How to improve this sort?

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Default User said:

Why is it worthwhile deleting [attributions]?

The more there are, the more worthwhile it becomes to remove a few.
The optimum level is <= N, where N depends on what floats your boat.
For me, N = 6 (for various values of 6).

That generally means that unnecessary text has been left quoted.

In my case, not, because I normally work pretty hard to remove unnecessayr
text. But sometimes I feel it wise to leave in several levels of quoting.
In the case where it's A and B ping-ponging:

A said:
| B said:
|| A said:
||| B said:
|||| A said:
||||| B said:

....I don't think it terribly unreasonable to remove the innermost attribs.

(Normally, of course, I leave attribs well alone.)

<snip>

 

[Default User]

Default User said:

Default User said:

<snip>

Why is it worthwhile deleting [attributions]?

The more there are, the more worthwhile it becomes to remove a few.
The optimum level is <= N, where N depends on what floats your

boat. >> For me, N = 6 (for various values of 6).

That generally means that unnecessary text has been left quoted.

In my case, not, because I normally work pretty hard to remove
unnecessayr text. But sometimes I feel it wise to leave in several
levels of quoting. In the case where it's A and B ping-ponging:

A said:
| B said:
|| A said:
||| B said:
|||| A said:
||||| B said:

...I don't think it terribly unreasonable to remove the innermost
attribs.

(Normally, of course, I leave attribs well alone.)

It's unlikely that all that quoted stuff is needed. Once it gets past
about four levels, I tend to just paraphrase the previous discussion.

If I respond to a ping-pong message, it's usually to whinge at the
participants for not snipping.




Brian

 

[Christopher Layne]

Most newsreaders (in fact, all the ones I know of) provide attribution

lines automatically. Even Google Groups does so. All you have to do
is leave them in place rather than manually deleting them.

Quoting someone else's words without attribution is rude, especially
when it's easier to provide attribution than to delete it.

There are times when the discussion is so deeply drawn out and localized that
the scope is well established and clipping a few lines here or there to
reduce cruft in the reply (for readiblity) does not affect anyone - as they
may not even be addressing the issue of *who* wrote something.

For instance, I clipped your attribution here, just to have less lines to
read/send out. Did it change anything at all about how you read it? I
seriously doubt it - as the scope is now fairly local and our memory of it is
not so short term as to be cleared within 5 seconds.

That being said I usually include them - but I don't *flip out* if they're
not. I have more issue with whiners in this newsgroup not being able to
*adapt* and choosing everything as a battle rather than choosing wise
battles.

How many times must Chuck lecture people? I get tired of reading the
admonishments and I get tired of the waste of bandwidth. When I see it, I end
up <space>-ing right over it because I immedaitely expect the reply to just
be a lecture. I personally am not interested in reading lectures in
comp.lang.c - I'd rather read about constructive concepts and posts which
teach myself and others new things.

Why not just disengage from the top posters and whatever other devil-child
bothers you at that moment? The fact that someone is going out of their way
to type up *another* post just to tell that other person how to post
(especially to original posts which didn't have much content nor thinking on
their own right) is pretty pavlonian.

For instance, foreign language speaker arrives in group and posts a cryptic 2
line post asking how to do something w/ an additional 5 lines of
implementation specific crappy code - complete with bad style, grammar,
and "requirements". Standard reaction: People go after it and start
instructing the person on proper grammar, proper usage of the standard usage
of main(), etc. etc. etc.

Is it so hard to just ignore the obviously not thought out lazy posts from
people who just want an answer?

 

[Keith Thompson]

I wrote the above. You deliberately deleted the attribution line.

[...]

For instance, I clipped your attribution here, just to have less lines to
read/send out. Did it change anything at all about how you read it? I
seriously doubt it - as the scope is now fairly local and our memory of it is
not so short term as to be cleared within 5 seconds.

Ok, so you snipped the attribution line to make a point. I'm not
impressed. It's still rude.

