Bizarre experience at the abortion clinic.

Rolloffle wrote:

If that creature's mean to be a troll, why is it holding a sign
saying "Do not feed the trolls."?

It's self preservation. Fed trolls tend to forget how to fend for
themselves in the wild, and annoy and endanger humans. The usual
cure for this is to shoot them. So that troll has his confreres
best interests at heart.

Similar fates are in store for those who fail to quote adequate
context. Some of those should read and heed my sig, below.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

Nov 15 '05 #5

Rolloffle

> Similar fates are in store for those who fail to quote adequate

context. Some of those should read and heed my sig, below.

As far as I know it doesn't say anything about quoting adequate
context...?

Nov 15 '05 #6

CBFalconer wrote:

Rolloffle wrote:

If that creature's mean to be a troll, why is it holding a sign
saying "Do not feed the trolls."?
It's self preservation. Fed trolls tend to forget how to fend for
themselves in the wild, and annoy and endanger humans. The usual
cure for this is to shoot them. So that troll has his confreres
best interests at heart.

Similar fates are in store for those who fail to quote adequate
context. Some of those should read and heed my sig, below.

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep insisting the "Reply"
link is broken? All you have to do to get quoting from the
"Reply" link is click the [Preview] button followed by the
[Edit Message] button. It would be broken if there were NO
provision for quoting by following that pathway. But since
there is, labeling it "broken" makes you appear ignorant.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

Nov 15 '05 #7

On 10 Jul 2005 13:04:13 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:
Rolloffle wrote:
>
> If that creature's mean to be a troll, why is it holding a sign
> saying "Do not feed the trolls."?
It's self preservation. Fed trolls tend to forget how to fend for
themselves in the wild, and annoy and endanger humans. The usual
cure for this is to shoot them. So that troll has his confreres
best interests at heart.

Similar fates are in store for those who fail to quote adequate
context. Some of those should read and heed my sig, below.

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep insisting the "Reply"
link is broken?

Because clicking "reply" doesn't include any context.....
All you have to do to get quoting from the
"Reply" link is click the [Preview] button followed by the
[Edit Message] button.

......and its absurd to expect people to know this.

"sheesh, all you have to do is click the RIGHT mouse button, while
holding down the left control key, then drag the mouse, and press
shift-control-numlock followed by S then A then Q when prompted .
Goodness, what could be simpler?"

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Nov 15 '05 #8

Kenny McCormack

In article <fb********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

On 10 Jul 2005 13:04:13 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:
Rolloffle wrote:
>
> If that creature's mean to be a troll, why is it holding a sign
> saying "Do not feed the trolls."?

It's self preservation. Fed trolls tend to forget how to fend for
themselves in the wild, and annoy and endanger humans. The usual
cure for this is to shoot them. So that troll has his confreres
best interests at heart.

Similar fates are in store for those who fail to quote adequate
context. Some of those should read and heed my sig, below.

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep insisting the "Reply"
link is broken?

Because clicking "reply" doesn't include any context.....
All you have to do to get quoting from the
"Reply" link is click the [Preview] button followed by the
[Edit Message] button.

.....and its absurd to expect people to know this.

"sheesh, all you have to do is click the RIGHT mouse button, while
holding down the left control key, then drag the mouse, and press
shift-control-numlock followed by S then A then Q when prompted .
Goodness, what could be simpler?"

Very good. I approve.

But when you get down to it, the problem is that people who are posting
from Google are brain-dead by assumption, so adding anything else to their
mental load is clearly uncalled for.

Nov 15 '05 #9

"me********@aol.com" wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:
Rolloffle wrote:

If that creature's mean to be a troll, why is it holding a sign
saying "Do not feed the trolls."?

It's self preservation. Fed trolls tend to forget how to fend for
themselves in the wild, and annoy and endanger humans. The usual
cure for this is to shoot them. So that troll has his confreres
best interests at heart.

Similar fates are in store for those who fail to quote adequate
context. Some of those should read and heed my sig, below.

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep insisting the "Reply"
link is broken? All you have to do to get quoting from the
"Reply" link is click the [Preview] button followed by the
[Edit Message] button. It would be broken if there were NO
provision for quoting by following that pathway. But since
there is, labeling it "broken" makes you appear ignorant.

