A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » Film & Labs
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Velvia 50 discontinued?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 19th 04, 12:11 AM
Craig Schroeder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in
a manner of curiosity.

With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses
as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen
rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that
seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being
responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm
asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If
there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll
certainly change my ways.

I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and
likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long
distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs
to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to
top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:14:17 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

-Please don't top post replies.

Cheers,
Alan



Craig Schroeder
craig nospam craigschroeder com

-Eschew Obfuscation-
  #12  
Old October 19th 04, 04:29 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Craig Schroeder wrote:

Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in
a manner of curiosity.


example:
A: Because it makes reading the sequence of posts difficult
Q: Why?
A: No
Q: Should I top post?

That is the standard example. Two nettiquette "standards" applying to usenet
postings: 1) snip away irrelevant text; 2) bottom post (and/or interleave the
replies).

With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses
as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen
rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that


Snipping is also encouraged. Not everyone has seen the thread from the origin
(and may not be able to if it has expired). So an "in-order" posting is easier
to follow for people who jump into the thread.

Snipping helps reduce the post to the essentials. From time to time somebody
will state (like you): "my reader does..." but that is pretty irrelvant, the
reader has to start somewhere, and the top is as good as any for a text message
editor (mine optionally will go to the bottom).

seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being
responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm


Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread.

asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If
there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll
certainly change my ways.


Bearing in mind that 98% of usenet statistics are made up on the spot, I'd say
about 80% or more prefer bottom posting as it is intrinsically easier to read.

In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... so it seem
polite to actually read all of the other persons post, polite to make an effort
to snip, polite to make an effort to make the entire message readable. This
politeness is for the collective good and pays off for everyone over time.

Some (not all) who top post have selfish motives. "Last word" syndrome and
placing their sig lines near the top of messages in a thread. The sig line in
this case bearing links to their web page. That such people usually have little
of value to contribute doesn't seem to hold them back in the least.

I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and
likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long
distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs


been there.

to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to
top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose.


For e-mail, I prefer top posted replies, but that is usually between a limited
number of people for a limited duration. Usenet postings more often can run for
a long time, so snip/bottom helps.

I guess I picked up the snip/bottom habit very early in my usenet days. I admit
that this is an *issue* for me to the point that I become an irritating
bottom-post advocate. I believe that in the end it saves everyone else time
when I invest my time in making something more readable; therefore the same
courtesy is desired from others.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #13  
Old October 19th 04, 04:29 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Craig Schroeder wrote:

Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in
a manner of curiosity.


example:
A: Because it makes reading the sequence of posts difficult
Q: Why?
A: No
Q: Should I top post?

That is the standard example. Two nettiquette "standards" applying to usenet
postings: 1) snip away irrelevant text; 2) bottom post (and/or interleave the
replies).

With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses
as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen
rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that


Snipping is also encouraged. Not everyone has seen the thread from the origin
(and may not be able to if it has expired). So an "in-order" posting is easier
to follow for people who jump into the thread.

Snipping helps reduce the post to the essentials. From time to time somebody
will state (like you): "my reader does..." but that is pretty irrelvant, the
reader has to start somewhere, and the top is as good as any for a text message
editor (mine optionally will go to the bottom).

seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being
responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm


Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread.

asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If
there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll
certainly change my ways.


Bearing in mind that 98% of usenet statistics are made up on the spot, I'd say
about 80% or more prefer bottom posting as it is intrinsically easier to read.

In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... so it seem
polite to actually read all of the other persons post, polite to make an effort
to snip, polite to make an effort to make the entire message readable. This
politeness is for the collective good and pays off for everyone over time.

Some (not all) who top post have selfish motives. "Last word" syndrome and
placing their sig lines near the top of messages in a thread. The sig line in
this case bearing links to their web page. That such people usually have little
of value to contribute doesn't seem to hold them back in the least.

I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and
likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long
distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs


been there.

to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to
top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose.


For e-mail, I prefer top posted replies, but that is usually between a limited
number of people for a limited duration. Usenet postings more often can run for
a long time, so snip/bottom helps.

