Copyright proof for digital images

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alan Browne, Jan 4, 2004.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Not really, 'cause, I snipped the rest of your tedious post without
    reading it.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 11, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    That's like saying GM, Ford and Chrysler are responsible for bad driving.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 11, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest


    Netscape has an option to allow the cursor to open at the top or the
    bottom. I have it open at the top for the same reason you cite.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 11, 2004
  4. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    TenKMan wrote:

    Yes I did. But I also looked up "top posting", and then suggested it to
    you, and the following links are just two of many on the subject:

    badly formatted, but a good read:
    http://www.fscked.co.uk/writing/top-posting-cuss.html

    More general
    http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php

    So, son't accuse me of "snipping out the relevant parts" when you don't
    have the courtesy to go search with a more refined criteria.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 11, 2004
  5. Alan Browne

    Don Forsling Guest

    Challenge: Read the post below. Try to determine the language in which it
    is written. It LOOKS like English, but...? No, it couldn't be English.


     
    Don Forsling, Jan 11, 2004
  6. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    It's a lowland version of Verbosh, likely influenced by the first
    settlers of Tedium. The influence of Bromidiche counties in the old
    country can't be ignored. One of the Bromodiche pastors who accompanied
    the settlers was Don Wright Torpid, (His mother was of the Drudge clan),
    and his contribution to the dialect reflected in the text is clear.

    I looked very carefully, but there is no indication of Brevetites
    Affliction in the referred text.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 11, 2004
  7. Alan Browne

    cf Guest

    To Alan Browne

    I failed to see any valid reasoning in your post, yet you seems to have make
    this claim: "A thousand words without reason does not overcome a few words
    of reason". But where is your reason to support the following assumptions of
    yours?

    1. "Top posting is appropriate for e-mails between a couple or very few
    people". How do you explain the reason that 'top posting is not appropriate
    for NG'?

    2. ['Top-posting'] "On an NG it leads to dead threads". And the reason? How
    do you explain the reason that 'bottom posting on an NG does not lead to
    dead threads'?

    Unless you demonstrate that you knew the reasons above, then you are just
    making adventitious claims. Even if you demonstrate that you knew the reason
    above, but if your reason is not valid, then your reasoning is biased.
     
    cf, Jan 12, 2004
  8. Alan Browne

    cf Guest

    To Alan Browne

    By making a one-sided (biased) statement is still one-sided, even though it
    is made nevertheless. Even if you didn't snipped the rest and having read
    it, if your statement is one-sided, it is one-sided due to the absence of
    reason that support it [which contradict my position].

    It is amazing that you will consider something as tedious without actually
    experience it through effort of reading. In order words, you are making a
    pre-assumption of thing based of conditioned judgement instead of practical
    experience.

    The accumulation of weeks, months, years of short posts you have read on
    this NG would be longer than any 'long' post you have seen here, which only
    required a few minutes of your precious time, not weeks, months, years of
    tedious effort [which amount to nothing part from the reinforcement of
    ignorance, aversion, and attachment due to your present attitude]. Do you
    desire imprisonment within such unceasing cycle of tedious pursuits, or
    rather spend a few priceless moment for the realisation of the truth that
    liberates?


     
    cf, Jan 12, 2004
  9. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Answers to all of the above have been 'posted' in this thread ad nauseum
    by myslelf and others. There is no service in repeating them.

    Of course my reasoning is biased: Biased by about 8 years of NG
    participation, here and elsewhere. Top posting is disruptive.
    Here are some links for you:

    badly formatted, but a good read:
    http://www.fscked.co.uk/writing/top-posting-cuss.html

    More general
    http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 12, 2004
  10. Oh, shut.....
    (scroll down)

    .....up!

    There - both top AND bottom posts! Now both of you kindly go play in the
    street.

    Mike
     
    Mike Lipphardt, Jan 12, 2004
  11. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Wha?
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 12, 2004
  12. Alan Browne

    cf Guest

    To Alan Browne

    Re: http://www.fscked.co.uk/writing/top-posting-cuss.html

    Here's my counter-argument that opposed or supplement the contents of this
    webpage.

    1. As indicated in my previous correspondence to you (in Exhibit 1), the
    inclusion of a snip context is meaningless (incomprehensible) to others,
    even the poster who wrote it, if he forgets the full contents. Thus quoting
    is indeed necessary, not just the snip portion, which is for inclusion
    within the contents through editing [for top post], and a bottom reference
    is critical. But a snip portion of the context is meaningless, most often
    there is a need to quote several levels of communication, this complicate
    the matters, as a snip portion of a single level is difficult to understand,
    how much more is several level of snip context? (But the situation is
    reversed if the quoted context is a top post contents since it contained
    embedded context). Conclusion of point 1: quoting is strictly critical, the
    quoted context should be edited within the contents, to make it presentable,
    and a full reference of the previous post below to authenticate the validity
    of the quoted context.

    2. The webpage says "Having decided to quote, it dramatically improves the
    readability and flow of your document to intersperse quote and reply in the
    manner usually adopted on most newsgroups". The initiate point "Having
    decided to quote, it dramatically improves the readability and flow of your
    document" does not oppose top posting [because top posting not only quote,
    but edify its quote and include full contents of the quote below], but its
    latter point "...to intersperse quote and reply in the manner usually
    adopted on most newsgroups" seems to indicate that most newsgroup adopted
    bottom posting (yet most NG is influenced by this webpage to adopt bottom
    posting, not that most NG will not adopt top posting in the absence of its
    influence), it seems to indicate that it is necessary to adopt to the same
    manner as to "improves the readability and flow of your document", but if
    this webpage is deleted from the server, in the absence of its influence,
    most NG will not be obliged to adopt bottom posting.

