[OT] What are the thoughts of the community?

[Slonocode]

I keep reading the OT exchanges in this group about things like quoting,
formatting and the wording of responses. It has become rather tiresome and
it seems to only involve a few parties on either side of the arguments. The
parties on either side seem to feel that they are representing the community
as a whole. I'm not sure if this is true or not as I have not seen much if
any support from the community for one side or the other.

So where does the community as a whole stand on the issues raised in the
arguments?

My views are as follows:

On the issue of quoting characters. I could really care less. I find
the ">" character not very pleasing to the eye when reading plain text using
OE. But if the majority of the community is using a newsreader that formats
the message based on this quoting character than I have no problem using it.
If the majority of the community does not format the messages then it really
doesn't matter what characters are used.

On the issue of quoting previous posts within a response. I actually
prefer having as much of the previous posts as possible in a response. Or
at least as much as is relevant. This saves from having to go back and
forth between different responses in a thread tree to obtain the context of
a response. I realize however that I have a fast connection and the size of
responses is of little consequence to me. Does the size of the responses
impact a large part of this community? If it does then I would see value in
keeping all messages as small as possible. If it only affects a very small
portion than those that are affected should learn to live with it.


I have also grown tired of reading all the responses that I would
categorize as policeman responses. Particularly because I have no idea
whether the community as a whole supports the "Laws" that are trying to be
enforced.

Equally as tiresome are the posts that break the "Laws" just to get
under the skin.


My hope with this thread is to get a sense of the will of the majority of
the community. If we can establish that than perhaps we can work towards
making that happen.

--Slonocode

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

So where does the community as a whole stand on the issues raised in the
arguments?

IMO the "community" are those people who do _more_ than help. You are
part of the community, if you _enable_ as many people as possible to
take part in the discussion by removing useless text from the messages
and posting in a style that can be interpreted correctly by every
software used to read the group's messages.

prefer having as much of the previous posts as possible in a response. Or
at least as much as is relevant. This saves from having to go back and
forth between different responses

That's why Armin and I always try to include the things which are
_important_ for understanding the messages. Irrelevant parts are skipped
to reduce the size of the message.

I have also grown tired of reading all the responses that I would
categorize as policeman responses.

Fergus has started to call them policemen responses because he doesn't
understand the meaning of these messages. A redirection to an other
group _helps_ the user to find a solution.

Particularly because I have no idea
whether the community as a whole supports the "Laws" that are trying to be
enforced.

Nobody here trys to enforce laws. Nevertheless, there are certain rules
which make work easier in the groups.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Mick Doherty]

You're right it is becoming Tiresome.
I've been involved Today and have been defending my right to reply as I see
fit. I reply to messages in the way that I like to recieve them. I don't
care how anyone else responds, that is their choice. Nobody has to read my
replies.

 

[Armin Zingler]

So where does the community as a whole stand on the issues raised
in the
arguments?

My views are as follows:

On the issue of quoting characters. I could really care less. I
find
the ">" character not very pleasing to the eye when reading plain
text using OE.

I'm used to ">" and, in opposite to "|", the software handles it correctly
(but that's my personal problem) when fixing "comb quotes", but I don't
really care about the character. Please note (as you're asking for personal
points of views) that I didn't take part at the "quoting character
discussion".

On the issue of quoting previous posts within a response. I
actually
prefer having as much of the previous posts as possible in a
response. Or at least as much as is relevant. This saves from
having to go back and forth between different responses in a thread
tree to obtain the context of a response.

I just have to click on the previous post if I need the full previous
message, so it's sufficient to quote the text referred to.

I realize however that I
have a fast connection and the size of responses is of little
consequence to me. Does the size of the responses impact a large
part of this community? If it does then I would see value in keeping
all messages as small as possible. If it only affects a very small
portion than those that are affected should learn to live with it.

IMO, it doesn't matter how many are affected. It's simply unnecessary to
quote text that is not referred to (for the reason given above). Concerning
me: I didn't complain about all these full quotes although they are really a
pain... It was just one reply of mine that lead to the recent discussion.
In addition, not a single fullquote is the problem, but many people read
many groups, and it *does* matter if I download one minute or only 10
seconds. It's not 20% more traffic (a 10:12 relation) we are talking about,
it's the 1:100 relation between useful and useless quotes. Each MB costs!