This is a busy newsgroup. Some of us, myself included, read
everything posted here, or nearly so. When I read a followup, I might
have read a dozen other threads since I read the original article.
Any little cue that can remind me of the context is helpful.

[...]

Why not just disengage from the top posters and whatever other devil-child
bothers you at that moment?

[...]

Because some people are capable of learning. People who initially
top-post, when told that it's not generally accepted here, sometimes
actually *stop top-posting* and become useful members of the
newsgroup. People who use silly abbreviations like "u" and "ur"
sometimes drop them and write in standard English. There are posters
I consistently ignore; I do not choose to add someone to that list for
a single infraction.

If you don't like what I post here, why not add me to your killfile?
If you don't like what CBFalconer posts here, why not add him to your
killfile?

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

How many times must Chuck lecture people? I get tired of reading
the admonishments and I get tired of the waste of bandwidth. When
I see it, I end up <space>-ing right over it because I immedaitely
expect the reply to just be a lecture. I personally am not
interested in reading lectures in comp.lang.c - I'd rather read
about constructive concepts and posts which teach myself and
others new things.

Then why don't you simply conform to standard practice and avoid
being lectured? Why do you rudely snip attributions, and thus
steal the words of others? This effectively amounts to plagiarism.

.... snip ...

For instance, foreign language speaker arrives in group and posts
a cryptic 2 line post asking how to do something w/ an additional
5 lines of implementation specific crappy code - complete with bad
style, grammar, and "requirements". Standard reaction: People go
after it and start instructing the person on proper grammar,
proper usage of the standard usage of main(), etc. etc. etc.

Those posters are normally simply ignorant of proper practices, and
an early and immediate advisement will often turn them into good
net citizens. Then there are the others, who persist in rejecting
normal practice and thus engendering many attempts at correction.
In children, this kind is usually considered a bad child, and the
neighbors children are forbidden to play with him/her. The usenet
analog is PLONK.

I am quite happy to forgo any corrections, if the corrections were
not needed or have already been made. Someone said "Vigilance is
the price of freedom". Until recently this country seemed to have
forgotten that, while allowing the shrub to emasculate rights in
favor of his adventure. We hope to avoid an analagous interregnum
of chaos on this newsgroup.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

 

[CBFalconer]

Default User said:

Default User said:

<snip>

Why is it worthwhile deleting [attributions]?

The more there are, the more worthwhile it becomes to remove a
few. The optimum level is <= N, where N depends on what floats
your boat. For me, N = 6 (for various values of 6).

That generally means that unnecessary text has been left quoted.

In my case, not, because I normally work pretty hard to remove
unnecessayr text. But sometimes I feel it wise to leave in several
levels of quoting. ...

With properly posted text it is usually simple. Snip as required,
then count the '>'s of the uppermost remaining quotation, and snip
all attributions with that much (or more) '>'s. You may have to
make allowance for idiots who have perverted the quote marker, but
I find the human mind is quite capable of that adjustment. You
also have to adjust for other idiots who post overly long lines, so
that the wraps get marked with insufficient markers.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

 

[Ben Pfaff]

Why do you rudely snip attributions, and thus steal the words
of others? This effectively amounts to plagiarism.

Plagiarism is presenting another's work as your own. Quoting
without attribution is not plagiarism, because it does not claim
the quoted words as one's one. It is merely use without complete
citation.

 

[Default User]

There are times when the discussion is so deeply drawn out and
localized that the scope is well established and clipping a few lines
here or there to reduce cruft in the reply (for readiblity) does not
affect anyone - as they may not even be addressing the issue of who
wrote something.

Removing the attribution doesn't do any of that, in fact it makes the
entire post less readable.




Brian

 

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

I am quite happy to forgo any corrections, if the corrections were
not needed or have already been made. Someone said "Vigilance is
the price of freedom". Until recently this country seemed to have
forgotten that,

Chuck - this is an international group. There is no such thing as "this
country", without some kind of qualification. As far as I'm concerned, an
unqualified "this country" means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, but your mileage may vary, and so might other people's.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:

<snip>

Why is it worthwhile deleting [attributions]?

