patronising digital advert

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 19:55:02 +0100, Bill Wright

wrote:

One great advantage of middle-aged hearing loss is the fortune I save on
not needing real HiFi

What?

HE SAID "ONE GREAT ADVANTAGE OF MIDDLE-AGED HEARING LOSS IS THE FORTUNE I
SAVE ON NOT NEEDING REAL HIFI"

Oh I see. Is he a foreigner? His speech isn't very clear . . .

Bill

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:51:24 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:16:09 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

It is the normal convention on usenet to quote some of the posting to
which one is replying, so that anyone joining the thread can get some
idea of what you're on about.

Yes no contention there, but the point was -- which is the lesser of the
two evils if snipping is not practical

I'm sure the impractibility of snipping is rare. I agree with JPG. I
know blind users have special needs, but I far prefer bottom posting.
If it is a long post then use your keys to go to the end and then up a
bit to get the newest bit.

Interleaving, which is probably the best idea for sighted users in
some cases, does make things difficult, but otherwise standard usenet
standards are fine.

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:23:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

there's too much quoting. ;-)

Yes.

In message , "[email protected]"
writes:
[]
. (Although I strongly prefer bottom-posting - or, actually, snip and
interposting, see later posts - I never say either is "incorrect".) ..

I prefer logical chronological posts..
as I read a post and go to the next one I like the new stuff to be
there and not have to skip through loads of old quoted stuff that I
have read in the previous post.

.. You posted just two lines from my post, and then added your reply
_below_ the part to which you were responding; that is exactly the sort
of post I like to read! ..

See it is logical to top post and a waste of time to bottom post unless
you have a habit of reading the thread from the newest post first.


.. Well, I think what we are doing here is good: it makes it clear which
bit of the previous post is being responded to. People who leave
excessive amounts - let alone the whole - of the previous post in their
post do hardly anyone any favours, whether they top or bottom post.
(Though I still submit it's easier to see which point is being responded
to if the response doesn't come first.) ..
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:16:09 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

It is the normal convention on usenet to quote some of the posting to
which one is replying, so that anyone joining the thread can get some
idea of what you're on about.

Yes no contention there, but the point was -- which is the lesser of the
two evils if snipping is not practical -- top posting on top of a wholly
regurgitated article, or just the response?

.. I am interested to know under what circumstances snipping is totally
not practical, rather than just requiring a little more effort. I can
imagine that there might be circumstances where this is indeed the case,
but I can't think what they might be at the moment. ..

I would argue that the latter is less worse because in most cases one
can read the previous article in the thread if one needs the context.

.. I would agree, a response only is probably the lesser of two evils.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes:
[]
If you have to scroll on an 800x600 page before the new stuff starts
there's too much quoting. ;-)

.. I saw the smiley, but actually sounds a good rule of thumb! ..
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

In message , Tiddy Ogg
writes:
[snip]
I'm sure the impractibility of snipping is rare. I agree with JPG. I

.. Your post crossed with mine saying much the same thing.

know blind users have special needs, but I far prefer bottom posting.
If it is a long post then use your keys to go to the end and then up a
bit to get the newest bit.

Interleaving, which is probably the best idea for sighted users in
some cases, does make things difficult, but otherwise standard usenet
standards are fine.

.. Why does interleaving make things difficult - is it that it becomes
hard to see who said what? Surely that is more a question of whether the
posting software puts in the quoting characters, and the access software
indicates their existence. I can see that if either of those isn't
correct, there could be confusion. Maybe ideally different voices could
be used, though I'm not aware whether any of the speech-based access
methods offer such an option, and it could be amusing if the same
person's text changes voice in subsequent posts because of the depth of
quoting characters!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:47:41 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:

. I am interested to know under what circumstances snipping is totally
not practical, rather than just requiring a little more effort. I can
imagine that there might be circumstances where this is indeed the case,
but I can't think what they might be at the moment. ..

Why exactly are you putting a dot at the start of every paragraph and two
dots at the end of every paragraph?

In article , Grimly
Curmudgeon scribeth thus
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember tony sayer
saying something like:

Run of the mill audio is much better quality (wrt bass, treble and noise)
than was common in the past, at least electrically. A cheapy MP3 player
connected via the headphone socket to a hi-fi amp and speakers is almost as
good as CD.

Should get your hearing checked;!..

One great advantage of middle-aged hearing loss is the fortune I save on
not needing real HiFi

Poor you;(...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
scribeth thus
In message , Tiddy Ogg
writes:
[snip]
I'm sure the impractibility of snipping is rare. I agree with JPG. I

. Your post crossed with mine saying much the same thing.

know blind users have special needs, but I far prefer bottom posting.
If it is a long post then use your keys to go to the end and then up a
bit to get the newest bit.

Interleaving, which is probably the best idea for sighted users in
some cases, does make things difficult, but otherwise standard usenet
standards are fine.

. Why does interleaving make things difficult - is it that it becomes
hard to see who said what? Surely that is more a question of whether the
posting software puts in the quoting characters, and the access software
indicates their existence. I can see that if either of those isn't
correct, there could be confusion. Maybe ideally different voices could
be used, though I'm not aware whether any of the speech-based access
methods offer such an option, and it could be amusing if the same
person's text changes voice in subsequent posts because of the depth of
quoting characters!

May I ask how blind poster's shall we say, communicate is it they
magnify the screen up by a substantial amount or do they have a text to
speech device?..
--
Tony Sayer