I have also grown tired of reading all the responses that I
would
categorize as policeman responses. Particularly because I have no
idea whether the community as a whole supports the "Laws" that are
trying to be enforced.

In a group there are always people that read many posts and only try to help,
some only read the group, some only write questions and so on. The first category
is usually the one that also points the "newcomers" to some basic "rules",
but I've never called them "policemen"! They always had a sort of
"customary law", so I'm surprised about the reactions in this group.
As somebody who also tries to help as much and good as possible, I also
dared to point some people to something because it's proven to be ok
in the past. BTW, it was never a problem before certain people appeared in this
group.

Equally as tiresome are the posts that break the "Laws" just to
get
under the skin.


My hope with this thread is to get a sense of the will of the
majority of the community. If we can establish that than perhaps we
can work towards making that happen.

I wonder why there has to be a discussion at all. Instead of thinking about
the sense of some "rules" and supporting them, some people blame others of
trying to be policemen. I'd appreciate if they would think about it. I
don't understand why we can't come to a common ground *without* being forced.

 

[Tom Shelton]

My views are as follows:

On the issue of quoting characters. I could really care less. I find
the ">" character not very pleasing to the eye when reading plain text using
OE. But if the majority of the community is using a newsreader that formats
the message based on this quoting character than I have no problem using it.
If the majority of the community does not format the messages then it really
doesn't matter what characters are used.

That's fine if your using OE. But you will find that many people,
myself included do not. I used to, but I am now much happier with slrn.
A completly text based news reader. I use it because it is fairly fast,
and it works both on Windows and Linux. Something that is becomming
more important to me.

So, when people use odd ball quoting or don't set their line lengths
properly, it makes for interesting reading I don't usually complain,
but having to scroll sideways to read posts can be annoying.

The thing is that over the years, certain things have generally regarded
as standard practice - netiquette. These rules extend beyond this one
news group. Unfortuanetly, OE seems to encourage the breaking of
several of these rules - for instance top posting. Top posting is
considered vile to most users, yet the default placement of responses in
OE is at the top.

On the issue of quoting previous posts within a response. I actually
prefer having as much of the previous posts as possible in a response. Or
at least as much as is relevant. This saves from having to go back and
forth between different responses in a thread tree to obtain the context of
a response. I realize however that I have a fast connection and the size of
responses is of little consequence to me. Does the size of the responses
impact a large part of this community? If it does then I would see value in
keeping all messages as small as possible. If it only affects a very small
portion than those that are affected should learn to live with it.

Trimming quotes is indeed the correct behavior. You should remove
anything that does not relevant - yet leave enough to preserve context.

I have also grown tired of reading all the responses that I would
categorize as policeman responses. Particularly because I have no idea
whether the community as a whole supports the "Laws" that are trying to be
enforced.

I agree. I presonally find it annoying when people violate certain
rules, but I don't usually say anything. Partly because I'm certain
that I on occasion break them myself

 

[steve]

it's all so damn tired! one calling another names!

best advice: be helpful in the way *you* see as providing the most help.
everyone else be damned except the person you're trying to help...they'll
let you know how you can better communicate with them if they don't
understand you. if someone gets on your case, EOT...just don't reply, as
this seems to provoke "master verbation" and leads to threads the length of
which reach from the pacific to the atlantic in a westward direction!

no, two to three squabblers don't a healthy community make...much less,
represent as a whole.

