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.

> 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. :)

> 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.

> 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.

> >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.

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

> >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.

> > > 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 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.

> >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).

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

> 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. :)

--
trin