    It says "Top-posting means that anyone trying to read your article as a
    free-standing document must scroll up and down, trying to figure out who
    said what and to whom". But ask yourself sincerely this question: 'the first
    time you open my top post, do you need to scroll down to find out who it is
    directed to (remember, there is an inclusion of 'To {your name}')? Do you
    need to scroll down to find out from who the post is from (remember you see
    from the 'from' field of the column in the thread and know that it is from
    me before downloaded it)?

    It says "It takes seconds to compose a properly trimmed and quoted reply.
    Please do so", but it takes a few minutes [longer] to compose a properly
    trimmed and quoted reply in a top post, why not do so? Remember it indicated
    that the concept "my time as an author is worth more than yours as a reader"
    will "offends people".

    It says "These rules of netiquette have evolved over that time, and although
    they may look odd, there are very good reasons behind them." Since there is
    literally no advantage of bottom post over top post, yet every advantage is
    credited to top posts, is there reason not to top post, as due to the fact
    that "These rules of netiquette have evolved over that time"?

    It says "it is true that many newsgroups accept top-posting", yet it says
    previously "Having decided to quote, it dramatically improves the
    readability and flow of your document to intersperse quote and reply in the
    manner usually adopted on most newsgroups". Then why it refrained from
    adopting 'quote and reply in the manner [of top posting] usually adopted on
    most newsgroups', but instead adopting 'quote and reply in the manner [of
    bottom posting] *not* usually adopted on most newsgroups'? The answer is
    simple: Because it says "This newsgroup is one of the ones that does
    *not* tolerate it, and I would ask you to extend us the common courtesy
    of respecting our conventions when in our newsgroup."

    In order words, "this newsgroup" is the one that does not exercise
    tolerance, but is forcing others to adopt to their own conventions of
    'netiquette'. It is based on valid reason? The exercise of intolerance and
    biased conventions of 'netiquette' could not be possibly based on any valid
    good reason, and the truth of this debate shows that it has none, except the
    valid but unwholesome reason of intolerance and abuse of authority.
     
    cf, Jan 13, 2004
  13. Alan Browne

    cf Guest

    To Alan Browne

    Re: http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php

    Here's my counter-argument that opposed or supplement the contents of this
    webpage.

    1. It says "Top-posting is the annoying practice of replying to a message by
    typing your response above that to which you are responding. This is a Bad
    Thing? because your readers will have to scroll down and extract the
    essential of the existing thread in order to grasp the context of your
    reply, and then scroll back up again to read your reply."

    This is a flawed argument because it failed to understand that in a properly
    edited top posting, the context is embedded within the contents, making it
    interpendent of external quotes, but the bottom quotes is there at the
    bottom for full reference. It is customary for all properly edited reading
    material to have reference at the bottom or back of the publication,
    definitely not on the front or top as in bottom posting.

    2. It says "Posting a "me too" comment at the bottom of a 100+ line message
    is no better because people have to scroll all the way down through 100+
    lines they've already read in order to see your one-liner. One word comes to
    mind for that: frustrating."

    This argument merely show the problem of bottom posting, not if the "me too"
    comment [embedded with necessary context] appeared as a top post.

    3. It says "The generally accepted "right way" of doing things is called
    "inline posting", whereby you insert your comments straight after that on
    which you are commenting, having stripped unnecessary text from the original
    quoted text. The end result is something which makes much more sense because
    it reads like a conversation."

    These requirements are in no way absence in top posting, except that snip
    context appeared more presentable [in a top post], as it has gone through
    extra editing. Top posting could "reads like a conversation" also, if it
    wishes to, like this top posting itself. But here the major difference, I
    could repost the entire post in the future, since it is properly edited, it
    is more presentable and save the trouble of future editing.

    P/S: This may not appeared like bottom-reference (top post) due to absence
    of bottom-reference, but the truth is the bottom-reference is unnecessary to
    the 'Re' line on top has been directed to a url link. If there is an absence
    of link, then a bottom reference of a full quoted contents is necessary for
    authentication.
     
    cf, Jan 13, 2004
  14. Just working at ticking the both of ya off. The top/bottom posting debate
    will never, ever be settled by argument on usenet. Just like the Leica vs
    the world issue. Bud vs Miller. Cindy Lauper vs Britney Spears. Barbara
    Eden vs Elizabeth Montgomery. The Death Star vs the Enterprise. You know -
    those kind of in depth issues that no one will ever agree on. Takes up
    bandwidth pointlessly. Kind of like this (top) post.

    Mike
     
    Mike Lipphardt, Jan 13, 2004
  15. Alan Browne

    Lionel Guest

    Nobody uses the term 'net etiquette'. Search on 'netiquette' & you'll
    get some results.
     
    Lionel, Jan 13, 2004
  16. Addressing a single person on a public forum is considered impolite (bad
    netiquette). Please use e-mail if you have a personal exchange.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 13, 2004
  17. Alan Browne

    Lionel Guest

    Oh yeah, just what we need in RPD - yet another retarded troll
    deliberately trying to inflame arguments. Thanks *so* much, Mike.
     
    Lionel, Jan 13, 2004
  18. I aim to please!

    Mike
     
    Mike Lipphardt, Jan 13, 2004
  19. I aim to please!

    Mike
     
    Mike Lipphardt, Jan 13, 2004
  20. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    It takes a lot more than that to tick me off.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 13, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.