Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?. Discuss Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?, on Wireless Forums.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
none <a...@bc.com> wrote:
> "Ness Net" <rich...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> > 1st - top posting - bite me. Self appointed Usenet cops can
> > kiss my ***.
>
> > 2nd - I read it and contend that you are not correct.
>
> no ness - he is correct.
>
> nobody will take you seriously unless you bottom post.
>
> it makes no logical sense to the reader if the post is at the top.
>
> learn the rules or don't post.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Unfortunately, the bottom line is that he claims to be 'literate',
then proves through his actions that he is not.
Unfortunately, the action of crossposting to multiple groups is action
that is inevitble to hitting upon readers who are more sensitive to
ease of communiciation, eg, the top-posting criticism.
Unfortunately, while Ness *claims* that he won't argue the point, he
then proceeds to defend himself (again), which once again means that
his own actions prove his words to be a lie.
Unfortunately, it all reveals that Ness is nothing better than a troll
or hypocrite.
Unfortunately, Google doesn't have a button I can push to cause this
fool's computer to literally blow up in his face.
Fortunately, its a clear day and with low winds, so I'll be out scuba
diving when Nate reads this :-)
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
At 22 Oct 2007 04:25:07 -0700 -hh wrote:
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
On the other hand:
A: Because you've already read the question(s) in the prior posts in the
thread.
> Q: Why does top posting make sense?
>
> > Q: Why does top posting make sense?
> >
> > > Q: Why does top posting make sense?
> > >
> > > > Q: Why does top posting make sense?
Ideally posting in-line makes the most sense, if responding to multiple
points, but top posting makes perfect sense when adding a comment to
prior comments, and frankly is much preferable, IMO, to the idiots who
can't be bothered to trim 20 posts worth of text before adding their 2-
cents...
Personally, I don't care how someone posts if what they're saying adds to
the conversation. Whining about posting styles doesn't, so by default
Ness' post was more valuable than yours (or mine.)
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> Ideally posting in-line makes the most sense, if responding to
> multiple points, but top posting makes perfect sense when adding a
> comment to prior comments, and frankly is much preferable, IMO, to
> the idiots who can't be bothered to trim 20 posts worth of text
> before adding their 2- cents...
>
Well, two wrongs don't make a right. <g>
Granted, I abhor (only for a moment, then I usually ignore) posts from those
who don't bother to trim quoted text. But that doesn't absolve top-posters,
who do the same thing but happen to post on top, of posting according to
long-established guidelines. Still, if you are NOT gonna trim, I'd almost go
as far as saying you might as well top-post. If you do that, and I am not
referring to you, Todd, you might get me to scroll once or twice; maybe even
thrice. But the next time I see a post from you with 182 lines, I ain't even
looking at it.
And while I am on a rant, I ain't fond of those who think they are doing
well by posting inline, but yet don't bother to separate their comments from
the quoted text. Like this:
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
In article <e52Ti.11104$ce.2222@fe089.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> Ideally posting in-line makes the most sense, if responding to multiple
> points, but top posting makes perfect sense when adding a comment to
> prior comments, and frankly is much preferable, IMO, to the idiots who
> can't be bothered to trim 20 posts worth of text before adding their 2-
> cents...
But easy trimming is precisely why top-posting is broken in all cases.
I'll usually trim a long post down to just the most recent two or three
exchanges. When some participants bottom-post and others top-post, this
becomes much more awkward because those exchanges are at opposite ends
of the message.
> Personally, I don't care how someone posts if what they're saying adds to
> the conversation. Whining about posting styles doesn't, so by default
> Ness' post was more valuable than yours (or mine.)
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
hh = Another sanctimonious know it all....
Do YOU actually bottom 'post' your business e-mail?
I know of no place of business where this is acceptable.
It just isn't done in business - period. It certainly would be
considered illiterate in ANY business environment.
Usenet - with proper trimming - who cares?
(just sanctimonious know it alls I guess)
The rest of this 'discussion' is just small minded crap.
So easy to hurl insults...
"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1193052307.768342.238980@e9g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
> Unfortunately, the bottom line is that he claims to be 'literate',
> then proves through his actions that he is not.
>
> Unfortunately, the action of crossposting to multiple groups is action
> that is inevitble to hitting upon readers who are more sensitive to
> ease of communiciation, eg, the top-posting criticism.
