized by the first women
who showed their ankles in public.

No - I think there's more to it than that.

I "put up" with bottom and integrated/intermingled posters without a
whimper. I just adjust to it, even though, in general, it is time
wasting for me. Rather than whining about what you think is a better
protocol, you can try a few things:

1) decide you won't read top posted message and delete them when you
see them

2) Filter out top posting individuals

3) answer so many questions, that your bottom posting becomes as common
as borscht, and posters like me become a tiny minority

4) Start a bottom posting only newsgroup which discusses why bottom
posting is so superior.

5) Recognize that people have a basic right to post as they wish, as
long as the content has value, and pay more attention to the content
and less to the format.

And
6)...

now, I am going back to the groups I usually hang with, who know the
value of my input such that most of them don't care when I put my
replies, so I won't continue to post in whichever sacred newsgroup you
are hanging in which finds top posting so deplorable.

The trouble is that 1, 2 and 6 don't optimise communications, and 3
pretty much sums up the status quo, at least in the groups I read.

4 only helps if you undertake to read and learn from it, so I'm not
holding my breath, and consider 5 recognised, along with the notion that
much of human behaviour is sub optimal.


Cheers, J/.

 

[Andrew Smallshaw]

We could reasonably argue that the amount of time he has
spend defending his position is a larger amount of time than
the sum of all the time, in his lifetime, that would be
taken pressing the <Page Down> key a time or two (just prior
to having to use all the other keyboard keys a few hundred
times to type out replies.

I agree with this. It isn't merely a question of a few extra
keystrokes. It is part of the overall writing process to get your
post into a form suitable for distribution. The vast majority of
worthwhile posts take a measurable amount of time to prepare.

Sure, you have a few that you can answer off the top of your head
with a one line response, but in my experience the vast majority
either require checking something up or a detailed explanation of
issues raised, which in turn requires a little time in order to
present your thoughts in a coherent manner.

If we say that the average response takes even 5-10 minutes to
compose (and some posts take far longer) then the time taken to
scroll down to the bottom (if your newsreader does not do this for
you) and/or trim any unneeded quotation is insignificant in
comparision. Indeed, after expending the effort of writing your
post it seems natural to me to want to display the result of that
effort in the best possible manner.

In short, the "it saves me time" argument only ever holds water
for very quick and possibly ill-considered or poorly developed
responses. Those tend to be low quality posts to begin with.