http://www.ISPgeeks.com
****WE'RE GIVING AWAY 5 GREAT PRIZES INCLUDING A COMPLETE NINTENDO Wii GAME
SYSTEM***
Hardware and Software Support Forums
Get the help you want with no ATTITUDES!
Free Cable/DSL/Satellite Broadband Speed Test
No Banners, No Popups, No Spam, No Advertising of ANY Type
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:ntdbs21ool2r2oight6v3lmthd3fvkl6nb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 00:22:22 -0500, in alt.internet.wireless ,
> "ISPgeek" <ispgeek@SPAMMENOTispgeeks.com> wrote:
>
>>Is this better?
>
> Arg. now you're top-posting too.
>
>
> --
> Mark McIntyre
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:15:34 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless , hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Please stop trimming all attributions. It makes it impossible to know
>> who you're replying to, why, and what the context of your comments is.
>
>No it doesn't. The posters Header contains all the necessary
>information.
I see, so what you're saying is that I should be compelled to open a
different pane, find some obscure link, click through it, work out
which part of the article (which may not be on my newsserver, or may
have been purged, or may not have arrived yet) is relevant, out of the
dozen, twenty, fifty or more articles that may be in the thread.
>And you're using FA and should be able to see which message
>the reply is a followup-to in one of the side panes.
As above, provided the mesage exists on my server, has arrived, hasn't
been purged, etc etc.
Whats so hard about the common courtesy of retaining some context?
>Of course MacSOUP wins hands down in that respect.
I've better stuff to do than argue with idiots who claim their
newsreader / os/ whatever is somehow magically the best.
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:45:20 -0500, in alt.internet.wireless ,
"ISPgeek" <ispgeek@SPAMMENOTispgeeks.com> wrote:
>"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:ntdbs21ool2r2oight6v3lmthd3fvkl6nb@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 00:22:22 -0500, in alt.internet.wireless ,
>> "ISPgeek" <ispgeek@SPAMMENOTispgeeks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Is this better?
>>
>> Arg. now you're top-posting too.
>> --
>> Mark McIntyre
>
>Geesh you are a hard one....is this better? :)
>
nearly - all you need to do now is ensure your signature is at the
bottom (like I moved it to)
>--
>Cheers!
>
>ISPgeek
>
>http://www.ISPgeeks.com
>****WE'RE GIVING AWAY 5 GREAT PRIZES INCLUDING A COMPLETE NINTENDO Wii GAME
>SYSTEM***
>Hardware and Software Support Forums
>Get the help you want with no ATTITUDES!
>Free Cable/DSL/Satellite Broadband Speed Test
>No Banners, No Popups, No Spam, No Advertising of ANY Type
>
--
Mark McIntyre
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:15:34 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless ,
> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>
> >Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Please stop trimming all attributions. It makes it impossible to know
> >> who you're replying to, why, and what the context of your comments is.
> >
> >No it doesn't. The posters Header contains all the necessary
> >information.
>
> I see, so what you're saying is that I should be compelled to open a
> different pane, find some obscure link, click through it, work out
> which part of the article (which may not be on my newsserver, or may
> have been purged, or may not have arrived yet) is relevant, out of the
> dozen, twenty, fifty or more articles that may be in the thread.
What I'm saying is, the News Header contains all the necessary
information. The rest is up to you.
Some lame newsreaders thread by Subject. I seem to recall F(Free)A doing
that.
> >And you're using FA and should be able to see which message
> >the reply is a followup-to in one of the side panes.
>
> As above, provided the mesage exists on my server, has arrived, hasn't
> been purged, etc etc.
>
> Whats so hard about the common courtesy of retaining some context?
Common courtesy on Usenet. That's a good one.
> >Of course MacSOUP wins hands down in that respect.
>
> I've better stuff to do than argue with idiots who claim their
> newsreader / os/ whatever is somehow magically the best.
Suit yourself. You're the one complaining. I have no trouble following
the threads.
>Some lame newsreaders thread by Subject. I seem to recall F(Free)A doing
>that.
Optional and user selectable. If you thread by subject, then when a
user changes the subject, then it considers it a new thread. That's
very useful in high traffic newsgroups with hundreds of messages per
thread.
