Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Mark Fowler]

On 18 Oct 2001, Steve Mynott wrote:

> [about how we can never solve jeopardy quoting as it's a social
> problem] [1]

A pint (or five) to the first person that writes a Mail::Audit script /
PINE[2] display filter that can detect jeopardy quoting and delete all but
the first n lines and move it above the top of the mail quoted properly

Later.

Mark.

(who's just started experimenting with Exchange's web mail front end and
quite likes it, but would never use it as a real mail client)

[1] This is how I like to reply to whole mails btw
[2] Or mutt.  As long as it can easily be adapted between the two

-- 
s''  Mark Fowler London.pm   Bath.pm
 http://www.twoshortplanks.com/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
';use Term'Cap;$t=Tgetent Term'Cap{};print$t->Tputs(cl);for$w(split/  +/
){for(0..30){$|=print$t->Tgoto(cm,$_,$y)." $w";select$k,$k,$k,.03}$y+=2}

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Niklas Nordebo]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:33:02AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
> 
> FLAME ON

paraphrased: "You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so
I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you"

I dunno, it has worked on some mailing lists I'm on.

Of course, we do kick people out if they either can't learn to quote sanely
after a reasonable time, or if they deliberately quote improperly because
they think people who object are just stupid and old-fashioned and don't
understand that they're above all that since they're Nathans and use
fucking Microsoft Outlook and not some kind of stoneage text mail client
for hippy programmers.

People do mistakes sometimes, especially if they're used to jeopardy
quoting or whatever. The fact that people *will* do something doesn't mean
that something isn't wrong/bad/whatever, as anyone with even a vague grasp
of logic will understand.

-- 
Niklas Nordebo -><- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -><- +447966251290
 "The day is seven hours and fifteen minutes old, and already it's
crippled with the weight of my evasions, deceit, and downright lies"

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Struan Donald]

* at 18/10 12:41 +0200 Niklas Nordebo said:
>
> they think people who object are just stupid and old-fashioned and don't
> understand that they're above all that since they're Nathans and use
> fucking Microsoft Outlook and not some kind of stoneage text mail client
> for hippy programmers.

ah yes, they's be the ones that you get email from saying "my reply in
blue" which is always handy especially as they don't actually use
handy indents to mark which is the reply. or [% INCLUDE
std_bad_mail_client_rant %]

s

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Steve Mynott]

Niklas Nordebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:33:02AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
> > 
> > FLAME ON
> 
> paraphrased: "You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so
> I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you"

That wasn't actually the intention.  I will top quote when I think it
makes the email easier to read which I think is generally the case
when you are writing more than you are quoting.

A drawback of bottom quoting is that you have to scroll past the quote
in order to get the new material.  I read a _lot_ of email and such
scrolling wastes valuable time and key strokes.  It also raises
visability of your words.  I am well aware that its against
USENET/mailing list tradition as codified in 1989 but I think its just
geek snobbery against Outlook and AOL users and the like really.

Isn't the Perl way "There is More Than One Way to Do It?"

Bottom quoting to me only makes sense to me now if you are responding
on a point to point basis (as I am doing now).  So I use both quoting
styles.

> Of course, we do kick people out if they either can't learn to quote sanely
> after a reasonable time, or if they deliberately quote improperly because
> they think people who object are just stupid and old-fashioned and don't
> understand that they're above all that since they're Nathans and use
> fucking Microsoft Outlook and not some kind of stoneage text mail client
> for hippy programmers.

Sorry you lost me here.  I can't understand whether you are being
ironic or not and so your meaning is lost.

I care more about the content people post and how easy it is to read
than the way they quote it.

> People do mistakes sometimes, especially if they're used to jeopardy
> quoting or whatever. The fact that people *will* do something doesn't mean
> that something isn't wrong/bad/whatever, as anyone with even a vague grasp
> of logic will understand.

I think the solution is client-side (filtering) rather than
server-side.

Complaining about quoting really is petty and a total waste of time.

If you hate "broken quoting" so much why don't you write a Perl script
to "fix" it to the way you like and put all your mail through it?

Problem Over.

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

don't go around saying the world owes you a living. the world owes you
  nothing. it was here first.  -- mark twain 

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[David Cantrell]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:20:17AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
> A drawback of bottom quoting is that you have to scroll past the quote
> in order to get the new material.  I read a _lot_ of email and such
> scrolling wastes valuable time and key strokes.

Then trim your quotes more :-)  And scrolling, at least in a sensible
client, takes minimal time or effort.  One keystroke to go down one
page is a price I'm happy to pay.

> Isn't the Perl way "There is More Than One Way to Do It?"

No, it's "There's more than one way to do it but in any particular
situation, most of them are wrong".

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

   Perl may be the best solution for processing a text
   file, but asking a group of Perl Mongers clearly isn't
  -- aef, in #london.pm

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Matthew Byng-Maddick]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:20:17AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
> Niklas Nordebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:33:02AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
> > > FLAME ON
> > paraphrased: "You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so
> > I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you"
> That wasn't actually the intention.  I will top quote when I think it
> makes the email easier to read which I think is generally the case
> when you are writing more than you are quoting.

Do you read bottom-up, then? if not, why bother quoting? did you actually
read any of the link I posted?

