Re: OT: Why People Are Not Free? (rant)

From: JeffM (jeffm__at_email.com)
Date: 03/08/05 

Date: 8 Mar 2005 15:51:49 -0800

>No, I was asking him if he was one of the moderators for
>sci.physics.research because he said...
>
>::::I moved to sci.physics.research and I am posting there now
>:::: ~~SciGirl~~
>
>:::...from Google
>:::...without context
>:::...or attribution.
>
>And no one there would be able to see my posts without context
>unless he or she was a moderator, because they don't let them through.

1) you don't seen to understand the word "context".
(Though you seen to have done it here--maybe it suited your whim this
time.)
Had you clicked on the link I provided
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8PaSp2kKbWoJ:www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html+just-enough+at-*-top-*-*-message+do-not-*-*-*-original
and read the highlighted portion,
(given any ability on your part to correlate 2 things),
the meaning of "context" would be obvious.

Since you are either lazy or brain-dead--or both, here it is:
In Usenet parlance, "context" means that
you clip a bit of the post to which you are responding
and include it in your post.[1]
It appears that just because everyone else included in their posts
1) text beginning with greater-than signs
and
2) the name of the person who originally posted that text
apparantly gives you no indication that you should follow suit.

I read the groups from Google and the only time I have problems
is when a fool who can't discern existing patterns (e.g., YOU)
won't abide by the existing Usenet norms.

Context is simple--even for the lazy:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/browse_frm/thread/abf3f7038a2ef354/e08362c5b4fe45b5?q=jeffm_++Click-the-show-options-link+THAT-Reply-link#e08362c5b4fe45b5

Attribution refers to (2) above.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=attribution
As I said, I read the groups from Google
and don't like the way the MY Groups thingie looks
so if you strip my name out of your response,
it is unlikely I will see your response.

No. I am not a moderator,
just someone who has no appreciation of the clueless.

[1]Because you read at Google
and have never seen the way Usenet looks in a reak newsreader
you can't appreciate the way your disconnected comment looks
when it offers no clue
as to the content of the post to which you are responding.

I think I have only posted without context once and that was because
my Mama told me not to use the kind of language John Fields had used.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/ec7d4fe437358fc0/efd28853c88d04b9?q=till-then-dear-boy-Well-you-know#efd28853c88d04b9

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How do you read the newsgroup?
    ... to use Google groups, ... one-liner posts, and still prefer context in all their posts. ... responding to in a high volume thread. ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)
  • Re: Divorce Israel style - mission impossible
    ... Boruch Tkatch wrote: ... the message to which he is responding. ... out of context changes. ... the antecedent posts for reference. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Augmented sixth chords, derivation, root of etc.: Pistons view
    ... I would like to point out that if I receive your posts in the same ... often it is difficult to tell what you are responding to. ... specific as to what they are in reference to. ... I would like a bit more of a quote so that the context ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation
    ... Since you didn't bother to provide any context for that, ... becuase I was responding to one of your posts and ... because I was responding to someone else's post and ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation
    ... Since you didn't bother to provide any context for that, ... becuase I was responding to one of your posts and ... because I was responding to someone else's post and ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)