Subj : Re: format for data storage?
To   : comp.programming
From : Randy Howard
Date : Mon Aug 01 2005 12:49 am

Ben Pfaff wrote
(in article <8764uqobvw.fsf@benpfaff.org>):

> "js5895" <JoshTmp@nycap.rr.com> writes:
> 
>> CBFalconer, You've got a lot of nerve. You post
>> to my subject not even talking about programming
>> and then you call me unintelligible. I think
>> you don't even know anything about programming.
> 
> The message you were replying to (which you did not quote) was by
> Randy Howard and was in itself replying to Rob Thorpe, so it's
> difficult to see what specific article you're complaining about
> here.

How ironic.  :-)

>> After about 60 or more posts, This is the only group
>> that said I had to write my messages a certain way.
>> The only reason I'm using Google is for the archiving.
>> I normally use Outlook but, the server deletes the
>> messages. I also have a program that I made that archives
>> my messages to my hard drive. So I personally don't need
>> that structure of writing.
> 
> The reason to quote is not for your own benefit.  It is for the
> benefit for others reading your articles.
> 
> If you don't quote (which is preferred), then it would be
> appreciated if you'd at least pick appropriate articles to follow
> up.
> 
> You should know that your articles will normally appear on Google
> Groups whether you post them through their news service or via
> another server.  If they do not, then it's probably a Usenet
> propagation problem.

A very good point, which many people may not understand.  You do 
*not* have to use google for your posts to be archived.  In 
fact, all posts (barring unexpected error) are archive unless 
the X-noarchive (sp?) header option is enabled on your post. 

To 'js5895', CBFalconer *definitely* does not quite a bit about 
programming, whether you think so or not.  That is patently 
obvious to anyone that hung around various technical newsgroups 
for any reasonable amount of time.

You seem to be missing the point, which was originally quite a 
simple one.  Namely, that people would be much more likely to 
respond on-topic to your posts if you left in the clues about 
how they should do so.

I suspect one reason you didn't figure it out is that (IIRC) 
Google does NOT display text from signature blocks by default 
when you use their interface .  If so, you may have missed the 
note that CBF left you in one very early in this thread.  In 
case that is the case, I will include it here again, 'above the 
line' so you can see it.  

"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

That is very good advice, and if you take it everyone will be 
much happier.

If you didn't see this originally, it is yet another in a very 
long list of reasons to NOT use Google for Usenet participation. 
 It can be very useful for searching the archives, but as a UI 
for daily interaction, it leaves a LOT to be desired.

-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

.