> A drawback of bottom quoting is that you have to scroll past the quote
> in order to get the new material.  I read a _lot_ of email and such

Yes. However, there shouldn't really be *ENOUGH TO SCROLL PAST* which was
my point in the first place. If you don't trim the quoting I still have
to scroll past all of the stuff you've quoted, just to see if there's
anything new at the bottom. Bt. You lose.

> scrolling wastes valuable time and key strokes.  It also raises
> visability of your words.  I am well aware that its against

How?

> USENET/mailing list tradition as codified in 1989 but I think its just
> geek snobbery against Outlook and AOL users and the like really.

You obviously didn't read that link. Go and read it. You may understand why
I feel this way. The examples are good and clear.

> Isn't the Perl way "There is More Than One Way to Do It?"

Yes. However, we're now talking about english not perl. Bzt. You lose.
Again.

> Bottom quoting to me only makes sense to me now if you are responding
> on a point to point basis (as I am doing now).  So I use both quoting
> styles.

If you end up top-posting, then why bother quoting?

> > Of course, we do kick people out if they either can't learn to quote sanely
> > after a reasonable time, or if they deliberately quote improperly because
> > they think people who object are just stupid and old-fashioned and don't
> > understand that they're above all that since they're Nathans and use
> > fucking Microsoft Outlook and not some kind of stoneage text mail client
> > for hippy programmers.
> Sorry you lost me here.  I can't understand whether you are being
> ironic or not and so your meaning is lost.

Don't worry if it's over your head. You're obviously one of the kind of
people that's being insulted. :-)

> I care more about the content people post and how easy it is to read
> than the way they quote it.

Bzzt. You lose. YET AGAIN. The entire point of sensible quoting is *TO
MAKE IT EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND*. You're really doing well here.

> > People do mistakes sometimes, especially if they're used to jeopardy
> > quoting or whatever. The fact that people *will* do something doesn't mean
> > that something isn't wrong/bad/whatever, as anyone with even a vague grasp
> > of logic will understand.
> I think the solution is client-side (filtering) rather than
> server-side.

No - no filtering, just a few seconds thought when composing the article.

> Complaining about quoting really is petty and a total waste of time.

So WTF are you doing it?

> If you hate "broken quoting" so much why don't you write a Perl script
> to "fix" it to the way you like and put all your mail through it?

Because then you need to understand language. Well volunteered, since you
think it would be so easy.

> Problem Over.

Not at all.

MBM (angry=630476ms).

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://colondot.net/

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Niklas Nordebo]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:20:17AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
> Niklas Nordebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:33:02AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
> > > 
> > > FLAME ON
> > 
> > paraphrased: "You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so
> > I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you"
> 
> That wasn't actually the intention.  I will top quote when I think it
> makes the email easier to read which I think is generally the case
> when you are writing more than you are quoting.
> 
> A drawback of bottom quoting is that you have to scroll past the quote
> in order to get the new material.  I read a _lot_ of email and such
> scrolling wastes valuable time and key strokes.  It also raises
> visability of your words.  I am well aware that its against
> USENET/mailing list tradition as codified in 1989 but I think its just
> geek snobbery against Outlook and AOL users and the like really.

Yes, a drawback of bottom quoting is that you have to scroll past the
quote, *if you quote way too much* like I just did.

And it has nothing to do with Outlook/AOL - I don't know about AOL but it's
not harder to quote after what you're quoting in Outlook than in Pine
(after you've changed a couple of settings to sane values, like putting in '>'.

> Isn't the Perl way "There is More Than One Way to Do It?"

Yes, but the london.pm list isn't in Perl, it's in English over mail.

> Bottom quoting to me only makes sense to me now if you are responding
> on a point to point basis (as I am doing now).  So I use both quoting
> styles.

AS I had before, top quoting only makes sense when you're quoting too
much. Like you did in the message I replied to.

> > fucking Microsoft Outlook and not some kind of stoneage text mail client
> > for hippy programmers.
> 
> Sorry you lost me here.  I can't understand whether you are being
> ironic or not and so your meaning is lost.

Somewhat ironic, somewhat pretty close to the mark in most cases I'd say.

> I care more about the content people post and how easy it is to read
> than the way they quote it.

How is something is to read is very much dependent on presentation such as
quoting.

There is no distinction between good design and good usability.

> > People do mistakes sometimes, especially if they're used to jeopardy
> > quoting or whatever. The fact that people *will* do something doesn't mean
> > that something isn't wrong/bad/whatever, as anyone with even a vague grasp
> > of logic will understand.
> 
> I think the solution is client-side (filtering) rather than
> server-side.

Seems like a complicated solution to a simple problem to me.

> Complaining about quoting really is petty and a total waste of time.

No, it generally helps. I'm on several mailing lists with non-technical
people who have learnt not to reply on top and quote the entire message
chain below (which I'm sure even you don't think has it's place).

> If you hate "broken quoting" so much why don't you write a Perl script
> to "fix" it to the way you like and put all your mail through it?

It's not that much of a problem, since most people I correspond with quote
in a non-broken way.

