Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen by others

Discussion in 'C++' started by tanix, Dec 24, 2009.

  1. tanix

    tanix Guest

    People may not realize that majority of article reads
    come from search engines and not directly reading the
    Usenet.

    First of all, to find some information for some specific
    issue you may be dealing with is pretty much a hopeless
    excersize if you just read Usenet or some disorganized
    archive.

    It may take you days or even months to step though all sorts
    of threads reading it all sequentially, without any kind
    of filtering offered by search engines.

    When people need to resolve some issue, the first thing
    they do is to perform a search engine search on the buzzwords
    they think are significant.

    So, when they click on some link in the SERPS, they only see
    one article. They can not even follow your thread unless they
    are willing to spend minutes of their time, the chances of
    which are slim as it gets.

    So, from this standpoint, try to keep the context of the article
    intact. No not delete some section of the article you are following
    upon because you think it is "insignificant" in YOUR opinion.

    Because it may turn out to be significant in readers opinion.

    Note on writing style:

    Many people do not realize their articles become available
    worldwide on many different sites, servers, search engines
    and libraries and will stay there forever.

    When they write something, they may not even consider
    that it is better to take your time and describe some
    topic completely so it becomes a reference material
    to be used for generations to come.

    Instead, they write cryptic articles that, when viewed
    by themselves, may not even make much sense to someone,
    who is not reading it on Usenet by following a thread
    or as competent as the writer is.

    Some people strip most of the article they followup on,
    and it becomes virtually impossible to understand what
    they are talking about. Because this article may just
    appear somewhere by itself, without the preceeding
    articles in a thread.

    Keep it in mind.

    Again, it is better to write a thorough and detailed
    article to put the issue to rest once and for all,
    instead of saying the same thing again and again.

    You can simply refer people to that original article
    instead of doing it from top again, wasting your own
    time and energy and producing very lil additional
    information with net effect of close to 0.

    Most, if not all the articles on this group, or any other,
    are available via all sorts of sources on the web, and web
    is how it is all read when you really need some answer.

    Unfortunately, some people write pretty sloppy articles
    with huge blobs of text, without line breaks between
    their followup and the original article, long line lengths,
    and generally careless style. The result: their articles
    are not a great pleasure to read or understand.

    Generally, the paragraph size should be limited to separate
    different concepts into clearly defined blocks. That makes
    it much easier to digest. In today's hectic world, people
    are very impatient and will push the next button as soon
    as they see the first ugly blob of text.

    General suggestions on writing on Usenet:

    1. NEVER, under ANY circumstances use lines that are longer
    than 70 characters. This is NNTP standard limitations.
    All the lines longer than 79 characters will be wrapped
    around in in quite an ugly way.

    So, considering there may be followups to your article,
    and somtimes MANY followups, remember this: each followup
    adds at least one character to the line length.

    2. NEVER, under any circumstances "top post", meaning
    writing your entire response BEFORE the article you are
    following up.

    Fist of all, it is simply insultive. You couldn't be bothered.
    Secondly, it is simply sloppy.
    Thirdly, is makes it hard for a reader to put YOUR comments
    in the proper context and takes things out of context.

    3. Watch the white space around your comments and the
    original article. It is best to have at least one blank
    line before your follow up and one blank line after.

    Extra blank lines do not help anything.
    No blank lines makes it all dense and hard to read
    as things run into each other.

    4. NEVER use tab characters. They are not going to be properly
    expanded. Even if you post some code that uses tabs in your
    IDE, replace them with spaces.

    5. Try to provide a sufficient description and rationale
    for things you are saying. Simply making some statement
    without reasoning why do you think it is valid is just a
    waste.

    Readers are not necessarily mind readers. They may not be
    on your level of competence or may not know some issues
    as good as you. So, if you do not explain why are you saying
    this or that, your article will be useless to them.

    6. Do not worry about "on-topic" issues for some thread.
    Again. Most of the page reads will be done via search
    engine and in the web format and not from a news reader.

    It does not matter to search engine what is your subject
    line more or less. It will still be able to find your
    article by looking at its body.

    Sure, having the same keywords in subject header and body
    will increase the chances your article will come up in
    higher postition in the SERPS. But no need to be paraniod
    about it and to keep splitting the discussion into new
    and new threads unnecessarily. It is better to see how
    some subject evoloves.

    7. Do not waste your time on personal attacks, humiliation
    and insults. That does not buy you anything. It just gets
    the discussion deluted with unpleasant things.

    If you think YOUR ego is the most important thing in the
    world, think again. Because it is about the last thing
    the readers would care for. They need answers to THEIR
    "problems" and not your "holier than thoug" image.
    They could care less.

    Summary:



    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 24, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tanix

    Krice Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen byothers

    On 24 joulu, 22:05, (tanix) wrote:
    > If you think YOUR ego is the most important thing in the
    > world, think again.


    Yes please, think it again.
    Krice, Dec 24, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tanix

    tanix Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen byothers

    In article <>, Krice <> wrote:
    >On 24 joulu, 22:05, (tanix) wrote:
    >> If you think YOUR ego is the most important thing in the
    >> world, think again.

    >
    >Yes please, think it again.


    Yep, that is exactly what I mean.
    :--}

    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 25, 2009
    #3
  4. tanix

    red floyd Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seenby others

    On 12/24/2009 12:05 PM, tanix wrote:
    > [redacted]


    Here's another one.

    Avoid ad-hominem attacks against people who have professional
    reputations you could only dream about having. People such as
    Pete Becker.
    red floyd, Dec 25, 2009
    #4
  5. tanix

    tanix Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seenby others

    In article <hh19ki$6e9$-september.org>, red floyd <> wrote:
    >On 12/24/2009 12:05 PM, tanix wrote:
    >> [redacted]

    >
    >Here's another one.
    >
    >Avoid ad-hominem attacks against people who have professional
    >reputations you could only dream about having.


    Yep. Exactly what I mean.
    :--}

    Except you'd have to clarify what that "professional reputation"
    means, and how would you know?

    >People such as Pete Becker.


    He may be god to you indeed and you can pray on your knees
    if you wish.

    But this thread is not about slugging out at who can jump higher
    than his own weanie. Makes sense?