That's news to me. I never use the system. Why don't you cobble
up a suitable sig to attempt to train the googlebeasts to quote
properly. And a system that doesn't default to suitable actions is
broken.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

Nov 15 '05 #10

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 10 Jul 2005 13:04:13 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:
Rolloffle wrote:
>
> If that creature's mean to be a troll, why is it holding a sign
> saying "Do not feed the trolls."?

It's self preservation. Fed trolls tend to forget how to fend for
themselves in the wild, and annoy and endanger humans. The usual
cure for this is to shoot them. So that troll has his confreres
best interests at heart.

Similar fates are in store for those who fail to quote adequate
context. Some of those should read and heed my sig, below.
Just out of curiosity, why do you keep insisting the "Reply"
link is broken?

Because clicking "reply" doesn't include any context.....

Huh? Surely you don't think I re-typed the above. Or copied and
pasted it and then inserted all the little angle brackets by hand?

All you have to do to get quoting from the
"Reply" link is click the [Preview] button followed by the
[Edit Message] button.
.....and its absurd to expect people to know this.

Why? If I discovered it, it's simple enough that anyone can.

"sheesh, all you have to do is click the RIGHT mouse button, while
holding down the left control key, then drag the mouse, and press
shift-control-numlock followed by S then A then Q when prompted .
Goodness, what could be simpler?"
It's one extra click for cryin' out loud. And when the post is long
enough, the options link is off-screen by the time you scroll down
to the end of the post. The effort saved not having to scroll back up
is certainly worth one extra mouse click.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Nov 15 '05 #11

Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <fb********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
On 10 Jul 2005 13:04:13 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:
Rolloffle wrote:
>
> If that creature's mean to be a troll, why is it holding a sign
> saying "Do not feed the trolls."?

It's self preservation. Fed trolls tend to forget how to fend for
themselves in the wild, and annoy and endanger humans. The usual
cure for this is to shoot them. So that troll has his confreres
best interests at heart.

Similar fates are in store for those who fail to quote adequate
context. Some of those should read and heed my sig, below.

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep insisting the "Reply"
link is broken?
Because clicking "reply" doesn't include any context.....
All you have to do to get quoting from the
"Reply" link is click the [Preview] button followed by the
[Edit Message] button.

.....and its absurd to expect people to know this.

"sheesh, all you have to do is click the RIGHT mouse button, while
holding down the left control key, then drag the mouse, and press
shift-control-numlock followed by S then A then Q when prompted .
Goodness, what could be simpler?"

Very good. I approve.

But when you get down to it, the problem is that people who are posting
from Google are brain-dead by assumption,

Unless your ISP decides to cancel Usenet service leaving
Google as the only option.
so adding anything else to their mental load is clearly
uncalled for.

Then tell CBFalconer his sig is uncalled for.

Nov 15 '05 #12

CBFalconer wrote:

"me********@aol.com" wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
Rolloffle wrote:

If that creature's mean to be a troll, why is it holding a sign
saying "Do not feed the trolls."?

It's self preservation. Fed trolls tend to forget how to fend for
themselves in the wild, and annoy and endanger humans. The usual
cure for this is to shoot them. So that troll has his confreres
best interests at heart.

Similar fates are in store for those who fail to quote adequate
context. Some of those should read and heed my sig, below.
Just out of curiosity, why do you keep insisting the "Reply"
link is broken? All you have to do to get quoting from the
"Reply" link is click the [Preview] button followed by the
[Edit Message] button. It would be broken if there were NO
provision for quoting by following that pathway. But since
there is, labeling it "broken" makes you appear ignorant.

That's news to me.

Ignorance is curable.
I never use the system.
But you must have an issue with those who do, hence, the sig.
Why don't you cobble up a suitable sig to attempt to train
the googlebeasts to quote properly.
I didn't want to steal your thunder.

And I have pointed this out to others, always getting the
reply "that's news to me". So I am doing my part to
train Google users one poster at a time.
And a system that doesn't default to suitable actions is
broken.
It's a feature.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

Nov 15 '05 #13

Flash Gordon

me********@aol.com wrote:

Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <fb********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
On 10 Jul 2005 13:04:13 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
<snip>
Similar fates are in store for those who fail to quote adequate
>context. Some of those should read and heed my sig, below.