-- 
Niklas Nordebo -><- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -><- +447966251290
 "The day is seven hours and fifteen minutes old, and already it's
crippled with the weight of my evasions, deceit, and downright lies"

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]

[Sue Spence]

Mark Fowler wrote:
> 
> On 18 Oct 2001, Steve Mynott wrote:
> 
> > [about how we can never solve jeopardy quoting as it's a social
> > problem] [1]
> 
> A pint (or five) to the first person that writes a Mail::Audit script /
> PINE[2] display filter that can detect jeopardy quoting and delete all but
> the first n lines and move it above the top of the mail quoted properly

I find the widespread practice of cutesy footnoting to be far more
irritating than any of the other complaints which have come through my
inbox today. Do you care? I doubt it. Say, here's an idea. How about we
all keep our fussy, neurotic complaints about the way others format
their email to ourselves? 

Just a thought.

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Dave Cross]

From: Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10/18/01 12:36:55 PM

[rant snipped]

I've said this before and I'll (no doubt) have to say it again
in the future.

The london.pm mailing list is meant to be inclusive. Everyone
is welcome here. This means that we _do_ _not_ flame people simply
because they fail to use our favourite mail client or don't post
strictly in line with the usual guidelines.

Yes, we have (many) people on the list who have been on the internet
for a long time and can quote RFCs at length to back up all of
the netiquette rules, but it's a complete waste of time. Most
people on the internet aren't like that these days. Most people
happily post using MS Outlook because that's what they get given
at work. Most people reply "jeopardy style" because that's what
their mail client encourages them to do.

If you shout at them, they'll just leave the list and complain
how elitist we are. I don't want that to happen. If anyone thinks
that's an acceptable outcome then perhaps they are on the wrong
list.

The battle against the invading barbarian hordes was lost years
ago. Learn to live with it. Or annex your own part of the internet
and impose your strict rules there.

But don't do it on this list.

There's nothing to see here. Move along now.

Dave...

-- 


"Let me see you make decisions, without your television"
   - Depeche Mode (Stripped)

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Dominic Mitchell]

Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Niklas Nordebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > paraphrased: "You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so
> > I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you"
> 
> That wasn't actually the intention.  I will top quote when I think it
> makes the email easier to read which I think is generally the case
> when you are writing more than you are quoting.
> 
> A drawback of bottom quoting is that you have to scroll past the quote
> in order to get the new material.  I read a _lot_ of email and such
> scrolling wastes valuable time and key strokes.  It also raises
> visability of your words.  I am well aware that its against
> USENET/mailing list tradition as codified in 1989 but I think its just
> geek snobbery against Outlook and AOL users and the like really.
> 
> Isn't the Perl way "There is More Than One Way to Do It?"
> 
> Bottom quoting to me only makes sense to me now if you are responding
> on a point to point basis (as I am doing now).  So I use both quoting
> styles.

No, it's much, much simpler than that.  By quoting at the top, you are
implying that you have not read and taken in the rest of the mail.

-Dom

-- 
| Semantico: creators of major online resources  |
|   URL: http://www.semantico.com/   |
|   Tel: +44 (1273) 72   |
|   Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Dominic Mitchell]

"Dave Cross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The london.pm mailing list is meant to be inclusive. Everyone
> is welcome here. This means that we _do_ _not_ flame people simply
> because they fail to use our favourite mail client or don't post
> strictly in line with the usual guidelines.

You are of course, absolutely correct.  When small annoyances build up
over time (like the quoting thing, which bugs me a bit, and other
people probably more), it's very easy to forget that we have more in
common than apart and that we are all gathered together for a reason,
which is more important than flinging insults.

-Dom

-- 
| Semantico: creators of major online resources  |
|   URL: http://www.semantico.com/   |
|   Tel: +44 (1273) 72   |
|   Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Greg McCarroll]

* Dominic Mitchell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> You are of course, absolutely correct.  When small annoyances build up
> over time (like the quoting thing, which bugs me a bit, and other
> people probably more), it's very easy to forget that we have more in
> common than apart and that we are all gathered together for a reason,
> which is more important than flinging insults.
> 

Sorry for the one liner, but I could not agree more with the
sentiments of this e-mail.

Greg

-- 
Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]

[Alex Gough]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Sue Spence wrote:
> Mark Fowler wrote:
> > On 18 Oct 2001, Steve Mynott wrote:
> > > [ a mail rant]
> > [ more mail ranting ]
> 
> I find the widespread practice of cutesy footnoting to be far more
> irritating than any of the other complaints which have come through my
> inbox today. Do you care? I doubt it. Say, here's an idea. How about we
> all keep our fussy, neurotic complaints about the way others format
> their email to ourselves? 
> 

Footnotes [1] are used by writers [2] to add further detail to their
prose [3] or to point to a source of reference [4].  Sometimes the use of
footnotes [5] can reach a ridiculous level [6].  [7].  Often a reader will
turn over a new page and seeing footnotes [8] at the bottom will read these
before arriving at the point in the text where the footnote [9] has its
effect.

Of course it is possible to write an entire paragraph which details an idea
or argument which is contained only within that paragraph, this makes
footnotes [10] unnecessary [11].

[1] These things down here.
[2] And, as rumour has it, authors as well.
[3] Or, if pressed, their poetry.
[4] For instance, the _Oxford Compendium of Footnotes, Asterisked Passages
and other Literary Get-Outs_
[5] See [1].
[6] Where the main body of the writing appears at the bottom of the page,
in cases like this, it becomes very hard to follow the flow of ideas
from the author.
[7] If you see a passage like this, you are best advised to place your
finger on the part of the page that you were redirected from, so as to
more easily locate it after reading all the footnotes [1],[5].
[8] See [1],[5] and [7].
[9] See [1],[5],[8] also [7].
[10] See [1],[5],[7],[8] and [9].
[11] But where would be the fun in that.

