Connect with us

Is My Lamp Grounded?

Discussion in 'Electrical Engineering' started by Omar Elschatti, Sep 26, 2003.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Airy  R. Bean

    Airy R. Bean Guest

    That is a failing that applies to all, irrespective as to whether
    their style is prefix, infix or postfix.
     
  2. Ross Mac

    Ross Mac Guest

    Looks like a good argument for Top Posting huh....
    Funny thing....a question about an electical cord turned into a modern day
    version of "The Taming of the Shrew" and it appears the Shrew has changed
    his handle...Not a bad move on his part......
     
  3.  @ . 

     @ .  Guest

    *plonk*

    I hope that you never need to have your electrical engineering
    questions answered, because you just got dumped in the killfile
    of everyone here who is an expert. (the fact that one or two
    idiots also dislike top posting only shows that even a stopped
    clock is right twice a day.)

    Here are those web pages again. Try reading them this time.

    Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

    Why bottom-posting is better than top-posting
    http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

    +What do you mean "my reply is upside-down"?
    http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/

    The advantages of usenet's quoting conventions
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/remarks/uquote.html

    Why should I place my response below the quoted text?
    http://allmyfaqs.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Top-posting_or_bottom-posting

    Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
    http://www.xs4all.nl/~wijnands/nnq/nquote.html
     
  4. DarkMatter

    DarkMatter Guest

    I guess he is just as retarded as I stated. I don't have any
    patience with those twits. They are mostly lazy idiots that will
    NEVER change anything about their lameness.

    Same kind of twits that ignore the rules of the road when driving,
    and litter all over the place nonchalantly.

    Thanks for the links.
     
  5. DarkMatter

    DarkMatter Guest


    Top posters are ALL DIPFIX. DOH!
     
  6. DarkMatter

    DarkMatter Guest


    You're a goddamned idiot. It is a totally different person, you
    retard. Learn how to read USENET headers, right AFTER you learn how
    to post correctly. DOH!
     
  7. Ross Mac

    Ross Mac Guest

    Nice try.....
     
  8. Ross Mac

    Ross Mac Guest

    Maybe you should cut back on the medical marijuana!
     
  9. Ross Mac

    Ross Mac Guest

    Change your handle as much as you want...but you leave a trail like a
    snail..............
     
  10. Airy  R. Bean

    Airy R. Bean Guest

    It is better to ignore the infantile than to give them
    the attention that they seek; a problem caused invariably
    by having inadequate parents.

    If you respond as she does, then you are indistinguishable from her.
     
  11. Airy  R. Bean

    Airy R. Bean Guest

    This is a discussion group. If you want to raise some points
    and discuss them, then do so. Sending others off to do a pile
    of reading is a poor quality approach to debate.
     
  12. Ross Mac

    Ross Mac Guest

    Hi Guy,
    It appears you are looking for work....have you considered the extermination
    business......I will send Dark Manure your way!
     
  13. Airy  R. Bean

    Airy R. Bean Guest

    Personally, I think it to be rather silly to choose not to
    associate with someone merely because they crack
    open their boiled eggs at the wrong end; childish is it not?
     
  14. Ross Mac

    Ross Mac Guest

    I guess this Guy Macon is a piece of work too....the old hit and run
    tactic....or should I say run and filter. Do a search on Guy and DarkMatter
    on Google groups and the true story will emerge.....I have come to find that
    the newsgroups, while very helpful, are sure full of whack jobs!
    take care, Ross
     
  15. Ross Mac

    Ross Mac Guest

    I'm with you Phil....bring on the killfile. I prefer to be there!.....like I
    could even possibly have an intelligent conversation with either!.....Take
    care, Ross
     
  16.  @ . 

     @ .  Guest

    I am not sure whether your objection is to the use of URLs or
    to the use of pre-written material.

    As for the use of pre-written material, some questions have come
    up so many times and in so many places that they are well covered
    by FAQ (Frequntly Asked Questions) files and there is no point in
    composing a post that expreesed poorly what the FAQ expresses well.

    As for the use of URLs instead of quoting the material inline,
    there are good arguments for doing either. The URLs take up
    less room and can contain graphics. Posting inline is more
    convenient, especially for those who use offline newsreaders.
    Here is some material on this subjecft posted inline:

    --------------------------------------------------------

    Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
    Adapted from http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html
    By Anton Smit and H.W. de Haan

    Definitions:
    Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text,
    when one replies to an email or a post in a newsgroup.

    Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new
    message is placed below the original text.

    As Usenet-readers, we are often annoyed by people who keep
    top-posting. This is considered as not good 'Net etiquette'.
    The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting. Below
    you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better
    than top-posting.

    In addition to bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out
    non-relevant parts of the message with regard to the reply,
    and to put the reply directly beneath the quoted relevant
    parts.

    [1] Because it is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the
    following URL: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html .
    It is a little outdated but still has a lot of valid points.
    Let us quote something from this site:

    "If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be
    sure you summarize the original at the top of the message,
    or include just enough text of the original to give a
    context. This will make sure readers understand when they
    start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially,
    is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host
    to another, it is possible to see a response to a message
    before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone.
    But do not include the entire original!"