    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 25, 2009
    #5
  6. tanix

    tanix Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seenby others

    In article <hh1a5o$qg4$-september.org>, (tanix) wrote:
    >In article <hh19ki$6e9$-september.org>, red floyd
    > <> wrote:
    >>On 12/24/2009 12:05 PM, tanix wrote:
    >>> [redacted]

    >>
    >>Here's another one.
    >>
    >>Avoid ad-hominem attacks against people who have professional
    >>reputations you could only dream about having.

    >
    >Yep. Exactly what I mean.
    >:--}
    >
    >Except you'd have to clarify what that "professional reputation"
    >means, and how would you know?
    >
    >>People such as Pete Becker.

    >
    >He may be god to you indeed and you can pray on your knees
    >if you wish.
    >
    >But this thread is not about slugging out at who can jump higher
    >than his own weanie. Makes sense?


    Btw. Do you know what kind of people change the subject line
    as you, fools, do?

    They are called sickos. Jealous intolerand idiots,
    who have nothing better to do in ther lives then pervert things.
    Makes sense?
    :--}


    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 25, 2009
    #6
  7. tanix

    Krice Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen byothers

    On 25 joulu, 04:31, (tanix) wrote:
    > >> If you think YOUR ego is the most important thing in the
    > >> world, think again.

    > >Yes please, think it again.

    > Yep, that is exactly what I mean.


    Are you slow? YOU think it, you moron.
    Krice, Dec 25, 2009
    #7
  8. tanix

    Kaz Kylheku Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seenby others

    On 2009-12-24, tanix <> wrote:
    > So, from this standpoint, try to keep the context of the article
    > intact. No not delete some section of the article you are following
    > upon because you think it is "insignificant" in YOUR opinion.


    In my opinion, it is bad netiquette not to trim the quoted article
    as much as possible.

    A Usenet archive to be useful must preserve the tree structure of
    threads.

    If you can't navigate to a parent article to recover context,
    find a better quality Usenet archive search tool.

    > Because it may turn out to be significant in readers opinion.


    Nice sentiment; but the reader of an archive isn't a paying customer of the
    article author, so he doesn't get to dictate how the article should have been
    structured to serve him best.
    Kaz Kylheku, Dec 29, 2009
    #8
  9. tanix

    Kaz Kylheku Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seenby others

    On 2009-12-25, red floyd <> wrote:
    > On 12/24/2009 12:05 PM, tanix wrote:
    >> [redacted]

    >
    > Here's another one.
    >
    > Avoid ad-hominem attacks against people who have professional
    > reputations you could only dream about having. People such as
    > Pete Becker.


    Argumento ad hominem does not refer to disagreeing with someone in a rude way.

    One perfect example of ad hominem would be something like ``whatever P___ B___
    writes is holy scripture because of /who/ he is and his professional
    reputation, not because of what is actually written''.
    Kaz Kylheku, Dec 29, 2009
    #9
  10. tanix

    tanix Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seenby others

    In article <>, Kaz Kylheku <> wrote:
    >On 2009-12-24, tanix <> wrote:
    >> So, from this standpoint, try to keep the context of the article
    >> intact. No not delete some section of the article you are following
    >> upon because you think it is "insignificant" in YOUR opinion.

    >
    >In my opinion, it is bad netiquette not to trim the quoted article
    >as much as possible.


    Just the other way around.

    Quite often, this stripping procedure is explicitly meant to
    distort the material and present it as something else.

    Secondly, there is absolutely no issues with technical aspect of it.

    >A Usenet archive to be useful must preserve the tree structure of
    >threads.


    Not true.

    There may be SOME articles in a thread that are of interest
    generally. They may contain some code, some specific ideas,
    etc.

    While majority of articles, or even thread may not represent
    any value for all practical purposes.

    Secondly, unless you have a server with years worth of retention,
    all you can see is just a couple of days of articles.

    You can not search it to find what you are looking for.
    You can not review some interesting thread, written years ago,
    and ALL sorts of things like that.

    >If you can't navigate to a parent article to recover context,
    >find a better quality Usenet archive search tool.


    VAST majority of article views happen via web,
    and what they end up seeing is a SINGLE article.
    In most cases, they can not even follow threads,
    because there is not next, prev button.

    >> Because it may turn out to be significant in readers opinion.


    >Nice sentiment;


    It is not a sentiment.
    It is a BASIC principles of democracy.

    > but the reader of an archive isn't a paying customer of the
    >article author, so he doesn't get to dictate how the article should have been
    >structured to serve him best.


    :--}

    Looks like a bad joke by someone, whose intent is probably
    not that kosher.

    Do you realize how damaged the usenet archives are as a result
    of this stripping procedure?

    Well, probably at least 50% of all articles are useless.
    ALL the significant context is gone.
    All the intermediate discussions, considerations and issues
    are gone.

    When you look at usenet from the web, it is totally fragmented
    goubledy gook in more cases then not.

    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 30, 2009
    #10
  11. tanix

    tanix Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seenby others

    In article <>, Kaz Kylheku <> wrote:
    >On 2009-12-25, red floyd <> wrote:
    >> On 12/24/2009 12:05 PM, tanix wrote:
    >>> [redacted]

    >>
    >> Here's another one.
    >>
    >> Avoid ad-hominem attacks against people who have professional
    >> reputations you could only dream about having. People such as
    >> Pete Becker.

    >
    >Argumento ad hominem does not refer to disagreeing with someone in a rude way.
    >
    >One perfect example of ad hominem would be something like ``whatever P___ B___
    >writes is holy scripture because of /who/ he is and his professional
    >reputation, not because of what is actually written''.


    I see this "ad hominem" template used quite often.
    And every single time I remeber seeing it,
    it was made by people with perverted minds, distorting things
    and attacking someone, blaming him for attacking them.

    This is simply a template, used by people with perverted minds,
    whose brain capacity does not allow them to find the real solution
    or face reality.

    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 30, 2009
    #11
  12. tanix

    tanix Guest

    I am redirecting this reply to the original thread.
    Because it is of significance.

    The origninal thread was split by some zombies by inserting
    the CR/LF and blanks into subject lines, which made several
    different threads out of original one.

    So, if you already read it, just skip this one.