>
> Unfortunately, while Ness *claims* that he won't argue the point, he
> then proceeds to defend himself (again), which once again means that
> his own actions prove his words to be a lie.
>
> Unfortunately, it all reveals that Ness is nothing better than a troll
> or hypocrite.
>
> Unfortunately, Google doesn't have a button I can push to cause this
> fool's computer to literally blow up in his face.
>
> Fortunately, its a clear day and with low winds, so I'll be out scuba
> diving when Nate reads this :-)
>
>
> -hh
>
>
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
Valid point; business values efficiency, productivity and top posting.
Ness Net wrote:
> hh = Another sanctimonious know it all....
>
> Do YOU actually bottom 'post' your business e-mail?
>
> I know of no place of business where this is acceptable.
> It just isn't done in business - period. It certainly would be
> considered illiterate in ANY business environment.
>
> Usenet - with proper trimming - who cares?
> (just sanctimonious know it alls I guess)
>
> The rest of this 'discussion' is just small minded crap.
> So easy to hurl insults...
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:1193052307.768342.238980@e9g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
>
>>
>> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>> A: Top-posting.
>> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>>
>> Unfortunately, the bottom line is that he claims to be 'literate',
>> then proves through his actions that he is not.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the action of crossposting to multiple groups is action
>> that is inevitble to hitting upon readers who are more sensitive to
>> ease of communiciation, eg, the top-posting criticism.
>>
>> Unfortunately, while Ness *claims* that he won't argue the point, he
>> then proceeds to defend himself (again), which once again means that
>> his own actions prove his words to be a lie.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it all reveals that Ness is nothing better than a troll
>> or hypocrite.
>>
>> Unfortunately, Google doesn't have a button I can push to cause this
>> fool's computer to literally blow up in his face.
>>
>> Fortunately, its a clear day and with low winds, so I'll be out scuba
>> diving when Nate reads this :-)
>>
>>
>> -hh
>>
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
Hardly. Only if you haven't been following the thread, in which case
you need to catch up.
Tinman wrote:
> News wrote:
>
>>Valid point; business values efficiency, productivity and top posting.
>>
>
>
> You forgot ignorance. That's the primary reason it is used, even if it hurts
> productivity.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
OK. But do try to catch up anyway.
Tinman wrote:
> News wrote:
>
>>Hardly. Only if you haven't been following the thread, in which case
>>you need to catch up.
>>
>
>
> Apparently "ignorant" applies to you too.
>
> Don't bother replying, I've lost interest, and don't take top-posters
> seriously anyway (those who do it out of spite, that is).
>
>
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
On Oct 22, 2007, News wrote:
>
> Hardly. Only if you haven't been following the thread, in which case
> you need to catch up.
Have you ever tried to reconstruct a chain of events in a 5-page (when
printed) e-mail that's all top-posted? It's absolutely silly that you have to
start reading at the last page. Your eyes start there, on the initial
message, reading down ... then you have to move way up, read down, then up
again.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
99% of the time, I want the (latest) information fast and easy
as possible. Many of the times I have already seen
the rest of the e-mails and I need only to see the latest message.
This is a primary reason why business puts the latest
message on top. It is most efficient. It is the convention ALL business
uses because of this.
"Tim Murray" <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote in message news:blaTi.4349$b9.2923@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> Have you ever tried to reconstruct a chain of events in a 5-page (when
> printed) e-mail that's all top-posted? It's absolutely silly that you have to
> start reading at the last page. Your eyes start there, on the initial
> message, reading down ... then you have to move way up, read down, then up
> again.
>
> It's silly. It's corporate business.
>
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
I take it you often find yourself being brought into deals late, if at all?
Tim Murray wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2007, News wrote:
>
>>Hardly. Only if you haven't been following the thread, in which case
>>you need to catch up.
>
>
> Have you ever tried to reconstruct a chain of events in a 5-page (when
> printed) e-mail that's all top-posted? It's absolutely silly that you have to
> start reading at the last page. Your eyes start there, on the initial
> message, reading down ... then you have to move way up, read down, then up
> again.
