By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,988 Members | 1,367 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,988 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

[META] The signal/noise ratio - a plea for a sense of proportion

P: n/a
Like any newsgroup, comp.lang.c has conventions, not only of topicality but
also of posting style, many of which are shared in common with other
technical groups. These conventions are there for excellent reasons, which
I won't go into here. And indeed it is sometimes necessary to draw people's
attention to those conventions.

Nevertheless, I doubt whether I am completely alone in being just a little
tired of reading messages which consist, *in their entirety*, of complaints
about posting style.

Yes, the conventions are there for good reasons.

Yes, some people are too clueless - or perhaps too focused on the task they
are trying to achieve with clc's help - to work out the conventions for
themselves.

Yes, it does make sense to draw their attention to those conventions.

In the case of topicality, we're stuck there. Someone has to point it out.
And it is in the nature of Usenet that sometimes an off-topic subject will
be flagged by numerous people. C'est la vie, and we live with it.

But in the case of stuff like top-posting, inadequate or superfluous
quoting, brain-dead attribectomies, c1u31355-speak, and the like, must we
really clog up the newsgroup with articles that are nothing more than a
futile attempt to enforce common sense?

Would it not be brighter of us to *refrain* from making complaints about
formatting and writing style /unless/ we *also* have something to say about
the subject under discussion?

There's a world of difference between saying "please don't top-post" and
saying "please don't top-post. Okay, your problem is that you're not
tickling the pointer in the right way - try doing it like this..."

People will do what they do, I guess, but I hope at least some of you will
stop and think about this. If we have nothing substantive to say in reply
to an article, would it not be better to say nothing, and leave the style
complaints to those who /do/ have a relevant contribution to make to the
discussion?

Yeah, I know - if people aren't told, they won't know. But I'm not
suggesting we let it go by the board. I'm just saying that we could
significantly reduce the noise in here by adopting this guideline.

For my own part, I have tried to follow this rule for some considerable time
now, and I think that on the whole I've succeeded. And no, I'm not offering
flouters a licence to be stupid; I am much less likely to answer a question
if the person asking the question is in the habit of ignoring conventions
that exist for excellent reasons, because I'd rather expend my energy on
those who are bright enough to recognise the value of those conventions,
and who can respond positively to the group dynamic. Isn't that a
reasonable model to work with?

So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a little on
the noise?

Thanks for listening.

</soapbox>

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 18 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
30 Replies


P: n/a

Richard Heathfield wrote:
Like any newsgroup, comp.lang.c has conventions, not only of topicality but
also of posting style, many of which are shared in common with other
technical groups. These conventions are there for excellent reasons, which
I won't go into here. And indeed it is sometimes necessary to draw people's
attention to those conventions.

Nevertheless, I doubt whether I am completely alone in being just a little
tired of reading messages which consist, *in their entirety*, of complaints
about posting style.

Yes, the conventions are there for good reasons.

Yes, some people are too clueless - or perhaps too focused on the task they
are trying to achieve with clc's help - to work out the conventions for
themselves.

Yes, it does make sense to draw their attention to those conventions.

In the case of topicality, we're stuck there. Someone has to point it out.
And it is in the nature of Usenet that sometimes an off-topic subject will
be flagged by numerous people. C'est la vie, and we live with it.

But in the case of stuff like top-posting, inadequate or superfluous
quoting, brain-dead attribectomies, c1u31355-speak, and the like, must we
really clog up the newsgroup with articles that are nothing more than a
futile attempt to enforce common sense?

Would it not be brighter of us to *refrain* from making complaints about
formatting and writing style /unless/ we *also* have something to say about
the subject under discussion?

There's a world of difference between saying "please don't top-post" and
saying "please don't top-post. Okay, your problem is that you're not
tickling the pointer in the right way - try doing it like this..."

People will do what they do, I guess, but I hope at least some of you will
stop and think about this. If we have nothing substantive to say in reply
to an article, would it not be better to say nothing, and leave the style
complaints to those who /do/ have a relevant contribution to make to the
discussion?

Yeah, I know - if people aren't told, they won't know. But I'm not
suggesting we let it go by the board. I'm just saying that we could
significantly reduce the noise in here by adopting this guideline.

For my own part, I have tried to follow this rule for some considerable time
now, and I think that on the whole I've succeeded. And no, I'm not offering
flouters a licence to be stupid; I am much less likely to answer a question
if the person asking the question is in the habit of ignoring conventions
that exist for excellent reasons, because I'd rather expend my energy on
those who are bright enough to recognise the value of those conventions,
and who can respond positively to the group dynamic. Isn't that a
reasonable model to work with?