hth,

steve

| I keep reading the OT exchanges in this group about things like
quoting,
| formatting and the wording of responses. It has become rather tiresome
and
| it seems to only involve a few parties on either side of the arguments.
The
| parties on either side seem to feel that they are representing the
community
| as a whole. I'm not sure if this is true or not as I have not seen much
if
| any support from the community for one side or the other.
|
| So where does the community as a whole stand on the issues raised in
the
| arguments?
|
| My views are as follows:
|
| On the issue of quoting characters. I could really care less. I find
| the ">" character not very pleasing to the eye when reading plain text
using
| OE. But if the majority of the community is using a newsreader that
formats
| the message based on this quoting character than I have no problem using
it.
| If the majority of the community does not format the messages then it
really
| doesn't matter what characters are used.
|
| On the issue of quoting previous posts within a response. I actually
| prefer having as much of the previous posts as possible in a response. Or
| at least as much as is relevant. This saves from having to go back and
| forth between different responses in a thread tree to obtain the context
of
| a response. I realize however that I have a fast connection and the size
of
| responses is of little consequence to me. Does the size of the responses
| impact a large part of this community? If it does then I would see value
in
| keeping all messages as small as possible. If it only affects a very
small
| portion than those that are affected should learn to live with it.
|
|
| I have also grown tired of reading all the responses that I would
| categorize as policeman responses. Particularly because I have no idea
| whether the community as a whole supports the "Laws" that are trying to be
| enforced.
|
| Equally as tiresome are the posts that break the "Laws" just to get
| under the skin.
|
|
| My hope with this thread is to get a sense of the will of the majority of
| the community. If we can establish that than perhaps we can work towards
| making that happen.
|
| --Slonocode
|
|
|
|

 

[steve]

who's been beating you up? just curios.

steve


| You're right it is becoming Tiresome.
| I've been involved Today and have been defending my right to reply as I
see
| fit. I reply to messages in the way that I like to recieve them. I don't
| care how anyone else responds, that is their choice. Nobody has to read my
| replies.
|
| | > I keep reading the OT exchanges in this group about things like
| quoting,
| > formatting and the wording of responses. It has become rather tiresome
| and
| > it seems to only involve a few parties on either side of the arguments.
| The
| > parties on either side seem to feel that they are representing the
| community
| > as a whole. I'm not sure if this is true or not as I have not seen much
| if
| > any support from the community for one side or the other.
| >
| > So where does the community as a whole stand on the issues raised in
| the
| > arguments?
| >
| > My views are as follows:
| >
| > On the issue of quoting characters. I could really care less. I
find
| > the ">" character not very pleasing to the eye when reading plain text
| using
| > OE. But if the majority of the community is using a newsreader that
| formats
| > the message based on this quoting character than I have no problem using
| it.
| > If the majority of the community does not format the messages then it
| really
| > doesn't matter what characters are used.
| >
| > On the issue of quoting previous posts within a response. I
actually
| > prefer having as much of the previous posts as possible in a response.
Or
| > at least as much as is relevant. This saves from having to go back and
| > forth between different responses in a thread tree to obtain the context
| of
| > a response. I realize however that I have a fast connection and the
size
| of
| > responses is of little consequence to me. Does the size of the
responses
| > impact a large part of this community? If it does then I would see
value
| in
| > keeping all messages as small as possible. If it only affects a very
| small
| > portion than those that are affected should learn to live with it.
| >
| >
| > I have also grown tired of reading all the responses that I would
| > categorize as policeman responses. Particularly because I have no idea
| > whether the community as a whole supports the "Laws" that are trying to
be
| > enforced.
| >
| > Equally as tiresome are the posts that break the "Laws" just to get
| > under the skin.
| >
| >
| > My hope with this thread is to get a sense of the will of the majority
of
| > the community. If we can establish that than perhaps we can work
towards
| > making that happen.
| >
| > --Slonocode
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

it's all so damn tired! one calling another names!

best advice: be helpful in the way *you* see as providing the most help.
everyone else be damned except the person you're trying to help...they'll

This is a _public_ newsgroup. If you want to communicate with posts
which are unreadable for other people here, turn to email. Don't
annoy other people (I am not referring to you) with posts which are not
useful for part of the community.

 

[Fergus Cooney]

Hi Steve,

Topic: Please Help: dynamic statement

;-)

Regards,
Fergus

 

[Fergus Cooney]

Hi Folks,

I didn't want to say anything but (apart from squashing PLSs)

|| everyone else be damned except the person you're trying to help

is pretty much where my priority lies. I'm here to help. It's a rule for
therapists and it's my rule here - the client comes first (during their time,
of course).

And have fun - that's a secondary priority - otherwise I wouldn't be able
to do this as much as I do. Sorry, if it's OT and irrelevant to the world - I
feel I earn the right to be silly and chatty at times as I put enough in the
rest of the time.

