Why do Old-Timers

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by MayB, Nov 9, 2003.

  1. MayB

    MayB Guest

    Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to SHOUTING),
    and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come the old-timers on
    this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?
     
    MayB, Nov 9, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. MayB

    Brian H¹© Guest

    MayB said:

    > Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to SHOUTING),
    > and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come the old-timers on
    > this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?


    *BECAUSE THEY CAN*
    I take it you mean "those" asterisks?
    They render the enclosed text "bold".
     
    Brian H¹©, Nov 9, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. MayB

    -= Hawk =- Guest

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:12:04 GMT, "MayB" <MayB@socalNOT_THIS.rr.com>
    scribbled:

    >Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to SHOUTING),
    >and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come the old-timers on
    >this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?


    Why the _fuck_ do you *care*, ANYHOW?


    --
    'What Profiteth It A Kingdom If The Oxen Be Deflated?'
    Riddles II, v3
    - T. Pratchett
     
    -= Hawk =-, Nov 9, 2003
    #3
  4. MayB

    Patrick Guest

    MayB wrote:
    > Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to
    > SHOUTING), and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come
    > the old-timers on this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?


    Have a look here (freebie);
    http://flash.to/oe-quotefix/
     
    Patrick, Nov 9, 2003
    #4
  5. MayB

    MayB Guest

    "-= Hawk =-" <> wrote in message
    news:m2drqvoo165ubme31g43t50lc2bja0he0r@news-server...
    > On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:12:04 GMT, "MayB" <MayB@socalNOT_THIS.rr.com>
    > scribbled:
    >
    > >Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to

    SHOUTING),
    > >and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come the old-timers

    on
    > >this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?

    >
    > Why the _fuck_ do you *care*, ANYHOW?


    My caring has nothing to do with my fucking. Because you ask, however, I
    *care* because I still have things to be learned, apparently of no concern
    to *you*.
     
    MayB, Nov 9, 2003
    #5
  6. MayB

    MayB Guest

    "Patrick" <> wrote in message
    news:wvirb.823$...
    > MayB wrote:
    > > Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to
    > > SHOUTING), and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come
    > > the old-timers on this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?

    >
    > Have a look here (freebie);
    > http://flash.to/oe-quotefix/


    Thank you, Patrick. It's not always easy to suffer the slings and arrows
    that accompany some responses. I learned from your reference.
     
    MayB, Nov 9, 2003
    #6
  7. MayB

    Brian H¹© Guest

    MayB said:

    > "-= Hawk =-" <> wrote in message
    > news:m2drqvoo165ubme31g43t50lc2bja0he0r@news-server...
    >> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:12:04 GMT, "MayB" <MayB@socalNOT_THIS.rr.com>
    >> scribbled:
    >>
    >>> Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to SHOUTING),
    >>> and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come the old-timers on
    >>> this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?

    >>
    >> Why the _fuck_ do you *care*, ANYHOW?

    >
    > My caring has nothing to do with my fucking. Because you ask, however, I
    > *care* because I still have things to be learned, apparently of no concern
    > to *you*.


    It is unacceptable to SHOUT on usenet, but it is ok to *emphasize*
    in much the same way as you can't say someone "abducted" my children, in court,
    but you can say that they "secreted" my children.
    Sometimes some people are just anally retentive, and consider one word in caps
    as shouting, whereas others accept one word in caps and view a complete post in
    caps as totally ignorant on the part of the poster.
    All true ofcourse.
     
    Brian H¹©, Nov 9, 2003
    #7
  8. MayB

    Mara Guest

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:44:04 GMT, MayB wrote:

    >
    >"Patrick" <> wrote in message
    >news:wvirb.823$...
    >> MayB wrote:
    >> > Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to
    >> > SHOUTING), and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come
    >> > the old-timers on this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?

    >>
    >> Have a look here (freebie);
    >> http://flash.to/oe-quotefix/

    >
    >Thank you, Patrick. It's not always easy to suffer the slings and arrows
    >that accompany some responses. I learned from your reference.


    Actually, that isn't the reason some of us (tinu) "Old-Timers" do it.

    http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~claire/texts/netiquette.txt
    http://www.digitalspace.com/avatars/book/appendix/netiq.htm
    http://tinyurl.com/u94o (page 24)

    "It's just a question of personal preference, nothing more. And it isn't hard at
    all. It's also much easier to read, for people with certain vision problems."

    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
     
    Mara, Nov 9, 2003
    #8
  9. MayB

    Guest

    On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 03:53:04 -0000, "Brian H¹©"
    <-vine.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

    >It is unacceptable to SHOUT on usenet, but it is ok to *emphasize*
    >in much the same way as you can't say someone "abducted" my children, in court,
    >but you can say that they "secreted" my children.