So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a little on
the noise?

Thanks for listening.

</soapbox>
Where's your opening tag?
>
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 18 '06 #2

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Like any newsgroup, comp.lang.c has conventions, not only of
topicality but also of posting style, many of which are shared in
common with other technical groups. These conventions are there for
excellent reasons, which I won't go into here. And indeed it is
sometimes necessary to draw people's attention to those conventions.

Nevertheless, I doubt whether I am completely alone in being just a
little tired of reading messages which consist, *in their entirety*,
of complaints about posting style.
So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a
little on the noise?

Sorry, but no. I've set up my handy-dandy stock paragraph, which I
apply to each instance of top-posting I see that hasn't been addressed
by someone else. That's so that the Googlers (you know it's 99% them)
are clued in as soon as possible AND so nobody else has to do it.

I think your complaint is not well-founded. CLC has one of the best
ratios of "correct" posting style of any group I use, and I think
that's because a few of us go out of our way to not "complain" about
top-posting but to explain what it is, and give valuable links it's not
appropriate.

Frankly, I'm disgusted and annoyed with you about this. Talk about
getting a kick in the ass for trying to make the group a better
experience for all concerned. I think you're way off-base.


Brian
Sep 18 '06 #3

P: n/a
In article <4n************@individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
....
>Frankly, I'm disgusted and annoyed with you about this. Talk about
getting a kick in the ass for trying to make the group a better
experience for all concerned. I think you're way off-base.
Another chick fight!

Sep 19 '06 #4

P: n/a
Default User wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Would it not be brighter of us to *refrain* from making complaints about
formatting and writing style /unless/ we *also* have something to say about
the subject under discussion?
Agree completely; I try to follow this guideline already.
Nevertheless, I doubt whether I am completely alone in being just a
little tired of reading messages which consist, *in their entirety*,
of complaints about posting style.
So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a
little on the noise?

Sorry, but no. I've set up my handy-dandy stock paragraph, which I
apply to each instance of top-posting I see that hasn't been addressed
by someone else. That's so that the Googlers (you know it's 99% them)
I find your generalizations to be offensive
are clued in as soon as possible AND so nobody else has to do it.
Why don't you send private email then? Google requires the use
of a correct email address to post from.
Frankly, I'm disgusted and annoyed with you about this. Talk about
getting a kick in the ass for trying to make the group a better
experience for all concerned. I think you're way off-base.
Key word, "trying". Frankly, I don't consider myself to be getting
a better experience when there are short messages day after
day from you all saying the same thing. And figure out how to
change the display name in your newsreader.

Sep 19 '06 #5

P: n/a
On 18 Sep 2006 16:22:50 -0700, "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.comwrote:
>
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Like any newsgroup, comp.lang.c has conventions, not only of topicality but
snip ~70 lines of quoted text
>So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a little on
the noise?

Thanks for listening.

</soapbox>

Where's your opening tag?
It's in the thread on excessive quoting

Remove del for email
Sep 19 '06 #6

P: n/a
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:03:44 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in comp.lang.c:

[snip]

But in the case of stuff like top-posting, inadequate or superfluous
quoting, brain-dead attribectomies, c1u31355-speak, and the like, must we
really clog up the newsgroup with articles that are nothing more than a
futile attempt to enforce common sense?
[snip]

<smiley>

Clog up the newsgroup? Are you back on dial-up?!?

</smiley>

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html
Sep 19 '06 #7

P: n/a

Barry Schwarz wrote:
On 18 Sep 2006 16:22:50 -0700, "me********@aol.com"
<me********@aol.comwrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
Like any newsgroup, comp.lang.c has conventions, not only of topicality but

snip ~70 lines of quoted text
So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a little on
the noise?

Thanks for listening.

</soapbox>
Where's your opening tag?

It's in the thread on excessive quoting
It's not excessive. If I had trimmed the quote, I would have been
accused of snipping the very thing I claim is missing.

And isn't leaving the period off the end of your sentences going
a little too far?
>
Remove del for email
Sep 19 '06 #8

P: n/a
Default User said:

<snip>
I think your complaint is not well-founded.
That is your prerogative...