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep insisting the "Reply"
link is broken?

Because clicking "reply" doesn't include any context.....
All you have to do to get quoting from the
"Reply" link is click the [Preview] button followed by the
[Edit Message] button.

.....and its absurd to expect people to know this.

"sheesh, all you have to do is click the RIGHT mouse button, while
holding down the left control key, then drag the mouse, and press
shift-control-numlock followed by S then A then Q when prompted .
Goodness, what could be simpler?"

Very good. I approve.

But when you get down to it, the problem is that people who are posting
from Google are brain-dead by assumption,

Unless your ISP decides to cancel Usenet service leaving
Google as the only option.

No, it is NOT your only option. There are a number of free (as in beer)
news servers. I'm not talking about ones which are open by mistake, but
ones which are officially free. There is even a news group dedicated to
talking about them ;-)

There are also a number of pay for news servers starting at about 10UKP
per *year*.

so adding anything else to their mental load is clearly
uncalled for.

Then tell CBFalconer his sig is uncalled for.

No, his sig is entirely called for. It shows people that Google are
providing a broken service and tells them one possible method (not all
possible methods) of working around it.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

Nov 15 '05 #14

Flash Gordon wrote:

me********@aol.com wrote:

Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <fb********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

On 10 Jul 2005 13:04:13 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:
>CBFalconer wrote:
<snip>
Similar fates are in store for those who fail to quote adequate
>>context. Some of those should read and heed my sig, below.
>
>Just out of curiosity, why do you keep insisting the "Reply"
>link is broken?

Because clicking "reply" doesn't include any context.....
>All you have to do to get quoting from the
>"Reply" link is click the [Preview] button followed by the
>[Edit Message] button.

.....and its absurd to expect people to know this.

"sheesh, all you have to do is click the RIGHT mouse button, while
holding down the left control key, then drag the mouse, and press
shift-control-numlock followed by S then A then Q when prompted .
Goodness, what could be simpler?"

Very good. I approve.

But when you get down to it, the problem is that people who are posting
from Google are brain-dead by assumption,
Unless your ISP decides to cancel Usenet service leaving
Google as the only option.

No, it is NOT your only option. There are a number of free (as in beer)
news servers. I'm not talking about ones which are open by mistake, but
ones which are officially free. There is even a news group dedicated to
talking about them ;-)

There are also a number of pay for news servers starting at about 10UKP
per *year*.
so adding anything else to their mental load is clearly
uncalled for.

Then tell CBFalconer his sig is uncalled for.

No, his sig is entirely called for. It shows people that Google are
providing a broken service and tells them one possible method (not all
possible methods) of working around it.

Didn't you read the sentence immediately preceeding my statement?
What's the point of quoting if you don't read the statement I'm
replying to? Can I assume you are brain-dead and don't know how
un-hide quoted material? I'll repeat it in a way that even you
can understand:

<quote>
But when you get down to it, the problem is that people who are
posting from Google are brain-dead by assumption, so adding
anything else to their mental load is clearly uncalled for.
</quote>

Now if you accept the brain-dead premise, then the sig is uncalled
for as it also attempts to add to the mental load. That's how
software gets "broken" in the first place, by programmers who fail
to understand the implications.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

Nov 15 '05 #15

"me********@aol.com" wrote:

Flash Gordon wrote:
me********@aol.com wrote:
.... snip ...

Then tell CBFalconer his sig is uncalled for.

No, his sig is entirely called for. It shows people that Google
are providing a broken service and tells them one possible method
(not all possible methods) of working around it.

Didn't you read the sentence immediately preceeding my statement?
What's the point of quoting if you don't read the statement I'm
replying to? Can I assume you are brain-dead and don't know how
un-hide quoted material? I'll repeat it in a way that even you
can understand:

<quote>
But when you get down to it, the problem is that people who are
posting from Google are brain-dead by assumption, so adding
anything else to their mental load is clearly uncalled for.
</quote>

Now if you accept the brain-dead premise, then the sig is
uncalled for as it also attempts to add to the mental load.
That's how software gets "broken" in the first place, by
programmers who fail to understand the implications.