Alex Gough

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Steve Mynott]

Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:20:17AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
> > Niklas Nordebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:33:02AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
> > > > FLAME ON
> > > paraphrased: "You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so
> > > I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you"
> > That wasn't actually the intention.  I will top quote when I think it
> > makes the email easier to read which I think is generally the case
> > when you are writing more than you are quoting.
> 
> Do you read bottom-up, then? if not, why bother quoting? did you actually
> read any of the link I posted?

I looked at it and most of the advice seemed reasonably sensible,
although not particularly original.  I still think the well known
"Emily Postnews" and RFC 1855 Netiquette guides, which predate it by a
number of years, are better.

It is rather narrow in concentrating on quoting style exclusively.
Also using a single line "I agree" example seems rather foolish since
many people think these sort of contentless oneliners are to be
discouraged.

I am sorry but a specification of email style isn't the same thing as
a specification of TCP/IP or whatever as many programmers seem to
believe.  One is objectively right or wrong and the other mere
subjective opinion.  

And there is a certain arrogance underlying this document and similar
ones and it is "the way we believe emails to be written is definitive
and absolutely right with no possible variation possible" and an
associated lack of tolerance of the views of others.

Although, ironically, this document also contains a line you would
have done well to study yourself before sending an abusive off-list
email to me.

  "Be polite. Calling someone an idiot for top-posting may help let off
  steam, but it's unlikely to help fix the problem - indeed the opposite
  might be more likely."

True words indeed.

> > A drawback of bottom quoting is that you have to scroll past the quote
> > in order to get the new material.  I read a _lot_ of email and such
> 
> Yes. However, there shouldn't really be *ENOUGH TO SCROLL PAST* which was
> my point in the first place. If you don't trim the quoting I still have
> to scroll past all of the stuff you've quoted, just to see if there's
> anything new at the bottom. Bt. You lose.

How can you write an email in which there is nothing to scroll past
when you don't know how many lines there are displayed in the email
client?  Answer: You don't and "top quoting" wins in this situation.

I think Microsoft have done usability studies on this which is why
their mail clients use "top quoting".  Did your friends do usability
studies?  I did and asked a non-technical user in the pub about this
and they prefered top posting.

> You obviously didn't read that link. Go and read it. You may understand why
> I feel this way. The examples are good and clear.

I understand exactly why you feel this way.  You are blinkered in
feeling you are right and everyone should agree with your particular
way of writing emails.  

You actually believe that people will change the way they write in
order with your own views.  I believe you are mistaken and you will
learn this with time

> Yes. However, we're now talking about english not perl. Bzt. You lose.
> Again.

s/english/English

OK I admit spelling/grammer corrections are lame but not as bad as
your imaginary virtual buzzer which belongs in a document defining
unacceptable arguing techniques.
 
> > Bottom quoting to me only makes sense to me now if you are responding
> > on a point to point basis (as I am doing now).  So I use both quoting
> > styles.
> 
> If you end up top-posting, then why bother quoting?

To add some minimal context to my post.

> No - no filtering, just a few seconds thought when composing the
> article.

Yes you are right (no irony) but your chances of enforcing your narrow
set of views on the email reading public are zero in the absence of a
"quoting police" to confiscate the computers of offenders who commit
the evil of top quoting.

Users are dumb so deal with it.

> > Complaining about quoting really is petty and a total waste of time.
> 
> So WTF are you doing it?

Because I like it.  What's your excuse?

> > If you hate "broken quoting" so much why don't you write a Perl script
> > to "fix" it to the way you like and put all your mail through it?
> 
> Because then you need to understand language. Well volunteered, since you
> think it would be so easy.

I don't think you need a Perl script that understands the English
language to do this.  You could just use the '>' and if there is
unquoted text above them move it to the bottom where you can scroll
down to it with the keystrokes you enjoy so much and be happy!

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

chemistry is applied theology.
-- augustus stanley owsley iii

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]

[Roger Horne]

On Thu 18 Oct, Alex Gough wrote:
> 
> Footnotes [1] are used by writers [2] to add further detail to their
> prose [3] or to point to a source of reference [4]. 

The TeXbook, p 117:
  "Authors who are interested in good exposition should avoid footnotes
  whenever possible, since footnotes tend to be distracting[*].

  [*] Yet Gibbon's Decline and Fall would not have been the same
  without footnotes."

> Sometimes the use of
> footnotes [5] can reach a ridiculous level [6].

As in the TeX Edmac macros for "critical editions" which permit five series
of footnotes, all on the same page: 

  '"EDMAC" provides five
  layers of notes in the belief that this will be adequate for
  the most demanding editions.  But it is not hard to add further
  layers of notes to "EDMAC" should they be required.'


Roger
-- 
Roger Horne
11 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3QB
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]

[David Cantrell]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 03:46:21PM +0100, Roger Horne wrote:
> The TeXbook, p 117:
>   "Authors who are interested in good exposition should avoid footnotes
>   whenever possible, since footnotes tend to be distracting[*].
> 
>   [*] Yet Gibbon's Decline and Fall would not have been the same
>   without footnotes."

I'm reading that[1] right now.  I have it in a lovely six-volume set[2],
but I also bought an electronic edition from 
cos it's much easier to read on the train.  It has the footnotes
hyperlinked from the body text, which is good.