<snip>
Frankly, I'm disgusted and annoyed with you about this.
....but I think that's an over-reaction. Disgusted? If a simple plea for an
increase in the S/N ratio disgusts you, then you are easily disgusted.
Talk about
getting a kick in the ass for trying to make the group a better
experience for all concerned.
I wasn't doing any kicking. I was merely trying to make the group a better
experience for all concerned.
I think you're way off-base.
Naturally, I disagree. The problem is one of time. I look forward to reading
your articles (although that may change if you continue to be disgusted at
the drop of a hat), but when they turn out to be Yet Another Content-Free
Article (w.r.t. the C language), I cannot help but feel that a small amount
of my time has been wasted. Yes, just a small amount. But it all adds up.

(And yes, I'm aware that you're not the only person who posts the kind of
article under discussion. Otherwise, I'd either have said nothing or raised
it in email.)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 19 '06 #9

P: n/a
Jack Klein said:
<smiley>

Clog up the newsgroup? Are you back on dial-up?!?
<shudder>

No, thank heaven. It's a question of time and patience, not bandwidth.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 19 '06 #10

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:

<snip>
I think your complaint is not well-founded.

That is your prerogative...

<snip>
Frankly, I'm disgusted and annoyed with you about this.

...but I think that's an over-reaction. Disgusted? If a simple plea
for an increase in the S/N ratio disgusts you, then you are easily
disgusted.
That's what annoys me. I don't feel it IS damaging signal-to-noise at
all. Quite the contrary, or I wouldn't do it. By posting a thorough
explanation, with the link to the nice explanatory web page that I got
from Keith, it avoids the haphazard methods so often posted previously.
People frequently just say, "don't top-post". This often results in a
query as to what that means, and perhaps a third round to answer the
question of "why not".

By putting together a complete package, it's designed to (hopefully)
take care of the problem at one fell swoop.


Brian

Sep 19 '06 #11

P: n/a
In article <fM********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:

There's a world of difference between saying "please don't top-post" and
saying "please don't top-post. Okay, your problem is that you're not
tickling the pointer in the right way - try doing it like this..."
Way too many posters respond with "Thanks" (top-posted of course), to a
reply that says "please don't top post, here's what's wrong with your
code."

If a poster is showing poor manners (such as with top-posting), but they
get their answer anyway, where's the incentive for them to improve?

So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a little on
the noise?
I think topicality is more of a problem lately in this group than noise.

If you're looking for a C group with better S/N ratio than CLC,
comp.lang.c.moderated is right next door.
Sep 19 '06 #12

P: n/a
Rudolf said:
Way too many posters respond with "Thanks" (top-posted of course), to a
reply that says "please don't top post, here's what's wrong with your
code."
Yes, but that's what scorefiles and killfiles are for. I was hoping not to
have to mod down some of the people here, since when they /do/ have
something to say, it's generally worth reading.
If a poster is showing poor manners (such as with top-posting), but they
get their answer anyway, where's the incentive for them to improve?
Fair point. And where's the incentive for C programmers to continue to read
some people's articles on the off-chance that they might contain something
about C, when the percentage of their articles that do so is
ever-diminishing?

>So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a little
on the noise?

I think topicality is more of a problem lately in this group than noise.
Topicality is /always/ a problem, and it's being dealt with as effectively
as it can be, I think. If I thought noise weren't a problem here, I
wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.
If you're looking for a C group with better S/N ratio than CLC,
comp.lang.c.moderated is right next door.
Yes, there is always that option. Thankfully, things aren't yet so bad that
I feel driven to clcm. I'd have been pretty silly to leave it until things
/were/ that bad before pointing out the problem.

Oh well. I tried. I guess I'll have to think of some other solution.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 19 '06 #13

P: n/a
Old Wolf wrote:
Default User wrote:
Sorry, but no. I've set up my handy-dandy stock paragraph, which I
apply to each instance of top-posting I see that hasn't been
addressed by someone else. That's so that the Googlers (you know
it's 99% them)

I find your generalizations to be offensive
Do you doubt it? Seriously? How often do you see top-posting from
someone not posting via Google?
are clued in as soon as possible AND so nobody else has to do it.

Why don't you send private email then? Google requires the use
of a correct email address to post from.
Nonsense. The posts clue in the offender AND others.
Frankly, I'm disgusted and annoyed with you about this. Talk about
getting a kick in the ass for trying to make the group a better
experience for all concerned. I think you're way off-base.

Key word, "trying". Frankly, I don't consider myself to be getting
a better experience when there are short messages day after
day from you all saying the same thing.
Would you with top-posting?
And figure out how to
change the display name in your newsreader.
What are you talking about? Doesn't it say "Default User" when you see
it, "Old Wolf"?


Brian
Sep 19 '06 #14

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:

<snip>
I think your complaint is not well-founded.