    Change the subject line in other funky threads so theyh merge
    back with the original thread.

    The correct Subject header for this thread is:
    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen by others

    Now...

    In article <>, Kaz Kylheku <>
    wrote:
    >On 2009-12-24, tanix <> wrote:
    >> So, from this standpoint, try to keep the context of the article
    >> intact. No not delete some section of the article you are following
    >> upon because you think it is "insignificant" in YOUR opinion.


    >In my opinion, it is bad netiquette not to trim the quoted article
    >as much as possible.


    Just the other way around.

    Quite often, this stripping procedure is explicitly meant to
    distort the material and present it as something else.

    Secondly, there is absolutely no issues with technical aspect of it.

    >A Usenet archive to be useful must preserve the tree structure of
    >threads.


    Not true.

    There may be SOME articles in a thread that are of interest
    generally. They may contain some code, some specific ideas,
    etc.

    While majority of articles may not represent
    any value for all practical purposes.

    Secondly, unless you have a server with years worth of retention,
    all you can see is just a couple of days of articles.

    You can not search it to find what you are looking for.
    You can not review some interesting thread, written years ago,
    and ALL sorts of things like that.

    >If you can't navigate to a parent article to recover context,
    >find a better quality Usenet archive search tool.


    VAST majority of article views happen via web,
    and what they end up seeing is a SINGLE article.
    In most cases, they can not even follow threads,
    because there is not next, prev button.

    >> Because it may turn out to be significant in readers opinion.


    >Nice sentiment;


    It is not a sentiment.
    It is a BASIC principles of democracy.

    > but the reader of an archive isn't a paying customer of the
    >article author, so he doesn't get to dictate how the article should have been
    >structured to serve him best.


    :--}

    Looks like a bad joke by someone, whose intent is probably
    not that kosher.

    Do you realize how damaged the usenet archives are as a result
    of this stripping procedure?

    Well, probably at least 50% of all articles are useless.
    ALL the significant context is gone.
    All the intermediate discussions, considerations and issues
    are gone.

    When you look at usenet from the web, it is a totally fragmented
    goubledy gook in more cases then not.

    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 30, 2009
    #12
  13. tanix

    James Kanze Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen byothers

    On 29 Dec, 23:29, Kaz Kylheku <> wrote:
    > On 2009-12-24, tanix <> wrote:


    > > So, from this standpoint, try to keep the context of the
    > > article intact. No not delete some section of the article
    > > you are following upon because you think it is
    > > "insignificant" in YOUR opinion.


    > In my opinion, it is bad netiquette not to trim the quoted
    > article as much as possible.


    In newsgroups. I'm not sure that some of the posters here know
    what a newsgroup is. So they end up recommending the preferred
    practice for some other medium, but one which isn't appropriate
    in newsgroups.

    > A Usenet archive to be useful must preserve the tree structure of
    > threads.


    > If you can't navigate to a parent article to recover context,
    > find a better quality Usenet archive search tool.


    Most search engines don't even look at newsgroups. Those that
    do generally link to the thread, not to the individual posting.

    --
    James Kanze
    James Kanze, Dec 30, 2009
    #13
  14. tanix

    James Kanze Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen byothers

    On 30 Dec, 04:21, (tanix) wrote:
    > In article <>, Kaz Kylheku <> wrote:
    > >On 2009-12-24, tanix <> wrote:
    > >> So, from this standpoint, try to keep the context of the
    > >> article intact. No not delete some section of the article
    > >> you are following upon because you think it is
    > >> "insignificant" in YOUR opinion.


    > >In my opinion, it is bad netiquette not to trim the quoted
    > >article as much as possible.


    > Just the other way around.


    Not according to the official documents. Quoting RFC 1855:

    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.

    It's not a question of opinion. It happens to be part of an
    official standard.

    > Quite often, this stripping procedure is explicitly meant to
    > distort the material and present it as something else.


    That happens, but it's pretty rare. And most of the time, it's
    obvious when it happens.

    > Secondly, there is absolutely no issues with technical aspect of it.


    > >A Usenet archive to be useful must preserve the tree structure of
    > >threads.


    > Not true.


    Apparently, you don't understand Usenet, or are confusing it
    with some other medium.

    --
    James Kanze
    James Kanze, Dec 30, 2009
    #14
  15. tanix

    tanix Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen byothers

    In article <>, James Kanze <> wrote:
    >On 30 Dec, 04:21, (tanix) wrote:
    >> In article <>, Kaz Kylheku <>

    > wrote:
    >> >On 2009-12-24, tanix <> wrote:
    >> >> So, from this standpoint, try to keep the context of the
    >> >> article intact. No not delete some section of the article
    >> >> you are following upon because you think it is
    >> >> "insignificant" in YOUR opinion.

    >
    >> >In my opinion, it is bad netiquette not to trim the quoted
    >> >article as much as possible.

    >
    >> Just the other way around.

    >
    >Not according to the official documents. Quoting RFC 1855:
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >It's not a question of opinion. It happens to be part of an
    >official standard.


    I would expect THIS kind of response from you, personally.
    I think your brain functions much better than this.

    Ok, lemme spend a couple of minutes on this.

    You see, "official standard" can ONLY be applied to technical
    issues, not the posting style or personal preferences.

    Those are CONTENT issues.
    You can not "standartize" the content issues.

    So, to me, personally, if some fools start writing THESE kinds
    of things into standards, then those very standards have little,
    if not less, significance.

    It is like a programmer deciding to dictate others how to do
    business or diplomacy.

    Simply does not make sense.

    Secondly, things like these, even if written into standards,
    only mean an agreement between the members of the "board".

    I wonder if Russ Allbery signed under THIS kinds of standard.
    I have my doubts he would. But... You never know, you never know.

    I'll do you a favor and check this paper.

    Wow!
    NETIQUETTE STANDARD?

    :--}

    Have they gone totally insane to produce THIS kind of garbage?

    And who wrote this?

    Sally Hambridge
    Intel Corporation
    2880 Northwestern Parkway
    SC3-15
    Santa Clara, CA 95052

    Phone: 408-765-2931
    Fax: 408-765-3679
    EMail:

    INTEL writing THESE kinds of guidelines?