This last few days does not come under that heading, however, and is far
from standard behaviour. For any who haven't seen it in some other thread. I
apologise for my extended 'discussion' with a certain Herfried K. Wagner
[PLS]. and to a lesser extent another discussion which has had a somewhat
disappointing outcome but which I thought. was worth persuing.

From me at least, normal service has been resumed despite <emotional
hiccup> an almost overwhelming desire to cut the PLS to ribbons with my words.
There is little point, however, he is still somewhat delusional and
hypercritical - lashing out his petty remarks at anyone - see several threads
today - "please explain to me why ...". The PLS!! And, apart from this
paragraph, I shall not even use other people's posts and threads to insert
snide remarks. Mainly because I'm not a PLS. </emotional hiccup> EOT on all of
this from me.

Once again. I apologise to all (bar two) for this major disruption.

Regards,
Fergus

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

I didn't want to say anything but (apart from squashing PLSs)


is pretty much where my priority lies. I'm here to help.

By saying this you say that _you are not here to help_. By disabling
other people from learning from your posts, your help is worthless and
your posts are annoying.

It's a rule for therapists and it's my rule here

We are not a hospital. This is a technical newsgroup.

- the client comes first (during their time,
of course).

Not _the_ client, _all_ people come first. Before your own habits.

And have fun - that's a secondary priority - otherwise I wouldn't be able
to do this as much as I do.

You have fun in insulting other people, not in helping.

This last few days does not come under that heading, however, and is far
from standard behaviour. For any who haven't seen it in some other thread. I
apologise for my extended 'discussion' with a certain Herfried K. Wagner
[PLS].

Just for the information of the other people here:

PLS stands for "Pompous Little Shit".

That's how Fergus cooney thinks about other people here. A shame.

hiccup> an almost overwhelming desire to cut the PLS to ribbons with my words.
There is little point, however, he is still somewhat delusional and
hypercritical - lashing out his petty remarks at anyone - see several threads
today - "please explain to me why ...". The PLS!! And, apart from this
paragraph, I shall not even use other people's posts and threads to insert
snide remarks. Mainly because I'm not a PLS. </emotional hiccup> EOT on all of
this from me.

You are really childish.

Once again. I apologise to all (bar two) for this major disruption.

I expect you to apologize for injuring _me_. As long as you don't
understand that you made a very big mistake, you won't be part of the
community. That's not the style we are talking to each other in this
group.

 

[Cor]

Steve has said the most that I could have said too.

Here are coming persons who are creative, used to work with new ideas and
who want to know why something is done. We do that by evaluating what is
said, what we read, and from the problems from ourselves and others.

That means that the problems and answers have to be well formed. Tom did
that in this thread, by telling that he uses another newsreader and which
problems he had in some situations. That is learning full for me and I think
for more. We can keep an eye on it when we send our next post.

If you are telling that you have problems with sending post, because of the
amount of bytes and than being involved in the longest threads in this
newsgroup make you in my eyes unbelievable.

We try to communicate and I have seen that the most persons her listen the
problems of others. In a good community that is not done to shouting empty
rules.

I have seen the communist community by being in it, and although there were
a lot of good things too in the communist community, this kind of behaviour
was one of the worst.

I think that one of the most important things in a community is to respect
each others meanings and especially if somebody fights very hard for it.

Just my thoughts,

Cor

 

[Tom Leylan]

By saying this you say that _you are not here to help_. By disabling
other people from learning from your posts, your help is worthless and
your posts are annoying.

Well I didn't want to get involved but this is representative of one major
problem with public newsgroups. Herfried... you're commandering the thread.
It had a subject and you plainly want it to be about some squabble you have
with Fergus Cooney (whoever he might be.) People who can't read English are
"disabled from learning" if we simply carry your point to the extreme.

We are not a hospital. This is a technical newsgroup.

It is more of a hospital than you are willing to concede. It is a therapy
session to many (I'll guess "most") who participate... that can easily be
discerned by simply reading the postings. Your response wasn't a technical
response was it?

Not _the_ client, _all_ people come first. Before your own habits.

According to the contract we signed or you decided that anybody who inhabits
the Earth just has to believe this? Take an introspective moment... ask
yourself why you personally think you have this all "right" and others have
it all "wrong."