That is your prerogative...

<snip>
Frankly, I'm disgusted and annoyed with you about this.

...but I think that's an over-reaction. Disgusted? If a simple plea
for an increase in the S/N ratio disgusts you, then you are easily
disgusted.
Now that I've had a night's sleep over this, I'm quite a bit less
annoyed. However, I think that you should consider that if I, someone
who I think you'd agree doesn't normally fly off the handle, was upset
by your post then it might not have been as innocuous and helpful as
you thought.

Naturally, I disagree. The problem is one of time. I look forward to
reading your articles (although that may change if you continue to be
disgusted at the drop of a hat),
I also am not too thrilled with these veiled killfile threats, but
we'll set that aside.
but when they turn out to be Yet
Another Content-Free Article (w.r.t. the C language), I cannot help
but feel that a small amount of my time has been wasted. Yes, just a
small amount. But it all adds up.
In spite of my extreme irritation yesterday, it is my goal to help
rather than hinder things. Frankly, if normal responders were doing a
good job of larting the top-posters, I probably wouldn't have started
doing this.

What I will try to do is add [TPA] for "top-posting alert" to any
admonishment that doesn't otherwise have a resonse to the post. That
way you or any other poster with killfile ability can filter that.

We'll see how that goes. Deal?


Brian
Sep 19 '06 #15

P: n/a
[I tried composing a point-by-point response to Brian's article, but no
matter how I worded it, it always came out as "fitin' woids", which won't
help anyone, so...]

Default User said:

<BIG ol' snip>
What I will try to do is add [TPA] for "top-posting alert" to any
admonishment that doesn't otherwise have a resonse to the post.
That seems like a reasonable compromise. Thank you.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 19 '06 #16

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
[I tried composing a point-by-point response to Brian's article, but
no matter how I worded it, it always came out as "fitin' woids",
which won't help anyone, so...]
Feel free to drop me a note off-line if you prefer. I'm not in a fitin'
mood today, vice last night. I'm usually a bit slow to respond, as I
only check that yahoo account every few days, but I'll check it more
frequently for the next couple of days.

Brian
Sep 19 '06 #17

P: n/a
Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>[I tried composing a point-by-point response to Brian's article, but
no matter how I worded it, it always came out as "fitin' woids",
which won't help anyone, so...]

Feel free to drop me a note off-line if you prefer.
I don't think that would help, to be honest. Suffice to say that I didn't
agree with everything you said, but I don't want to turn this into a
bar-room brawl.
I'm not in a fitin' mood today,
Likewise. Perhaps we both just need a beer. And maybe a beer or two.

And a beer. And peanuts.

With beer.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 19 '06 #18

P: n/a
Default User wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Like any newsgroup, comp.lang.c has conventions, not only of
topicality but also of posting style, many of which are shared in
common with other technical groups. These conventions are there for
excellent reasons, which I won't go into here. And indeed it is
sometimes necessary to draw people's attention to those conventions.

Nevertheless, I doubt whether I am completely alone in being just a
little tired of reading messages which consist, *in their entirety*,
of complaints about posting style.
>So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a
little on the noise?
[...]
I think your complaint is not well-founded. CLC has one of the best
ratios of "correct" posting style of any group I use, and I think
that's because a few of us go out of our way to not "complain" about
top-posting but to explain what it is, and give valuable links it's not
appropriate.

Frankly, I'm disgusted and annoyed with you about this. Talk about
getting a kick in the ass for trying to make the group a better
experience for all concerned. I think you're way off-base.
Are you sure you ought to be so offended? One can disagree, of course,
but I see nothing here to be disgusted about.

Perturbed, maybe. Vexed, perhaps. But not disgusted.

As for your claimed ass-kicking; remember, no good deed goes unpunished.
Sep 19 '06 #19

P: n/a
Default User wrote:
Old Wolf wrote:
>Default User wrote:
>>Sorry, but no. I've set up my handy-dandy stock paragraph, which I
apply to each instance of top-posting I see that hasn't been
addressed by someone else. That's so that the Googlers (you know
it's 99% them)
I find your generalizations to be offensive

Do you doubt it? Seriously? How often do you see top-posting from
someone not posting via Google?
When they post from Outlook Express.
Sep 19 '06 #20

P: n/a
Clever Monkey wrote:
Default User wrote:
Frankly, I'm disgusted and annoyed with you about this. Talk about
getting a kick in the ass for trying to make the group a better
experience for all concerned. I think you're way off-base.
Are you sure you ought to be so offended? One can disagree, of
course, but I see nothing here to be disgusted about.
Yesterday I was, today not so much.