>Common courtesy on Usenet. That's a good one.
Usenet courtesy is an oxymoron. I'm the best proof of that.
>Suit yourself. You're the one complaining. I have no trouble following
>the threads.
I have trouble following this thread. Someone should have changed the
subject long ago.
>Do you enjoy helping others get the most out of their computer/networking
>hardware?
Yes, but after 4,621 messages in this newsgroup, I'm enjoying it less
and less.
>Are you friendly AND proficient in all things technology?
I don't see the connection. I'm anything but friendly. I'm mean,
nasty, irritable, arrogant, tactless, demanding, acerbic, and
sometimes hostile. If someone wants me to answer their questions,
they had better be prepared to at least make an attempt at supplying
enough information to craft a proper answer. Failure to do so will
incur my wrath.
Knowledgeable people are generally arrogant and unfriendly. Arrogance
is the price of knowledge. People expect computer experts to be
imperious, gruff, and short tempered. If you want diplomacy, just as
the big box store sales droid a technical question.
I'm curious why you want someone "proficient in all things
technology"? (Actually it should be written as "proficient in all
things technological or technical"). There are very few people around
that have both the understanding and experience in all aspects of
technology. I consider myself to be quite good at everything
involving RF, politics, law, fizzix, Windoze, Unix, and chain saw
repair, but am lacking with video, network protocols, Linux, Mac, tax
evasion and plumbing. I seriously doubt you will be able to find
someone that is universally knowledgeable in all things.
>If so
>please stop by and send me a pm and we can setup a time to talk.
What's a pm? Thou shalt not abrev or trunc.
>ISPgeeks.com is looking a few good men and women to compliment our staff.
Not me. However, I can give you a hint from my past experience in
helping moderate a large technical mailing list. Try to rotate
responsibilities. That has several benefits. It prevents burnout (or
at least delays it). It also gives the traditional irate user a 2nd
chance to break the rules. If they can't get satisfaction from one
moderator, they have only to wait a few days or weeks, and try their
games on the next moderator in rotation. I found that a good balance
is one week of moderation out of every 4 or 5 weeks. Any more and I
became swamped, backlogged and overloaded.
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3k0ds2tf5uviv3ed3mkdqs7cunv2o50hkr@4ax.com...
> "ISPgeek" <ispgeek@SPAMMENOTispgeeks.com> hath wroth:
>
>>Do you enjoy helping others get the most out of their computer/networking
>>hardware?
>
> Yes, but after 4,621 messages in this newsgroup, I'm enjoying it less
> and less.
>
>>Are you friendly AND proficient in all things technology?
>
> I don't see the connection. I'm anything but friendly. I'm mean,
> nasty, irritable, arrogant, tactless, demanding, acerbic, and
> sometimes hostile. If someone wants me to answer their questions,
> they had better be prepared to at least make an attempt at supplying
> enough information to craft a proper answer. Failure to do so will
> incur my wrath.
>
> Knowledgeable people are generally arrogant and unfriendly. Arrogance
> is the price of knowledge. People expect computer experts to be
> imperious, gruff, and short tempered. If you want diplomacy, just as
> the big box store sales droid a technical question.
>
> I'm curious why you want someone "proficient in all things
> technology"? (Actually it should be written as "proficient in all
> things technological or technical"). There are very few people around
> that have both the understanding and experience in all aspects of
> technology. I consider myself to be quite good at everything
> involving RF, politics, law, fizzix, Windoze, Unix, and chain saw
> repair, but am lacking with video, network protocols, Linux, Mac, tax
> evasion and plumbing. I seriously doubt you will be able to find
> someone that is universally knowledgeable in all things.
>
>>If so
>>please stop by and send me a pm and we can setup a time to talk.
>
> What's a pm? Thou shalt not abrev or trunc.
>
>>ISPgeeks.com is looking a few good men and women to compliment our staff.