What is not good is that the hyperlink takes you to a page which has all
the footnotes for the entire chapter on it, so you have to scroll to find
the right one.  What *should* happen is that the hyperlink should pop up
the footnote over the top of the body text.  Bah.

1 - Gibbon, not the TeXbook[3][4]
2 - Everyman edition, 50 quid for all six IIRC, from the British Museum
shop.
3 - sorry for the footnotes, I couldn't resist
4 - but I bet Gibbon would use TeX if he were alive today

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

Do not be afraid of cooking, as your ingredients will know and misbehave
   -- Fergus Henderson

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]

[Greg McCarroll]

* Roger Horne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> The TeXbook, p 117:
>   "Authors who are interested in good exposition should avoid footnotes
>   whenever possible, since footnotes tend to be distracting[*].
> 

For what its worth,

I have heard Mr Pratchet's name cited as the guilty party for the
increased use of footnotes, especially as comic asides.

Greg

-- 
Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK,London]

[Mark Fowler]

Sue wrote:

> Mark Fowler wrote:
>
> > A pint (or five) to the first person that writes a Mail::Audit script /
> > PINE[2] display filter that can detect jeopardy quoting and...
>
> I find the widespread practice of cutesy footnoting to be far more
> irritating than any of the other complaints which have come through my
> inbox today.

Erk, sorry.  Didn't know it bothered you.  How about I write you a
Mail::Audit script that can fix that too ;-) .

We know perl right?  Can't we (collectivly) come up with a set of scripts
to fix (for certain values of fix, depending on personal style) all of
these problems before the data is actually presented to us.  This *has* to
be better than ranting at people.  I hate it when mommy and daddy fight.

Problems off of the top of my head that may or may not need fixing
depending on your personal point of view:

  1) Non ASCII mail (i.e. when someone uses a pesky font with ukp signs in
 it or something, or worse smart quotes)

  2) Jeopardy Quoting

  3) Lines >72 chars long (we - well damian - has fixed this one right)

  4) Attachments (this is a biggie - but I'd like to see my attachments
 automatically dumped in a password protected web directory that I can
 access via the web if I really have to)

  5) Silly cute footnotes

  6) Any signature over 4 lines long

  7) Mailing list unsubscribe info.

  8) HTML mail (Or in my case something that can detect HTML mail and
 then filter it to "spam")

 10) Numbered lists that don't have the right value (again, fixx0red by
 damian)

Scripts (or Mail::Audit plugins/settings for your webclient of
choice better) to the list

Later.

Mark.

-- 
s''  Mark Fowler London.pm   Bath.pm
 http://www.twoshortplanks.com/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
';use Term'Cap;$t=Tgetent Term'Cap{};print$t->Tputs(cl);for$w(split/  +/
){for(0..30){$|=print$t->Tgoto(cm,$_,$y)." $w";select$k,$k,$k,.03}$y+=2}

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]

[Alex Page]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 04:16:22PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:

> I have heard Mr Pratchet's name cited as the guilty party for the
> increased use of footnotes, especially as comic asides.

I'd claim that Mr Pratchett, as with so many other things, stole
that one from Mr Adams...

Alex
-- 
"Four pints of milk, a turkey baster and some plastic
 tubing, that's all you need."
http://www.cpio.org/~grimoire
http://www.livejournal.com/users/diffrentcolours

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK,London]

[Sue Spence]

Mark Fowler wrote:
> Sue wrote:
> > Mark Fowler wrote:
> >
> > > A pint (or five) to the first person that writes a Mail::Audit script /
> > > PINE[2] display filter that can detect jeopardy quoting and...
> >
> > I find the widespread practice of cutesy footnoting to be far more
> > irritating than any of the other complaints which have come through my
> > inbox today.
> 
> Erk, sorry.  Didn't know it bothered you.  How about I write you a
> Mail::Audit script that can fix that too ;-) .

It doesn't, really. I was just being evil.

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]

[Mark Fowler]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Alex Page wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 04:16:22PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > I have heard Mr Pratchet's name cited as the guilty party for the
> > increased use of footnotes, especially as comic asides.
> I'd claim that Mr Pratchett, as with so many other things, stole
> that one from Mr Adams...

I blame the collective authors of Programming Perl for comic footnotes.  I
do otoh try and include extra information in my footnotes that would
otherwise obscure the text of what I was trying to say.  Which is the
point of footnotes after all.

Later.

Mark.

-- 
s''  Mark Fowler London.pm   Bath.pm
 http://www.twoshortplanks.com/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
';use Term'Cap;$t=Tgetent Term'Cap{};print$t->Tputs(cl);for$w(split/  +/
){for(0..30){$|=print$t->Tgoto(cm,$_,$y)." $w";select$k,$k,$k,.03}$y+=2}

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Redvers Davies]

> I understand exactly why you feel this way.  You are blinkered in
> feeling you are right and everyone should agree with your particular
> way of writing emails.  

> You actually believe that people will change the way they write in
> order with your own views.  I believe you are mistaken and you will
> learn this with time

I spy a parallell between this and refusing mails from mailservers
from some people on the list because he doesn't agree with their
network configuration =)  I believe the phrase was "If they want to
mail it to me they'll fix it".  On the contrary, it has made sure
I leave it exactly the same way as it is now =)

red

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]

[Paul Makepeace]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 03:59:04PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> What is not good is that the hyperlink takes you to a page which has all
> the footnotes for the entire chapter on it, so you have to scroll to find
> the right one.  What *should* happen is that the hyperlink should pop up
> the footnote over the top of the body text.  Bah.