However my experience has been that about once per week some
googlian understands and reforms. If you get them early, and also
train them about top-posting, some can become perfectly civilized
netoyens. At which point we have avoided about 40 man years of
annoyance, on the average.

No, if the sig annoys you the answer is simple. Hound google to
fix the broken interface, which will in turn remove the necessity
for the sig. Embarass them by exposing their technical ineptitude
to the masses, and thus reducing their stock price.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

Nov 15 '05 #16

Flash Gordon

me********@aol.com wrote:

Flash Gordon wrote:
me********@aol.com wrote:
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <fb********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip Google users, quoting, and CBFalconers sig>
so adding anything else to their mental load is clearly
uncalled for.

Then tell CBFalconer his sig is uncalled for.
No, his sig is entirely called for. It shows people that Google are
providing a broken service and tells them one possible method (not all
possible methods) of working around it.

Didn't you read the sentence immediately preceeding my statement?

I did read it.
What's the point of quoting if you don't read the statement I'm
replying to? Can I assume you are brain-dead and don't know how
un-hide quoted material?
You can assume that if you want to. I don't care if you assume that I am
actually a talking giraffe living at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean.
However, a more reasonable assumption is that I did not agree that all
Google users are brain dead even if that is the assumption others make.
I'll repeat it in a way that even you
can understand:

<quote>
But when you get down to it, the problem is that people who are
posting from Google are brain-dead by assumption, so adding
anything else to their mental load is clearly uncalled for.
</quote>

Now if you accept the brain-dead premise,
At what point did I state that I accepted that premise?
then the sig is uncalled
for as it also attempts to add to the mental load.
Well, I have seen people change from posting incorrectly to posting
correctly on the basis of Kieth's instructions as relayed by CBFalconer.
That's how
software gets "broken" in the first place, by programmers who fail
to understand the implications.

That is only one of many ways software gets broken. Another way that I
have seen software get broken is by someone assuming that I had not read
something in the chain of preceding documents and that my failure to
read it meant that I was wrong.

My last point on this matter is that *you* still have not learnt to
quote properly, since you left in my sig which you were not commenting
on and which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

Nov 15 '05 #17

Default User

Kenny McCormack wrote:

But when you get down to it, the problem is that people who are posting
from Google are brain-dead by assumption, so adding anything else to their
mental load is clearly uncalled for.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

Some of us are forced to use Google for reasons beyond our control,
like busted outgoing newsfeeds.

Brian

Nov 15 '05 #18

Flash Gordon wrote:

me********@aol.com wrote:

Flash Gordon wrote:
me********@aol.com wrote:

Kenny McCormack wrote:
>In article <fb********************************@4ax.com>,
>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip Google users, quoting, and CBFalconers sig>
so adding anything else to their mental load is clearly
>uncalled for.

Then tell CBFalconer his sig is uncalled for.

No, his sig is entirely called for. It shows people that Google are
providing a broken service and tells them one possible method (not all
possible methods) of working around it.
Didn't you read the sentence immediately preceeding my statement?

I did read it.
What's the point of quoting if you don't read the statement I'm
replying to? Can I assume you are brain-dead and don't know how
un-hide quoted material?

You can assume that if you want to. I don't care if you assume that I am
actually a talking giraffe living at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean.
However, a more reasonable assumption is that I did not agree that all
Google users are brain dead even if that is the assumption others make.
> I'll repeat it in a way that even you
can understand:

<quote>
But when you get down to it, the problem is that people who are
posting from Google are brain-dead by assumption, so adding
anything else to their mental load is clearly uncalled for.
</quote>

Now if you accept the brain-dead premise,

At what point did I state that I accepted that premise?

Because you replied to _my_ statement that it follows from Google
users being brain-dead that attempts to correct them are uncalled for.
Your "No" response implies that you disagree with my interpretation
and that attempts to correct the brain-dead _are_ called for.

Now if you meant to disagree with the premise that Google users are
brain-dead, you should have addressed that to Kenny McCormack, not
to me.

> then the sig is uncalled
for as it also attempts to add to the mental load.
Well, I have seen people change from posting incorrectly to posting
correctly on the basis of Kieth's instructions as relayed by CBFalconer.

Next time send your reply to Kenny McCormack.