>
> Not me. However, I can give you a hint from my past experience in
> helping moderate a large technical mailing list. Try to rotate
> responsibilities. That has several benefits. It prevents burnout (or
> at least delays it). It also gives the traditional irate user a 2nd
> chance to break the rules. If they can't get satisfaction from one
> moderator, they have only to wait a few days or weeks, and try their
> games on the next moderator in rotation. I found that a good balance
> is one week of moderation out of every 4 or 5 weeks. Any more and I
> became swamped, backlogged and overloaded.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Nice to see you again Jeff and you have raised some very valid issues. The
reason we are shopping for mods right now is to do exactly what you state
above because you are right on target. Being a mod for any site for long
periods of time can result in burnout, boredom and a multitude of other
issues that we are trying to avoid. Almost all of our mods come from some
technical support environment (as a day job) and the last thing they want to
do is engage in the same activity from home. I can't blame them. Currently
3 of my mods are working on our game server project instead of forum police.
Another is working site issues with me and the rest are assisting with day
to day operations, script kiddie patrol, etc....hence the need for more
people to handle the forum pace and production. Forums will only be a
success if people post and participate and obviously I can't force people to
do either one...I can only hope in time it just happen and it has and
continues to grow daily. Our moderators have been selected for their
ability to be consistent in all things involving our guests....no
favorites...the rules are simple and non-negotiable, break them and the
penalty is set, enforced equally and there are no exceptions. Ban reviews
are conducted by 4 person minimum panel and we have all agreed to abide by
the majority decision. Bans are not taken lightly and are determined by
facts only, what someone did or didnt do based upon the facts, no
emotion...they either did this that or the other thing or they didnt...its
that simple.
As always I value your opinions and frankly wish I could coax you over our
way....you have class, you treat people with dignity and you are very unique
in your professional delivery and despite what you say...you know your
stuff. I'm also very jealous of the fact that you live in my home
ground....I miss the beach and boardwalk, Moss Beach to the north and
Monterey/Salinas (my home towns) something terrible.
Take care!
ISPgeek www.ispgeeks.com
Psssst...come over to the dark side.....WE HAVE COOKIES!
btw...no spelling or grammar check was done on the above...its late...I
don't care....try not to verbally rape me over it will ya... :)
>Almost all of our mods come from some
>technical support environment (as a day job) and the last thing they want to
>do is engage in the same activity from home.
I know the feeling. My hobby was once ham radio. However, I worked
as an RF designers for 8+ hours per day and the very last thing I
wanted to do in my non-existent spare time was more radio. So, I got
into music, chain saw repair, computers, etc.... anything except
radio.
However, there's another problem with tech support. Most tech support
people do not get sufficient "hands on" experience with the products
they support. They literally do not have enough time to get their
hands dirty. The same is true for any profession that spends more
time in the office than in the field. I learned much more about
wireless trying to throw together an impossible WISP service in a
dense redwood forest, than I ever did in the lab. The background I
obtained in the lab was invaluable, but getting my hands dirty was
what was most useful in helping others with similar problems.
>hence the need for more
>people to handle the forum pace and production. Forums will only be a
>success if people post and participate and obviously I can't force people to
>do either one...I can only hope in time it just happen and it has and
>continues to grow daily.
It is not necessary to possess much technical competence to "police" a
mailing list or forum. The credibility that technical knowledge
offers is useful, but not mandatory. It's much easier to find someone
with technical competence than with an understanding of ethics,
diplomacy, and fairness. You would not believe the moderator induced
mess that John Navas and I ran into when we had the wireless FAQ on
WikiBooks.
>Bans are not taken lightly and are determined by
>facts only, what someone did or didnt do based upon the facts, no
>emotion...they either did this that or the other thing or they didnt...its
>that simple.
I'm not sure I approve. It's possible to do zero tolerance
enforcement if you have clear definitions and policies. I have yet to
see any such clarity. More often, there's a substantial gray area
which needs to be dealt with individually. For example, I'm currently
wrestling with a problem. A major contributor of excellent technical
answers in a mailing list is also the author of a book on the subject.
He constantly uses the mailing list as a sales vehicle for his book.
It works, as I should know, because I bought his book. However, his
answers are becoming more terse, while the obvious advertising content
is becoming more common and repetitive. If I ban him or his
advertising, we lose a very important contributor to the mailing list.