>
> It's silly. It's corporate business.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote in
news:blaTi.4349$b9.2923@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
> On Oct 22, 2007, News wrote:
>>
>> Hardly. Only if you haven't been following the thread, in which case
>> you need to catch up.
>
> Have you ever tried to reconstruct a chain of events in a 5-page (when
> printed) e-mail that's all top-posted? It's absolutely silly that you
> have to start reading at the last page. Your eyes start there, on the
> initial message, reading down ... then you have to move way up, read
> down, then up again.
>
> It's silly. It's corporate business.
>
>
Not to get into this little pissing match more than this single post, but
the logic you use above fails to take the difference betweeen that
corporate email and this usenet post into account. The email was purposely
sent to a person or group of people that will have the opportunity to read
the previous portions of the email before a reply is made. Top posting in
that instance is of course acceptable, because the expectation is that
those recipients have already read the previous comments. There is no
corresponding rule-of-thumb here. Posts are specifically addressed to
users and it is common place for many people to start reading a thread well
after the original post is made. To read it like a book is the logical way
to present the text.
I don't expect you to agree, and I'm not going to look for a response.
You've made it clear that you're going to do what you want, not what makes
the most sense. You obviously feel like your personal likes and dislikes
should take precedent over accepted form, and you're going to do whatever
you want "just because you can." You obviously know mre than the rest of
us, right?
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
On Oct 22, 2007, Scott wrote:
> You obviously know mre than the rest of us, right?
Talk to me when you've spent months watching the human eye on camera while
people read screens, books, signs, Web pages, and e-mail. When you've
measured heart rate and electrodermal activity when asking subjects. So yes,
I do know more than at at least most.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote in
news8cTi.4702$c9.3382@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
> On Oct 22, 2007, Scott wrote:
>> You obviously know mre than the rest of us, right?
>
> Talk to me when you've spent months watching the human eye on camera
> while people read screens, books, signs, Web pages, and e-mail. When
> you've measured heart rate and electrodermal activity when asking
> subjects. So yes, I do know more than at at least most.
>
Then please point us to any articles or papers you've written on the
subject. That should clear up any doubt.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
On Oct 22, 2007, Scott wrote:
> Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote in
> news8cTi.4702$c9.3382@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
>
>> On Oct 22, 2007, Scott wrote:
>>> You obviously know mre than the rest of us, right?
>>
>> Talk to me when you've spent months watching the human eye on camera
>> while people read screens, books, signs, Web pages, and e-mail. When
>> you've measured heart rate and electrodermal activity when asking
>> subjects. So yes, I do know more than at at least most.
>>
>
> Then please point us to any articles or papers you've written on the
> subject. That should clear up any doubt.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
> Tim Murray <no-s...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> > News wrote:
> >> Hardly...
>
> > Have you ever tried to reconstruct a chain of events in
> > a 5-page (when printed) e-mail that's all top-posted? It's
> > absolutely silly that you have to start reading at the last
> > page...
> > It's silly. It's corporate business.
>
> Not to get into this little pissing match more than this single post, but
> the logic you use above fails to take the difference betweeen that
> corporate email and this usenet post into account.
Exactly, and this falls into "Know Your Audience".
Historically, the style of quoting context on USENET comes also from
the necessity of the historical fact that timely delivery was not (and
still is not) 100% reliable, plus that it is "many to many", as
opposed to a small, specifically selected group.
Because of the delivery irregularities, the necessity was to make each
post resonably freestanding by providing its own context. The intent
was to be able to make your comments understood even without the prior
post. Since posts are still lost (I had one go poof last week), this
remains a concern.
At the same time, bandwidth and storage were very limited, so editing
to just the core elements was also highly valued. Editing remains a
value still today, but more so from the perspective of respecting your
reader and not wasting his time.
> I don't expect you to agree, and I'm not going to look for a response.
> You've made it clear that you're going to do what you want, not what
> makes the most sense. You obviously feel like your personal likes
> and dislikes should take precedent over accepted form, and you're
>going to do whatever you want "just because you can."
This is merely a recurring example of an individual whose attitude is
that they are more important than their readers. As such, they are
manifesting disrespect for their readers and as such, they're not
worth reading.