But let's pursue that train of thought... "all people come first" okay... so
that means uhh? You call them on the phone? You spend 14 hours trying to
formulate a meaningful reply? You... uh... how does our behavior change
since "everybody" comes first? We have a scientific term for this it is
called "impossible."

You have fun in insulting other people, not in helping.

Ah... a snappy rhetort. Insulting = "bad" clever response = "good" now
at least we know the rules.

PLS stands for "Pompous Little Shit".

Well I'll refrain from comment on this.

You are really childish.

Don't forget me... I'm childish too

I expect you to apologize for injuring _me_. As long as you don't
understand that you made a very big mistake, you won't be part of the
community. That's not the style we are talking to each other in this
group.

I expect you to apologize for injuring me... something tells me that you
will explain to me how I shouldn't be expecting an apology. Do you see the
irony in that at least?

Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
<http://www.mvps.org/dotnet>

Herfried... in all seriousness I'll bet you know a heck of alot about .Net
and your heart is in the right place but you really do come off as something
of a dork. Every newsgroup has a "Herfried Wagner" and you're this
newsgroup's "Herfried Wagner."

If you have been assigned here by Microsoft I'd like to know that. If
you've decided on your own by virtue of posting the first message or the
most replies that you are in charge I wouldn't mind knowing that either.

You can also choose to ignore my reply... after I see you and Fergus trade
barbs for a few weeks I'll grow tired of it all an move on in my quest for a
place to "chat" without somebody having to be the King, the "expert" or the
"winner."

 

[steve]

mick...i don't know why you're complaining here...you threw the first
stone...and the fun just continued.

;^)


| You're right it is becoming Tiresome.
| I've been involved Today and have been defending my right to reply as I
see
| fit. I reply to messages in the way that I like to recieve them. I don't
| care how anyone else responds, that is their choice. Nobody has to read my
| replies.
|
| | > I keep reading the OT exchanges in this group about things like
| quoting,
| > formatting and the wording of responses. It has become rather tiresome
| and
| > it seems to only involve a few parties on either side of the arguments.
| The
| > parties on either side seem to feel that they are representing the
| community
| > as a whole. I'm not sure if this is true or not as I have not seen much
| if
| > any support from the community for one side or the other.
| >
| > So where does the community as a whole stand on the issues raised in
| the
| > arguments?
| >
| > My views are as follows:
| >
| > On the issue of quoting characters. I could really care less. I
find
| > the ">" character not very pleasing to the eye when reading plain text
| using
| > OE. But if the majority of the community is using a newsreader that
| formats
| > the message based on this quoting character than I have no problem using
| it.
| > If the majority of the community does not format the messages then it
| really
| > doesn't matter what characters are used.
| >
| > On the issue of quoting previous posts within a response. I
actually
| > prefer having as much of the previous posts as possible in a response.
Or
| > at least as much as is relevant. This saves from having to go back and
| > forth between different responses in a thread tree to obtain the context
| of
| > a response. I realize however that I have a fast connection and the
size
| of
| > responses is of little consequence to me. Does the size of the
responses
| > impact a large part of this community? If it does then I would see
value
| in
| > keeping all messages as small as possible. If it only affects a very
| small
| > portion than those that are affected should learn to live with it.
| >
| >
| > I have also grown tired of reading all the responses that I would
| > categorize as policeman responses. Particularly because I have no idea
| > whether the community as a whole supports the "Laws" that are trying to
be
| > enforced.
| >
| > Equally as tiresome are the posts that break the "Laws" just to get
| > under the skin.
| >
| >
| > My hope with this thread is to get a sense of the will of the majority
of
| > the community. If we can establish that than perhaps we can work
towards
| > making that happen.
| >
| > --Slonocode
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|

 

[steve]

"can't we all just get along?" rodney king, circa "after i had gotten the
snot beaten outta me!"