The other moderators have graciously stuck me with problem and claim
they will support whatever compromise I can negotiate. To make it
more difficult, the author has a doctorate with assorted honors and
refused to listen to anyone of lesser academic standing. The issue
has been discussed in the mailing list and the usual loquacious
activists are terminally polarized on both sides of the issue. Hard
and ossified rules are not terribly useful here. Diplomacy, tact,
patience, and ingenuity will have to suffice.
Hopefully, you will never have to deal with such a problem.
>As always I value your opinions
Try again. I intentionally avoid offering opinions. I offer
analysis, experience, calculations, and organized diagnostics. What
few opinions I offer are usually in desperation when I can't think of
anything more substantial. You'll probably notice that I don't
respond directly to questions such as "which router do I recommend"?
Incidentally, I avoid recommendations and black lists partly because I
still have a tangle of NDA's (non-disclosure agreements) and
potentially lucurative consulting gigs pending with various
manufactories. I sometimes burn bridges behind me, but torching them
before I cross is generally a lousy idea.
>and frankly wish I could coax you over our way
Nope for a non-obvious reason. I don't like blogs. They are short on
content while being heavy on form, glitter, graphics, advertising, and
clutter. Do avatars, ads, and automatic formatting provide a better
answer? Methinks not. Usenet (text groups) is basically pure
content. It takes some effort to learn the protocols and how to edit
quotations, but the information content makes it worth the effort.
I've tried blogs (DSLreports, ISP-Wireless, etc) and have found that
my style of detailed answers is difficult for me to hammer into their
format, and difficult for readers to digest that are accustomed to
terse one line non-answers.
Also, I've found that the search engines and archival lifetimes on
most blogs to be of limited value.
>....you have class, you treat people with dignity and you are very unique
>in your professional delivery and despite what you say...you know your
>stuff.
Not really. I don't know everything but am willing to spend the time
to do the necessary research. I can write well, which was not always
the case, as I had to learn the necessary writing skills AFTER I
graduated from kollege. I've also answered questions in biblical old
English, Shakespearean prose, and sometimes poetic verse, which are
not always appreciated (or very good).
>I'm also very jealous of the fact that you live in my home
>ground....I miss the beach and boardwalk, Moss Beach to the north and
>Monterey/Salinas (my home towns) something terrible.
Yep. Life is tough when one lives in paradise. Last week, I got a
rather loud and emotional lecture from a friend and customer demanding
that I spend less time on the computah and spend more time watching
the waves go by. It seems that I was overdoing the knight in shining
armor act in trying to unsnarl his computer system. He's right.
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:40:03 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<jends2pnmjttll1tqblstu53d74aosk3kr@4ax.com>:
>I'm not sure I approve. It's possible to do zero tolerance
>enforcement if you have clear definitions and policies. I have yet to
>see any such clarity. More often, there's a substantial gray area
>which needs to be dealt with individually. For example, I'm currently
>wrestling with a problem. A major contributor of excellent technical
>answers in a mailing list is also the author of a book on the subject.
>He constantly uses the mailing list as a sales vehicle for his book.
>It works, as I should know, because I bought his book. However, his
>answers are becoming more terse, while the obvious advertising content
>is becoming more common and repetitive. If I ban him or his
>advertising, we lose a very important contributor to the mailing list.
>
>The other moderators have graciously stuck me with problem and claim
>they will support whatever compromise I can negotiate. To make it
>more difficult, the author has a doctorate with assorted honors and
>refused to listen to anyone of lesser academic standing. The issue
>has been discussed in the mailing list and the usual loquacious
>activists are terminally polarized on both sides of the issue. Hard
>and ossified rules are not terribly useful here.
My own experience is that objective rules, while imperfect, are the
least offensive and most reasonable way to go. In this case, perhaps a
rule on advertising should be proposed and agreed upon, perhaps limiting
it to (say) a sig block with a maximum of 4 lines.
>Diplomacy, tact,
>patience, and ingenuity will have to suffice.
My own experience with moderation (ugh!) is that often a "time out" is
the most effective way to deal with such an issue -- I ask the person to
voluntarily take a break of (say) 30 days from posting. I've often
found a break like that to be helpful -- the person tends to return with
a fresh perspective. Some people don't return, of course, but I usually
find that's just as well.
>Hopefully, you will never have to deal with such a problem.