Another way[1] is to have the footnote immediately below the paragraph
ini which it appears. This isn't so bad in practice and the most likely
course of action (you want to read it immediately afterwards) is well
served.

I think you can also include the footnote as a tool tip or similiar so
it appears on a mouseOver.

Paul

[1] I believe O'Reilly use this scheme in their HTML books.

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Paul Makepeace]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 05:27:36AM -0700, Dave Cross wrote:
> people on the internet aren't like that these days. Most people
> happily post using MS Outlook because that's what they get given
> at work.

Bloody hell, Dave, can't you use an email client that includes
In-Reply-To: headers so it displays threads? I mean, lordy!

:-),
Paul

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Matthew Byng-Maddick]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 06:33:12PM +, Redvers Davies wrote:
> I spy a parallell between this and refusing mails from mailservers
> from some people on the list because he doesn't agree with their
> network configuration =)  I believe the phrase was "If they want to
> mail it to me they'll fix it".  On the contrary, it has made sure
> I leave it exactly the same way as it is now =)

This suits me fine, I can mail you, and you can't mail me back. :-)

The fact is, I have my mail set up like that because I see a good 7 or 8
spam attempts per day. It's definitely on the increase since I started
publishing my address and stopped trying to spam trap it. I've also seen
several attempts at mailing the bait addresses, which means that I *know*
that these things have been harvested relatively recently.

If you don't like it, not really my problem. If you want to be so bloody
minded, then that's fine, that reflects on you. I'm being bloody-minded as
well, but with the attempts at spamming me that I see, running SAUCE has
been really quite helpful. Most people can be bothered to make sure that
their zones are RFC compliant. Most people who can't are spammers. (Note
that I said most).

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://colondot.net/

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]

[David Cantrell]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:41:09AM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 03:59:04PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > What is not good is that the hyperlink takes you to a page which has all
> > the footnotes for the entire chapter on it, so you have to scroll to find
> > the right one.  What *should* happen is that the hyperlink should pop up
> > the footnote over the top of the body text.  Bah.
> Another way[1] is to have the footnote immediately below the paragraph
> ini which it appears.

Eeeuuww, no thanks!  That would detract from the flow of the body text.  I
only bother with footnotes if it's a note on something I find particularly
interesting.  Of the chapter of Gibbon I'm reading right now, I have read
less than five footnotes.  The last one I read was footnote no 75.  I do
not fancy having 70 uninteresting footnotes splattered across the text.

> I think you can also include the footnote as a tool tip or similiar so
> it appears on a mouseOver.

You assume too much of the platform :-)  Peanutpress deal in books for
the Palm (and, I think, some WinCE crap).  Neither platform has a mouse,
and the Palm doesn't, AFAIK, have tooltip widgets.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

Considering the number of wheels Microsoft has found reason
to invent, one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule
number whose shape even vaguely resembles a circle.
  -- anon, on Usenet

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]

[pdcawley]

I really can't believe I'm still reading this bloody thread, anyway,
down at the bottom...

Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>> > "Steve" == Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> Steve> I think Microsoft have done usability studies on this which
>> Steve> is why their mail clients use "top quoting". Did your
>> Steve> friends do usability studies? I did and asked a
>> Steve> non-technical user in the pub about this and they prefered
>> Steve> top posting.

[...]

> BTW I prefer your Person> type quoting style to the usual >> mess
> which makes it often impossible to see who has written what and makes
> misquoting (as seen on list today and ironically on this very thread
> about "correct" email usage) more likely.
> 
> Is there a GNUS setting for this?

Yes. If you're using Gnus you should check out 'supercite' which does
all that magic for you. Personally, I don't like it because: 

1. It chews up a ludicrous amount of the left hand margin with
   information that's only really of any use at the beginning of each
   quoted block.

2. It doesn't provide as much information about *when* in the thread a
   person said something. with 'classic' quoting, this information can
   be readily gleaned from the depth of the quotes.

3. Er...

4. That's it.

Something which assigned different quote marks to different posters,
and then used them in a similar fashion to the generic '>' might be
quite useful, but not useful enough that I can be arsed to either
write it myself or to see if someone has already done so.

-- 
Piers

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]

[pdcawley]

Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> their mail clients use "top quoting". Did your friends do usability
> studies? I did and asked a non-technical user in the pub about this
> and they prefered top posting.

'Top quoting' is a mindset I think. When I hit followup with quoting,
Gnus popped up a message window with the cursor placed nicely at the
top of the quoted message, where it was easy for me to scroll through
the quoted material excising the stuff that wasn't relevant before
adding my comments. People who blame Outlook for doing the same thing
would appear to be missing the point. 

Also, taking the example of an intelligent user who isn't technical,
Gill really doesn't like Usenet style quoting; she finds it confusing
and annoying. Her preference is to have a straightforward reply at the
top of the message, where she doesn't have to scroll through
irrelevant crap that she's already read, but can, if she wants to,
scroll down and refer to the original message.