    You can indeed say in court that someone abducted your children. It
    is said frequently.

    --
    Craig
     
    , Nov 9, 2003
    #9
  10. MayB

    MayB Guest

    "Brian H¹©" <-vine.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
    news:zSirb.625$...
    > MayB said:
    >
    > > "-= Hawk =-" <> wrote in message
    > > news:m2drqvoo165ubme31g43t50lc2bja0he0r@news-server...
    > >> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:12:04 GMT, "MayB" <MayB@socalNOT_THIS.rr.com>
    > >> scribbled:
    > >>
    > >>> Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to

    SHOUTING),
    > >>> and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come the

    old-timers on
    > >>> this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?
    > >>
    > >> Why the _fuck_ do you *care*, ANYHOW?

    > >
    > > My caring has nothing to do with my fucking. Because you ask, however,

    I
    > > *care* because I still have things to be learned, apparently of no

    concern
    > > to *you*.

    >
    > It is unacceptable to SHOUT on usenet, but it is ok to *emphasize*
    > in much the same way as you can't say someone "abducted" my children, in

    court,
    > but you can say that they "secreted" my children.
    > Sometimes some people are just anally retentive, and consider one word in

    caps
    > as shouting, whereas others accept one word in caps and view a complete

    post in
    > caps as totally ignorant on the part of the poster.
    > All true ofcourse.
    >

    Very interesting! I didn't know that it's not proper to say "abducted".
    Is there rationale for that? I'm also a bit puzzled by "anally retentive".
    Does that mean that they insist on being assholes? Am I to understand that
    to write *one* word in caps for emphasis is acceptable?
     
    MayB, Nov 9, 2003
    #10
  11. MayB

    MayB Guest

    "Mara" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:44:04 GMT, MayB wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Patrick" <> wrote in message
    > >news:wvirb.823$...
    > >> MayB wrote:
    > >> > Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to
    > >> > SHOUTING), and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come
    > >> > the old-timers on this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?
    > >>
    > >> Have a look here (freebie);
    > >> http://flash.to/oe-quotefix/

    > >
    > >Thank you, Patrick. It's not always easy to suffer the slings and arrows
    > >that accompany some responses. I learned from your reference.

    >
    > Actually, that isn't the reason some of us (tinu) "Old-Timers" do it.
    >
    > http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~claire/texts/netiquette.txt
    > http://www.digitalspace.com/avatars/book/appendix/netiq.htm
    > http://tinyurl.com/u94o (page 24)
    >
    > "It's just a question of personal preference, nothing more. And it isn't

    hard at
    > all. It's also much easier to read, for people with certain vision

    problems."
    >

    Thanks, Mara. I scrolled through all of u94o. Realized that all I know is
    a rather incomplete part of the appropriate wisdom. Makes me wonder if that
    little refresher wouldn't help some of the Old-Timers, as well.
     
    MayB, Nov 9, 2003
    #11
  12. MayB

    pcbutts1 Guest

    uh-oh you're in trouble now.

    --


    The best live web video on the internet http://www.seedsv.com/webdemo.htm
    Sharpvision simply the best http://www.seedsv.com



    "MayB" <MayB@socalNOT_THIS.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:8Kirb.124893$...
    >
    > "-= Hawk =-" <> wrote in message
    > news:m2drqvoo165ubme31g43t50lc2bja0he0r@news-server...
    > > On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:12:04 GMT, "MayB" <MayB@socalNOT_THIS.rr.com>
    > > scribbled:
    > >
    > > >Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to

    > SHOUTING),
    > > >and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come the

    old-timers
    > on
    > > >this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?

    > >
    > > Why the _fuck_ do you *care*, ANYHOW?

    >
    > My caring has nothing to do with my fucking. Because you ask, however, I
    > *care* because I still have things to be learned, apparently of no concern
    > to *you*.
    >
    >
     
    pcbutts1, Nov 9, 2003
    #12
  13. MayB

    Richard Guest

    MayB wrote:

    > Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to
    > SHOUTING),
    > and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come the
    > old-timers on
    > this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?



    * causes "*text to be bold*" in certain newsreaders.
    _ causes "_underlining_"

    In mine I will see "/italics/" if you use / around the word.
     
    Richard, Nov 9, 2003
    #13
  14. MayB

    Brian H¹© Guest

    MayB said:

    > "Brian H¹©" <-vine.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:zSirb.625$...
    >> MayB said:
    >>
    >>> "-= Hawk =-" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:m2drqvoo165ubme31g43t50lc2bja0he0r@news-server...
    >>>> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:12:04 GMT, "MayB" <MayB@socalNOT_THIS.rr.com>
    >>>> scribbled:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to
    >>>>> SHOUTING), and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come the
    >>>>> old-timers on this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?
    >>>>
    >>>> Why the _fuck_ do you *care*, ANYHOW?
    >>>
    >>> My caring has nothing to do with my fucking. Because you ask, however, I
    >>> *care* because I still have things to be learned, apparently of no concern
    >>> to *you*.

