E
Els
Jose said:
And how would one know to *which* "gestalt" one is replying if nothing
is quoted?
And how would one know to *which* "gestalt" one is replying if nothing
is quoted?
J
Jose
And how would one know to *which* "gestalt" one is replying if nothing
Well, the gestalt of the whole thread... when nothing is quoted, I
expect the resulting post to stand on its own. When I respond to an
entire gestalt, I formulate my posts to stand on their own. Somebody
coming in fresh (my post is the first they see) could take it as an
initial post and not lose anything, others who have been following the
thread should have absorbed the gestalt, even if they don't remember
individual posts or comments within it - a peek at the subject should be
all they need.
Jose
Well, the gestalt of the whole thread... when nothing is quoted, I
expect the resulting post to stand on its own. When I respond to an
entire gestalt, I formulate my posts to stand on their own. Somebody
coming in fresh (my post is the first they see) could take it as an
initial post and not lose anything, others who have been following the
thread should have absorbed the gestalt, even if they don't remember
individual posts or comments within it - a peek at the subject should be
all they need.
Jose
J
Jonathan N. Little
Mark said:
What might help marksisson is to realize that when one is using a news
client, we only see the single message with the thread displayed like
folders in another pane, unlike Google Groups that takes the whole
thread and builds a webpage with all the messages content laid out in a
list. So if you write a response a statement without quoting the
relevant bits like:
<example message>
That's not true!
-SomeGGUser
</example message>
We do not see what you are referring to without locating it in the
previous message in the thread pane. Threads are not always [rarely]
linear so this may not always be simple but require scrolling and
searching to locate. That may explain why not quoting can draw such ire
among the ranks!
N
Neredbojias
With neither quill nor qualm, Spartanicus quothed:
Watch out; he could snap. (-Maybe in more ways than one, too.)
Watch out; he could snap. (-Maybe in more ways than one, too.)
E
Els
Jose said:
So you just pick a random post from a thread and press reply?
Except he/she will read "Re:" in the subject, and wonder what you are
replying to.
I don't feel that's good enough an excuse really. If the post is about
something that isn't in the message you are replying to, make it a new
post, a new thread. If it's a reply to the gestalt (I don't like that
word btw) of an entire conversation, write whatever you feel is the
gestalt (others might have different ideas) between square brackets
above your reply, like so:
[sharks]
They bite.
That way everybody can instantly see to which idea, gestalt, opinion
or feeling you are replying. Since this is also the way it's generally
done, you're not confusing people like you are doing with replies that
don't seem to be replies at all.
Example: the post you made to which Mark replied that you aren't
quoting still. In the subject was "Re: Easy CSS Question but I don't
get it!!". You start your post with "Ok, final observations. Mr.
Parnell is a pretty good guy after all. I violated some NG club rules
and instead of blasting me with both barrels I got a tap on the
wrist."
First time readers who haven't been following the thread, are
wondering what you did to violate some NG rules and how Mark tapped
you on the wrist. A quick look at the subject does not help at all.
J
Jose
So you just pick a random post from a thread and press reply?
Well, in the rare cases when I do this, the post I pick to "reply" to
may not be random, but it is (as far as my reply goes) equivalent to
many others in the thread.
.... and just after the "Re:" is the subject. It's a clue. Granted
topic drift sometimes makes the subject line irrelevant, but anybody
still reading probably knows this. New readers may have to go back a
message or two... if the message is that far off the subject, a single
quote isn't going to help much. The alternative (which I see far too
often on Usenet) is that huge amounts of thread get copied for each
reply, which then gets copied into subsequent replies... and far more
time is wasted paging through all that redundancy to find the new stuff
than would be wasted on the occasional having to refer back to a post
that probably still exists on the server, or will arrive soon.
Excuse? It's not like anybody's trying to "get away with something".
Good idea. Sometimes I do do that. However, rather than:
* > [sharks]
* They bite.
I might write
* Sharks bite.
Actually, I didn't write that post. And in this thread I did quote and
respond "appropriately". So much for internet style.
My point was =not= that quoting and replying to the quote should be
deprecated, but rather, that =sometimes= it is not necessary.
I did not express an opinion as to which category any particular post
falls in.
Jose
Well, in the rare cases when I do this, the post I pick to "reply" to
may not be random, but it is (as far as my reply goes) equivalent to
many others in the thread.
.... and just after the "Re:" is the subject. It's a clue. Granted
topic drift sometimes makes the subject line irrelevant, but anybody
still reading probably knows this. New readers may have to go back a
message or two... if the message is that far off the subject, a single
quote isn't going to help much. The alternative (which I see far too
often on Usenet) is that huge amounts of thread get copied for each
reply, which then gets copied into subsequent replies... and far more
time is wasted paging through all that redundancy to find the new stuff
than would be wasted on the occasional having to refer back to a post
that probably still exists on the server, or will arrive soon.
Excuse? It's not like anybody's trying to "get away with something".
Good idea. Sometimes I do do that. However, rather than:
* > [sharks]
* They bite.
I might write
* Sharks bite.
Actually, I didn't write that post. And in this thread I did quote and
respond "appropriately". So much for internet style.
My point was =not= that quoting and replying to the quote should be
deprecated, but rather, that =sometimes= it is not necessary.
I did not express an opinion as to which category any particular post
falls in.