I think we've come to a satisfactory conclusion for the time being.


Brian

Sep 19 '06 #21

P: n/a
Clever Monkey wrote:
Default User wrote:
Do you doubt it? Seriously? How often do you see top-posting from
someone not posting via Google?

When they post from Outlook Express.

There are some, sure. Some even from real newsreaders.


Brian
Sep 19 '06 #22

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>[I tried composing a point-by-point response to Brian's article, but
no matter how I worded it, it always came out as "fitin' woids",
which won't help anyone, so...]
Feel free to drop me a note off-line if you prefer.

I don't think that would help, to be honest. Suffice to say that I didn't
agree with everything you said, but I don't want to turn this into a
bar-room brawl.
>I'm not in a fitin' mood today,

Likewise. Perhaps we both just need a beer. And maybe a beer or two.

And a beer. And peanuts.

With beer.
You beer count beers the beer way I beer count beers.

There are few problems between reasonable people that cannot be settled
over a few pints. Sadly, USENET lacks such ability.
Sep 19 '06 #23

P: n/a
Clever Monkey said:
There are few problems between reasonable people that cannot be settled
over a few pints. Sadly, USENET lacks such ability.
See <3A***************@eton.powernet.co.uk>

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 19 '06 #24

P: n/a
Default User wrote:
Old Wolf wrote:
>
>>are clued in as soon as possible AND so nobody else has to do it.
Why don't you send private email then? Google requires the use
of a correct email address to post from.

Nonsense. The posts clue in the offender AND others.
The number of new people that do it (and 99% of new people
doing it is a better, but still inaccurate, generalization
I think than 99% of top posters being from Google[1]) suggests
that they generally don't read the group before posting.
This is something difficult to fix.

[1] Or AOL, or set top internet or whatever it was called, or
deja etc. It's generally either new people or stubborn
people that ignore group conventions.
--
imalone
Sep 20 '06 #25

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
Oh well. I tried. I guess I'll have to think of some other solution.
Might I suggest a set of posting guidelines? Call it "Improve Your
Odds Of Getting A Better Response," or something, and include all the
usual problems:

* Don't top-post

* Include enough context from the thread

* Copy & paste the minimum amount of code necessary to demonstrate
the problem; don't retype

* Make sure you're using C; c.l.c++ is down the hall

* Make sure your problem is a C problem; operating system newsgroups
are down the hall

Then the newbie chastising can take the form of a pointer to the
posting guidelines, and the regulars can appropriately killfile or
score down anyone who flouts them too often.

Charlton

Sep 20 '06 #26

P: n/a
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
Do you doubt it? Seriously? How often do you see top-posting from
someone not posting via Google?
This may be why I don't see it much; some time ago I plonked Google as
a news host, on the theory that anyone with enough wit to be worth
reading would not use it. In a year, I've found two people who
disprove the theory.

Charlton

Sep 20 '06 #27

P: n/a
Charlton Wilbur said:
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
>Oh well. I tried. I guess I'll have to think of some other solution.

Might I suggest a set of posting guidelines? Call it "Improve Your
Odds Of Getting A Better Response," or something, and include all the
usual problems:
Not a bad idea.
* Don't top-post
You may find http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/topposting.php to be an
entertaining explanation of why not to top-post.

<other important points snipped - maybe I'll address them in a Web page at
some point>

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 20 '06 #28

P: n/a
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
Do you doubt it? Seriously? How often do you see top-posting from
someone not posting via Google?

This may be why I don't see it much; some time ago I plonked Google as
a news host, on the theory that anyone with enough wit to be worth
reading would not use it. In a year, I've found two people who
disprove the theory.
I used Google for several months at the start of 2005, due to serious
problems with the news feed at work. I also realize that many people
from other countries would struggle to pay even the relatively nominal
fee for news.individual.net, which is 10 euro/year (currently about $13
US).

As such, I have sympathy for the Google users, and would prefer to help
them become good netizens rather than ignoring them.


Brian
--
Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
Sep 20 '06 #29

P: n/a
Jack Klein wrote:
>
Clog up the newsgroup? Are you back on dial-up?!?
Some of us never left dialup! ;-)

Zach

Sep 23 '06 #30

P: n/a

Zach wrote:
Jack Klein wrote:

Clog up the newsgroup? Are you back on dial-up?!?

Some of us never left dialup! ;-)
Wow, 5 days to reply! That's a helluva slow connection you got there.
>
Zach
Sep 23 '06 #31

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.