Excuse top posting: saw this on alt.home.repair; thought there would
be interest here....
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:56:48 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
<snip>
<Stuff about government auction site>
>
>Check out this entire TVA carpenter shop of equipment, parts, etc.
>http://www.govdeals.com/eas/itmDisplay.cfm?itemID=551&acctID=1577
>
>-----------
>
<snip>
>Anyway, the basic site is
>
>http://www.govdeals.com/eas/index.cfm
>
>
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 6/19/2009 8:55 PM Tom Veatch spake thus:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:59:43 -0700, David Nebenzahl
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> It's pretty simple, really.
>>
>> Especially in Forte Agent. I don't know how it works in other readers,
>> but in Agent, if you highlight a portion of the text in the message,
>> the response only quotes the highlighted text.
>
> Hmm, didn't know that.
>
> Just tried it with Thunderbird. No luck. Oh, well.
With Thunderbird, you click on the 'Reply' button to reply to a posting.
By default the entire original posting is included. You then highlight
anything that you do not want and hit the delete key.
On 6/19/2009 3:22 PM Tom Veatch spake thus:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:49:49 -0400, Paul Franklin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Excuse top posting: saw this on alt.home.repair; thought there
>> would be interest here....
>
> Nothing to excuse. I much prefer top posting to scrolling through page
> after page of quotes to see the added material.
At the risk of beating a dead horse: Good Usenet etiquette, including
bottom-posting, includes trimming your replies.
I don't like scrolling through pages of useless crap either. That's why
I trim out anything not related to what I'm replying to.
It's pretty simple, really.
(But of course there are plenty of idjits here who never trim posts and
only add a 1-line reply to the bottom of a 700-line message.)
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 6/19/2009 5:42 PM Max spake thus:
> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> (But of course there are plenty of idjits here who never trim posts and
>> only add a 1-line reply to the bottom of a 700-line message.)
>
> It might not be idiocy (or idjitcy) but rather obstinacy.
Well, I'd say it's certainly by neglect, not by intent. (I.e., laziness.)
See how I trimmed that post?
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 6/19/2009 8:55 PM Tom Veatch spake thus:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:59:43 -0700, David Nebenzahl
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's pretty simple, really.
>
> Especially in Forte Agent. I don't know how it works in other readers,
> but in Agent, if you highlight a portion of the text in the message,
> the response only quotes the highlighted text.
Hmm, didn't know that.
Just tried it with Thunderbird. No luck. Oh, well.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 6/20/2009 5:09 AM krw spake thus:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:20:59 -0500, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:16:12 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>It doesn't keep the attributions, which makes the function useless,
>>>IMO.
>>
>>Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "attributions", but that's
>>how I quoted your comment shown above. And it attributes the quote to:
>>
>>"On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:16:12 -0500, krw <[email protected]>
>>wrote:"
>>
>>Are you talking about something else?
>
> It doesn't leave the attributions to anyone other than who you're
> replying to. Better than other newsreaders, but useless just the
> same.
Not doubting you, but it seems to me that would be a hell of a complex
parsing task for the software. (Nice feature, though, if someone could
pull it off.)
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:16:12 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>It doesn't keep the attributions, which makes the function useless,
>IMO.
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "attributions", but that's
how I quoted your comment shown above. And it attributes the quote to:
"On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:16:12 -0500, krw <[email protected]>
wrote:"
Are you talking about something else?
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Especially in Forte Agent. I don't know how it works in other readers,
> but in Agent, if you highlight a portion of the text in the message,
> the response only quotes the highlighted text.
Just like my client, Pluto. And the attributions are? - intact of course.
It makes a better job that I ever mannage to do :-)
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:55:05 -0500, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:59:43 -0700, David Nebenzahl
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It's pretty simple, really.
>
>Especially in Forte Agent. I don't know how it works in other readers,
>but in Agent, if you highlight a portion of the text in the message,
>the response only quotes the highlighted text.
It doesn't keep the attributions, which makes the function useless,
IMO.
Tom Veatch wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:59:43 -0700, David Nebenzahl
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's pretty simple, really.
>
> Especially in Forte Agent. I don't know how it works in other readers,
> but in Agent, if you highlight a portion of the text in the message,
> the response only quotes the highlighted text.
>
But it has a vaguely French-sounding name.
Why take a chance (like the mustard)?
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:49:49 -0400, Paul Franklin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Excuse top posting: saw this on alt.home.repair; thought there would
>be interest here....
Nothing to excuse. I much prefer top posting to scrolling through page
after page of quotes to see the added material. Some of the stuff
looks interesting, but not enough to bid on the whole kaboodle.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
>
>>Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "attributions", but that's
>>how I quoted your comment shown above. And it attributes the quote to:
>>
>
> It doesn't leave the attributions to anyone other than who you're
> replying to. Better than other newsreaders, but useless just the
> same.
I don't see why attribution is critical to a newsreader's usefulness? Who
said what is usually pretty apparent from context and the header panel in my
lowly Outlook Express header pannel.
It might be helpful in one of those 250 post OT, bush bashing, liberal
lashing pissing contests, but there is nothing, IMHO, "useful" about those.
just say'n.
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:59:43 -0700, David Nebenzahl
<[email protected]> wrote:
>It's pretty simple, really.
Especially in Forte Agent. I don't know how it works in other readers,
but in Agent, if you highlight a portion of the text in the message,
the response only quotes the highlighted text.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:20:59 -0500, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:16:12 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It doesn't keep the attributions, which makes the function useless,
>>IMO.
>
>
>Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "attributions", but that's
>how I quoted your comment shown above. And it attributes the quote to:
>
>"On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:16:12 -0500, krw <[email protected]>
>wrote:"
>
>Are you talking about something else?
It doesn't leave the attributions to anyone other than who you're
replying to. Better than other newsreaders, but useless just the
same.
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:22:54 -0400, "C & S"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "attributions", but that's
>>>how I quoted your comment shown above. And it attributes the quote to:
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't leave the attributions to anyone other than who you're
>> replying to. Better than other newsreaders, but useless just the
>> same.
>
>I don't see why attribution is critical to a newsreader's usefulness? Who
>said what is usually pretty apparent from context and the header panel in my
>lowly Outlook Express header pannel.
Not the NewsReader, the feature. Quoting without attribution is not
only wrong, but it makes tracing the thread difficult to impossible.
You quoted two deep, but only had one attribution. It's not clear who
you're talking to.
>It might be helpful in one of those 250 post OT, bush bashing, liberal
>lashing pissing contests, but there is nothing, IMHO, "useful" about those.
>
>just say'n.
Don't know what you're "just say'n" has to do with the subject,
either.
"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/19/2009 3:22 PM Tom Veatch spake thus:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:49:49 -0400, Paul Franklin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Excuse top posting: saw this on alt.home.repair; thought there
>>> would be interest here....
>>
>> Nothing to excuse. I much prefer top posting to scrolling through page
>> after page of quotes to see the added material.
>
> At the risk of beating a dead horse: Good Usenet etiquette, including
> bottom-posting, includes trimming your replies.
>
> I don't like scrolling through pages of useless crap either. That's why I
> trim out anything not related to what I'm replying to.
>
> It's pretty simple, really.
>
> (But of course there are plenty of idjits here who never trim posts and
> only add a 1-line reply to the bottom of a 700-line message.)
It might not be idiocy (or idjitcy) but rather obstinacy.
Max