Re: Cowboys herding cats
- From: "David Loewe, Jr." <dloewe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 23:57:23 -0500
On 29 May 2009 22:50:48 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
David V. Loewe, Jr <daveloewe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It takes me less than five seconds to page through even the longest
blocks of quoted text.
It still has to *load* and you say it loads at reading speed.
Load into what? I'm running trn on Panix. If I were to go to a high
volume newsgroup and do /loewe/f to find any message from you, this
requires that all the headers of unread messages be loaded into trn.
This takes less than a second for over a thousand messages.
Nothing ever goes down the 9600 bps pipe to my terminal except the
text I am to see. 9600 bps is considerably faster than anyone's
reading speed.
That is not what I recall you writing, but I can't check because you've
removed that context.
This message, for instance, is 3929 bytes long, and
would take 4.1 seconds to display.
Exactly what I was talking about.
and the tab key only finds the next line of quoted text that was so
long that it got auto-wrapped.
AIUI, this is primarily an artifact of your setup.
No. My newsreader doesn't break lines no matter how long they are.
You can scroll left-right?
*Most* posters provide space in between quoted text and new text.
Some do, some don't. I haven't looked at the ratio. I always do.
Once again, MOST *do*.
Why do you doubt *everything* I say?
In rsfc the default standard of editing is none. Zero. Nada. Zip.
And I've heard that that newsgroup is dying.
LOL
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.fandom/about
Posts so far in May - 2,266
And just three of us - you, me and Professor Friedman - are roughly a
third of that volume.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.football.college/about
Posts so far in May - 10,084
Moreover, very few people get annoyed or angry when they put down a
book in the middle of reading it - yet when they go to restart there
is all that text they've already read sitting there.
If the same text appears 20 times, I'd bet they'd get annoyed. When I
read rasff, I often see the same text 20 times or more.
Once again, you have no way of distinguishing it that is nearly as good
as most people have available to them.
If you already know the context, the quoted text can be skipped.
If you don't (or you are unsure), then the quoted text is there to
establish it.
Finding it may require re-reading the whole quoted message, then
guessing which part the sender was responding to.
Better than having to hunt down the original message back up the thread
- ESPECIALLY in a monster thread (like this one).
When you ask me
for a cite, what's a more useful response: "It's on page 321 of
_Gravitation_, paragraph 4" or "It's in _Gravitation_"?
Not the same.
This isn't rocket science, Keith. You take something as simple
as child's play and turn it into some massively complicated
undertaking.
It's not complicated with my setup. But it's only "child's play" if
you force the reader to do all the work.
YM allow the reader the freedom to make his own judgments, but I
digress.
I don't regard quoted text as rubbish. It is merely what has been
written previously.
What about "- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -"?
I was speaking in general, but if you're going to be that way about it,
there are large stretches of text by you that I consider to be utter
rubbish.
Happy?
Or email addresses parts of which have been replaced by dots?
Who really cares?
And no, the latter doesn't cut down on spam, since those addresses
invariably previously appeared in the same venue, unmunged.
<yawn>
Not only doesn't my setup DO this (so I'm not listening to or caring
about your little screed - because it isn't rightly directed at me), I
don't care that the setups used by others DO this.
The way you edit works as if the paragraphs of a book disappeared as
you read them. Opening a random book (The Practice Effect by David
Brin), I find a page with <counting quickly> 12 paragraphs (page 139
paperback edition). If one could apply your standard of editing as
one read along, the page would be blank on the top 2/3 by the time
you got to the bottom.
No.
Simply saying "No." doesn't prove anything.
The way you edit works as if the paragraphs of a book were
mindlessly repeated over and over again, together with typesetter's
notation never intended to be seen by the reader.
Nonsense.
In a book, like in my editing, the context supplying material is
available at hand for your easy perusal.
Whatever else people can find to complain about in my messages, I
always format them properly, without excessive, absent, or mangled
quoting, without alternate long and short lines, and with as few
spelling or grammatical errors as humanly possible. I often have
to repair mangled quoted text and garbled attributions produced by
those whom I quote.
Do you wash your hands a lot?
No. Last week people were flaming me for not washing *enough*.
Are you constantly checking the stove to see that it is off?
--
"Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser
than a million men,
Let's play that one over again, too. Who decides?"
-Lazarus Long
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cowboys herding cats
- From: Keith F. Lynch
- Re: Cowboys herding cats
- References:
- Re: Cowboys herding cats
- From: David V. Loewe, Jr
- Re: Cowboys herding cats
- From: Keith F. Lynch
- Re: Cowboys herding cats
- Prev by Date: Re: Cowboys herding cats
- Next by Date: Re: Cowboys herding cats
- Previous by thread: Re: Cowboys herding cats
- Next by thread: Re: Cowboys herding cats
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