> That's how
software gets "broken" in the first place, by programmers who fail
to understand the implications.
That is only one of many ways software gets broken. Another way that I
have seen software get broken is by someone assuming that I had not read
something in the chain of preceding documents and that my failure to
read it meant that I was wrong.

So you were wrong despite having read it. That's ok, I was just
giving you the benefit of doubt.

My last point on this matter is that *you* still have not learnt to
quote properly, since you left in my sig which you were not commenting
on and which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Hey, it's Google that's broken. We all have things to learn, don't we?

Nov 15 '05 #19

CBFalconer wrote:

"me********@aol.com" wrote:
Flash Gordon wrote:
me********@aol.com wrote:
... snip ...
Then tell CBFalconer his sig is uncalled for.

No, his sig is entirely called for. It shows people that Google
are providing a broken service and tells them one possible method
(not all possible methods) of working around it.
Didn't you read the sentence immediately preceeding my statement?
What's the point of quoting if you don't read the statement I'm
replying to? Can I assume you are brain-dead and don't know how
un-hide quoted material? I'll repeat it in a way that even you
can understand:

<quote>
But when you get down to it, the problem is that people who are
posting from Google are brain-dead by assumption, so adding
anything else to their mental load is clearly uncalled for.
</quote>

Now if you accept the brain-dead premise, then the sig is
uncalled for as it also attempts to add to the mental load.
That's how software gets "broken" in the first place, by
programmers who fail to understand the implications.

However my experience has been that about once per week some
googlian understands and reforms. If you get them early, and also
train them about top-posting, some can become perfectly civilized
netoyens. At which point we have avoided about 40 man years of
annoyance, on the average.

Hopefully, Kenny McCormack will see this and realize that not
all Google users are brain-dead and that it does actually help
to try and fix them.

No, if the sig annoys you the answer is simple. Hound google to
fix the broken interface, which will in turn remove the necessity
for the sig. Embarass them by exposing their technical ineptitude
to the masses, and thus reducing their stock price.

Nov 15 '05 #20

Rolloffle

"However my experience has been that about once per week some
googlian understands and reforms. If you get them early, and also
train them about top-posting, some can become perfectly civilized
netoyens."

Yeah, dude, because anyone who top-posts or doesn't bother to use angle
brackets prefixing quotes is uncivilized.

Nov 15 '05 #21

On 11 Jul 2005 10:47:19 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:

Flash Gordon wrote:
>>so adding anything else to their mental load is clearly
>>uncalled for.
>
> Then tell CBFalconer his sig is uncalled for.

No, his sig is entirely called for. It shows people that Google are
providing a broken service and tells them one possible method (not all
possible methods) of working around it.

Didn't you read the sentence immediately preceeding my statement?

there's only two e's in preceding. And yes, I'm sure he did read the
preceding sentence. Does that preclude trying to help the poor posters
who use google groups?
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Nov 15 '05 #22

On 10 Jul 2005 20:22:15 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:
"me********@aol.com" wrote:
And a system that doesn't default to suitable actions is
broken.

It's a feature.

You work for microsoft, right?
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Nov 15 '05 #23

On 10 Jul 2005 20:05:28 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:
On 10 Jul 2005 13:04:13 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:

>Just out of curiosity, why do you keep insisting the "Reply"
>link is broken?
Because clicking "reply" doesn't include any context.....

Huh? Surely you don't think I re-typed the above. Or copied and
pasted it and then inserted all the little angle brackets by hand?

I'm sure you managed it by following your own more complex
instructions.

>All you have to do to get quoting from the
>"Reply" link is click the [Preview] button followed by the
>[Edit Message] button.

.....and its absurd to expect people to know this.

Why?

One has to assume you have little or no experience of interface design
for Joe Public, or you'd not make such a daft remark.
If I discovered it, it's simple enough that anyone can.

It was simple enough to discover America. Yet it took the Europeans
many many centuries to do so.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Nov 15 '05 #24

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 10 Jul 2005 20:22:15 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
"me********@aol.com" wrote:
And a system that doesn't default to suitable actions is
broken.
It's a feature.

You work for microsoft, right?