    :--}

    This is not even a joke. This is PATHETIC.

    And this so called standard was written by a SINGLE individual,
    who apparently is dumb enough even to CONCEIVE such a thing.

    This is the biggest disgrace in the entire history of Usenet.

    :--}

    >> Quite often, this stripping procedure is explicitly meant to
    >> distort the material and present it as something else.

    >
    >That happens, but it's pretty rare. And most of the time, it's
    >obvious when it happens.
    >
    >> Secondly, there is absolutely no issues with technical aspect of it.

    >
    >> >A Usenet archive to be useful must preserve the tree structure of
    >> >threads.

    >
    >> Not true.

    >
    >Apparently, you don't understand Usenet, or are confusing it
    >with some other medium.


    My humble friend, I understand Usenet better than you,
    probably an order of magnitude better.

    Are you getting bored out of your head and there is nothing MORE
    exciting than getting into things like these?

    :--}


    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 31, 2009
    #15
  16. tanix

    tanix Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seenby others

    In article <>, Andy Champ <> wrote:
    >tanix wrote:
    >>
    >> My humble friend, I understand Usenet better than you,
    >> probably an order of magnitude better.
    >>

    >
    >Tanix,
    >
    >James has been providing useful replies on this group for at least three
    >years.


    So what?
    What does it have to do with ANYTHING, even remotely related
    to the subject of this thread or even group for that matter?

    :--}

    Ok, since this is probably the last thing that I can do this year,
    let us afford some luxury here...

    > You've managed a month,


    Managed what?
    And if I just stumbled upon this article via google groups for example
    and decided to discuss it, does it somehow make me LESS valid?
    :--}

    Or, if I sit here for ten years, does it make me MORE valid?

    Just the the sheer fact that you hang somewhere in limbo all your
    life, does it make you MORE intelligent, more insightful?

    Is this some kind of a club?
    :--}

    > and the replies are not as useful.


    What "replies" are not "usesuful"?
    Useful to WHOM?
    Useful for WHAT purpose?

    If they are not "useful" to you, just don't read them.
    Does someone FORCE you?

    And THIS is the most "useful" "law" or "standard" of Usenet.
    Usenet is not a political party gathering of like minded,
    thinking along the same lines. Is this a surpise for you?

    Why don't you wake up to the SIMPLIEST things in life?

    >Andy


    Now, I'd like to discuss the issue of intellectual honesty.

    You see, what you have done is to strip the ENTIRE context
    and left a SINGLE statement. Why did you do that?

    One more time: VAST majority of article views happen via web,
    where all that people see is a single article, just like you see
    it via google. You do not even have a thread to look at.

    And distorting things THIS bad, you MUST be utterly intellectually
    dishonest. And that is the reason I said that this ugly trip of
    stripping is mostly used by people who have the worst intentions
    possible and that is to distort and pervert the information and
    try to make white look like black and vise versa.

    And I stand by every single statement of mine.
    If you wish to bring it up and respond to in, fine be my guest,
    even though I am not obliged to even bother about it.
    If you think differently, so be it. It is not MY life. It is yours.

    Interestingly enough, this is a language group where people
    are expected to have above average degree of intelligence
    since their minds are much more sophisticated then most others
    as they have to deal with issues of logic and all softs of
    most complex things every day of their lives.

    Strange to see the kind of argument you are making.
    Not even clear what IS the very argument?
    Just plain stinky guilt manipulation trip?

    If you think THIS kind of argument, such as using the "standard"
    buzzword, like it was a word of God, just to instill guilt
    in others, is something even appropriate, too bad.

    First of all RFC are NOT "standards".
    They literally mean Request For Comment or Clarification.

    Do you understand?

    They are NOT ANY kind of "standard".
    Yes, when there is some real RFC, where a group a people worked
    for years on some technical system and designed something that
    works and reconciles, that is a different matter.
    The other people simply decide to go with it and it becomes
    a "standard" by implication.

    But to have THIS kind of obsenity and to even conceive of an
    idea to use it as some kind of argument, trying to make someone
    GUILTY of something, that is not only ugly, not only
    PROFOUNDLY dishonest, but is simply rotten to the bone and marrow.

    Simply DISGUSTING.

    With THESE kinds of "standards", what do you expect to see next?
    A list of words, acceptable in terms of netti-fetti-betty?
    The name of the streets you are allowed to walk on?

    Do you understand the BASIC human rights, as signed by VAST
    majority of countries in the world?

    Do you understand what means BASIC?

    And RIGHTS, and not some luxury for the pure blooded.

    There is such a right as freedom of expression.
    Do you understand?

    It does not say "you have freedom of expression" if you sit
    on some group for more than 3 years and you do NOT have
    such freedom if you are there for onoy a month.

    Do I have to chew things like THESE to the software developers,
    and not only software developers but LANGUAGE developers?

    :--}

    This is simply pathetic, I tellya.

    What kind of language you can possibly design if your mind
    works like this? What kind of issues you can possibly discuss
    with THIS kind of guilt manipulation procedures, trying to
    discredit someone or invalidate his opinion on the basis
    that someone has wasted years on this group?

    And here is what the post you were following up looked like
    before you mutilated it to the point of obsene:

    ===== Quote begin =====

    In article
    <>, James
    Kanze <> wrote:
    >On 30 Dec, 04:21, (tanix) wrote:
    >> In article <>, Kaz Kylheku <>

    > wrote:
    >> >On 2009-12-24, tanix <> wrote:
    >> >> So, from this standpoint, try to keep the context of the
    >> >> article intact. No not delete some section of the article
    >> >> you are following upon because you think it is
    >> >> "insignificant" in YOUR opinion.

    >
    >> >In my opinion, it is bad netiquette not to trim the quoted
    >> >article as much as possible.

    >
    >> Just the other way around.

    >
    >Not according to the official documents. Quoting RFC 1855:
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >It's not a question of opinion. It happens to be part of an
    >official standard.


    I would expect THIS kind of response from you, personally.
    I think your brain functions much better than this.

    Ok, lemme spend a couple of minutes on this.

    You see, "official standard" can ONLY be applied to technical
    issues, not the posting style or personal preferences.