I, of course, disagree. But hers is a considered opinion and I respect
it. Telling her she's flat out wrong is not really an option. Telling
her that she will probably annoy any long time news and email users
with this kind of quoting is fine, she tends not to swap mail with
such people.

But dammit people (This is, of course addressed to more than just
Steve), take a chill pill would you. It's not the end of the world if
someone doesn't quote how you want them to. And hectoring them
*really* isn't going to help.

Makes me wonder why I bothered to contribute really...

-- 
Piers

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]

[Paul Makepeace]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 12:08:07AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > I think you can also include the footnote as a tool tip or similiar so
> > it appears on a mouseOver.
> 
> You assume too much of the platform :-)  Peanutpress deal in books for
> the Palm (and, I think, some WinCE crap).  Neither platform has a mouse,
> and the Palm doesn't, AFAIK, have tooltip widgets.

Aww, poor PDA. If a feature is available for a particular platform I'm
not scared to use it especially if it has practical usability benefits.
Just because M$ brought it into popular use it isn't necessarily a
bad thing :-)

Paul

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Dave Cross]

From: "Dave Cross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10/18/01 1:27:36 PM

>From: Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 10/18/01 12:36:55 PM
>
> [rant snipped]
>
> I've said this before and I'll (no doubt) have to say it 
> again in the future.
>
> The london.pm mailing list is meant to be inclusive. 
> Everyone is welcome here. This means that we _do_ _not_ 
> flame people simply because they fail to use our 
> favourite mail client or don't post strictly in line with 
> the usual guidelines.
>
> Yes, we have (many) people on the list who have been on 
> the internet for a long time and can quote RFCs at length 
> to back up all of the netiquette rules, but it's a 
> complete waste of time. Most people on the internet 
> aren't like that these days. Most people happily post 
> using MS Outlook because that's what they get given at 
> work. Most people reply "jeopardy style" because that's 
> what their mail client encourages them to do.
>
> If you shout at them, they'll just leave the list and 
> complain how elitist we are. I don't want that to happen. 
> If anyone thinks that's an acceptable outcome then 
> perhaps they are on the wrong list.
>
> The battle against the invading barbarian hordes was lost 
> years ago. Learn to live with it. Or annex your own part 
> of the internet and impose your strict rules there.
>
> But don't do it on this list.
>
> There's nothing to see here. Move along now.

Sigh.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought I was.

This discussion is uninteresting and unhelpful. But worse that
that, it has the potential to make us appear elitist and unwelcoming.
I will not allow that on this list.

Please consider the topic closed. Anyone continuing this discussion
will be immediately removed from the list. The people who continued
the discussion yesterday can consider themselves lucky that I'm
in a benevolent mood and haven't already unsubbed them.

That is all.

Dave...

-- 


"Let me see you make decisions, without your television"
   - Depeche Mode (Stripped)

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Andrew Wilson]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 06:33:12PM +, Redvers Davies wrote:
> network configuration =)  I believe the phrase was "If they want to
> mail it to me they'll fix it".  On the contrary, it has made sure
> I leave it exactly the same way as it is now =)

You can hardly say on the contrary here, you have decided not to "fix
it" being aware that this means that mail from you will not reach him.
He said "If they want to mail it to me", you have obviously decided
not to mail him directly, this is not contrary position ;-)

cheers

Andrew

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Randal L. Schwartz]

> "Steve" == Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Steve> I think Microsoft have done usability studies on this which is why
Steve> their mail clients use "top quoting".  Did your friends do usability
Steve> studies?  I did and asked a non-technical user in the pub about this
Steve> and they prefered top posting.

As I said in comp.lang.perl.misc...

The quoted material is either relevant or it isn't.

If it's relevant, then your comments should be quoted near what
it's related to, so I can read them together, in the proper order
to understand the context of your response.

If it isn't, DON'T QUOTE IT.

So there's never a reason to top-quote.  Except to demonstrate what a
lazy bast*rd the poster is.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Steve Mynott]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

> > "Steve" == Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Steve> No there are degrees of relevance and I would argue there are at least
> Steve> two distinct subcases of relevant material.
> 
> Steve> * quoted material is directly relevant and required to make sense of
> Steve>   the new text - use bottom posting to address points on a line by
> Steve>   line base.  The "traditional" way.
> 
> Steve> * quoted material is relevant as optional background material which
> Steve>   may be interesting to some (who can scroll) for context but the new
> Steve>   text is basically a stand alone article - use top posting.  Think of
> Steve>   the quoted text in this case as an optional extra added to make
> Steve>   people's lives easier.  People that wish to drill down through
> Steve>   scrolling can.
> 
> This is where URLs come in.  It's either relevant, or it should be NOT
> INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE.  Put it in an attachment if you must.  But
> putting it *inline* in the same message makes you look stupid.

Inline ASCII is to be prefered to URLs for several reasons.  

You are assuming the person is reading the mail online with web access
whereas they could be offline on the train.  Also URLs break and go
404.  Also in the context of a debate someone could also
retrospectively change the URL content. 

Attachments too can be problematic in many programs (eg. the problems
with the PGP/MIME signing by mutt with many programs).  

Plain inline ASCII isn't exciting but it certainly isn't "stupid" but
reliable and actually likely to work.
 
> And it is often is the case that when *I* reply to that, it *does*
> become relevant, and now *I* have to spend time moving stuff around
> and cutting and pasting.  But if you'd just done it right in the first
> place, my reply to your reply to the original message is *easy*, not
> *difficult*.

