G
glee
Guest
Re: Strange error messages
"... et al." <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:eDPW3N$WIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> glee wrote:
>
>> It's the old top-or-bottom post whinge again, Gary, or so it seems.
>
> It may seem like it but, since it was you and me that went through this last time
> around, you know it isn't.
Was it? I don't remember the last time I was in a discussion about this, but the
issue of how OE positions its replies is still basically a top vs bottom post issue,
AFAICS.
>> OE top-posts by default, so the latest signature is at the end of the uppermost
>> reply. The so-called "well-behaved" newsreaders are set by default to delete
>> text below the signature delimiter (two dashes followed by a space followed by a
>> Return, such as you and I and Robear use).....the original idea being to remove
>> the sometimes overlong signatures in posts, from subsequent replies, IF only
>> bottom posting was used throughout.
>
> That's about it, except for it NOT being about top- vs. bottom-posting. It's about
> OE, when constructing a reply, putting 'content'/'quoted text' in the
> footer/signature. Stupid, but so be it i suppose. But don't then complain about it
> to your conversation-partner if the news-clients he/she uses follows standard
> practices.
Well, where else would an app that defaults to top-posting put the quoted text?
Apparently your distinction here is that the quoted text in a top-posting should be
placed below the current reply, but above the signature. I understand if that's
what you are stating, but, it's just as easy if not easier to simply modify the
settings in your reader to NOT delete text, as Gary mentioned. Obviously you are
aware of that, though.
>> The actual problem is the fact that the users of these so-called well-behaved
>> readers are apparently not capable of changing the setting to accommodate the
>> variety of posting methods in use today: top, bottom, and inline....all of which
>> are valid forms, as you know. These self-appointed 'net police would rather
>> whine about others not using the only posting method *they* approve.
>
> Ah, come on now! When do i ever try to police the way Gary, you OR Robear posts? I
> on occasion stand up for the bullied, hopefully getting across that it is not
> anything wrong that they do, that is causing them to be barked at.
OK, I'll take back the "net police" comment....it was dumb anyway, and I don't view
you that way in these groups. ;-)
I do understand the point you are making re: OE, and your feeling that you are
defending the poster who was told to include the full text.....it's just that this
always seems to turn into an issue of posting style in so many side-threads, and the
issue has just been beaten to death already over the years. At this point it just
triggers knee-jerk reactions.
Warning: Signature Follows! Your Newsreading Application May Delete All Text Below
This Signature When You Reply!
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>> news:e2RPpFzWIHA.6140@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Oh, we're into that "well-behaved" newsreader thing again, eh? I find it hard to
>>> believe that OE deletes any content from incoming messages, or from replies. I
>>> have yet to see mine do it. If your "well-behaved" newsreader is having problems
>>> dealing with that, or with any other such issues, seems to me that's a problem
>>> with being "well-behaved".
>>>
>>> Seems that Google News also deletes such content. What DO your "well-behaved"
>>> newsreaders insert, anyway, that would piss off Google and OE so badly?
>>>
>>>
>>> "... et al." <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:Om9llgyWIHA.5132@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Henry's first reply (15:26 UTC) to Robear did not include all of the previous
>>>>> content.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it didn't and that was not what i said. Of course, you can not see in
>>>> this reply what i said because, just like 'PA Bear', you use the same
>>>> news-client that is intentionally broken to cause 'content-omissions' from
>>>> people they communicate with if these people use any well-behaving news-client.
>>>>
>>>>> Robear <pasted> in the previous stuff in his subsequent reply (18:02 UTC).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, 'PA Bear' did. Furthermore, 'PA Bear' also manually ( for that post only )
>>>> modified the signature-delimiter so that the next reply from 'Henry' not only
>>>> included the full body of what he replied to (which was done also in the first
>>>> reply and which what i claimed in my post) but also included all of the
>>>> 'content'.
>>>>
>>>> Note! Henry didn't change anything to get things to work since there was never
>>>> anything wrong at that end. 'PA Bear' /temporarily/ corrected the broken
>>>> posting-style of 'Outlook Express'.
>>>>
>>>> The interesting question is why, knowing the above, 'PA Bear' while helping
>>>> different people at the same time inaccurately accuses them of doing wrong by
>>>> omitting things in their replies.