;^)

cheers all.


| I keep reading the OT exchanges in this group about things like
quoting,
| formatting and the wording of responses. It has become rather tiresome
and
| it seems to only involve a few parties on either side of the arguments.
The
| parties on either side seem to feel that they are representing the
community
| as a whole. I'm not sure if this is true or not as I have not seen much
if
| any support from the community for one side or the other.
|
| So where does the community as a whole stand on the issues raised in
the
| arguments?
|
| My views are as follows:
|
| On the issue of quoting characters. I could really care less. I find
| the ">" character not very pleasing to the eye when reading plain text
using
| OE. But if the majority of the community is using a newsreader that
formats
| the message based on this quoting character than I have no problem using
it.
| If the majority of the community does not format the messages then it
really
| doesn't matter what characters are used.
|
| On the issue of quoting previous posts within a response. I actually
| prefer having as much of the previous posts as possible in a response. Or
| at least as much as is relevant. This saves from having to go back and
| forth between different responses in a thread tree to obtain the context
of
| a response. I realize however that I have a fast connection and the size
of
| responses is of little consequence to me. Does the size of the responses
| impact a large part of this community? If it does then I would see value
in
| keeping all messages as small as possible. If it only affects a very
small
| portion than those that are affected should learn to live with it.
|
|
| I have also grown tired of reading all the responses that I would
| categorize as policeman responses. Particularly because I have no idea
| whether the community as a whole supports the "Laws" that are trying to be
| enforced.
|
| Equally as tiresome are the posts that break the "Laws" just to get
| under the skin.
|
|
| My hope with this thread is to get a sense of the will of the majority of
| the community. If we can establish that than perhaps we can work towards
| making that happen.
|
| --Slonocode
|
|
|
|

 

[steve]

herf.

once again, out numbered. i feel for you. and, i'll even go to bat for
you...if you simply change tones for a minute and be willing to see/hear
what everyone else is saying. we all know what the guidelines are and we are
not a bunch of rule breakers...ready to lurch at the chance to do so. had
the debate never started, we'd all be merrily posting/replying all day long
without complaint.

i agree that having settings that allow the most people to view questions
and answers is a desirable thing. but when it comes down to it, if i am
helping someone and they don't want to get a post having attachments ;^)
containing source code, but instead, want me to take off the "wrap
characters...76" so the entire code posts unbroken and avoids having to have
tons of line continuations which kill code legibility...i'll do exactly what
they ask! for its in this instance only, that i know i have ONE person who
will DEFINITELY need and use the code immediately...that's the client! and i
WILL NOT amend my posting format for ALL PEOPLE on the off chance that
someone MAY look at the post and need it as well. that day MAY NEVER come.
so you have to communicate to the person at hand instead of those who may
never exist...and i will do it in the manner in which they perscribe! that
includes the use of personal email.

when that rare occasion has passed, i will then resume my conformance to the
standard netiquette *guideline*. of which i believe you and i and everyone
else for the most part, are in support of. i just get the feeling that its
only the inflexibility in your tone that sends everyone in a rant and not
the guidelines you seek to defend.

you are out numbered AND you have a few good points...don't let them go to
waste or be dismissed by fighting for them! state your case, as i've said
before, and people will discern for themselves what is the most beneficial
solution.

as far as the hospitals are concerned...i can't resist adding: medicine
cures people...if given options, people will take the medicines that don't
come with bitterness or leave after-tastes on the palate. "a spoonful of
sugar".

but that's my EOT. i will discuss this no longer and will not referee any
future bouts...don king has an easier job and he gets paid for his trouble.

steve


| * "Fergus Cooney" <[email protected]> scripsit:
| > I didn't want to say anything but (apart from squashing PLSs)
| >
| >> everyone else be damned except the person you're trying to help
| >
| > is pretty much where my priority lies. I'm here to help.
|
| By saying this you say that _you are not here to help_. By disabling
| other people from learning from your posts, your help is worthless and
| your posts are annoying.
|
| > It's a rule for therapists and it's my rule here
|
| We are not a hospital. This is a technical newsgroup.
|
| > - the client comes first (during their time,
| > of course).
|
| Not _the_ client, _all_ people come first. Before your own habits.
|
| > And have fun - that's a secondary priority - otherwise I wouldn't be
able
| > to do this as much as I do.
|
| You have fun in insulting other people, not in helping.
|
| > This last few days does not come under that heading, however, and is far
| > from standard behaviour. For any who haven't seen it in some other
thread. I
| > apologise for my extended 'discussion' with a certain Herfried K. Wagner
| > [PLS].
|
| Just for the information of the other people here:
|
| PLS stands for "Pompous Little Shit".
|
| That's how Fergus cooney thinks about other people here. A shame.
|
| > hiccup> an almost overwhelming desire to cut the PLS to ribbons with my
words.
| > There is little point, however, he is still somewhat delusional and
| > hypercritical - lashing out his petty remarks at anyone - see several
threads
| > today - "please explain to me why ...". The PLS!! And, apart from this
| > paragraph, I shall not even use other people's posts and threads to
insert
| > snide remarks. Mainly because I'm not a PLS. </emotional hiccup> EOT on
all of
| > this from me.
|
| You are really childish.
|
| > Once again. I apologise to all (bar two) for this major disruption.
|
| I expect you to apologize for injuring _me_. As long as you don't
| understand that you made a very big mistake, you won't be part of the
| community. That's not the style we are talking to each other in this
| group.
|
| --
| Herfried K. Wagner
| MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
| <http://www.mvps.org/dotnet>