    Those are CONTENT issues.
    You can not "standartize" the content issues.

    So, to me, personally, if some fools start writing THESE kinds
    of things into standards, then those very standards have little,
    if not less, significance.

    It is like a programmer deciding to dictate others how to do
    business or diplomacy.

    Simply does not make sense.

    Secondly, things like these, even if written into standards,
    only mean an agreement between the members of the "board".

    I wonder if Russ Allbery signed under THIS kinds of standard.
    I have my doubts he would. But... You never know, you never know.

    I'll do you a favor and check this paper.

    Wow!
    NETIQUETTE STANDARD?

    :--}

    Have they gone totally insane to produce THIS kind of garbage?

    And who wrote this?

    Sally Hambridge
    Intel Corporation
    2880 Northwestern Parkway
    SC3-15
    Santa Clara, CA 95052

    Phone: 408-765-2931
    Fax: 408-765-3679
    EMail:

    INTEL writing THESE kinds of guidelines?

    :--}

    This is not even a joke. This is PATHETIC.

    And this so called standard was written by a SINGLE individual,
    who apparently is dumb enough even to CONCEIVE such a thing.

    This is the biggest disgrace in the entire history of Usenet.

    :--}

    >> Quite often, this stripping procedure is explicitly meant to
    >> distort the material and present it as something else.

    >
    >That happens, but it's pretty rare. And most of the time, it's
    >obvious when it happens.
    >
    >> Secondly, there is absolutely no issues with technical aspect of it.

    >
    >> >A Usenet archive to be useful must preserve the tree structure of
    >> >threads.

    >
    >> Not true.

    >
    >Apparently, you don't understand Usenet, or are confusing it
    >with some other medium.


    My humble friend, I understand Usenet better than you,
    probably an order of magnitude better.

    Are you getting bored out of your head and there is nothing MORE
    exciting than getting into things like these?

    :--}

    ===== Quote end =====


    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 31, 2009
    #16
  17. tanix

    nick Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen byothers

    On Dec 31, 1:55 pm, (tanix) wrote:

    > So what?
    > What does it have to do with ANYTHING, even remotely related
    > to the subject of this thread or even group for that matter?


    MLYP?
    nick, Dec 31, 2009
    #17
  18. tanix

    stan Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen by others

    tanix wrote:
    > In article <>, James Kanze <> wrote:
    >>On 30 Dec, 04:21, (tanix) wrote:
    >>> In article <>, Kaz Kylheku <>

    >> wrote:
    >>> >On 2009-12-24, tanix <> wrote:
    >>> >> So, from this standpoint, try to keep the context of the
    >>> >> article intact. No not delete some section of the article
    >>> >> you are following upon because you think it is
    >>> >> "insignificant" in YOUR opinion.

    >>
    >>> >In my opinion, it is bad netiquette not to trim the quoted
    >>> >article as much as possible.

    >>
    >>> Just the other way around.


    Actually Emily Postnews covered this long before you got to usenet.

    >>
    >>Not according to the official documents. Quoting RFC 1855:
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>
    >>It's not a question of opinion. It happens to be part of an
    >>official standard.

    >
    > I would expect THIS kind of response from you, personally.
    > I think your brain functions much better than this.
    >
    > Ok, lemme spend a couple of minutes on this.
    >
    > You see, "official standard" can ONLY be applied to technical
    > issues, not the posting style or personal preferences.


    Says who? Can you cite a reference or is this simply your opinion?

    > Those are CONTENT issues.
    > You can not "standartize" the content issues.


    Yet, netiquette rules were developed from lessons learned before the
    internet even existed. Back then the goal was to hopefully educate the
    unwashed ignorant masses that flooded newsgroups every September when
    school started. By the end of the first semester, things usually got
    better as the clueless started to see that the rules worked and were a
    good thing.

    Back then, the unwashed were capable of learning that the rules were
    based on sound principles and worked because the principles were in
    fact correct. They accepted that there was a possibility that there
    were people who might just know something they didn't.

    Contrast that description with today's consistently uncivilized,
    arrogant, rude (in other words petty and juvenile) behavior and you
    get a glimpse at how the world has changed.

    > So, to me, personally, if some fools start writing THESE kinds
    > of things into standards, then those very standards have little,
    > if not less, significance.


    Voluntary rules for civilized behavior are always significant, it's
    just that many are not capable of seeing why. Many can't or won't see
    the consequences of noncompliance; to them it feels better to be
    independent and rebellious. Anarchy is rarely enjoyable.

    I think you confuse significance with consequences.

    > It is like a programmer deciding to dictate others how to do
    > business or diplomacy.
    >
    > Simply does not make sense.


    To whom? Exactly what part is confusing? Cooperation and consequences
    maybe?

    Just a thought but your description of your work experiences and your
    behavior and attitude regarding netiquette seem to show a common
    thread and pattern. Cause and effect? Consequences?

    > Secondly, things like these, even if written into standards,
    > only mean an agreement between the members of the "board".


    You really don't understand usenet.

    Reading usenet from a web interface is like driving a motorcycle from
    a sidecar; a very distorted and unnatural experience. For those who
    prefer the web, they should stick to forums. Forums are different and
    have different principles apply to meet those differences. Use the
    right tool for the job is a lesson many learned as children; some swim
    upstream into adulthood and even old age unfortunately.

    Your thoughts seem appropriate for forums but they are ineffective for
    usenet.

    Let me ask. There was a time when the best people in the computer
    field participated in usenet and you could easily and often find help
    and interesting conversations. Does that sound like this group today?
    It does not seem that way to me. I watched many top people leave and
    many explained why they could no longer endure usenet.

    For at least a token effort at something remotely related to C, does anyone
    know what the M in Dennis M Ritchie stands for?
    stan, Dec 31, 2009
    #18
  19. tanix

    stan Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen by others

    tanix wrote:

    > In article <>, Andy Champ <> wrote:
    >>tanix wrote:
    >>>
    >>> My humble friend, I understand Usenet better than you,
    >>> probably an order of magnitude better.

    >>
    >>James has been providing useful replies on this group for at least three
    >>years.

    >
    > So what? What does it have to do with ANYTHING, even remotely
    > related to the subject of this thread or even group for that matter?


