Sawstop question?

[Al Kyder]

Can this device be adapred to Doug Millers and Travis Coppocks teeth? I can see it now. Thier jaws violently being forced open in a fraction of a second. God Bless Al Kyder

[Frank McVey]

[Doug Miller]

Don't Quote The Trolls Either

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW

[RikC]

Leon,

So did I. Well, maybe thrid time's the charm. :-)

rik

[Unisaw A100]

Hmmm?

(Inserts finger into right dimple)

I'm wondering. If an anti-trolls starts a troll, is it a troll?

UA100

[Tom Watson]

Aye, 'tis a sham of a mockery of a travesty of a sham.

Regards, Tom Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania

[PM6564]

Now I'm confused. This is about pillowcases?

[jo4hn]

[Unisaw A100]

Tom Watson:

PM:

Steve, Steve, Steve,

Sam the Sham Colin Mockery Randy Travesty

HoKay?

Good.

UA100, whose favorite trio for all time will always be Sammy Davis Jr., Ozzie Smith and Johnny Londoff...

[Bay Area Dave]

you must be the Wooly Bully.

dave

Unisaw A100 wrote:

[Leon]

You have to ask????

[Doug Miller]

You could at least avoid actions that make it harder. I'm not asking you to actually _do_ anything -- I'm asking you to NOT do something, i.e. don't trim the crossposted groups from the header before you respond. So it makes your life easier too.

-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

[Trent©]

Yur idea...cross-posting on a reply...is ALWAYS a bad idea. That type of posting is mainly done by OE users.

You should only reply within the group that yer reading.

And fix your tag line...its completely bogus.

Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

[Robert Bonomi]

WRONGO! on both counts.

A) Cross-posting (original articles *and* replies) was common *long* before OE even existed. (I _know_, I've been reading USENET since the late 70's, and have run newsservers.)

B) The _correct_ procedure, netiquette-wise is to either: a) trim the newsgroups line to *only* the 'relevant' (i.e. "on topic") newsgroups, *IF* it was cross-posted to inappropriate ones. NOTE: if, after you eliminate the 'off-topic' newsgroups there are *no* newsgroups left, that's a *good* indicator that you shouldn't bother to post a follow-up message _at_all_.)

-or- b) post the response to _all_ the same newsgroups, *but* make use of the "Followup-To: " header, and specify only a limited set of the newsgroups that the original was posted to. *WITH* a note in the message that you have done so.

When you set the "Followup-To:" header, any reply to your message goes *only* to the newsgroups listed in that header, unless somebody manually changes things. Which is why it is 'polite' to announce what you've done.

The reason *NOT* to 'edit' the newsgroups on a follow-up posting, is that when you *do* do it, it splits the context of the responses. Somebody reading the tread in a different newsgroup _doesn't_see_ your response, and decides to answer the question _also_. Since they *didn't*touch* the newsgroups list, there are now *two* (redundant) replies in the group

-you- posted in.

The *intended* purpose for cross-posting is for something that is on-topic to multiple newsgroups, and the discussion would benefit from interaction between the viewpoints in those multiple groups.

[Trent©]

Me, too...since the early 80's.

And I didn't say the practice isn't common. Murder is common, too.

But its wrong. Its the reason off-topic posts get carried on into perpetuity.

If the question is legitimate...and proper for the group yer READING...there's no reason to send it to other groups.

Many readers...mine included...only allow cross-posting on a reply if you turn that feature on. The default is to post only to the group that yer reading.

And, what...this would be YOUR or MY decision?! lol Just think about what you just wrote! lol

BTW...you've just reinforced what I've been saying.

And that's a BAD thing?

The response is for the *OP*...NOT especially for the rest of the world. The OP will need to visit the groups where he posted...to get his replies.

Hell...that happens in the SAME group! lol

The 'intended' purpose of the POST is to help the OP. Any benefit beyond that is simply ancillary.

And that can easily be accomplished by simply posting ONLY to the group that yer reading.

I don't think OE can even DO that.

Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

[Renata]

I disagree. This is a public forum and responses can often be of benefit to many more than the original poster. One reason doing a google search is so oft recommended.

Renata

--snip--

--snip--

[Trent©]

Yeah...I forgot that part. Turn off Google, too! lol

I did.

Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

[Robert Bonomi]

By *that* logic, RESPONDING AT ALL to the off-topic post is "wrong". Thus, _your_ post was the "bad idea". *your* error.

By your own logic, you "done wrong", by responding.

There are three ways of dealing with off-topic postings: 1) *do*not*respond* at all. 2) Respond, but LEAVE THE 'STIGMATA' INTACT, so that others using automatic filtering based on that stigmata, will *not* see it. 3) Be an ass, and remove the stigmata, so others -cannot- automatically filter out your off-topic follow-up to an "unseen" off-topic original.

Those options _are_ listed in order of desirability.

Those who insist on employing "option 3" are likely to find that *everything* they write gets thrown into the bit-bucket. Since they've removed any _other_ means of identifying 'garbage' from 'good stuff' that they write.

FALSE TO FACT. a cross-post can be "legitimate... and proper" for more than one group. 5+ years ago, the cabal (TINC) was discussing cross-posting limits. "Contrived" examples of legitimate cross-posting to 10+ groups were demonstrated. AND non-contrived ones -- pre-existent in the real world -- involving six groups were readily located.

AH. blame it on the mis-built software. That is *NOT* a 'feature' of

*any* of the traditional/classical news-readers from the UNIX environment. ('rn' and descendants)

Nice "selective quoting". What happened to the _rest_ of that paragraph?

If only you'd bothered to follow the *rest* of the remark -- the part that you "couldn't be bothered" to quote. About '.. if there aren't any on-topic groups left _after_ removing the irrelevant ones ..."

yes.

FALSE TO FACT. If the response is _only_ for the *OP*, then the proper thing to do is *e-mail* the response, NOT post it thousands of machines world-wide. "... costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars."

That is justification for _deliberately_ doing something that aggravates a bad situation? You _are_ asking to be added to people's permanent killfiles, aren't you?

FALSE TO FACT. 1) In the specific case of your 'reply', just what "help" to the OP was it providing? 2) If it was only for the benefit of the OP, why didn't you e-mail it to him, and him *only*?

Obviously fallacious.

I wouldn't know. I use real computers, running real operating systems.

[Caractacus Potts]

[Trent©]

Computers are less complicated! lol

Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...

Trent