|
|
Posted by Neo Geshel on 04/21/07 02:32
John Hosking wrote:
> Neo Geshel wrote:
>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>
>>> Neo Geshel <gotcha@geshel.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
> posts by arrogant bastards who think they're better than mere humans.
>
>>>
>>> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
>>> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
>>> that way.
>>
>> Would you rather I multi-post? Having been using the Internet for 16+
>> years, it is my understanding that cross-posting is *far* more
>> preferable than multi-posting.
>
> You are not excused to do something stupid and rude by threatening to do
> something even more stupid and rude. And if you've really got 16 years
> of experience of using the Internet, maybe you'd know how to narrow down
> appropriate NGs. Or maybe that 16 years of Internet experience includes
> only 16 minutes of USENET experience?
>
>>
>> You know, in the future I could always multi-post articles, if that
>> would make you happy. That way, people reading in one NG would be
>> unable to see answers to the same post in another NG.
>
> Um, thanks, but we already know what's wrong with multi-posting. What'd
> you do, just Google this up in the last half-hour?
No, it was an attempt to contrast what would be, at the most, a minor
gaffe (when cross-posting incorrectly), with a major faux-pas
(multi-posting). Cross-posting, when done correctly and in moderation,
is a healthy way of posting on Usenet. It only becomes damaging when
there are excessive (5+) groups targeted, and when most groups (if not
all) are completely off-topic with the content of the post. Neither case
matches my method of cross-posting.
But hey, if you really want to learn about cross-posting and
multi-posting *yourself*, here’s the article I found most succinct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
Clearly, I haven’t been doing much of anything wrong in terms of
cross-posting.
>>> Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?
>>
>>
>> It’s always a fool’s hope to expect constructive replies from Usenet,
>
> ...and yet, you came here; what's that say about you?
And all you provide is ridicule and sarcasm. What does that say about you?
>> especially with more complicated or more detailed posts. That’s why I
>> tried to weed out those who would just parrot back that which I
>> clearly stated I wasn’t interested in, or had already discounted.
>>
>> And yes, the more precise or more technical an article I post, the
>> more people that reply with an answer I had already clearly stated
>> that I discounted, or clearly stated I had no interest in. Hence, my
>> attempt to “focus” people.
>
> Too bad you don't have a two-by-four you can whack us with, or maybe a
> Taser; that'd get our attention. Pity you have to resort to such crude
> means as using words and ALL CAPS.
I will use whatever works to get people to read the *whole* post
*before* answering. Tried it for the first time today, will see how it
ends up. If I actually get some *field results* (the objective of my
post, had anyone actually read it), then I might consider using such a
“focusing” method again. If I get no on-topic and appropriate replies,
then obviously, I will abandon that method.
>>
>>> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
>>> Problem solved.
>>
>>
>> I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode” rendering
>> differences between browsers with HTML that I have ever had with XHTML.
>
> Then induce *standards* mode. Combine this with Sherm's suggestion and
> (Please pay attention here; I WANT YOU TO *FOCUS*) you get HTML in
> standards mode.
And why should I go backwards to HTML? XHTML is working just fine for
me, on my own machine. I have gotten everything to work perfectly, In
full “standards compliance” mode, to boot. My post was about getting
*field results* from anyone who can view the link with [5 <= IE < 7]
that is not multi-installed beside IE 7.
Or didn’t you read that far?
>> You are the first person to reply to this post, dearie. No-one has
>> *tried* to help me with *this* post and *this* issue yet.
>
> I suggest you not expect a long line of helpful folks. Dearie.
Fair enough. You’ve given your opinion. Good-bye.
...Geshel
--
***********************************************************************
My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL” (all uppercase).
***********************************************************************
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|