| Re: A further follow up which may, or may not, be of interest |
Can Help |
| ::Y-Not:: (%+15$-Y-Not@here-and.there) |
2006/09/16 01:57 |
In article <0q4ng2hvhi9emkogafn14qs4rovr12kr84@4ax.com>,
johnny_fairview <johnny_lightvision@hushmail.com> wrote:
> 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)
There are some valid arguments for snipping that you haven't listed,
and many AGAINST.
When I think you want to be fair about this issue, and consider ALL the
available applicable reasons for both sides of the argument, I may even
help you make your point without personal attacks.
In the meantime, please explain the difference, from your point of
view, between snipping and "post editing". You applied the latter to a
post. Some defining could help with understanding what exactly you
meant by that, and how it is different from what you are "babbling on
about".
A note:
My posts have been snipped a lot recently. Have you seen me complain
about it? :-)
Y Not
"The truth is evident in what people write,
not in what is written OF them."
--
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|
|