There's no need to quote text if the point is simple and the hierarchy
of dialogue is there. Phillywoodworker asked about pin nailers; you
mentioned a general statement to the effect that if you have to ask
about it, then you probably don't need it.
However sage this observation may be, it has not been the way many of
my tools have appeared in the shop, and other threads stretching back
for year have noticed the same phenomenon.
It was, in other words, a humorous reflection on the illogical way that
many of us actually collect tools.
...now curious whether you and others see hierarchies when reading the
A lot of us, if not most of us, do not see complete hierarchies. We use
off-line newsreaders and it's common to mark all threads as read when you
complete a sitting. It's equally common to only display unread threads.
There's no point in displaying everything that's been read (or ignored) for
the past three months. More to the point, it's like any other conversation.
A reply to a comment made immediately after the comment makes sense. That
same reply issued a day later, out of the blue makes no sense without trying
to go back and figure out the context.
I often wonder why, with as much as this is brought up in newsgroups, people
still insist that it's not appropriate to include quoted text. I know most
new folks don't bother to read up on usenet etiquette these days, but
quoting text (and snipping) is a long established courtesy. Yet it seems
more and more people come along and state how "it's not necessary". Maybe
if folks are going to use uesenet it wouldn't hurt to take a little stroll
through the guidelines.
It's not that leaving out quoted text makes you a bad person... we all know
that what makes you a bad person is painting cherry with latex paint.
Well, that makes sense. I use Google, which gives the (first--and
easiest--I might add) option to reply in a way that quotes no text. To
quote text, you first have to click user options, then respond. I
suspect Google prefers no text responses to keep the space minimal.
Using Google, you see the hierarchies, so it all makes good sense. In
this regard, I like Google far more than newsreaders. A major benefit
of threads in a NG is to preserve the hierarchy of dialogue.
But that's exactly where NGs *differ* from other conversations that
require "comment[s] made immediately after...comment[s]". We're able to
have a dialogue that stretches for days and weeks. You don't have to be
beautiful or wealthy to be persuasive, and you don't have to deliver
the timely bon mot. The "context" remains as fresh as ever.
In a way, you answer your own question: it's brought up a lot in NGs
because not everyone agrees. I have to laugh every time I read rants
about top vs. bottom posting, then someone invariably states some fiat,
often complete with reference to some bozo's netiquette list, about how
the one or the other is the true doctrine. Reminds me a lot of theology
and metaphysics. Just as often, you discover that the rabid adherents
of each doctrine use different technology that makes the one or the
other doctrine more suitable for their use on their machine. The dogma
ends up sounding silly to me.
I can't speak for "people", but I usually quote text, unless I feel the
context makes it obvious. I thought you'd recognize the context above,
so quoting was unecessary, but I was wrong.
You're using a specific instance (me) to preach a general point (folks)
that may not really apply. Maybe my post was not as obvious as I
thought. Maybe you weren't thoughtful enough to recognize an obvious
point. Regardless, it was not a point of netiquette or courtesy. I do
appreciate knowing that many users decide to ignore the hierarchy of
threads in their newsreader options.
Ah, well, then I'm safe...I use only oil-based paints on cherry.
Well, not really. It's become a more frequent point with the popularity of
the web. Usenet long preceeds the web. It's more a function of people
coming along who simply don't want to embrace the conventions of usenet. Of
course, utilities like google groups makes it less apparent to new users
that there even are conventions, by supplying interface options that
somewhat defy those conventions. Did I use the word "conventions" enough?
I have to admit, that based on my early years in usenet (I go back to '84 on
the "internet"), I tend to post as you see here. I either inset my
comments, or I bottom post. That was a long standing usenet convention.
Thank microsoft for top posting. It's not an issue I get my jeans dirty
No - I was afraid you'd think that, and I almost edited out that comment. I
specifically was not singling you out. I guess it's fair to say I leveraged
this discussion to make the point, but it really is about an attitude that
exists today, and not about you or your post. No offense was intended, and
I hope none is taken.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I started back around '89, but personally I
like the new look of things, and sometimes the old conventions ought to
give way as new technology opens up new ways of doing things. But there
are certainly some uncomfortable transition periods.
Absolutely none. It was a good opportunity to express a general
opinion. I just wanted to make sure we understood each other. There are
those who have used Usenet for a long time AND they like the changes
that Microsoft or Google introduce. Just preference.
Now that I probably ought to snip, before someone takes me seriously.
Have a good one,
True, but you have no way of knowing whether the hierarchy is there or
not. Most, if not all, newsreaders will show a hierarchy, though in
many, the user has the choice of how to display the messages.
My newsreader will display the hierarchy, and I do have it set to show
the hierarchy as a tree, but I don't keep all messages in all threads.
In that direction lies crowded bits on hard disks. The message I am
replying to now is (visibly) part of a hierarchy of two messages that
are available to me; yours and one in response to it. I deleted all
previous messages in the thread.
In this case I did not need quoted text, for two reasons. The first is
that it's pretty much self explanatory, and the second is that I
already read your previous posting which had no included text, and
remembered it simply because I had no idea who you were responding to.
When I see a posting with no context, if not easily associated with
the conversation, I seldom try to dig out the context, and the posting
becomes nothing but a little background noise.
As the other fella said, it does not make you a bad person, but it
does diminish the point you took time to state.
Would that also be known as a 'brad nailer', shooting 18ga. nails?
If so, I use mine all the time for:
1. installing moulding
2. installing OSB wall panels (temporary, until I drive in larger
nails or screws.
3. holding templates/jigs in place (temporary)
If not a brad nailer, I have no idea.
I have a Cadex (Grex 35) 23 gauge and it is great. I use it to pin the rails
and stiles together on cabinet doors while the glue dries. And almost anyplace
that Norm would use a brad 18g nailer to hold something while the glue dries
as the pins are essentially invisible.
For applying small moulding it cannot be beat. For the type of cabinet making
we do it is probably our most used gun.
A word of caution is that some guns do not set the pin deep enough. My gun
has no problem driving 1" pins in oak.
Don't you _love_ ad hominems rather than answers?
Pins are to nails sort of like Bill Clinton when Hillary's around - no head.
Good news is less visible marks on the surface, bad news is they're not
particularly strong. I'd go with the brad nailer for versatility and fill a
few holes. If your cash and tool lust is unlimited and you have a lot of
applied moldings or thin plywood backs on things, maybe you'd want to
consider it. Though with thin ply, I prefer a stapler.
I didn't see any ad hominems posted in reply to the question. I saw some
answers like my own which question what a necessary addition to the air
nailer arsenal is, but those aren't personal attacks.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.