    Goes to claims of understanding.

    <snip>

    > You see, what you have done is to strip the ENTIRE context
    > and left a SINGLE statement. Why did you do that?


    Good manners, common courtesy, spirit of cooperation, demonstration of
    understanding, etc ...

    > One more time: VAST majority of article views happen via web,
    > where all that people see is a single article, just like you see
    > it via google. You do not even have a thread to look at.


    The claim is simply wrong. It's not a vast or even a simple
    majority. With a typical newsreader it's possible to simply filter out
    every post from the big web portals. Besides losing a vast amount of
    spam you improve the signal to noise greatly and you lose nothing like
    a vast majority of posts.

    Now if you count all the spam sent through google then you might
    approach half of some groups, but if you disregard spambots the
    numbers are more realistic.

    > First of all RFC are NOT "standards".
    > They literally mean Request For Comment or Clarification.
    >
    > Do you understand?


    Why do you ask? Do you claim understanding of the organization and
    governance of usenet?

    > They are NOT ANY kind of "standard". Yes, when there is some real
    > RFC, where a group a people worked for years on some technical
    > system and designed something that works and reconciles, that is a
    > different matter. The other people simply decide to go with it and
    > it becomes a "standard" by implication.
    >
    > But to have THIS kind of obsenity and to even conceive of an idea to
    > use it as some kind of argument, trying to make someone GUILTY of
    > something, that is not only ugly, not only PROFOUNDLY dishonest, but
    > is simply rotten to the bone and marrow.


    How many people besides you have to disagree to prevent something from
    becoming standard? Are you that powerful by yourself or is there some
    minimum number of others required?

    For the RFC's that existed before you discovered the internet, can you
    invalidate those by simple disagreement too or is there a time limit
    to your power?

    <snip>

    > Do you understand the BASIC human rights, as signed by VAST majority
    > of countries in the world?


    Again with the "vast"; your understanding of the state of human rights
    in the international context is underwhelming. It's hard to find a
    topic with more fundamental disagreement globally.

    < snip>

    > There is such a right as freedom of expression. Do you understand?


    Rights never stand alone, they are paired with responsibility.

    Freedom of expression comes with responsibility and limits. There is a
    clear limit that prevents expression that causes harm to others. You
    can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater or knowingly say false
    things to harm another. Those limits derive from the burden to act
    responsibly and consequences based on civil law.

    > It does not say "you have freedom of expression" if you sit on some
    > group for more than 3 years and you do NOT have such freedom if you
    > are there for onoy a month.


    Where did you read or hear this? I can't find anything that promises
    freedom of expression on usenet with or without qualifications.

    > Do I have to chew things like THESE to the software developers,
    > and not only software developers but LANGUAGE developers?


    Is there someone there threatening you? Do you need help?
    stan, Dec 31, 2009
    #19
  20. tanix

    tanix Guest

    Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen by others

    In article <>, stan <> wrote:
    >tanix wrote:
    >> In article

    > <>, James
    > Kanze <> wrote:
    >>>On 30 Dec, 04:21, (tanix) wrote:
    >>>> In article <>, Kaz Kylheku <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> >On 2009-12-24, tanix <> wrote:
    >>>> >> So, from this standpoint, try to keep the context of the
    >>>> >> article intact. No not delete some section of the article
    >>>> >> you are following upon because you think it is
    >>>> >> "insignificant" in YOUR opinion.
    >>>
    >>>> >In my opinion, it is bad netiquette not to trim the quoted
    >>>> >article as much as possible.
    >>>
    >>>> Just the other way around.

    >
    >Actually Emily Postnews covered this long before you got to usenet.


    Well, it is a new year time so I'll give you a special discount
    by replying to this stuff. It is not worth replying, but we'll do that.

    Now, who is Emily Postnews as far as usenet goes?

    Well, NOBODY.
    Simple as that.

    Because the 1st individual in the history of Usenet was David Lawrence
    and his buddy, Russ Allbery. Both of them were associated with ISC
    (Internet Software Consortium), being sponsored in part by DISA
    (Defense Information Systems Agency).

    ISC is sponsored by the biggest and baddest of them all.
    But if you ask what IS this thing called ISC and what is its
    purpose, you might have your ear drums sightly popping if you
    hear ANY response.

    That was creation of what is now known as Usenet,
    and, from the very first step, it was Usenet biggest disaster.

    From then on, Usenet was taken over by dictators via trick, known
    as "big reorg", and that is, the net.* hierarchy was split and
    8 hierarchies were created instead, known as "big-8".
    There was also alt.* hierarchy in this scheme.
    The alt hierarcy was hierarchy of "anarchy" as these dictators
    represented it. But it was just a plain democratic process in
    reality. The voice of people, and not the voice of totalitarian
    dicators as this disgusting totalitarian machine called big-8 was.

    From the very start, David Lawrence and Russ Allbery started working
    on tools and mechanisms that would allow them, and via ISC, to
    allow DISA to effectively OWN Usenet.

    How so?

    Well, they created the PGP signature idea.
    Articles or control messages, signed with the PGP key,
    were made to be called "official".

    Since Russ Allbery was a maintainer of the most popular news server,
    INN, he wired in the mechanisms to "authorise" the most critical
    parts of usenet dynamics, called newgroup, and rmgroup.

    Newgroup message, at least according to the "standard", RFC 1038,
    was the type of message to be automatically recognized by the
    NNTP servers as a group creation message. That is ALL you have
    to do to create some group.

    Furthermore, the way these dictators and conmen designed it,
    the default INN configuration would come with the facility,
    allowing the autmoatic recognition if THEIR PGP key as an "official",
    even though these individuals could not be recognized as officials
    under no circumstances.

    Every single newer revision of the INN server had more and more
    severe mathods of dominating Usenet servers via ALL sorts of
    dictatorial rules, wired into the server configuration.

    The decision was made in totalitarian fasion.
    No one voted for it. Usenet at large was not even aware of it,
    and not that many people even realized the extent of this ugly
    totalitarian perversion that allowed a small group of dictators
    to LITERALLY own the whole thing, and via them, to make Usenet
    totally controllable by the US military and intelligence apparatus.