    [2] We use a good news reader like Forte Agent. Good newsreaders
    like Agent put the signature by default at the end of the post,
    which is the Usenet convention. Microsoft Outlook Express however
    has some serious bugs. Let us quote someone we know:

    "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
    the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge

    We are programmers ourselves, and we know it is very easy to
    implement to put a signature at the end of the post instead of
    putting it directly above the post you are replying to and can
    not change the position. Forte Agent has as a feature that reply
    to a post it will remove the signature (recognizable by '-- ',
    note the extra space) and everything below it, so it will remove
    a part of the original message. This is good Usenet practice so
    Agent is not faulty. Outlook Express on the other hand is faulty,
    check this bugreport regarding the Usenet signature delimiter.
    http://www.okinfoweb.com/moe/bugs/bugs_047.htm

    If you want to try Agent, you can get it at http://www.forteinc.com/

    [3] Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal
    conversations, one does not answer to something that has not yet
    been said. So it is unclear to reply to the top, whilst the original
    message is at the bottom. Secondly: In western society a book is
    normally read from top to bottom. Top-posting forces one to stray
    from this convention: Reading some at the top, skipping to the bottom
    to read the question, and going back to the top to continue. This
    annoyance increases even more than linear with the number of top-posts
    in the message. If someone replies to a thread and you forgot what the
    thread was all about, or that thread was incomplete for some reasons,
    it will be quite tiresome to rapidly understand what the thread was
    all about, due to bad posting and irrelevant text which has not been
    removed.

    [4] To prevent hideously long posts with a minimal account of new
    text, it is good Usenet practice to remove the non-relevant parts
    and optionally summarize the relevant parts of the original post,
    with regard to one's reply. Top-posting inevitably leads to long
    posts, because most top-posters leave the original message intact.
    All these long posts not only clutter up discussions, but they also
    clutter up the server space.

    [5] Top-posting makes it hard for bottom-posters to reply to the
    relevant parts: it not possible to answer within the original message.
    Bottom-posting does not make top-posting any harder.

    [6] Some people will argue that quoting looks bad due line wrapping.
    This can simply be dealt with by dropping Outlook Express as a start,
    and using only linewidths of 65 - 70 characters. Otherwise one has
    do it manually, and that can be tiresome.

    [7] A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to scroll
    to read the new message. We like to disagree here, because we always
    have to scroll down to see the original message and after that to
    scroll back up, just to see to what they are replying to. As a result
    you have to scroll twice as much when reading a top-poster's message.
    As a counterargument they say (believe us they do): "You can check
    the previous message in the discussion". This is even more tiresome
    than scrolling and with the unreliable nature of Usenet (and even
    email is inevitably unreliable), the previous message in the
    discussion can be simply unavailable.

    [8] Some newsgroups have strict conventions concerning posting in
    their charter. As an example we can tell you that in most Dutch
    newsgroups, you will be warned, killfiled or maybe even flamed, if
    you fail to follow Usenet conventions or if you do not quote according
    to the quoting guidelines. In general: it is better to practice the
    guidelines, if one does not want to get flamed in a newsgroup one
    just subscribed to.

    We can conclude that there are no good reasons we know of for top-posting.
    The most top-posts originate from the minimal work people spend on making
    posts. We think that one should be proud of one's post, that is it
    contains relevant content, well-formed sentences and no irrelevant
    'b*llsh*t', before uploading to your newsserver. If the majority of the
    group will adhere to this convention, the group will be nicer, tidier
    and easier to read.

    As a final remark we want to bring non-quoting into mind. This means
    that the original content of an email or Usenet post is completely
    removed. It makes it very hard for a reader to find out to what and
    whom one is replying. This phenomenon can be partly attributed to
    wrong settings of news- and email-clients, and partly to people who
    want to start with clean replies.

    -------------------------------------------------------------
     
  17.  @ . 

     @ .  Guest

    Wait a few days and look at the thread. You will find that your
    layout is trashed as people reply using the standard bottom
    posting methods.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    From: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

    Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet

    This document was originally written in response to the
    following question:

    "Why don't people like "top posts"? I find it far
    more difficult to read a thread when people
    "bottom post". It means that I need to scroll
    virtually every message I want to read."

    What is the reason to quote at all? Consider it. It
    shouldn't be to allow people to scroll down to see all
    earlier discussions. If the news client is a bit smart,
    fetching the older articles from the server should be just
    as easy as to "scroll down". If a thread goes forth and
    back some times and earlier quotes accumulate, an article
    including all those quotes might get five-ten times larger
    than a posting without quotes, this hugs bandwidth and
    hard disk space. Therefore, IMHO, no quotes are far better
    than a posting at the top of all old quotes.

    At the other hand, it's very easy to loose the context in
    a posting without any quoting at all. Letting the reader
    understand the context is very important for easy reading.
    Therefore there should always be some few lines reminding
    the reader about what kind of discussion he is into.

    If a person has to scroll down to read the new information,
    there are probably too much quotes in the article. A person
    that is good to use quotes never quotes more than some few
    lines at once. If I can't find the right lines to quote,
    I often replace all the quotes with a short summary of the
    discussion so far. Actually I can agree that it is more
    annoying when complete articles are quoted with a small
    "yes" or "no" at the bottom than to read a top-post.

    There is also another very important aspect with quoting
    that shouldn't be underestimated; the quotes should tell
    what parts of an article you're replying to. Often you
    have some viewpoints about some parts of an article, and
    other viewpoints about other parts of it. The best way
    to solve that is to quote a little bit, come with some
    comments, quote some more, and then write some comments
    to that as well. This can't be done at all in a top-posting.

    -------------------------------------------------------
     
  18. DarkMatter

    DarkMatter Guest

    The posting host of the @ poster is:

    NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.73.3.209

    My posting host is:

    NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.105.87.195

    You are soooo retarded... you make congenital retards look like
    geniuses.
     
  19. DarkMatter

    DarkMatter Guest

    Don't use the stuff. Never have.

    Grow the **** up, Chuck, you make me want to upchuck.
     
  20. DarkMatter

    DarkMatter Guest


    Said the retard that knows exactly NIL about the subject.

    Not only is your "trail" remark incorrect, their is NO trail as he
    and I are two entirely different people in entirely different
    geographical locations. Also... he is nice. I am a brash, in your
    face asshole. That still doesn't make you any less retarded about
    usenet.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-