Need help accessing this newsgroup

[damian penney]

Wouldn't it be easier, Damian, to _include_ whatever you're answering in

There you go. Now like I said, I personally don't like having to wade through gobs of context to find what the poster has actually contributed. Any decent/modern newsreader allows you to view groups in a threaded manner so in my eyes quoting previous responses is a waste of bandwidth. If you really needed context then in slrn esc-p will find you the parent based on the references tag but lets face it you were just being pedantic and knew quite well the context of my comments. I really don't need a lesson in how to use usenet, I've been using it for over a decade. This is my last post on the subject as quite frankly I'm tired of the childishness that's been displayed here. Shame on you.

[damian penney]

Which suggests he believes... Oh shut the hell up, I know perfectly well how to use Usenet, used it for over a decade, context is a waste of bandwidth when decent newsreaders display things in a threaded format, or don't you know how to do make it do that? The whole Ooooo he uses Google must be a newbie lets pounce attitude is lame, it's a decent interface and is accessabled from anywhere. Usenet isn't email you know.

[Dave Hinz]

Of course. Give a sentence or two, trim the rest. Leave in the "person said thing" line, and you'll have it right.

Quoting the _entire_ previous message, sure. Enough to get an idea, makes communication better.

Actually, no. Sorry, but I don't memorize the contents of every thread I participate in and who is saying what to whom.

Right, so because two of us are trying to explain to you how your posting method interferes with people understanding _your posts_, somehow this is our problem. Got it. The fact that you've been on usenet for more than a decade isn't relevant; there were clueless newbies ten years ago too.

Most people would have noticed, in a decade, that replying with no context interferes with communication.

[Dave Hinz]

We're not saying you're not communicating well because you post from google, we're saying you're not communicating well because first you posted with no context, then you seemed to show a glimmering of a clue by actually including context (but with no attribution), and now you're freaking _top posting_.

No, you're intentionally missing his, and my, and the other Dave's point.

[damian penney]

Usenet is threaded so you don't HAVE to memorize the contents of the entire thread, replys directly reference the post that is being responded to.

Oh yes you're really trying to be ever so helpful; lets face it you didn't like the solution I offered the original poster and jumped up on your high horse.

Again, do you realise that in Usenet replies reference the post to which they are referencing? That makes it a threaded discussion, and the thread IS the context. I made a one line response to the original message whose title had all the context necessary to understand what I was referring to but because you didn't like the reply you decided to troll.

[Larry Bud]

I google, just because I like to check it at lunch at work, where NNTP is blocked. Sucks as far as checking new messages, though, and once a thread gets too long, it's nearly impossible to respond to every message that is replied to you, since you have to find them all.

[Larry Bud]

For home use, I use OCTANEWS.

The advantage of this one is you only pay for bandwidth. If you're a text only kinda guy, this is THE way to go. If you don't access the NG much during the summer (like me), your balance remains and you only pay when you need to buy more "blocks" of bandwidth.

10 gig for text can last a LONG time.

[Dave Hinz]

If you give context. Like you did again this time, seemingly randomly.

Actually, I've suggested groups.google.com to people as a solution, myself. I prefer news.individual.net, but google isn't awful.

I do now, because you included the context.

Not hardly. Not everyone displays a nested-threaded-message display like you apparently do. Assuming they do, or should, is rather arrogant on your part.

But, you've been doing it your way for more than a decade, so you _must_ be right. Because obviously you're so brillaint that you've figured out what all of Usenet has failed to do in that decade.

[damian penney]

Um no i'm not actually...

References:

Anyway, pleasant as this has been I can see continuing this is pointless and a waste of everybodies time. You've been incredibly rude and I hope you don't talk to folk in real life like you've expressed yourself to me here.

[Dave Hinz]

Based on?

What the HELL does that have to do with you top-posting? You've confused that with _threading_ now, FFS.

Whatever. . Problem solved. Buh-bye now.

[Doug Winterburn]

Took you long enough - I did on day 2 of his appearance...

- Doug

[Dave Hinz]

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. There seemed to be a glimmer of a clue there for a bit, that one time where he nearly posted in a useful way.

[Mike Marlow]

Actually... no. You should not presume why I responded with what I did, or attempt to associate a motive that I have not articulated. You have at best a 50/50 chance of getting it right and you didn't. I have no problem at all with people who post from google. My comments were strictly related to not including quoted text, which has been a usenet standard from day one. So - your bottom line is wrong.

[Mark & Juanita]

... and if you post a line or two of context, I don't have to display

*hundreds* of already read threadlines in my newsreader; I only have to display unread postings.

Because the "solution" you offered all of us for your context-free postings is to clutter up our newsreaders with all the read title lines so

*we* can derive the context you could otherwise include in a couple (what 160 to 300 bytes?) lines of text.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[damian penney]

I assumed top posting was starting a new thread which I hadn't, what is top posting?

[Dave Balderstone]

This is top posting. Some people are rather anal about it and treat it as an Offense Upon Creation. I find bottom posting easier to read, but really don't care one way or the other if appropriate context AND snipping is given/done when someone posts in a thread.

[Dave Hinz]

It's annoying, because now that we have context, the answer is above the thing it's answering, rather than after as it would be in a real conversation. But I'm suspecting he won't get it, and I really don't care.

[J. Clarke]

Then you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. USENET is a distributed service. All posts do not appear on all servers and sometimes there is propagation delay so that a response arrives before the post to which it is a response. If you knew as much about USENET as you claim then you would be aware of this.

Now, you're likely going to come back with some crap about how it never happened to you and anybody to whom it has happened needs to get a reliable news provider. Well, that's nice but everyone doesn't have that kind of choice and it does happen to a lot of people who are less fortunate than you.

If you think that Google is a decent interface then you again throw your claims of vast experience into the crapper.

[J. Clarke]

No, it's also used by idiots who think they can hide behind it.

If you don't think quoting helps then why do you do so much of it, especially when you top-post?

news.individual.net is free and can be accessed from anywhere. There are many free newsreaders in addition to Outlook Express. So why use a slow, clumsy interface such as Google?

[J. Clarke]

FWIW, I usually plonk people who whine about top posting on general principle, but in this case since the idiot doing it not only top posts but then goes on about how quoting context is a waste of bandwidth and then includes the entire text of the post to which he is responding below his top post I think that reaming him out is in order. And especially when he claims to have ten years experience on USENET but doesn't know the definition of "top posting".