Not fun, but goes with the territory, which is why I'm so reluctant to
propose or engage in moderation, the danger of unmoderated chaos
notwithstanding. Still, I'm greatly dismayed by the decline of Usenet
over the past few years, which I think is a direct result of such chaos.
We need to find better ways of dealing with it, or, much like CB radio,
Usenet may well pretty much die altogether.
>>As always I value your opinions
>
>Try again. I intentionally avoid offering opinions. I offer
>analysis, experience, calculations, and organized diagnostics. What
>few opinions I offer are usually in desperation when I can't think of
>anything more substantial. You'll probably notice that I don't
>respond directly to questions such as "which router do I recommend"?
I hate giving recommendations when I have no clue it's going to be
used, how many users, how much bandwidth required, gaming, Bitorrent,
VPN, and other apps, and price limit. If you must, my favorite of
the week is Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 with DD-WRT v23 SP2 firmware ...
I prefer the Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 instead.
However, I prefer Buffalo WHR-HP-G54.
I suggest looking into the Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 router with DD-WRT v23
SP2. ...
I suggest a Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 with DD-WRT firmware...
;)
>Nope for a non-obvious reason. I don't like blogs. They are short on
>content while being heavy on form, glitter, graphics, advertising, and
>clutter. Do avatars, ads, and automatic formatting provide a better
>answer? Methinks not.
Worse, they're disorganized and unstructured, and while indexed by
Google, the lack of structure makes it hard to get useful results from
searches. I personally think most blogs are about vanity. The
exceptions are the very few maintained by gifted thinkers and writers.
Web forums aren't much better. While they tend to have more structure,
they usually don't do a good job of preserving history, and the
membership issues can be draconian.
>Usenet (text groups) is basically pure
>content. It takes some effort to learn the protocols and how to edit
>quotations, but the information content makes it worth the effort.
Agreed. Plus there is the huge advantage of archiving by Google Groups.
>I've tried blogs (DSLreports, ISP-Wireless, etc) and have found that
>my style of detailed answers is difficult for me to hammer into their
>format, and difficult for readers to digest that are accustomed to
>terse one line non-answers.
>
>Also, I've found that the search engines and archival lifetimes on
>most blogs to be of limited value.
Agreed on both counts.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:40:03 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<jends2pnmjttll1tqblstu53d74aosk3kr@4ax.com>:
>It is not necessary to possess much technical competence to "police" a
>mailing list or forum. The credibility that technical knowledge
>offers is useful, but not mandatory. It's much easier to find someone
>with technical competence than with an understanding of ethics,
>diplomacy, and fairness. You would not believe the moderator induced
>mess that John Navas and I ran into when we had the wireless FAQ on
>WikiBooks.
p.s. Things haven't improved much (if at all) on WikiBooks: I'm facing
a major overhaul of the Cingular FAQ as a result of rebranding and
related changes by (the new) AT&T (formerly SBC et al), so I posted a
question on whether the Cingular FAQ would continue to be welcome at
Wikibooks, or whether I should move it (to Wikia) as part of my
overhaul. The few answers I got were anything but reassuring -- the
words "childish" and "cultish" now come to mind whenever I think about
the wiki culture created by Jimbo Wales.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>My own experience is that objective rules, while imperfect, are the
>least offensive and most reasonable way to go. In this case, perhaps a
>rule on advertising should be proposed and agreed upon, perhaps limiting
>it to (say) a sig block with a maximum of 4 lines.
Rules are nice and not a problem as long as I can re-write and
creatively interpret the rules as we go along. It's not the signature
that's a problem. It's attachments. We allow attachments because
there is much code, graphics, plots, and raw data being sent back and
forth. The attachments sometimes contained advertisements. In this
case, the person in question attached the advertisement to literally
every answer he posts. Nobody objects to the advertising as everyone
considered it the price of his participation. It's the volume and
clutter in the Mailman archives and digests that are causing problems.
In the past, it was just a link to his Amazon sales page. Now, it's
almost a copy of the entire page.
>My own experience with moderation (ugh!) is that often a "time out" is
>the most effective way to deal with such an issue -- I ask the person to
>voluntarily take a break of (say) 30 days from posting.