The more there are, the more worthwhile it becomes to remove a
few. The optimum level is <= N, where N depends on what floats
your boat. For me, N = 6 (for various values of 6).

That generally means that unnecessary text has been left quoted.

In my case, not, because I normally work pretty hard to remove
unnecessayr text. But sometimes I feel it wise to leave in several
levels of quoting. ...

With properly posted text it is usually simple.

Yes, Chuck, I *know*, Chuck - and I *usually* leave the attributions in,
Chuck, because *usually* it's the right thing to do, with *usually* being
the operative word. Which bit of "sometimes" were you struggling with?

Snip as required,
then count the '>'s of the uppermost remaining quotation, and snip
all attributions with that much (or more) '>'s.

Cf <[email protected]>

 

[CBFalconer]

CBFalconer said:

Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:

<snip>

Why is it worthwhile deleting [attributions]?

The more there are, the more worthwhile it becomes to remove a
few. The optimum level is <= N, where N depends on what floats
your boat. For me, N = 6 (for various values of 6).

That generally means that unnecessary text has been left quoted.

In my case, not, because I normally work pretty hard to remove
unnecessayr text. But sometimes I feel it wise to leave in several
levels of quoting. ...

With properly posted text it is usually simple.

Yes, Chuck, I *know*, Chuck - and I *usually* leave the attributions
in, Chuck, because *usually* it's the right thing to do, with
*usually* being the operative word. Which bit of "sometimes" were
you struggling with?

I'm not struggling. You, however, seem to be confusing advice
aimed at the general readership with criticism of your post.
Rather, it was amplification, and by default should be so
considered.


--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

 

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

I'm not struggling. You, however, seem to be confusing advice
aimed at the general readership with criticism of your post.
Rather, it was amplification, and by default should be so
considered.

Must. Not. Post. Before. Coffee.

Sorry, Chuck.

 

[Christopher Layne]

Removing the attribution doesn't do any of that, in fact it makes the
entire post less readable.

Brian

Try reading the damn post first dude - not who posted it. If you need that
information, you can find it. It doesn't make the post ANY less readable.

 

[Christopher Layne]

Then why don't you simply conform to standard practice and avoid
being lectured? Why do you rudely snip attributions, and thus
steal the words of others? This effectively amounts to plagiarism.

I'm sorry, the quote indicators are there. It isn't plagarism. Cut the
melodrama.

Those posters are normally simply ignorant of proper practices, and
an early and immediate advisement will often turn them into good
net citizens. Then there are the others, who persist in rejecting
normal practice and thus engendering many attempts at correction.
In children, this kind is usually considered a bad child, and the
neighbors children are forbidden to play with him/her. The usenet
analog is PLONK.

Bad child? Neighbors kids forbidden to play with him/her? We're adults here.
This is a usenet group for discussion of the C language - not a supreme
court.

I am quite happy to forgo any corrections, if the corrections were
not needed or have already been made. Someone said "Vigilance is
the price of freedom". Until recently this country seemed to have
forgotten that, while allowing the shrub to emasculate rights in
favor of his adventure. We hope to avoid an analagous interregnum
of chaos on this newsgroup.

Seek help.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Christopher Layne said:

This is a usenet group for discussion of the C language - not a
supreme court.

Then could you please stop trying to bash people over the head and start
discussing C instead? Thank you.

 

[Default User]

Try reading the damn post first dude - not who posted it. If you need
that information, you can find it. It doesn't make the post ANY less
readable.

I do not go searching for information. The post should contain all the
context it requires, that includes attributions. And in spite of your
claim, yes it does make it less readable. Not in the "follow the words"
sense, but in figuring out what's being said by whom.

You still haven't given any logical reason for removing attributions.
Note, it's exactly that. Every newsreader I know of automatically puts
them in, you have make an explicit effort to take them out.





Brian