Flower of romance wrote:
> Gid wrote

[Good 'Netiquette]
> >> Yes but it's a lot like cleaning other peoples' mess.

Not really.

> > If you were using a Usenet standards compliant newsreader it would do
> > it for you automagically..
>
> Well you know Microsoft and thier failure to follow standards.

No-one forces you to use M$, that's a choice you make all on your very
own.

--
trin

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:7c5e7efb-937a-4487-a3fe-690415b008cf@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Flower of romance wrote:
> then me, then FoR, then Gid, etc.

> >> >the .sigs are all standards compliant and a standards compliant
> >> >newsreader will automagically cut them..
> >> The sigs that people put in you mean? My point is made.

>Yes, people choose whether or not to put sig.s into posts, but those
>who use a standard compliant client don't need to worry about having
>to cut them out, and those who don't do it manually (I have to)
>because it is a Usenet standard.

>This isn't just another one of them weird URP things, this is the
>whole of Usenet thing.

But patronizing seems very much a URP thing. I know how usenet works. I've 
been using it for long enough. In case you haven't been reading, I don't 
have a problem with tidying posts. Doing so is only sensible. I do have 
problems with people who posts the sigs objecting when other people don't 
clean off the sigs posted by the origional posters. I also have a problem 
with people  who blame the news client for the mess. The mess is created by 
the posters, plain and simple.

> >> I use OE because I like it and if you don't like that then that;s your 
> >> problem.

>I use Ggroups because paying for Usenet access on top of all the other
>bills is just NOT something I'm gonna be able to sell to Nick. I used
>to use OE. I'll let yer into a secret; I actually *liked* OE. It's
>actually still my favourite really, I just cba to move it all back
>over from TB.

Well say what you like about Microsoft but they do make nice interfaces. I 
don't know if you're into programming at all but Microsofts visual studio 
interface is second to none.


>You using OE is not The Problem.

>The Problem is that you're using OE without editing for Usenet
>'protocol'.

Trin. I've been manually trimming posts. I may miss the odd one but like I 
said, it's not the trimming I have a problem with.

>Ggroups gives me pretty much the same control over what I post as you
>get in OE, so if I can do it, then why can't you?

No reason. I'll take a look at it.


> And so the hopscotch continues.

>Ooh good. I like hopscotch. Not that I'd be all that capable of a game
>right this minute, you understand. :)

Me neither TBH. I don't think people relish the idea of my massive bulk 
leaping over them.. oh the bad memories. :)


> > You really DO like to make yourself look thick, doncha. *bemused grin*
> Nope.

>Let's put it this way, it's certainly the way it looks from this side
>of the screen.

Then I honestly suggest you try to see it from my point of view.

>Oh, you do realise, don't you, that me pointing that out, was just me
>stating a fact as I perceive it, and not actually intended as the
>insult you see, but simply as the conveying of that information to
>you.

Yeah. I got that.

> > FoR, have you actually been and read the Posting Guidelines?
>
> The thing about guidlines is that they are "guidlines".

>The Charter isn't.

>http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.pagan.html

>Please note the usenet.org.uk part.

I've read it before. Like I said, I don't have a problem with it.

> >http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.pagan.html
> >http://www.jymn.net/urp/urppgl.html
> >http://home.freeuk.net/magickcauldron/urp/netiquette.html
>
>> > Now go read, and then come back and stop being so silly.
>
> >See my above point about guidlines

>The Charter is The Rule Book, not the sightseers guide.

Writen in stone it be.... :) Seriously i think my point may have got a 
little waylayed. See above for the re-iteration of my stance.

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:ec352c65-b236-4432-a57e-c3c4adfe79a8@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Flower of romance wrote:
> trin wrote

>> >because it is a Usenet standard.
> >>This isn't just another one of them weird URP things, this is the
> >>whole of Usenet thing.
>>
>> But patronizing seems very much a URP thing.