    >>
    >> It is unacceptable to SHOUT on usenet, but it is ok to *emphasize*
    >> in much the same way as you can't say someone "abducted" my children, in
    >> court, but you can say that they "secreted" my children.
    >> Sometimes some people are just anally retentive, and consider one word in
    >> caps as shouting, whereas others accept one word in caps and view a complete
    >> post in caps as totally ignorant on the part of the poster.
    >> All true ofcourse.
    >>

    > Very interesting! I didn't know that it's not proper to say "abducted".
    > Is there rationale for that? I'm also a bit puzzled by "anally retentive".
    > Does that mean that they insist on being assholes? Am I to understand that

    Yes.

    > to write *one* word in caps for emphasis is acceptable?


    The OCCASIONAL use of caps shouldn't trigger comments about the use of caps,
    except from the dimmer light bulbs.
     
    Brian H¹©, Nov 9, 2003
    #14
  15. MayB

    Brian H¹© Guest

    Richard said:

    > MayB wrote:
    >
    > > Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to
    >> SHOUTING),
    >> and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come the
    >> old-timers on
    >> this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?

    >
    >
    > * causes "*text to be bold*" in certain newsreaders.
    > _ causes "_underlining_"
    >
    > In mine I will see "/italics/" if you use / around the word.


    What makes you think the italics is restricted to "yours"?
     
    Brian H¹©, Nov 9, 2003
    #15
  16. MayB

    philo Guest

    "MayB" <MayB@socalNOT_THIS.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:8girb.124891$...
    > Since caps are appropriate only as emphasis (i.e., equivalent to

    SHOUTING),
    > and since shouting is one way to emphasize, then how come the old-timers

    on
    > this ng emphasize the hard way, using asterisks?
    >
    >


    if i use capital letters,
    my computer uses so much power, that the lights in my house dim

    if i use asterisks they merely blink slightly <g>


    but seriously it's merely a matter of shouting vs. emphasis

    cap. letters SHOUT

    while when you are speaking and want to *emphasize* something
    it's more of a pause and enunciate thing
     
    philo, Nov 9, 2003
    #16
  17. MayB

    Mara Guest

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 05:09:48 GMT, MayB wrote:

    >
    >"Mara" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:44:04 GMT, MayB wrote:


    <snip>
    >> "It's just a question of personal preference, nothing more. And it isn't

    >hard at
    >> all. It's also much easier to read, for people with certain vision

    >problems."
    >>

    >Thanks, Mara. I scrolled through all of u94o. Realized that all I know is
    >a rather incomplete part of the appropriate wisdom. Makes me wonder if that
    >little refresher wouldn't help some of the Old-Timers, as well.


    Why?

    Google shows that you're a relative newbie to usenet. Some of the "Old-Timers"
    have been on for many years. You are certainly not going to force them, or
    anyone, to change what or how they post simply because you think it isn't right.
    That's why clients have killfiles. No one is going to care, so your choices are:

    1. Grow a thicker skin and get used to it;
    2. Use your killfile to delete posts from posters you don't want to read.

    It's that simple. Note: It also helps to learn to read headers - I understand
    that I was being forged in this group earlier. You'll find that trolls do that
    quite often - lacking the intelligence to form their own thoughts and ideas,
    they forge other poster's nics and addresses out of stupidity and jealousy. It's
    a real shame they don't have the simple intelligence to make a post on their
    own, but there you have it. :)

    "And it's as easily dealt with in your client as would-be moduhrators and
    evangelisers are."

    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
     
    Mara, Nov 9, 2003
    #17
  18. MayB

    MayB Guest

    "Mara" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 05:09:48 GMT, MayB wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Mara" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:44:04 GMT, MayB wrote:

    >
    > <snip>
    > >> "It's just a question of personal preference, nothing more. And it

    isn't
    > >hard at
    > >> all. It's also much easier to read, for people with certain vision

    > >problems."
    > >>

    > >Thanks, Mara. I scrolled through all of u94o. Realized that all I know

    is
    > >a rather incomplete part of the appropriate wisdom. Makes me wonder if

    that
    > >little refresher wouldn't help some of the Old-Timers, as well.

