| Re: A further follow up which may, or may not, be of interest |
EasyNews, UseNet made Ea .. |
| johnny_fairview (johnny_lightvision@hushmail.com) |
2006/09/16 00:35 |
On 15 Sep 2006 23:44:04 -0500, Ruby <anyone@anywhere.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:43:22 GMT, johnny_fairview
><johnny_lightvision@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I remembered your point about snipping when I came across the following
>>article about failing to trim Usenet posts. It was written by James
>>Follett, a British novelist, and he starts off by wondering why some
>>posters in some threads repost the entire message to which they are
>>replying:
>>
>>"Why on earth do people continue to post all this crap?"
>
>My Dear Mr. Fairview:
>
>Thank you so for finding and posting this article, it does bring to
>mind a post made by the certain miscreant long ago, when he posted
>several lines of diatribe that he was right fond of, and then signed
>anothers nik to it.
>
>When called on it, he replied loudly and vehemently "It's the WORDS,
>it dosen't matter who posted them, it's the WORDS that are important"!
Words are most important and any author in this medium wishing his work
to be read should try his hardest to make his efforts clear, concise and
legible. A lot of newsgroup readers are busy people and do not have a
lot of time to struggle through the trees to find the wood.
>The reason I believe is this. Any words that the miscreant posts are
>sacred to him, he fears that others words will overshadow his own and
>that creates great anger in him, whether or not he admits to having
>any anger, it is evident in the WORDS that he posts.
That is a point. Another one to consider is this: We have very generous
posters who give unstintingly of their time to post all sorts of media
files including pics, music, vids etc to "the groups"; we also have
posters who create veritable masterpieces of art using programs way
beyond my capabilities and post these to groups including this one.
Now, would anyone care to explain why, in some quarters, it is found
necessary to repost an entire _text_ message with a few lines of thanks,
comments, praise etc added to it, yet not one of those same people would
ever consider reposting a .jpg file or a music file or a vid file when
they give thanks for it?
Why not?
I have seen the reason given for reposting text messages in their
entirety as "they may not be available on all of the readers' servers".
HUMBUG! If that applies to text posts it should equally apply to media
posts, otherwise thank you messages will be meaningless if the media
posts have not reached some servers. In fact, if a news server is so
crap it is dropping text posts then it will almost certainly be dropping
media files and so to follow the logic of the "non-snipping" brigade,
_all_ thank you notes for media posts should include a copy of whatever
file you are thanking the poster for.
Until they _do_ cry out against "snipping" media files from follow up
posts then I class their argument as bogus.
>>The Usenet is a remarkable tool that is worthy of respect rather than
>>the consequences of such muddle-headed thinking."
Returning to that point of Mr. Follett's article, muddle-headed is very
apt to describe a mindset that insists text posts are reposted and
reposted ad infinitum yet media post follow ups must be trimmed of the
relevant material for which one is giving thanks. Yes, muddle-headed is
about right. Or stupid.
>Loovley, I should send you a pair of my silken knickers for your
>efforts, (such as I wore when a svelte girl) However, in my present
>life sending them through the post would cause my pocketbook to
>deflate, and when opened, the veritible size of said garment would
>appear I am sure to be large enough to dust a house, not just to dust
>a butt. :-P
Are they virgin silk? Is there such a thing? I must go and look it up.
johnny
(change lightvision to fairview)
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|
|