looking for hardware source

Wow, here we go again on this merry-go-round; I haven't read the bulk of this thread, only the first few (on-topic) posts, however, despite conventions, in a long thread, I _prefer_ to read top-posted, trimmed replies, since I have been following the thread, and find it very annoying to need to scroll to the bottom of a lot of dross to get to the (often one line) reply.

I would hope that most replies will be interspersed with quoted material rather than residing at one extreme of the post or the other.

Perhaps a new convention could be established that classifies a thread into a top or bottom posted variety in the subject line, to forewarn anyone opposed to either format ;-)

Banning html from text-only newsgroups is a _great_ idea however.

Regards,

Michael

[snip]

like your requirements.

Thanks for you suggestion. They are not perfect but far better than the previous candidates.

Thomas

Ridiculous misinformation. Read the rfcs. Read the following:

--
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   
   Try the download section.

... snip ...

It already is banned. The better newsreaders can be told not to display it.

--
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   
   Try the download section.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:13:21 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and CBFalconer instead replied:

An RFC is not a rule. Good grief. Is that all you've got?

-- Ray

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:15:49 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and CBFalconer instead replied:

Sadly, you can't "ban" html because it's text. That's all it is. In fact, you can't even "ban" binaries because they're converted to text before they're put on USENET. You seem blissfully unaware of the workings of newsgroups, mate. Read up on the technology before you insert your foot in your mouth any more.

This is a self regulating anarchy and nothing more. Your attempts at being a NetKop are laughable and worthy of ridicule.

-- Ray

However, you can tell it from most pure text. Similarly you can tell text from arbitrary binary, most of the time. These things revolve around the definition of a 'bit', from which we can derive definitions for 'byte', 'line', 'record', etc.

You are probably not aware that the better news-servers (generally European) will simply discard html messages. It is quite effective.

--
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   
   Try the download section.

I should have been more specific; news servers ought to be configured to strip html from posts made to text-only newsgroups as they often are for uuencoded material.

Michael

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:28:52 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and CBFalconer instead replied:

Which brings us to the concept that all compliance here for any form of posting is voluntary or based on the whim of the person posting. No amount of posturing or pointing to a Request For Comments (RFC) is going to make a bit of difference. Top, middle or bottom. HTML or plain text. Binary or not, the choice is clearly up to the voluntary compliance of everyone here, each to his or her own.

-- Ray

True also. However, assuming fairly reasonable users, pointing out of the standard conventions, together with reasons for them, generally has favorable results and makes Usenet more livable for all. In my experience.

Notice how this has evolved from a potential flame war to a reasonable presentation of facts. I think the key ingredient is that neither of us made ridiculous exagerated conclusions about the others meaning or motives.

--
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   
   Try the download section.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:08:52 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and David Brown instead replied:

Not so. In the early days, it was the convention to top post. If you wanted to read the rest, you could scroll down to read it. There was no sense in re-reading all the words over and over as an exchange took place.

USENET is a form of e-mail and always has been.

Who decided the conventions for this newsgroup? If anyone ever did, they're long gone now and new conventions are being established by those who state to post as you wish. That's the new convention.

-- Ray

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:00:54 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and David Brown instead replied:

Compliance is voluntary. Not all NNTP servers filter.

Feel? The DO have a right. Show me how you're going to "make" anyone post the way you want them to post.

Nonsense. People post as they want to post.

Yet here you are making yet another attempt to nanny the rest.

-- Ray

Ultimately, it is the poster that writes the posts, and technical measures only work to some extent (though they manage to block all binaries, almost all html, and most of the spam from newsgroups such as this one). But educating posters as to how best to join this community

*does* make a difference.

There are a few posters who feel that they have a right to post exactly what they want, in the way that they want, with a total disregard for the newsgroup community - they apparently forget that behind each poster and each reader is a real, living, thinking person, who is taking time to help others, or to ask for help, or to simply take part in conversations with others around the globe. Fortunately, such posters are few.

Most posters who invoke the wrath of the net nannies are relative newcomers, and they either leave (since they are unlikely to get helpful answers), or they make the effort to fit in with the group.

Net nanny posts are annoying - but they are a necessary evil to keep this newsgroup the way we like it.

The norm has *always* been to reply in-context, to bottom-post new text, and to snip unnecessary quotations. The size of posts used to be far more relevant than today - no one let the posts get bigger than they had to be.

Business email, support email, mailing lists and other such things are

*not* Usenet groups. They have their own rules and conventions appropriate for their users, as do different newsgroups. If you want to join a community, learn and follow the rules and conventions of *that* community, rather than moaning about how other groups have different styles. After all, you don't expect the same dress code to apply to a biker gang and a church meeting - why should the same posting style be used in such wildly different situations?

The RFC states that bottom posting is the preference of the author of the RFC itself but that it is not a rule.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 02:36:07 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and CBFalconer instead replied:

Absolutely. Have another adult beverage. My treat.

-- Ray

The liveability of Usenet is unaffected by top-posting.

The position on the page of a reply does not disrupt the discussion, just as this top-posted reply does not disrupt the discussion as to why bottom-posting is so bad.

Decent ones do - that's why people pay for newsserver access if their ISP's don't provide a good service.

Perhaps "moral standards" or "social rules" are better terms than "rights" - I don't know what is more appropriate. But just as you don't have the "right" to walk up to a group conversing in the street and start talking loudly about the weather, you don't have the "right" to join a public discussion forum and disrupt the discussions going on there. In both cases, there are no laws involved, and no way to force the abuser to stop - but following unwritten group rules is fundamental to human society.

Most people post because they want to take part in discussions. They'll get more of that if they follow the style of the group.

As I say, it's a necessary evil.

I note that you are posting appropriately (no html, replying in-line and bottom posting, etc.), and it's perfectly clear from this thread that this style makes the conversation easy to read. So why exactly are we arguing? If it's about freedom, and people's right to say what they want and how they say it, then in general I'm all for it - but a certain level of convention and standardisation makes life much easier.