The Microsoft corporate line is: "This behaviour is by design."
Got that from their Knowledge Base.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Nov 15 '05 #25

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 11 Jul 2005 10:47:19 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:

Flash Gordon wrote:
>>so adding anything else to their mental load is clearly
>>uncalled for.
>
> Then tell CBFalconer his sig is uncalled for.

No, his sig is entirely called for. It shows people that Google are
providing a broken service and tells them one possible method (not all
possible methods) of working around it.
Didn't you read the sentence immediately preceeding my statement?

there's only two e's in preceding.

Then bitch to Google to add a spell checker.
And yes, I'm sure he did read the
preceding sentence. Does that preclude trying to help the poor posters
who use google groups?

Doesn't anyone here know how to program?

I said:

IF (Google users are brain-dead)
THEN
(the sig is uncalled for)

Flash Gordon "corrects" me:

IF (Google users are brain-dead)
THEN
NOT (the sig is uncalled for)

But apparently what he meant was:

IF (Google users are brain-dead)
THEN
(the sig is uncalled for)
ELSE
NOT (the sig is uncalled for)
The mistake would have been understandable had he read just my comment.
How do you explain his mistake in light of his claim to have read the
entire content? Like I said, I was giving him the benefit of doubt.

Nov 15 '05 #26

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 10 Jul 2005 20:05:28 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On 10 Jul 2005 13:04:13 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:

>Just out of curiosity, why do you keep insisting the "Reply"
>link is broken?

Because clicking "reply" doesn't include any context.....
Huh? Surely you don't think I re-typed the above. Or copied and
pasted it and then inserted all the little angle brackets by hand?

I'm sure you managed it by following your own more complex
instructions.
>All you have to do to get quoting from the
>"Reply" link is click the [Preview] button followed by the
>[Edit Message] button.

.....and its absurd to expect people to know this.

Why?

One has to assume you have little or no experience of interface design
for Joe Public,

You're absolutely right. However, I _have_ had lots of experience
testing
the interface designs of others. I just happen to have a natural gift
for
emulating Joe Public. I am a natural fault finder. I will walk up to
your
design and press the one button that the designer had not intended to
be
pressed.

When presented with a button, Joe Public will press it, even when given
specific instructions not to.
or you'd not make such a daft remark.
One has to assume you have little or no experience in Tech Support.

If I discovered it, it's simple enough that anyone can.
It was simple enough to discover America. Yet it took the Europeans
many many centuries to do so.

It may take an interface designer many centuries to realize he can
press
[Preview] _before_ he has typed anything in the edit box. It takes Joe
Public 5 minutes to figure that out.

Nov 15 '05 #27

Kent Paul Dolan

Ray Fischer wrote:

_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ Ray Fischer
rf******@sonic.net

Your ascii art would be funnier if the troll were taking
a big bite out of the sign.

It's pretty good as is, though.

FWIW

xanthian.

L
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
e
r

F
o
d
d
e
r

L
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
e
r

F
o
d
d
e
r

Nov 15 '05 #28

Randy Howard

Mark McIntyre wrote
(in article <l1********************************@4ax.com>):

On 10 Jul 2005 20:22:15 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
"me********@aol.com" wrote:
And a system that doesn't default to suitable actions is
broken.

It's a feature.

You work for microsoft, right?

If it's not in the man pages or readme, it's a bug. If it is,
it's a feature.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

Nov 15 '05 #29

Rolloffle wrote:

"However my experience has been that about once per week some
googlian understands and reforms. If you get them early, and also
train them about top-posting, some can become perfectly civilized
netoyens."

Yeah, dude, because anyone who top-posts or doesn't bother to use
angle brackets prefixing quotes is uncivilized.

Then, on the other hand, there are those who are naturally porcine
boors. Some will suffer them, some will rationalize with them,
some will PLONK them.

You appear to be an apogenous, bovaristic, coprolalial,
excerebrose, mephitic, oligophrenial, yirning zoophyte.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

Nov 15 '05 #30

Ray Fischer

Kent Paul Dolan <xa******@well.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:
_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
Your ascii art would be funnier if the troll were taking
a big bite out of the sign.

That would mean work.
It's pretty good as is, though.

I stole it from someone else.