Jose
B
Blinky the Shark
Leonard, I realized later that my suggestion to not post (to just read),
that I tagged onto that line, was meant for the Google Groupers[1] you
were talking about, not you. This note is just in case the ellipsis
didn't make that clear.
[1] http://blinkynet.net/comp/googlegrouper.html
B
Blinky the Shark
Then quote the gestalt.
B
Blinky the Shark
I think that most of the people who don't like to quote are the ones who
appear by starting a thread, read "their" thread, and you never see them
again, once they have their answer. They don't understand that many of us
read hundreds of threads every day, and can't focus on their own pet issue
like they, who only read that one thread, are doing before they disappear.
E
Els
Jose said:
Still, just reply to the message that is most appropriate, and quote
the apropriate bits.
Exactly. That's what we're trying to avoid by educating people to
quote relevant bits of messages.
If you want to reply to whatever they were discussing 5 messages ago,
go back to that message and then press reply, so that your reply still
makes sense.
That's not good either. But I still prefer that to have no quote at
all.
But at least someone who reads the post as a separate post, will be
able to read what it's about. And I don't agree about more time being
wasted 'paging through all that redundancy' than on 'occasionally
having to refer back to another post'. Scrolling within a post is
*much* easier than finding another message. Even if it is still
visible in the thread. You see, for the writer it may be obvious which
message he is replying to, but the reader has no idea. Is it about the
previous post? And if so, about which part of it? Or is it about 2
posts ago? Or about the last post in the second last sub-thread? Or,
and this happens too, is it about a completely different thread and
placed in this thread by mistake?
You're not trying to get away with occasionally replying within a
thread without quoting *anything*?
Why invent your own standards?
"* Sharks bite." only tells me that you reckon sharks bite. It doesn't
indicate that sharks were already the subject of the conversation.
Really, stick to the conventions and stop confusing people.
Ah yes, I see. My bad. You did defend that person though
Well done ;-)
And my point still is that I think it always is. If one wants to make
statements that shouldn't be considered replies to any particular
message, one should start a new thread. Or a blog.
Nevertheless, I think we covered most possible categories now - imo,
no post ever should be without quotes unless it's really the first
message in a thread.
S
Stan McCann
I just "de-googled" my news reader. The message I am replying to has a
big red X next to it meaning the next time I load a group, no google.
I won't even see the replies to google heads. I do believe this will
make my Usenet experience a bit better. Thanks for your page about
doing this Blinky.
B
Blinky the Shark
You're filtering on google appearing anywhere in the Refernences header?
IT's my pleasure, Stan. I don't go that far myself, only killing actual
Google Grouper effluvia[1]. But my hat is off to you for going even
further.
[1]By only filtering on a Google MID as the *last* entry in the References
header.
D
dorayme
Yanno, sometimes a reply is =not= to a message, or a phrase, but to the
whole gestalt.[/QUOTE]
O yeah? There is not something, roughly some thing, to which you
are addressing and could quote something to give a bit of
context? Who the hell do you think you are? A Martian like
dorayme?
B
Blinky the Shark
O yeah? There is not something, roughly some thing, to which you are
addressing and could quote something to give a bit of context? Who the
hell do you think you are? A Martian like dorayme?[/QUOTE]
I think he's from uranus.
J
Jose
Who the hell do you think you are? A Martian like
Actually, when I was younger, my girlfriend's sister said that one day I
would find my way back to Mars.
Jose
Actually, when I was younger, my girlfriend's sister said that one day I
would find my way back to Mars.
Jose
D
dorayme
Jose said:
Jose! You want to get away with not giving some context to your
posts in the usual way, ie. selective quoting.
Selective quoting is an art as much as a science. For example,
the puzzled reader of this very post would be more lost without
my placed quote of yours. But, as remarked by Els once before, it
is not always easy to know how much to put in and what to leave
out and we are all fallible and forgetful. But you take things to
an extreme. You are just another human, you can't do this!
D
dorayme
Blinky the Shark said:Then quote the gestalt.
I think that the idea of this concept is its unquotability... One
can describe every little bit of a picture and miss the "whole",
the "gestalt". (btw, I agree with Els in not liking this word).
But one can quote things that will make the gestalt mysteriously
arise in the human brain.
D
dorayme
Blinky the Shark said:
Blinky! I beg your pardon!
D
dorayme
Actually, when I was younger, my girlfriend's sister said that one day I
would find my way back to Mars.[/QUOTE]
If you ever do, there's a nice street side cafe on Main now, cnr
First. Very good coffee and a half decent L'antipastothe, the
Crostini, Bruschetta, and Mozzarella in Carrozza are all good.
L
Luigi Donatello Asero
"dorayme" <[email protected]> skrev i
meddelandet
If you ever do, there's a nice street side cafe on Main now,[/QUOTE]
Main?
--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/faktaomitalien.php
Ð¡ÐµÐ³Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ñ Ñреда 25 ÑÐ½Ð²Ð°Ñ€Ñ 2006
Tänään on keskiviikko, 25. tammikuuta 2006
今天二零零å…年一月二å五日
星期三
meddelandet
If you ever do, there's a nice street side cafe on Main now,[/QUOTE]
Main?
--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/faktaomitalien.php
Ð¡ÐµÐ³Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ñ Ñреда 25 ÑÐ½Ð²Ð°Ñ€Ñ 2006
Tänään on keskiviikko, 25. tammikuuta 2006
今天二零零å…年一月二å五日
星期三