Ditto for those who don't lift a finger to do any editing. They're
simply displaying in public that they're lazy and utterly
inconsiderate. They won't care today, so change is unlkely. But that
doesn't dilute this meta-discussion in the least...regulars simply put
such fools on "ignore" because they're simply not worth the effort.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
In article <YrydnZI86t0cV4HanZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ness Net
<richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> hh = Another sanctimonious know it all....
>
> Do YOU actually bottom 'post' your business e-mail?
How did you figure any of this is about e-mail?
How did business communication get into this? (Where, incidentally, it
is even more critical to follow instructions, and everyone who doesn't
gets ignored or refused.)
> I know of no place of business where this is acceptable.
> It just isn't done in business - period. It certainly would be
> considered illiterate in ANY business environment.
And failure to follow instructions, and junk, and someone would be
reprimanded. But again, this is a newsgroup requirement, made standard
even though fully aware of the other situations.
For a very good reason.
There are more people contributing to the discussion, time is longer,
and readers might enter the discussion at any point.
> Usenet - with proper trimming - who cares?
> (just sanctimonious know it alls I guess)
>
> The rest of this 'discussion' is just small minded crap.
> So easy to hurl insults...
No, you're still missing the point.
It's about making YOUR messages readable. Other people are doing fine
-- but if your message doesn't comply, it may not make any sense
(because yours is out of sequence) or it might just be ignored.
Getting angry at others because there are rules doesn't help, either.
There are rules -- you know it, you just noted some. Get over the idea
that you think there is another way to do it. Unless it's superior to
the standard way, you need to keep quiet.
And again, foloowing the rule means you might get read more, and it
will CERTAINLY make more sense when you do. Why fight that?
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
In article <1193138532.054783.86640@e34g2000pro.googlegroups. com>, -hh
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> This is merely a recurring example of an individual whose attitude is
> that they are more important than their readers. As such, they are
> manifesting disrespect for their readers
> Ditto for those who don't lift a finger to do any editing. They're
> simply displaying in public that they're lazy and utterly
> inconsiderate.
Overall, its simply more aftershocks of "the year September never
ended", as yet another utterly clueless (ahem) that fails to
understand that there's huge differences between email and USENET,
despite the fact that he is able to use the Dogfood known as Microsoft
Outlook Express to read them both. While the top posting bug is
created by Microsoft's email defaults, the real sin is in having the
ignorance to then defend a lousy Microsoft product.
He will hopefully (and eventually) learn, but it will probably take
several instances of his .PST files biting him before he develops the
wisdom of grownups.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
Ness Net wrote:
> hh = Another sanctimonious know it all....
>
> Do YOU actually bottom 'post' your business e-mail?
>
> I know of no place of business where this is acceptable.
> It just isn't done in business - period. It certainly would be
> considered illiterate in ANY business environment.
While I bottom post because top-posting tends to upset a lot of
high-maintenance Usenet users, it is true that it's totally illogical
and is unacceptable in business e-mail correspondence where efficiency
is valued. Having to scroll down to the bottom to see the most recent
response to an e-mail would be very strange.
Look at the editing history of something like a Wikipedia article, and
of course the most recent contribution information is at the top, not
the bottom. Same with nearly all blogs, the most recent stuff is at the
top. It would seem like the Linux community would be especially in favor
of top posting, as it makes so much more sense, and is so much more
efficient.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?
SMS ???? ? wrote:
> While I bottom post because top-posting tends to upset a lot of
> high-maintenance Usenet users, it is true that it's totally illogical
> and is unacceptable in business e-mail correspondence where efficiency
> is valued. Having to scroll down to the bottom to see the most recent
> response to an e-mail would be very strange.
That's why you're supposed to trim quotes.
I display full headers on Usenet articles. In your case that was 25 lines
before the article body, and I still didn't have to scroll to see any part
of your article. That's because you posted well; trimmed quotes preceding
original content.
> Look at the editing history of something like a Wikipedia article, and
> of course the most recent contribution information is at the top, not
> the bottom. Same with nearly all blogs, the most recent stuff is at the
> top.
Blogs are collections of stories that are only marginally related, unlike
e-mail or Usenet articles which are collections of strongly related parts
of a single conversation.
> It would seem like the Linux community would be especially in favor
> of top posting, as it makes so much more sense, and is so much more
> efficient.
Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date? 
8cTi.4702$c9.3382@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
Linear Mode
