If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
Toby wrote:
My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which the frame could still be seen. He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues, who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling. That's why most have ceased replying to him. Please put your replies following what you respond to. -- john mcwilliams |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
"John McWilliams" wrote in message . .. Toby wrote: My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which the frame could still be seen. He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues, who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling. That's why most have ceased replying to him. Please put your replies following what you respond to. -- john mcwilliams Yes, I will stop replying as well. Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very long). There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it this time at the bottom. Toby |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
On 5 Nov 2008 01:27:03 -0600, "Toby" wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message ... Toby wrote: My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which the frame could still be seen. He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues, who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling. That's why most have ceased replying to him. Please put your replies following what you respond to. -- john mcwilliams Yes, I will stop replying as well. Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very long). There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it this time at the bottom. Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with --- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar. This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads becoming intolerably long. Eric Stevens |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
These off-topic control-freak comments (as are all your off-topic comments in all threads) and the resulting replies that are coming from someone without a spine, kneeling to your advice, are what is commonly referred to in animal-behavior studies as "displacement activity". Google and educate yourself. On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On 5 Nov 2008 01:27:03 -0600, "Toby" wrote: "John McWilliams" wrote in message m... Toby wrote: My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which the frame could still be seen. He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues, who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling. That's why most have ceased replying to him. Please put your replies following what you respond to. -- john mcwilliams Yes, I will stop replying as well. Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very long). There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it this time at the bottom. Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with --- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar. This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads becoming intolerably long. Eric Stevens |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:
There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it this time at the bottom. Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. Yes. I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist. Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses. This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads becoming intolerably long. Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems. Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible, and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to trim the irrelevant text. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
"ASAAR" wrote in message ... On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it this time at the bottom. Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. Yes. I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist. Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses. I agree that inline posting is always appropriate when the reply is specific to particular parts of a message. And it is clear that top posting confuses the hierarchy of messages in a long thread. But I still think that top posting can be appropriate in many cases, especially if the reply does not directly reference the earlier text. I also recognize that generally this is not considered appropriate posting etiquette on usenet. This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads becoming intolerably long. Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems. Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible, and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to trim the irrelevant text. OTOH I presently scroll past reams of text, vainly looking for replies, only to find a three-word response buried a number of pages down. This is more than annoying. In a perfect world text would be trimmed appropriately, but given that that is never going to happen, I think that at times top posting can be justified for speed and visibility, although I know that is not a popular view here. But things evolve according to the exigencies of the time, and just as we are now dropping the 'm' from the objective case of 'who' and saying, 'that's the place I went' without collective gasps of horror, I think you are fighting a rearguard action against top posting. FWIW, Toby |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
Toby wrote:
"ASAAR" wrote in message Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems. Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible, and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to trim the irrelevant text. OTOH I presently scroll past reams of text, vainly looking for replies, only to find a three-word response buried a number of pages down. This is more than annoying. In a perfect world text would be trimmed appropriately, but given that that is never going to happen, I think that at times top posting can be justified for speed and visibility, although I know that is not a popular view here. But things evolve according to the exigencies of the time, and just as we are now dropping the 'm' from the objective case of 'who' and saying, 'that's the place I went' without collective gasps of horror, I think you are fighting a rearguard action against top posting. Thanks, Toby for a reasoned and polite response; all too rare in 2008. Yes, trimming is really the thing, and I try to do so in every post, esp. if I'm contributing such gems as "Me, too!" or "OMG I am so LOL". I try to think that if I spend one second deleting pages of garbage, it'll save hundreds some fraction of a second in non-scrolling. Same with watching where replies are going, but here some are just ignorant of where they go; others don't care, and still others do so to be annoying. There's also an add-on or two for OE, so that sig lines are auto-trimmed if properly formatted, the old dash dash space return. -- John McWilliams |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
On 5 Nov 2008 08:10:01 -0600, Toby wrote:
But things evolve according to the exigencies of the time, and just as we are now dropping the 'm' from the objective case of 'who' and saying, 'that's the place I went' without collective gasps of horror, I think you are fighting a rearguard action against top posting. Nope, I'm not fighting it at all. At most I criticize some who provide elaborate but faulty justifications for top posting or as you noted, appending a three word response below pages of quotes. As for these types of replies, they never really bothered me, they just lost a wee bit of respect for such posters. How do you feel about the new (well, it's been going on for years) penchant for people, in real life and in commercials to say things such as "That was the funnest movie I've seen!" or "I had the funnest time."? Even my spell checker balks at those two examples. "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." -- Baby Hughey |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:50:39 -0600, robert_manx
wrote: TOP POSTING CORRECTED On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On 5 Nov 2008 01:27:03 -0600, "Toby" wrote: "John McWilliams" wrote in message om... Toby wrote: My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which the frame could still be seen. He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues, who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling. That's why most have ceased replying to him. Please put your replies following what you respond to. -- john mcwilliams Yes, I will stop replying as well. Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very long). There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it this time at the bottom. Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with --- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar. This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads becoming intolerably long. These off-topic control-freak comments (as are all your off-topic comments in all threads) and the resulting replies that are coming from someone without a spine, kneeling to your advice, are what is commonly referred to in animal-behavior studies as "displacement activity". Google and educate yourself. It's not a question of being a control freak. Usenet is not email. When you respond to a complex point in an article it makes sense to do so after the point in question. That's why I'm responding to you after your text and not before it. It makes it easier for other people to follow the argument. Of course, if you don't want that .... Eric Stevens |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:54:53 -0500, ASAAR wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it this time at the bottom. Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. Yes. I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist. Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses. I agree entirely. This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads becoming intolerably long. Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems. Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible, and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to trim the irrelevant text. But then came Microsoft email which instructed people to top post. This might be OK for short messages but Usenet is not email. Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P&S Teleconverters | Eric Stevens | Digital Photography | 40 | December 20th 08 11:04 PM |
Teleconverters | Fred Lebow | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | September 1st 06 01:47 PM |
teleconverters | Fred Lebow | Digital ZLR Cameras | 0 | August 30th 06 07:04 PM |
Teleconverters | Paul J Gans | Digital SLR Cameras | 19 | June 12th 06 12:57 PM |
Teleconverters | Paul J Gans | Digital Photography | 3 | May 16th 06 03:39 PM |