That works well with a casual member. 30 days without this persons
generally excellent contributions would be a problem.
> I hate giving recommendations when I have no clue it's going to be
> used, how many users, how much bandwidth required, gaming, Bitorrent,
> VPN, and other apps, and price limit. If you must, my favorite of
> the week is Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 with DD-WRT v23 SP2 firmware ...
Nolo contendere. I occasionally break down and offer a recommendation
when I have a clue what the user is going to be doing and when I find
something I like. Please don't tell my clients. I also pass
judgment, guess(tm), and offer moral opinions, in moments of weakness.
These are also difficult to avoid. Ok, so I'm not perfect. At least
I try to substantiate my opinions when I offer them.
>Worse, they're disorganized and unstructured, and while indexed by
>Google, the lack of structure makes it hard to get useful results from
>searches.
Which is one reason why we get so many repeat questions. Few people
bother to search for past answers to their problem as it's really a
PITA to sift through the huge mass of results to narrow down the
results. The search tools on most blogs just use Google search with
no option for the more detailed "advanced" search. Personally, I
prefer regex search strings, but those seem to be out of fashion.
<http://www.regular-expressions.info/tutorial.html>
>I personally think most blogs are about vanity. The
>exceptions are the very few maintained by gifted thinkers and writers.
Vanity? You're being too nice. Try self-aggrandizement, delusions of
grandeur, and monumental ego trips. I don't have much of a problem
with these, as long as the content is of value. The real problem is
that such motivators are not long lasting. They may get a person
started on operating and running a blog, mailing list, or whatever,
but they get old quickly as the moderation and maintenance duties
degenerate into routine drudgery.
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:54:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<lipes2lvset2s14lsuo0hfh2j00s66iqr0@4ax.com>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>My own experience is that objective rules, while imperfect, are the
>>least offensive and most reasonable way to go. In this case, perhaps a
>>rule on advertising should be proposed and agreed upon, perhaps limiting
>>it to (say) a sig block with a maximum of 4 lines.
>
>Rules are nice and not a problem as long as I can re-write and
>creatively interpret the rules as we go along. It's not the signature
>that's a problem. It's attachments. We allow attachments because
>there is much code, graphics, plots, and raw data being sent back and
>forth. The attachments sometimes contained advertisements. In this
>case, the person in question attached the advertisement to literally
>every answer he posts. Nobody objects to the advertising as everyone
>considered it the price of his participation. It's the volume and
>clutter in the Mailman archives and digests that are causing problems.
>In the past, it was just a link to his Amazon sales page. Now, it's
>almost a copy of the entire page.
I'm frankly surprised you allow attachments, because I find they tend to
create massive clutter and content difficulties, just as on Usenet.
I've almost always required that such content be posted on hosting
site(s), with only links in messages. There are a variety of good ways
to do that with minimal hassle (e.g., Yahoo Groups, Google Groups, free
hosting services).
>>My own experience with moderation (ugh!) is that often a "time out" is
>>the most effective way to deal with such an issue -- I ask the person to
>>voluntarily take a break of (say) 30 days from posting.
>
>That works well with a casual member. 30 days without this persons
>generally excellent contributions would be a problem.
Then the problem with the ads in his contributions wouldn't seem to be a
real issue. ;)
>... The search tools on most blogs just use Google search with
>no option for the more detailed "advanced" search. Personally, I
>prefer regex search strings, but those seem to be out of fashion.
><http://www.regular-expressions.info/tutorial.html>
Likewise, but they aren't for the masses, for whom Google search works
pretty well, especially if they take the time to learn the advanced
operators. (My main complaint with Google is the lack of even a simple
wildcard suffix operator.) But I don't think regex really does any
better than Google on unstructured content. Both lack the excellent
proximity operator of Alta Vista. [sigh]
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 00:30:32 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless , hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>What I'm saying is, the News Header contains all the necessary
>information. The rest is up to you.
I understand perfectly. What you're saying is that every single person
reading the thread should have to go trawling through the headers,
just to find the context that the poster could have left in *by doing
less work* than he did.
>Some lame newsreaders thread by Subject. I seem to recall F(Free)A doing
>that.
You recall wrong.