>Not really - or, at least, no more so than anywhere else, when someone
>new tries to wade in with their size nines (or whatever), and appears
>to refuse to listen to the advice given by those already there on how
>to integrate their self smoothly.

mine are size 11s. :) advice is one thing but preaching is quite another 
thoush i appreciate that such things aren't done maliciously.

> I know how usenet works. I've been using it for long enough.

>In which case you'll know that URPs not the only place a muppet can go
>to get patronised. :)

Actually.. you're right. :)


>> In case you haven't been reading, I don't have a problem with tidying 
>> posts.
>> Doing so is only sensible.

>Well lets put it this way, leaving excess crap in takes up bandwidth,
>and while most've us over here're now on broadband, there're still
>those out there (even in the UK) who're still on 56k dial-up modems,
>and so =for them= how much crap you cut out or don't DOES become an
>issue. And I'm not saying that you always leave crap in anyway, but
>cutting things like .sigs and tidying attributions is just a massive
>plus point in getting people to actually read your posts.

Again. I get that. I doubt whether I have more than half a megabit  to play 
with but even that seems more than enough to handle usenet. Though not 
brilliant for binary groups but I can live without them.

>> I do have problems with people who posts the sigs objecting when other
>> people don't clean off the sigs posted by the origional posters. I also 
>> have a
>> problem with people who blame the news client for the mess. The mess is
>> created by the posters, plain and simple.

>It doesn't work like that though. Yes, UsenetterA puts his own .sigs
>into his post, but those aren't to make a mess, they're to convey
>information relevant not to the post, but to UsenetterA himself; be it
>contact information, fave web sites, quotes, or whatever. As long as
>the .sig is within the rules (as per The Charter), no-one can say
>diddlysquat because it's allowed. And yes, that means the onus is on
>RespondentB to trim any spare crap not relevant to the post she's
>replying to from her response before hitting send, but I fail to see
>how having to delete four lines of text or less can be a big deal to
>anyone.

Again, I don't have a problem with sigs, nor do I mind cleaning up. messages 
would be a site mor messy is we didn't but what I object to the people who 
put the sigs in telling me off for not cleaning thier sigs. I'm more than 
happy to do it but sometimes I forget. If that happens then live with it. It 
wasn't malicious or because I don't know you have to do it, it's because I 
forget from time to time. I beleive it's something called a senior moment.

>> >You using OE is not The Problem.
>> >The Problem is that you're using OE without editing for Usenet
>> >'protocol'.
>>
>> Trin. I've been manually trimming posts. I may miss the odd one but like 
>> I
>> said, it's not the trimming I have a problem with.

>It is when you're still leaving the .sigs in.
Like I said, I forget from time to time

>FWIW, I commend you on your lack of top-posting. :)

Thank you. :)
top posting is just chaos. :)


>> >Ggroups gives me pretty much the same control over what I post as you
>> >get in OE, so if I can do it, then why can't you?

>> No reason. I'll take a look at it.

>Stick with OE. Trust me on this.

I do. I took a look at g groups and the format was for want of a better 
term, too haphazard for me. IIRC there used to be an OE patch that removed 
sigs, eccess tokens and the like?????


> > > You really DO like to make yourself look thick, doncha. *bemused grin*
> > Nope.
> >Let's put it this way, it's certainly the way it looks from this side
> >of the screen.
>> Then I honestly suggest you try to see it from my point of view.

>I have done, many many many more times than I care to remember. I've
>been the one getting bollocked for some idiocy or another ever since I
>hit the Internet all those years ago (yes Gid, I know it wasn't /
>really/ all that long ago, in the grand scheme of things :p). Unlike
>you however, I don't let it wind me up, instead I take the view that
>I'm getting a free edumacation out of it, and try to learn from it.

I don't choose to let it wind me up. It just does. We neurotics don't choose 
to be like this, we are stuck with it. Given the choice I'd rather b happy 
than right but then when I'm on a downoer it's the other way round.

