list rules [was: Reconfigure after changing Video Card]

[Calcpage]

On Jul 31, 2010, at 11:52 PM, Ric Moore <wayward4now at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2010-07-31 at 22:32 -0500, Billie Walsh wrote:
>> On 07/31/2010 07:16 PM, p.echols at comcast.net wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: "Res"<res at ausics.net>
>>>> To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions"<ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com 
>>>> >
>>>> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 2:56:56 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: list rules [was: Reconfigure after changing Video  
>>>> Card]
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've said it before, I'll say it again; the sign-up page needs to
>>>>>
>>>> point
>>>>
>>>>> not only to the CoC, but to the mailing list etiquette [1] page as
>>>>>
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>>> It would be well if everyone had to sign /BOTH/ of those before
>>>>>
>>>> joining.
>>>>
>>>>> Until that happens it is really pointless to bitch about
>>>>>
>>>> non-compliance
>>>>
>>>>> (although I sometimes do anyway).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and it is still pointless... unless you are going to turn off  
>>>> direct
>>>> subscription reuests via email, that's how I signed up years ago,
>>>> thats
>>>> how I'm sure countless many others signed up, the only confirmation
>>>> mailman does is check if the sender envelope actually wants to be  
>>>> on
>>>> the
>>>> requested list, I never signed nor agreed to ANYTHING to join this
>>>> list.
>>>>
>>>> NEWSFLASH:   Email has been in use many years longer than web, why
>>>> does
>>>> everyone here think the only members of this list arrived here  
>>>> coz of
>>>> some
>>>> page on a ubuntu website  *sigh*
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is the, "I didn't agree to it, so it doesn't apply to me"  
>>> argument.  Completely ignores that there are reasons for going  
>>> along that have nothing to do with whether you can be compelled.   
>>> Example:  IMHO, top posting is a symptom of cluelessness.  Since I  
>>> want my cluelessness to be judged by what I say, I don't top  
>>> post.  AND, if I see someone who I think might benefit from the  
>>> tip, I will suggest the same to them.  That most assuredly does  
>>> NOT make me a "net cop."
>>>
>>> Oh, and responding to the above with "no one can make me but the  
>>> admins" both misses the point and elicits a "Well DUH!" from me.
>>>
>>> Have a groovy day!
>>>
>>> --PE
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, if opinions are allowed I'll voice mine.
>>
>> Bottom posting is the one of the two stupidist things in e-mail. If  
>> I'm
>> following a thread having to scroll down through all the previous  
>> posts
>> is a royal pain in the posterior. Top posting make immensely more  
>> sense.
>> If I lose my place in a top post I can always scroll down to  
>> refresh my
>> memory. Otherwise, what I need to read is right there when I open the
>> e-mail.
>
> I guess it depends on just how far back using email you go. I never
> noticed much top-posting at all, until the last 5-10 years. At least  
> not
> in the places I hung around it. Mostly tech email lists. But,
> top-posting for personal mail is OK, I guess. I much prefer to middle
> post, to keep the "conversation" in order, even in private email. I
> don't believe I ever saw top-posting on BBS's. When you were composing
> online, their email client pretty much forced you to bottom post in
> reply. Owell! Just my two cents, Ric
>

When I first joined this list a few months ago I got slammed for top  
posting.  So, I started bottom posting and got slammed for that!  Then  
I started posting in the middle where it made sense to add a comment  
but started trimming too and got slammed for that!  Can we make up our  
minds?  I've been on zillions of lists since bbs days and never had  
such a problem.  Since, at least in the 70s and 80s, bandwidth was a  
problem, the most common practice was just to quote a couple of lines  
to refer to and then bottom post your comment after that....

Just my 2 cents,
A. Jorge Garcia
http://www.YouTube.com
http://shadowfaxrant.blogspot.com