    Do you realize that the whole usenet can be removed
    and within SECONDS, even at this very junction, you smart farts,
    running your mealy mouhts, having no clue whatsoever of what
    are you blabbering about?

    :--}

    As a result, usenet was totally controlled by these utterly
    dishonest and utterly perverted dictators since day one.

    They created the whole torturing procedure for those, who were
    interested in creating some group. It was call the RFD process
    (Request For Discussion) and CFV (Call For Votes), which is the
    final and most disgusting procedure to torture the group proponents
    and insult them in the most disgusting ways.

    There was a whole gang of perverted sadists, called "news groupies".
    Those people apparently were so profoundly uncreative that about the
    only joy in life, even though a perverted one, was to forever enjoy
    torturing the group proponents, insulting their intelligence,
    accusing them in ALL sorts of things they have never done, just like
    here, in this hole.

    These sadists, called "news groupies" would "vote" as a block, and
    they would vote with whatever the dictators wanted, hoping to get
    promoted to the top of the heap one day and also become the "elite".
    Uggggh. Disgusting to even look at this stuff.

    The most disgusting "rule" was created in order to control Usenet
    in the most drastic ways. It was called a 100 "vote" rule.

    What it meant that even if there is "sufficient interest",
    and there are HUNDREDS of people that supported creation of
    some group, the end result of "discovery of interest" scam,
    was that the block "vote" by these sick perverts, called
    "news groupies" would be substracted from the number of
    proponent votes, and the total result of "yes" "votes"
    would be reduced by the number of "no" votes.

    Now what is "no" votes in the process of discovering INTEREST
    in creation of some group?

    Well, nothing more than a procedure to sabotage the creation
    of ANY group.

    Because "no" "votes", by definition do NOT represent interest
    in some group and could not be logically considered as appropriate.

    Just because that some of you are not interested in some group,
    does it mean there are not people that ARE interested in it?
    What is YOUR busines in someone elses group if you are not
    interested in it?

    How could it POSSIBLY be taken into consideration.
    By the same logic, ANY group you do not participate in,
    could be considered as "no" vote by you, and, therefore,
    VAST majority of the groups on Usenet would not even exist.

    Clear enough for the intellectual giants of your kind and grade?
    :--}

    The most perverted sicko among the "news groupies" was Jay Denebeim,
    a total nazi, who did and said some of the most destructive things
    in the whole history of usenet.

    He was in bed with that clique of self apoointed dictators
    in this grand disgrace called big-8.

    These dictators were not elected via democratic process.
    They were self-appointed, or rather appointed by DISA, owned
    gun stock and barrel by the US military and intelligence apparatus,
    and the whole idea of effectively taking over the biggest,
    fully distributed and most resilient information system called
    Usenet, is probably the instructions given to them by DISA.

    For one thing, the big-8 is the most propagated set of hierarchies
    there is. Every single server in the world would carry ALL the
    groups from big-8. But the alt.* hierarchy was never carried
    by such a large number of servers.

    So, by TOTALLY controlling the most significan part of usenet,
    the only thing you had to do is to create the groups that coould
    be easily supervised and loggeed in an organized manner by the
    US military and intelligence in this Electronic Warfare game,
    most of you are probably not aware of.

    What you are dealing with Usenet is a project by the evilest,
    totally anti-democratic forces int he most perverted circles
    of the HIGEST caliber, who, for hundreds of years are working
    on this so called NWO thing, a police state, where there are
    only two classes of citizens left, the "elite" and the "slaves".

    The same exact idea as Nazi ideology,
    the ideology of black and white, "good" and "bad",
    you are forever zombified with any place you look, from morning
    to night, since your craddle.

    Haven't you noticed?

    :--}

    There is another set of hierarchies, called alt.*, and it was not
    a subject to these totalitarian dictates and the PGP key did not
    apply to them. So people could create any group they want with
    a single control message and the group was created instantly.

    The big-8 dictators did not appreciate such a situation and they
    have chosen that ultra Nazi, Jay Denebeim, as their hit man.

    What he would do is to concoct some disgusting "justifications"
    to remove some group, and then, based on his own concoction,
    as "justification", he would issue the control messages to remove
    ANY group they wanted, thus trying to destroy the most vital
    parts of alt.* hierarchy.

    This Nazi sicko would remove HUNDREDS of groups every single day,
    365 days a year for YEARS on. He would waste most of his time,
    insulting the group proponents in the most disgusting,
    arrogant and blatant ways, all with silent support of dictators.

    They would conduct the behnind the back email communications
    to discuss the issues of PUBLIC interest and decide what they
    want to do with Usenet next, quite likely being guided along
    the way by the Electronic Warfare figure heads.

    That was probably the most disgusting part of this criminally
    minded setup.

    So, since the day one, the Usenet was being literally suffocated
    by these servants of the US military and intelligence apparatus,
    and ISC was being paid millions by DISA in form of "sponsorship"
    money and some of that money went into the pockets of these
    disgusting degenerates, David Lawrence and Russ Allbery. Ask them.

    And they WERE asked, and not only once.
    And the result?
    :--}

    Guess, sire!

    There are ALL sorts of interesting things about Usenet, and the
    consequences to the entire mankind are simply mind boggling.

    But Emily Postnews is not one of them.
    Not even in the picture.

    One more time:
    Usenet is the ONLY remaining system of democratic commuintions
    and the global information exchance on any conceivable subject.

    All other approaches are totally conrolled and dominated
    via all sorts of perverted "moderation" tricks.

    All the blogs are "moderated".
    All the forums are "moderated"
    EVERYTHING you know of is "moderated".

    They even tried to make the whole Usenet to be TOTALLY
    "moderated" and those "moderators" happen to be the MOST
    immoderate Nazis you can possibly hope to find.

    First of all, if you are software guy, why would you even BOTHER
    about things like trying to "moderate" some group?
    For what?
    And what is the guarantee that your "moderation" is going to be
    unbiased?

    Do you know what happened to one of the OLDEST groups on usenet,
    actualy preceeding the usenet as such, called comp.ai, the very
    ROOT of entire AI hierarchy?

    Well, it was taken over by David Kinny, a self-admitted Nazi.
    That was a pretty vibrant group with plenty of participants.