<flame bait>
And luckily I'm not using any lame Mac software, so I don't have to
suffer from badly written dross and a crippled OS.
</flame>
>> >Of course MacSOUP wins hands down in that respect.
>>
>> I've better stuff to do than argue with idiots who claim their
>> newsreader / os/ whatever is somehow magically the best.
>
>Suit yourself. You're the one complaining. I have no trouble following
>the threads.
In my business we have a three letter acronym for people who boast
about their superhuman abilities. You appear to be swinging yours now.
Or perhaps you only read one thread at a time. I'm following a couple
of dozen similar groups and frankly I don't have time to fuck about
with idiots who can't even follow basic rules of usenet.
--
Mark McIntyre
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:45:20 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<b3gfs2tqid46qgl7u6u5e8iobnlv800bug@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 00:30:32 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless ,
>hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>
>>What I'm saying is, the News Header contains all the necessary
>>information. The rest is up to you.
>
>I understand perfectly. What you're saying is that every single person
>reading the thread should have to go trawling through the headers,
>just to find the context that the poster could have left in *by doing
>less work* than he did.
More to the point, there's no way to tell which of possibly many
References the poster is actually responding to.
It's both rude and confusing not to include quoted context in a
response.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
> I'm following a couple of dozen similar groups and frankly I don't have
> time to fuck about with idiots who can't even follow basic rules of
> usenet.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) hath wroth:
>
> >Some lame newsreaders thread by Subject. I seem to recall F(Free)A doing
> >that.
>
> Optional and user selectable. If you thread by subject, then when a
> user changes the subject, then it considers it a new thread. That's
> very useful in high traffic newsgroups with hundreds of messages per
> thread.
Threading by subject was the only option available in the early free
versions. Surely the paid versions of Forte Agent can thread by
References?
I will respond to both of your posts in the am...I'm beat...some good stuff
here from two people who actually demonstrate they know what they are
talking about...and yes I do also allow attachments to some degree.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>I'm frankly surprised you allow attachments, because I find they tend to
>create massive clutter and content difficulties, just as on Usenet.
Many of the postings include plots and screen dumps from test
equipment that would be difficult to handle in any other way. We
tried to use various image galleries but ran into problems posting
non-image files such as spreadsheets, plot data, and NEC antenna
files. Attachments are ok as long as they're not overdone.
>Then the problem with the ads in his contributions wouldn't seem to be a
>real issue. ;)
Problem solved as of this afternoon. If you don't mind, I would
prefer not to disclose what was done. The advertising will be
volunarily curtailed and there were a minimum of hurt feelings.
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:10:22 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<s1ags2l83osijgo4ia55fiaq75nhjuij8e@4ax.com>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>I'm frankly surprised you allow attachments, because I find they tend to
>>create massive clutter and content difficulties, just as on Usenet.
>
>Many of the postings include plots and screen dumps from test
>equipment that would be difficult to handle in any other way. We
>tried to use various image galleries but ran into problems posting
>non-image files such as spreadsheets, plot data, and NEC antenna
>files.
See my prior message for some services that easily handle the other
data, and there are lots more where those came from.
>Attachments are ok as long as they're not overdone.
Which is hard to police (IMnsHO).
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 02:39:45 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless , hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) hath wroth:
>>
>> >Some lame newsreaders thread by Subject. I seem to recall F(Free)A doing
>> >that.
>>
>> Optional and user selectable. If you thread by subject, then when a
>> user changes the subject, then it considers it a new thread. That's
>> very useful in high traffic newsgroups with hundreds of messages per
>> thread.
>
>Threading by subject was the only option available in the early free
>versions. Surely the paid versions of Forte Agent can thread by
>References?
The paid-for version can do all sorts of exciting things. How is this
topical in AIW?
--
Mark McIntyre
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 02:23:48 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless , hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I'm following a couple of dozen similar groups and frankly I don't have
>> time to fuck about with idiots who can't even follow basic rules of
>> usenet.
>
>RFC?
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 02:23:48 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless ,
> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>
> >Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> I'm following a couple of dozen similar groups and frankly I don't have
> >> time to fuck about with idiots who can't even follow basic rules of
> >> usenet.
> >
> >RFC?
