Subj : Re: format for data storage?
To   : comp.programming
From : mensanator@aol.com
Date : Sun Jul 31 2005 07:15 pm


Randy Howard wrote:
> 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 .

Yes, it does. Note your signature is quoted below.

> 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,

But not in the case of a long post (such as yours) where the
"show options" link has scrolled off the top of the screen.
In such cases, the good advice is to go ahead and use the
"Reply" link - but use it properly.

> and if you take it everyone will be
> much happier.

If you must use the "Reply" link, simply click the
[Preview] button and then the [Edit Message] button
to have Google quote the same way it would had you used
the "show options" "relpy" links.

>
> 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)

.