    But this intellectuall pigmey, whose "research" work at the
    University Of Sidney, Australia, was such a pathetic pile of
    garbage of the lowest grade, that no printing press would
    printing press would print if it was given a choice.

    He started a campaign of lies, using some utterly bizzare
    excuse, trying to justify his lust for power. Eventually,
    he was able to convince a few power hungry fools to support him
    He wrote the RFD, just like this sucky RFC we are talking about
    here, and he promised everyone a virtual paradise and the
    most democratic thing conceivable.

    Then they were supported by these sickos, "news groupies",
    because it was one of the central obscessions of that dictator
    Russ Allbery, who was HIGLY interested in taking over usenet
    via trick of "moderation".

    That pathetic, mouth foaming Nazi even tried to replace the
    Usenet with his totally dictatorial Usenet 2 idea, where every
    single hierarchy and every single group would be "moderated",
    by "tzars", LITERALLY speaking, appointed by Herr Fuehrer,
    Russ Allbery, the grandfather of brainwashing and zombification.

    ALL this information is on the record.
    Yes, some of it you may not be able to find because it was
    removed from Google archives and places like that.
    But you can still find plenty.

    >>>Not according to the official documents. Quoting RFC 1855:
    >>>
    >>> 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.
    >>>
    >>>It's not a question of opinion. It happens to be part of an
    >>>official standard.

    >>
    >> I would expect THIS kind of response from you, personally.
    >> I think your brain functions much better than this.
    >>
    >> Ok, lemme spend a couple of minutes on this.
    >>
    >> You see, "official standard" can ONLY be applied to technical
    >> issues, not the posting style or personal preferences.

    >
    >Says who? Can you cite a reference or is this simply your opinion?
    >
    >> Those are CONTENT issues.
    >> You can not "standartize" the content issues.

    >
    >Yet, netiquette rules were developed from lessons learned before the
    >internet even existed.


    You mean like do not use UPPER case to ACCENTUATE something,
    but use all sorts of perversions like *blah* or _blah_, or /blah/?

    Is THAT what you call netti-fetti-betti?

    Well, to me it is probably the MOST idiotic zombification procedure.

    First of all, how do I know what YOU imply by *blah* versus
    _blah_?

    The semantics of it are totally unclrear.

    Secondly, if you want to ACCENTUATE something, why don't you use that,
    which was SPECIFICALLY designed for it?

    After all, you DO want to accentuate something, no matter in which
    totally idiotic and perverted way you end up doing it.

    ALL that happens at the end is YOU suppressing YOURSELF
    by submitting to someone elses zombification propaganda,
    and it is YOU, no one less, that is going to suffer the conseques
    of it, as those things, that you suppressed, start accumulating
    inside of you and eventually become poison and violence.

    So, being the perverts you are, and MANY of you are, you start
    conspiring in herds and work as a pack of volves, not to insult
    the volves, trying to destroy someone, who does not buy into
    the zombification procedure that is running YOUR life.

    Do you see ANYTHING?

    > Back then the goal


    WHOSE goal?

    > was to hopefully educate the unwashed ignorant masses


    Here ya go, Dr. Mengele.
    That IS the very nature of fascism and totalitarian dictate
    by some "elite", the "blue blooded" onese, like you, sicko
    present here.

    > that flooded newsgroups


    What is this?

    Do you mind people walk on the street?

    > every September when
    >school started.


    UTTER garbage. UTTER fabrication.
    There exist no such statistics I know of.

    > By the end of the first semester, things usually got
    >better as the clueless started to see that the rules worked and were a
    >good thing.


    You ARE just a disgusting Nazi.
    Simple as that.

    :--}

    Enough of this Nazi propaganda!

    >Back then, the unwashed were capable of learning that the rules were
    >based on sound principles and worked because the principles were in
    >fact correct. They accepted that there was a possibility that there
    >were people who might just know something they didn't.
    >
    >Contrast that description with today's consistently uncivilized,
    >arrogant, rude (in other words petty and juvenile) behavior and you
    >get a glimpse at how the world has changed.
    >
    >> So, to me, personally, if some fools start writing THESE kinds
    >> of things into standards, then those very standards have little,
    >> if not less, significance.

    >
    > Voluntary rules for civilized behavior are always significant, it's
    > just that many are not capable of seeing why. Many can't or won't see
    > the consequences of noncompliance; to them it feels better to be
    > independent and rebellious. Anarchy is rarely enjoyable.
    >
    >I think you confuse significance with consequences.
    >
    >> It is like a programmer deciding to dictate others how to do
    >> business or diplomacy.
    >>
    >> Simply does not make sense.

    >
    >To whom? Exactly what part is confusing? Cooperation and consequences
    >maybe?
    >
    >Just a thought but your description of your work experiences and your
    >behavior and attitude regarding netiquette seem to show a common
    >thread and pattern. Cause and effect? Consequences?
    >
    >> Secondly, things like these, even if written into standards,
    >> only mean an agreement between the members of the "board".

    >
    >You really don't understand usenet.
    >
    >Reading usenet from a web interface is like driving a motorcycle from
    >a sidecar; a very distorted and unnatural experience. For those who
    >prefer the web, they should stick to forums. Forums are different and
    >have different principles apply to meet those differences. Use the
    >right tool for the job is a lesson many learned as children; some swim
    >upstream into adulthood and even old age unfortunately.
    >
    >Your thoughts seem appropriate for forums but they are ineffective for
    >usenet.
    >
    >Let me ask. There was a time when the best people in the computer
    >field participated in usenet and you could easily and often find help
    >and interesting conversations. Does that sound like this group today?
    >It does not seem that way to me. I watched many top people leave and
    >many explained why they could no longer endure usenet.
    >
    >For at least a token effort at something remotely related to C, does anyone
    >know what the M in Dennis M Ritchie stands for?


    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Jan 1, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mr. x
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    378
    Mr. x
    Dec 6, 2003
  2. cpp4ever
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    361
    Francesco
    Sep 8, 2009
  3. tanix
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    685
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
    Jan 16, 2010
  4. tanix
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    223
    tanix
    Jan 16, 2010
  5. Travis
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    344
Loading...

Share This Page