>
> 1855.
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 02:39:45 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless ,
> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>
> >Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> >
> >> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) hath wroth:
> >>
> >> >Some lame newsreaders thread by Subject. I seem to recall F(Free)A doing
> >> >that.
> >>
> >> Optional and user selectable. If you thread by subject, then when a
> >> user changes the subject, then it considers it a new thread. That's
> >> very useful in high traffic newsgroups with hundreds of messages per
> >> thread.
> >
> >Threading by subject was the only option available in the early free
> >versions. Surely the paid versions of Forte Agent can thread by
> >References?
>
> The paid-for version can do all sorts of exciting things. How is this
> topical in AIW?
You should learn how to use your own new reader agent, before
introducing the topic in a.i.w.
3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
....
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. This will make sure
readers understand when they start to read your response. Since
NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from
one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message
before seeing the original.
----
Now, if you _still_ can't understand the meaning of the words, my
specially selected sig block may be of use.
By the way thanks playing into my hands - now _everyone_ can see the
RFC.
--
Mark McIntyre
"I hope, some day, to learn to read.
It seems to be even harder than writing."
--Richard Heathfield
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:19:32 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless , hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
(of Agent newsreade)
>> The paid-for version can do all sorts of exciting things. How is this
>> topical in AIW?
>
>You should learn how to use your own new reader agent,
Just to recap, the capabilities or otherwise of any newsreader are
irrelevant. As any fule kno, usenet is an asynchronous medium,
messages can, and do, arrive out of order, not at all, be purged
unexpectedly, be corrupted etc.
>before introducing the topic in a.i.w.
Actually, the topic was introduced thus:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 00:30:32 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless , hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>Some lame newsreaders thread by Subject. I seem to recall F(Free)A doing
>that.
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:19:32 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless ,
> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>
> >Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> (of Agent newsreade)
> >> The paid-for version can do all sorts of exciting things. How is this
> >> topical in AIW?
> >
> >You should learn how to use your own new reader agent,
>
> Just to recap, the capabilities or otherwise of any newsreader are
> irrelevant. As any fule kno, usenet is an asynchronous medium,
> messages can, and do, arrive out of order, not at all, be purged
> unexpectedly, be corrupted etc.
Get a decent feed.
> >before introducing the topic in a.i.w.
>
> Actually, the topic was introduced thus:
>
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 00:30:32 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless ,
> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:19:31 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless ,
> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>
> >Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 02:23:48 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless ,
> >> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >RFC?
> >>
> >> 1855.
> >
> >And where does this RFC apply to News?
>
> What, I have to read for you too? Wow, you're idle.
> -----
> http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html#3
>
> 3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
> ...
> 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. This will make sure
> readers understand when they start to read your response. Since
> NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from
> one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message
> before seeing the original.
> ----
>
> Now, if you _still_ can't understand the meaning of the words, my
> specially selected sig block may be of use.
>
> By the way thanks playing into my hands - now _everyone_ can see the
> RFC.
I've got news for you.
: RFC 1855
:
: Netiquette Guidelines
are not "rules" as you obviously think. See your own posting
: [...] frankly I don't have time to fuck about with idiots who can't
: even follow basic rules of usenet.
Quote: basic *rules* of usenet.
And the correct RFCs are RFC 1036:
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1036.txt>
: Standard for USENET Messages
:
: [...]
:
: 2.2.5. References
:
: This field lists the Message-ID's of any messages prompting the
: submission of this message. It is required for all follow-up
: messages, and forbidden when a new subject is raised.
: Implementations should provide a follow-up command, which allows a
: user to post a follow-up message. This command should generate a
: "Subject" line which is the same as the original message, except
: that if the original subject does not begin with "Re:" or "re:", the
: four characters "Re:" are inserted before the subject. If there is
: no "References" line on the original header, the "References" line
: should contain the Message-ID of the original message (including the
: angle brackets). If the original message does have a "References"
: line, the follow-up message should have a "References" line
: containing the text of the original "References" line, a blank, and
: the Message-ID of the original message.
:
: The purpose of the "References" header is to allow messages to be
: grouped into conversations by the user interface program.
Re: We're looking for Moderators and Site Admin 