I guess I picked up the snip/bottom habit very early in my usenet days. I admit
that this is an *issue* for me to the point that I become an irritating
bottom-post advocate. I believe that in the end it saves everyone else time
when I invest my time in making something more readable; therefore the same
courtesy is desired from others.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #14  
Old October 19th 04, 04:29 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Craig Schroeder wrote:

Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in
a manner of curiosity.


example:
A: Because it makes reading the sequence of posts difficult
Q: Why?
A: No
Q: Should I top post?

That is the standard example. Two nettiquette "standards" applying to usenet
postings: 1) snip away irrelevant text; 2) bottom post (and/or interleave the
replies).

With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses
as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen
rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that


Snipping is also encouraged. Not everyone has seen the thread from the origin
(and may not be able to if it has expired). So an "in-order" posting is easier
to follow for people who jump into the thread.

Snipping helps reduce the post to the essentials. From time to time somebody
will state (like you): "my reader does..." but that is pretty irrelvant, the
reader has to start somewhere, and the top is as good as any for a text message
editor (mine optionally will go to the bottom).

seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being
responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm


Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread.

asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If
there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll
certainly change my ways.


Bearing in mind that 98% of usenet statistics are made up on the spot, I'd say
about 80% or more prefer bottom posting as it is intrinsically easier to read.

In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... so it seem
polite to actually read all of the other persons post, polite to make an effort
to snip, polite to make an effort to make the entire message readable. This
politeness is for the collective good and pays off for everyone over time.

Some (not all) who top post have selfish motives. "Last word" syndrome and
placing their sig lines near the top of messages in a thread. The sig line in
this case bearing links to their web page. That such people usually have little
of value to contribute doesn't seem to hold them back in the least.

I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and
likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long
distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs


been there.

to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to
top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose.


For e-mail, I prefer top posted replies, but that is usually between a limited
number of people for a limited duration. Usenet postings more often can run for
a long time, so snip/bottom helps.

I guess I picked up the snip/bottom habit very early in my usenet days. I admit
that this is an *issue* for me to the point that I become an irritating
bottom-post advocate. I believe that in the end it saves everyone else time
when I invest my time in making something more readable; therefore the same
courtesy is desired from others.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #15  
Old October 19th 04, 04:29 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Craig Schroeder wrote:

Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in
a manner of curiosity.


example:
A: Because it makes reading the sequence of posts difficult
Q: Why?
A: No
Q: Should I top post?

That is the standard example. Two nettiquette "standards" applying to usenet
postings: 1) snip away irrelevant text; 2) bottom post (and/or interleave the
replies).

With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses
as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen
rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that


Snipping is also encouraged. Not everyone has seen the thread from the origin
(and may not be able to if it has expired). So an "in-order" posting is easier
to follow for people who jump into the thread.

Snipping helps reduce the post to the essentials. From time to time somebody
will state (like you): "my reader does..." but that is pretty irrelvant, the
reader has to start somewhere, and the top is as good as any for a text message
editor (mine optionally will go to the bottom).

seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being
responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm


Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread.

asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If
there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll
certainly change my ways.


Bearing in mind that 98% of usenet statistics are made up on the spot, I'd say
about 80% or more prefer bottom posting as it is intrinsically easier to read.

In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... so it seem
polite to actually read all of the other persons post, polite to make an effort
to snip, polite to make an effort to make the entire message readable. This
politeness is for the collective good and pays off for everyone over time.

Some (not all) who top post have selfish motives. "Last word" syndrome and
placing their sig lines near the top of messages in a thread. The sig line in
this case bearing links to their web page. That such people usually have little
of value to contribute doesn't seem to hold them back in the least.

I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and
likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long
distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs


been there.

to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to
top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose.


For e-mail, I prefer top posted replies, but that is usually between a limited
number of people for a limited duration. Usenet postings more often can run for
a long time, so snip/bottom helps.

I guess I picked up the snip/bottom habit very early in my usenet days. I admit
that this is an *issue* for me to the point that I become an irritating
bottom-post advocate. I believe that in the end it saves everyone else time
when I invest my time in making something more readable; therefore the same
courtesy is desired from others.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #16  
Old October 19th 04, 05:45 PM
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:

[ OT - why not top post ]
Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread.