I think you are really missing the point here.

I am not saying top quoting is always good (after all I am not doing it
now) but that it has occasional uses.

You on the otherhand are saying it's always bad, by definition,
regardless of context, which just seems to me dogmatic and unsupported
by anything you or anyone else has said on this thread.

> How friggin hard is it for you and your recipients to hit the "page down"
> key.  Really.  And/or trim the quoted material.  Really.

When I top quote I _do_ trim the quoted material as I did in the
original post if you care to go back and read it.

Trimming isn't the issue and is unrelated to where you quote.  

I have seen plenty of people bottom quote and not trim.

> You are being rude to me, as the reader.  And I will interpret that as
> you being someone who is not really interested in communicating with
> me.  If you want to make that impression, go right ahead.  But don't
> expect me to trust your answers, or respect your observations, because
> apparently your purpose is for something *other* than clean easy
> communication.

But I think top quoting (in rare circumstances) does aid clean easy
communication.  This has been the basis of my whole argument.

Don't think of top quoting as such but more as an occasional extended
footnote if that makes it easier for you to accept.

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

humans hardly ever learn from the experience of others. they learn - when
they do, which isn't often - on their own, the hard way.  -- robert heinlein

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Steve Mynott]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

> > "Steve" == Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Steve> I think Microsoft have done usability studies on this which is why
> Steve> their mail clients use "top quoting".  Did your friends do usability
> Steve> studies?  I did and asked a non-technical user in the pub about this
> Steve> and they prefered top posting.
> 
> As I said in comp.lang.perl.misc...
> 
> The quoted material is either relevant or it isn't.

No there are degrees of relevance and I would argue there are at least
two distinct subcases of relevant material.

* quoted material is directly relevant and required to make sense of
  the new text - use bottom posting to address points on a line by
  line base.  The "traditional" way.

* quoted material is relevant as optional background material which
  may be interesting to some (who can scroll) for context but the new
  text is basically a stand alone article - use top posting.  Think of
  the quoted text in this case as an optional extra added to make
  people's lives easier.  People that wish to drill down through
  scrolling can.

I don't see any reason why email styles should be fixed so rigidly as
you think.  Natural language evolves over time and I don't see any
reason why email writing style also should be static.  The quantity of
email has increased greatly over time (and quality decreased) and I
think some of the practices of the 1980s have to change to reflect
this.

Unless you want to keep worshipping the Net Ancestors of the 1980s for
ever you have to accept that (like choice of text editor and reply-to
munging) quoting style is a religious issue with no right or wrong
answer and debate on the topic rapidly degenerates to mere assertion
and counter-assertion.

> So there's never a reason to top-quote.  Except to demonstrate what a
> lazy bast*rd the poster is.

Actually it's harder for me to top-quote because my email client
quotes traditionally.  I do it, when I believe it helps, to reduce the
scrolling work load on the reader and not to wind people up.

BTW I prefer your Person> type quoting style to the usual >> mess
which makes it often impossible to see who has written what and makes
misquoting (as seen on list today and ironically on this very thread
about "correct" email usage) more likely.

Is there a GNUS setting for this?

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

progress (n.): the process through which the internet has evolved from
smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of
smart terminals.

Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]

[Randal L. Schwartz]

> "Steve" == Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Steve> No there are degrees of relevance and I would argue there are at least
Steve> two distinct subcases of relevant material.

Steve> * quoted material is directly relevant and required to make sense of
Steve>   the new text - use bottom posting to address points on a line by
Steve>   line base.  The "traditional" way.

Steve> * quoted material is relevant as optional background material which
Steve>   may be interesting to some (who can scroll) for context but the new
Steve>   text is basically a stand alone article - use top posting.  Think of
Steve>   the quoted text in this case as an optional extra added to make
Steve>   people's lives easier.  People that wish to drill down through
Steve>   scrolling can.

This is where URLs come in.  It's either relevant, or it should be NOT
INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE.  Put it in an attachment if you must.  But
putting it *inline* in the same message makes you look stupid.

And it is often is the case that when *I* reply to that, it *does*
become relevant, and now *I* have to spend time moving stuff around
and cutting and pasting.  But if you'd just done it right in the first
place, my reply to your reply to the original message is *easy*, not
*difficult*.

How friggin hard is it for you and your recipients to hit the "page down"
key.  Really.  And/or trim the quoted material.  Really.

You are being rude to me, as the reader.  And I will interpret that as
you being someone who is not really interested in communicating with
me.  If you want to make that impression, go right ahead.  But don't
expect me to trust your answers, or respect your observations, because
apparently your purpose is for something *other* than clean easy
communication.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Borrocks (was Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer(onsite), UK, London])

[Jonathan Stowe]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 06:33:12PM +, Redvers Davies wrote:
> > network configuration =)  I believe the phrase was "If they want to
> > mail it to me they'll fix it".  On the contrary, it has made sure
> > I leave it exactly the same way as it is now =)
>
> You can hardly say on the contrary here, you have decided not to "fix
> it" being aware that this means that mail from you will not reach him.
> He said "If they want to mail it to me", you have obviously decided
> not to mail him directly, this is not contrary position ;-)
>

I think the phrase in common usage in the RFCs and elsewhere is "Be
liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you transmit".

So thats about it. Now shut the fuck up already.


/J\