--
Ray Fischer
rf******@sonic.net

Nov 15 '05 #31

Flash Gordon

me********@aol.com wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:
On 11 Jul 2005 10:47:19 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:
Flash Gordon wrote:

>>so adding anything else to their mental load is clearly
>>uncalled for.
>
>Then tell CBFalconer his sig is uncalled for.

No, his sig is entirely called for. It shows people that Google are
providing a broken service and tells them one possible method (not all
possible methods) of working around it.

Didn't you read the sentence immediately preceeding my statement?
there's only two e's in preceding.

Then bitch to Google to add a spell checker.

It is entirely possible to use a spell checker with Google. Or had you
not noticed that you can cut the text, paste it in to something with a
spell checker, then paste the corrected text in to Google? You, after
all, are the master of working around broken interfaces whilst stating
that they are not broken.

And yes, I'm sure he did read the
preceding sentence. Does that preclude trying to help the poor posters
who use google groups?

Doesn't anyone here know how to program?

I said:

IF (Google users are brain-dead)
THEN
(the sig is uncalled for)

Flash Gordon "corrects" me:

IF (Google users are brain-dead)
THEN
NOT (the sig is uncalled for)

No, I corrected the final statement without specifying where in the
previous argument the error was.
But apparently what he meant was:

IF (Google users are brain-dead)
THEN
(the sig is uncalled for)
ELSE
NOT (the sig is uncalled for)
No, I meant that the statement that the sig was uncalled for was
incorrect. This is why I said that the sig is called for.
The mistake would have been understandable had he read just my comment.
How do you explain his mistake in light of his claim to have read the
entire content? Like I said, I was giving him the benefit of doubt.

You have yet to understand that I was commenting on your request to
someone to tell CBFalconer that his sig is uncalled for. If you had
said, "If you believe that then you should tell... but I don't believe
it," or something similar there would have been no reason to comment.

In any case, I could believe that we should hound Google users so that
they then complain to Google about being hounded, and Google get fed up
enough with complaints from its users that they fix the interface. Read
this way, I could believe that Google users should be repeatedly told
how to use the interface to quote correctly whilst still believing that
they will not learn from it.

In fact, I do believe that people who do not quote properly (such as
your erroneous trimming of attributions for material still quoted)
should be corrected whether they are able and/or willing to learn or
not. They might complain to Google enough that Google fix things, and
others might learn from seeing the corrections, so the person being
corrected is not the only target.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

Nov 15 '05 #32

Chris Croughton

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:42:31 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

On 11 Jul 2005 10:47:19 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.com> wrote:

Flash Gordon wrote:
>>so adding anything else to their mental load is clearly
>>uncalled for.
>
> Then tell CBFalconer his sig is uncalled for.

No, his sig is entirely called for. It shows people that Google are
providing a broken service and tells them one possible method (not all
possible methods) of working around it.
Didn't you read the sentence immediately preceeding my statement?

there's only two e's in preceding.

A sentence must start with a capital letter, and there is an extra space
before "e's".
And yes, I'm sure he did read the preceding sentence.
A sentence should not start with a conjunction.
Does that
preclude trying to help the poor posters who use google groups?

Thatnks for illustrating the Usenet rule that a post correcting the
spelling or grammar of another post must itself have a spelling or
grammatical error...

Chris C (typo delibrately left in to comply with the rule...)

Nov 15 '05 #33

Kenny McCormack

In article <sl******************@ccserver.keris.net>,
Chris Croughton <ch***@keristor.net> wrote:
....

A sentence should not start with a conjunction.

But there are exceptions to every rule.

Nov 15 '05 #34

Richard Harter

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:43:59 +0100, Chris Croughton
<ch***@keristor.net> wrote:

And yes, I'm sure he did read the preceding sentence.
A sentence should not start with a conjunction.

Nonsense. It is quite all right to start a sentence with a
conjunction. However the sentence you quote does have a
punctuation error.

Does that
preclude trying to help the poor posters who use google groups?

Thatnks for illustrating the Usenet rule that a post correcting the
spelling or grammar of another post must itself have a spelling or
grammatical error...

Chris C (typo delibrately left in to comply with the rule...)

Was the punctuation error intentional?

BTW, when did this newsgroup become alt.english.usage?

Richard Harter, cr*@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Save the Earth now!!
It's the only planet with chocolate.

Nov 15 '05 #35