Not only that, but Usenet does not have guaranteed delivery, and posts
are time-ordered by datestamp, which is often inaccurate due to shoddy PC
clocking, so giving top-context also helps in those cases.

In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ...


Failure to snip adequately is worse than bottom posting in my mind,
but Alan seldom complains about lack of snippage.

Hey, getting back on topic, has anybody seen Kodak Ultra Color 400
for sale at department stores for a really great price? I got some
at Target for $8.99 a 36x3-pack, same price as for High Definition 400
in a 24x3-pack!

Getting back on the Velvia 50 topic, I hope that Fuji will eventually
fiddle with Velvia 100 non-F (Japan only) so Velvia 50 shooters are
happy with it, then discontinue Velvia 50.

  #17  
Old October 19th 04, 05:45 PM
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:

[ OT - why not top post ]
Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread.


Not only that, but Usenet does not have guaranteed delivery, and posts
are time-ordered by datestamp, which is often inaccurate due to shoddy PC
clocking, so giving top-context also helps in those cases.

In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ...


Failure to snip adequately is worse than bottom posting in my mind,
but Alan seldom complains about lack of snippage.

Hey, getting back on topic, has anybody seen Kodak Ultra Color 400
for sale at department stores for a really great price? I got some
at Target for $8.99 a 36x3-pack, same price as for High Definition 400
in a 24x3-pack!

Getting back on the Velvia 50 topic, I hope that Fuji will eventually
fiddle with Velvia 100 non-F (Japan only) so Velvia 50 shooters are
happy with it, then discontinue Velvia 50.

  #18  
Old October 19th 04, 05:45 PM
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:

[ OT - why not top post ]
Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread.


Not only that, but Usenet does not have guaranteed delivery, and posts
are time-ordered by datestamp, which is often inaccurate due to shoddy PC
clocking, so giving top-context also helps in those cases.

In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ...


Failure to snip adequately is worse than bottom posting in my mind,
but Alan seldom complains about lack of snippage.

Hey, getting back on topic, has anybody seen Kodak Ultra Color 400
for sale at department stores for a really great price? I got some
at Target for $8.99 a 36x3-pack, same price as for High Definition 400
in a 24x3-pack!

Getting back on the Velvia 50 topic, I hope that Fuji will eventually
fiddle with Velvia 100 non-F (Japan only) so Velvia 50 shooters are
happy with it, then discontinue Velvia 50.

  #19  
Old October 19th 04, 05:45 PM
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:

[ OT - why not top post ]
Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread.


Not only that, but Usenet does not have guaranteed delivery, and posts
are time-ordered by datestamp, which is often inaccurate due to shoddy PC
clocking, so giving top-context also helps in those cases.

In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ...


Failure to snip adequately is worse than bottom posting in my mind,
but Alan seldom complains about lack of snippage.

Hey, getting back on topic, has anybody seen Kodak Ultra Color 400
for sale at department stores for a really great price? I got some
at Target for $8.99 a 36x3-pack, same price as for High Definition 400
in a 24x3-pack!

Getting back on the Velvia 50 topic, I hope that Fuji will eventually
fiddle with Velvia 100 non-F (Japan only) so Velvia 50 shooters are
happy with it, then discontinue Velvia 50.

  #20  
Old October 19th 04, 06:37 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Alan seldom complains about lack of snippage.


You're right. I'll now make it a cause to be championed...

Well, off to the woods with my humble 35mm (renting a 'blad has really screwed
me up).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs KM Medium Format Photography Equipment 724 December 7th 04 10:58 AM
Velvia 100 compensation Charles Pezeshki Large Format Photography Equipment 14 August 26th 04 08:23 PM
Velvia 100F dan Film & Labs 2 June 29th 04 09:47 PM
velvia 100F [question] dan 35mm Photo Equipment 6 June 28th 04 03:46 AM
5 Megapixels vs Velvia vs Kodachrome + Microscope Views Roger and Cathy Musgrove Film & Labs 0 October 12th 03 02:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.