 

[Slonocode]

I downloaded the Free Agent newsreader client to check out the coloring and
formatting options. I must say that it is much easier to read posts in
which the newsreader can color code quotes.

So as for me I will be attempting to follow the "nettiquete" for usenet
posts. I will probably continue to use OE because I simply prefer the feel
and layout. Any chance OE will incorporate color coding?

As far as the bickering and such...it seems pretty obvious that most of the
resistance to follow the "nettiquette" is more a rebellious attitude toward
Herfried and Armin. Rebellious against the sheer number of posts
instructing of the "proper" way and the tone of the posts that do so. While
I'm fairly new to the group I must admit that my initial reaction was to be
completely "put off" by these posts and I found myself immediately wanting
to do just the opposite.

I would encourage everyone to try and follow the "nettiquete" as most of
these guidlines seem to make sense and in general make it easier for most to
read.

I would also encourage Herfried and Armin to calm down a little and try to
understand how they are being perceived by the rest of the community. Try
and understand how the wording and tone of their posts are being perceived
by the rest of the community.

Aside from that I would like to thank Herfried and Armin( and everyone else
in this group ) for taking the time to actually help others on their own
time and for FREE mind you. I have learned a lot about VB and .Net here and
I hope to continue to benefit from their extensive knowledge of the subject
in the future.

Thanks
--Sloncode

 

[Cor]

Hi Sloncode,

Sorry that I have to reply, but this goes me something to far.

I hope you do not mean this,

As far as the bickering and such...it seems pretty obvious that most of the
resistance to follow the "nettiquette" is more a rebellious attitude toward
Herfried and Armin.

I hope you use the wrong word, rebellious means that they are in command of
this newsgroup.

I hope that you not have that idea?

Cor

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

I downloaded the Free Agent newsreader client to check out the coloring and
formatting options. I must say that it is much easier to read posts in
which the newsreader can color code quotes.

So as for me I will be attempting to follow the "nettiquete" for usenet
posts. I will probably continue to use OE because I simply prefer the feel
and layout. Any chance OE will incorporate color coding?

There are several tools available which make life easier, for example

I would encourage everyone to try and follow the "nettiquete" as most of
these guidlines seem to make sense and in general make it easier for most to
read.

1000% ACK.

I would also encourage Herfried and Armin to calm down a little and try to
understand how they are being perceived by the rest of the community. Try
and understand how the wording and tone of their posts are being perceived
by the rest of the community.

LOL. Armin and I are always friendly, there are other people like
Fergus Cooney who insult other people in the public groups.

Aside from that I would like to thank Herfried and Armin( and everyone else
in this group ) for taking the time to actually help others on their own
time and for FREE mind you. I have learned a lot about VB and .Net here and
I hope to continue to benefit from their extensive knowledge of the subject
in the future.

Thanks!

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

they ask! for its in this instance only, that i know i have ONE person who
will DEFINITELY need and use the code immediately...that's the client! and i
WILL NOT amend my posting format for ALL PEOPLE on the off chance that
someone MAY look at the post and need it as well. that day MAY NEVER come.

You didn't understand the meaning of the term "usenet". Everybody helps
everybody. Every post is addressed to _all_ people reading it.
Everybody can learn from it.

EOT