Re: Huh?

In article <gPqdnTMhZ9v-vpLZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
rhnl@xxxxxxxxxxxx says...

"Joann Zimmerman" <jzimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e78b89ab6a7ff43989c03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <1vCdnU6Wv8_Wf5PZ4p2dnA@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, rhnl@xxxxxxxxxxxx
says...
Yup, sorry. Simply didn't have my 'computer' glasses on at the time.
I simply clicked the wrong 'reply' button.
I did, however, think 'lan-gauge' might be a valuable new word. There
is the 'LAPACK', you know the Linear Algebra Package benchmark,
used to gauge the processing speed of computers.

"R. L." <see-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nk7s02t1as19ne938j85tra2c1jr9v518v@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 19:04:37 -0500, "rhn" <rhnl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

'langauge'?


I'm not sure if this is replying to me or what. If you're posting
thorough
Google, here's how to make it show who and what you're replying to.
Also
keeping the same 'subject' would help.

"When you're looking at a message, instead of hitting "reply" at the
bottom of that message, hit "show options" at the top of it. Then hit
"reply" from the list of options that brings up, and it will give you
proper quoting and even attributions."

It's customary to leave a few lines of this quoted text to show what
you're
answering.

It's also customary to put your answer at the *bottom*, in this group,
anyway.

--
"I never understood people who don't have bookshelves."
--George Plimpton

Joann Zimmerman jzimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


There are two schools of thought in usenet groups - comments on the top vs.
comments on the bottom. Is that correct. This 'uesnet' thing seems to be an
art unto itself.

Yes, we all know that. We also know that is usually a group-dependent
thing as to which way we do it. Reading any group for a while can
usually give you an idea as to the prevailing mores. (Or, posting contra
mores can get you a definitve response as to what was done wrong.)

Further, it is also good form to snip signatures and other detritus left
by previous posters. I'm leaving it here only this once as an example of
that to which I am referring.

The reason we do all of this is to facilitate reading and responding by
the people downstream. Followups (what you call comments) are placed
below what you're responding to so that we all have a good quick sense
of what the order of the conversation has been. As threads expand and
branch, having a record *in order* can be very useful; a combination of
top- and bottom-posting can make a royal hash of this right quickly.
Detritus is removed for several reasons: it's repetitive, it takes up
space (historically, the notion of bandwidth was a major trump card in
any discussion of posting format, and is still a major factor in the
visual and reading practices of the longtime, experienced
reader/poster), and it can get seriously confusing in its role as visual
clutter.

--
"I never understood people who don't have bookshelves."
--George Plimpton

Joann Zimmerman jzimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Loading