Clue about Usenet
in [Win32 Kernel]
|
From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard on 11 Feb 2010 06:19 > > > Why are you crossing posting this? > Because it's a discussion that's appropriate to those newsgroups. Clue: This is not the first time in history that the subject of what thread runs after a new thread/process has been created has been discussed on Usenet. More clue: Think about where those prior discussions were. Even more clue: Think about what discussion topics people who subscribe to the comp.programming.threads newsgroup might be interested in seeing. > The OP didn't start with a cross post? > The original poster is not the ruler of Usenet. We are not magically constrained to keep discussions in the same newsgroups that they started in. Indeed, quite the reverse. When topics drift, and other newsgroups become appropriate, it is good netiquette of long standing (dating back to the 1980s) to move, or at least begin to move, to the appropriate newsgroups. That's what newsgroups are, the primary way to label messages according to topic, and the first way that everyone filters the 5TiB of daily Usenet traffic to include just the topics that interest them before they even filter in any other way. This labelling is not set in stone, never again to be altered, by the first person to post in a thread. This is not a helpdesk, nor a web log, nor a WWW-based chat room; it's Usenet. > Wasted bandwidth, in any case, > That comment is based upon not understanding the system that you are using. I suggest that you find out how cross-posting works. There are plenty of explanations of that, so I won't repeat them. Find one and read it. Again, this is Usenet, not Fidonet. > at least you didn't tell him to do some thing with a banana. > Indeed. No-one anywhere in this thread has. Read properly and think.
From: Ant on 11 Feb 2010 08:24 "Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" wrote: > When topics drift, and other newsgroups > become appropriate, it is good netiquette of long standing (dating back > to the 1980s) to move, or at least begin to move, to the appropriate > newsgroups. It's also good netiquette to give attributions to what you quote and not post in html.
From: Hector Santos on 11 Feb 2010 08:44 Ant wrote: > "Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" wrote: > >> When topics drift, and other newsgroups >> become appropriate, it is good netiquette of long standing (dating back >> to the 1980s) to move, or at least begin to move, to the appropriate >> newsgroups. > > It's also good netiquette to give attributions to what you quote and > not post in html. Jonathan is just showing his old fidonet ECHO moderator behavior. -- HLS
From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard on 11 Feb 2010 12:07 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <blockquote cite="mid:e2Bqm2xqKHA.4492(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <p wrap="">When topics drift, and other newsgroups become appropriate, it is good netiquette of long standing (dating back to the 1980s) to move, or at least begin to move, to the appropriate newsgroups.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p wrap="">It's also good netiquette to give attributions to what you quote and not post in html.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>There's a reason that you've been directed to <code>news.newusers.questions</code>. You're making the very same novice error addressed in point #12 of the the <a href="http://faqs.org./faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/">"What is Usenet?" FAQ document</a> for that newsgroup. It's been a Frequently Given Answer for over 20 years. Read it and learn. When you've done so, <a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/read-the-references-header.html">read about the References: header and how to use that</a>. And when you've done that you might be ready to progress to the more complex knowledge that HTML quoting in many newsreaders actually provides <em>more accurate</em> attributions than other forms, including as it does an exact <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2392">URI for the message</a> as a <code>cite</code> attribute. For advanced-level knowledge, read the Usefor discussions of this subject, by the likes of <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;">Russ Allbery and others, in the late 1990s.<br> </span></p> </body> </html>
From: Ant on 11 Feb 2010 18:42
"Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" wrote: > Ant wrote: >> It's also good netiquette to give attributions to what you quote and >> not post in html. > > There's a reason that you've been directed to news.newusers.questions. It's also impolite to direct followups elsewhere without mentioning it in the body of your message. > You're making the very same novice error addressed in point #12 of > the the "What is Usenet?" FAQ document for that newsgroup. That talks about character sets, not markup language. > HTML quoting in many newsreaders actually provides more accurate > attributions than other forms, including as it does an exact URI for > the message as a cite attribute. Except that it's not displayed by OE and is just a message ID. That's not a good attribution. If I want the MID it's in the references, and saying "get a proper news reader" won't make it a better cite. In any case, the post to which I responded was text/plain not html and had no attribution. [f/up & sarcasm ignored] |