    >
    > Why?
    >
    > Google shows that you're a relative newbie to usenet. Some of the

    "Old-Timers"
    > have been on for many years. You are certainly not going to force them, or
    > anyone, to change what or how they post simply because you think it isn't

    right.
    > That's why clients have killfiles. No one is going to care, so your

    choices are:
    >
    > 1. Grow a thicker skin and get used to it;
    > 2. Use your killfile to delete posts from posters you don't want to read.
    >
    > It's that simple. Note: It also helps to learn to read headers - I

    understand
    > that I was being forged in this group earlier. You'll find that trolls do

    that
    > quite often - lacking the intelligence to form their own thoughts and

    ideas,
    > they forge other poster's nics and addresses out of stupidity and

    jealousy. It's
    > a real shame they don't have the simple intelligence to make a post on

    their
    > own, but there you have it. :)
    >
    > "And it's as easily dealt with in your client as would-be moduhrators and
    > evangelisers are."
    >

    Mara - My comment re the old timers was not meant to be disparaging
    whatsoever. It was nothing more than an idle thought. BTW, it's
    interesting that Google can reveal the history of a ng client. Would you
    enlighten me on how that's done? Thanks a lot.
     
    MayB, Nov 9, 2003
    #18
  19. MayB

    Mara Guest

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:20:41 GMT, MayB wrote:

    <snip>
    >Mara - My comment re the old timers was not meant to be disparaging
    >whatsoever. It was nothing more than an idle thought. BTW, it's
    >interesting that Google can reveal the history of a ng client. Would you
    >enlighten me on how that's done? Thanks a lot.


    I didn't think it was, and I didn't take it that way; I simply spelled out some
    facts, and that's all. :)

    If you use google group's Advanced Search feature, and learn the various ways it
    can supply you with information, all will be revealed. The trick is to sort the
    wheat from the chaff, so to speak. It's a thing best learned by doing.

    "No one is really anonymous, online. Sometimes, people forget that, I think."

    --
    Speech isn't free when it comes postage due. --Jim Nitchals
     
    Mara, Nov 9, 2003
    #19
  20. MayB

    Patrick Guest

    MayB wrote:
    > "Mara" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 05:09:48 GMT, MayB wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Mara" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:44:04 GMT, MayB wrote:

    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>>> "It's just a question of personal preference, nothing more. And it
    >>>> isn't hard at all. It's also much easier to read, for people with
    >>>> certain vision problems."
    >>>>
    >>> Thanks, Mara. I scrolled through all of u94o. Realized that all I
    >>> know is a rather incomplete part of the appropriate wisdom. Makes
    >>> me wonder if that little refresher wouldn't help some of the
    >>> Old-Timers, as well.

    >>
    >> Why?
    >>
    >> Google shows that you're a relative newbie to usenet. Some of the
    >> "Old-Timers" have been on for many years. You are certainly not
    >> going to force them, or anyone, to change what or how they post
    >> simply because you think it isn't right. That's why clients have
    >> killfiles. No one is going to care, so your choices are:
    >>
    >> 1. Grow a thicker skin and get used to it;
    >> 2. Use your killfile to delete posts from posters you don't want to
    >> read.
    >>
    >> It's that simple. Note: It also helps to learn to read headers - I
    >> understand that I was being forged in this group earlier. You'll
    >> find that trolls do that quite often - lacking the intelligence to
    >> form their own thoughts and ideas, they forge other poster's nics
    >> and addresses out of stupidity and jealousy. It's a real shame they
    >> don't have the simple intelligence to make a post on their own, but
    >> there you have it. :)
    >>
    >> "And it's as easily dealt with in your client as would-be
    >> moduhrators and evangelisers are."
    >>

    > Mara - My comment re the old timers was not meant to be disparaging
    > whatsoever. It was nothing more than an idle thought. BTW, it's
    > interesting that Google can reveal the history of a ng client. Would
    > you enlighten me on how that's done? Thanks a lot.


    Simply putting (supposed)-e-mail-address into 'Google' search-engine and
    select 'Groups' !!!

    Result equals;
    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=MayB@socalNOT_THIS.rr.com&sa=N&tab=wg

    or short version;
    http://tinyurl.com/uatq
     
    Patrick, Nov 9, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. R Siffredi

    Timers spf

    R Siffredi, Oct 28, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    693
    Everton
    Oct 31, 2005
  2. Harvey Colwell

    Only Old Timers need to apply.

    Harvey Colwell, Nov 3, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,278
  3. =?iso-8859-1?Q?mark=5Fdigital=A9?=

    OT-where's all the old timers?

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?mark=5Fdigital=A9?=, Jul 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    768
  4. Jack B. Pollack

    Calling all old-timers DOS2, BASIC v1 question

    Jack B. Pollack, Dec 12, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    563
    Jack B. Pollack
    Dec 13, 2006
  5. Hermes
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    424
    Hermes
    Mar 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page