>I know that's not how you meant with the whole try to see it my way
>thing, but it's the answer you've got.

I can live with it.

>> >Oh, you do realise, don't you, that me pointing that out, was just me
> >>stating a fact as I perceive it, and not actually intended as the
> >>insult you see, but simply as the conveying of that information to
> >>you.
>> Yeah. I got that.

>Good, 'cause brusque/short/pointing out facts/appearances != being
>insulting (sometimes).

You're preaching to the chiour(however you spell it) Trin. or rather, you're 
preaching to the minister (pardon the pun) and it's more patronizing rather 
than insulting.


>> >The Charter isn't.
>> I've read it before. Like I said, I don't have a problem with it.

>Good. And the guidelines may only be guidelines, but if you want to be
>able to get on with people in here instead of having them think "OMG
>it's that fuckin' moron again" when they see you've posted, then you
>need to start running to the guidelines as well as the Charter.

Is it me or is the charter smaller than it used to be?


>> Writen in stone it be.... :) Seriously i think my point may have got a
>> little waylayed. See above for the re-iteration of my stance.

>Hope we've cleared stuff up. :)

I think so. I'd rather get these things out in the open than squabble. IMHO 
there is too much squabbling on usenet.

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:c9f7dff1-1673-4bb9-af6b-0a6ca7094399@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Flower of romance wrote:
>> trin wrote
>
>> mine are size 11s. :) advice is one thing but preaching is quite another
>
> Depends on the scenario. It can be a fine line to tread.

Particularly when I was drunk. Oh. I thought you were talking about the 
shoes again. :)
>
>> thoush i appreciate that such things aren't done maliciously.
>
> Good. :)
>
>> Actually.. you're right. :)
>
> I often am. ;)

Me too, but when too many people are right too often it can unnerve people. 
:)

>
>> >It is when you're still leaving the .sigs in.
>> Like I said, I forget from time to time
>
> We all do occasionally, but you appeared to be doing it deliberately,
> which really is gonna get people's backs up.

No. It wasn't deliberate.
>
>> IIRC there used to be an OE patch that removed sigs, eccess tokens and
>> the like?????
>
> No idea, I've been using TB for too long.
>
>> >Good, 'cause brusque/short/pointing out facts/appearances != being
>> >insulting (sometimes).
>> You're preaching to the chiour(however you spell it) Trin. or rather, 
>> you're
>> preaching to the minister (pardon the pun) and it's more patronizing 
>> rather
>> than insulting.
>
> It's choir, and I'm sure you can use a speel chucker in OE, in case
> you're stuck.

Yeah but mine's in French. I've got to remember to fix that.
>
> As for the patronising part, that really really wasn't me being
> patronising, at all, in the slightest. Now if you *want* me to do
> patronising, I can, but I'd rather not have to.

I don't like people being patronizing and they don't like me being 
patronizing. It's a good arrangement. Everyone's happy, or nervous; I forget 
which.
>
>> Is it me or is the charter smaller than it used to be?
>
> Don't think so. Perhaps you're thinking of one of the other doc's.

Probably.

Flower of romance wrote:

<snip>

> I do. I took a look at g groups and the format was for want of a
> better term, too haphazard for me. IIRC there used to be an OE patch
> that removed sigs, eccess tokens and the like?????

Not a patch from Microsoft, but an independant program that fixes OE's more 
flagrant non-standard 'features'.

"OE Quotefix"
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

Yowie

Yowie wrote:
> Flower of romance wrote:
>> I do. I took a look at g groups and the format was for want of a
>> better term, too haphazard for me. IIRC there used to be an OE patch
>> that removed sigs, eccess tokens and the like?????
>
> Not a patch from Microsoft, but an independant program that fixes
> OE's more flagrant non-standard 'features'.
>
> "OE Quotefix"
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

will it didn't kill the sigs but it certainly tidied up the intdents. 
Thganks for that, Yowie.