"... et al." <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:eDPW3N$WIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> glee wrote:
>
>> It's the old top-or-bottom post whinge again, Gary, or so it seems.
>
> It may seem like it but, since it was you and me that went through this last time
> around, you know it isn't.
Was it? I don't remember the last time I was in a discussion about this, but the
issue of how OE positions its replies is still basically a top vs bottom post issue,
AFAICS.
>> OE top-posts by default, so the latest signature is at the end of the uppermost
>> reply. The so-called "well-behaved" newsreaders are set by default to delete
>> text below the signature delimiter (two dashes followed by a space followed by a
>> Return, such as you and I and Robear use).....the original idea being to remove
>> the sometimes overlong signatures in posts, from subsequent replies, IF only
>> bottom posting was used throughout.
>
> That's about it, except for it NOT being about top- vs. bottom-posting. It's about
> OE, when constructing a reply, putting 'content'/'quoted text' in the
> footer/signature. Stupid, but so be it i suppose. But don't then complain about it
> to your conversation-partner if the news-clients he/she uses follows standard
> practices.
Well, where else would an app that defaults to top-posting put the quoted text?
Apparently your distinction here is that the quoted text in a top-posting should be
placed below the current reply, but above the signature. I understand if that's
what you are stating, but, it's just as easy if not easier to simply modify the
settings in your reader to NOT delete text, as Gary mentioned. Obviously you are
aware of that, though.
>> The actual problem is the fact that the users of these so-called well-behaved
>> readers are apparently not capable of changing the setting to accommodate the
>> variety of posting methods in use today: top, bottom, and inline....all of which
>> are valid forms, as you know. These self-appointed 'net police would rather
>> whine about others not using the only posting method *they* approve.
>
> Ah, come on now! When do i ever try to police the way Gary, you OR Robear posts? I
> on occasion stand up for the bullied, hopefully getting across that it is not
> anything wrong that they do, that is causing them to be barked at.
OK, I'll take back the "net police" comment....it was dumb anyway, and I don't view
you that way in these groups. ;-)
I do understand the point you are making re: OE, and your feeling that you are
defending the poster who was told to include the full text.....it's just that this
always seems to turn into an issue of posting style in so many side-threads, and the
issue has just been beaten to death already over the years. At this point it just
triggers knee-jerk reactions.
Warning: Signature Follows! Your Newsreading Application May Delete All Text Below
This Signature When You Reply!
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>> news:e2RPpFzWIHA.6140@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Oh, we're into that "well-behaved" newsreader thing again, eh? I find it hard to
>>> believe that OE deletes any content from incoming messages, or from replies. I
>>> have yet to see mine do it. If your "well-behaved" newsreader is having problems
>>> dealing with that, or with any other such issues, seems to me that's a problem
>>> with being "well-behaved".
>>>
>>> Seems that Google News also deletes such content. What DO your "well-behaved"
>>> newsreaders insert, anyway, that would piss off Google and OE so badly?
>>>
>>>
>>> "... et al." <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:Om9llgyWIHA.5132@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Henry's first reply (15:26 UTC) to Robear did not include all of the previous
>>>>> content.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it didn't and that was not what i said. Of course, you can not see in
>>>> this reply what i said because, just like 'PA Bear', you use the same
>>>> news-client that is intentionally broken to cause 'content-omissions' from
>>>> people they communicate with if these people use any well-behaving news-client.
>>>>
>>>>> Robear <pasted> in the previous stuff in his subsequent reply (18:02 UTC).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, 'PA Bear' did. Furthermore, 'PA Bear' also manually ( for that post only )
>>>> modified the signature-delimiter so that the next reply from 'Henry' not only
>>>> included the full body of what he replied to (which was done also in the first
>>>> reply and which what i claimed in my post) but also included all of the
>>>> 'content'.
>>>>
>>>> Note! Henry didn't change anything to get things to work since there was never
>>>> anything wrong at that end. 'PA Bear' /temporarily/ corrected the broken
>>>> posting-style of 'Outlook Express'.
>>>>
>>>> The interesting question is why, knowing the above, 'PA Bear' while helping
>>>> different people at the same time inaccurately accuses them of doing wrong by
>>>> omitting things in their replies.
