Rebecca Ore wrote: > In article <daCdnTjfgOa8UbzXnZ2dnUVZ_tidn...@giganews.com>, > Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>> You may try finding a newsreader capable of threading. Having to >> scroll to the bottom of a post to read the new content is a pain. >> It's much easier if the new content is on the top of the post.
> My newsreader is a real newsreader and is quite capable of threading and > I'm smart enough to snip. This is an argument that's basically newbie > against experienced -- and Microsoft isn't NNTP friendly. I've made the > arguments from the position of a top poster when I was a newbie over a > decade ago.
You use MT-Newswatcher, and yes it is very good.
I'm rather surprised to read Frank's comment. He's an old-timer and admin expert.
john joseph <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote: : Rebecca Ore wrote:
: > In article <daCdnTjfgOa8UbzXnZ2dnUVZ_tidn...@giganews.com>, : > Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote: : > : > : >> You may try finding a newsreader capable of threading. Having to : >> scroll to the bottom of a post to read the new content is a pain. : >> It's much easier if the new content is on the top of the post. : > : > My newsreader is a real newsreader and is quite capable of threading and : > I'm smart enough to snip. This is an argument that's basically newbie : > against experienced -- and Microsoft isn't NNTP friendly. I've made the : > arguments from the position of a top poster when I was a newbie over a : > decade ago.
: You use MT-Newswatcher, and yes it is very good.
I use tin. It's old and I don't think it's being worked on anymore but I like it.
: I'm rather surprised to read Frank's comment. He's an old-timer and : admin expert.
It makes sense when you think about it. I set tin to thread on subject. This means when I see a thread I'm interested in with say 10 posts. I select that thread and I get the first post in the thread then I get the second and so on. By the time I get to the second post I've already read the posts that preceeded it and I'm only interested in the new content. When the new posts are top posted the new content is at the top and is easy to find and read. When the new post is bottom posted I have to go look for it.
As a rule I don't read the old content every time I read a message. --
------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
> These days I find that I prefer top posting to bottom posting. It makes threads > easier to read. Back in the days before threaded newsreaders I admit it was easier > to read a post when the reply was at the bottom.
I am bottom posting for all your preferences. I hardly consider myself as a 'newbie' since I have been using computer comms for 25 years. Started on bulletin boards and packet radio with a Kaypro4 under CP/M and an external 300baud modem using dialup. Who remembers YAPP and YAM these days? I am presently using Thunderbird and Firefox as Mozilla now has difficulties with some newer sites. Pity, as I am still not convinced that 2 programs are better then one. I have set replies to top posting since nearly all my correspondence is personal mail and the recipient knows full well what he has sent. No sense in boiling your cabbages twice. If my reader showed mail from the bottom up, bottom posting might make more sense. Naturally I set the reader to 'threads with new posts'. If you have a suggestion of a better reader then tell me, but I don't promise to use it, but will check it out. Forget Linux - I have found it seems like a solution looking for a problem. IE is out for me, too. Think N1H1. The sound/noise ratio of some threads is terrible - how much of this thread is about the original poster's request for help with bulbs? Less than 90%. Little wonder that the internet is starting to groan under the load. Dropping the voltage to an incandescent bulb will make it redder and in a green light that will cut emitted wattage appreciably. I await your reply with interest. Murray VK4AOK - now there's a giveaway! :-)
> : I'm rather surprised to read Frank's comment. He's an old-timer and > : admin expert.
> It makes sense when you think about it. I set tin to thread on > subject. This means when I see a thread I'm interested in with say 10 > posts. I select that thread and I get the first post in the thread > then I get the second and so on. By the time I get to the second post > I've already read the posts that preceeded it and I'm only interested > in the new content. When the new posts are top posted the new content > is at the top and is easy to find and read. When the new post is > bottom posted I have to go look for it.
Well, actually, it *doesn't* make sense when you really think about it.
Your statement above assumes that a thread takes a linear path and sticks strictly to its subject. As we all know, this is often not the case here. Sometimes someone will take a particular aspect of the question and discuss it, or even introduce an entirely new part of the topic, or a new topic altogether. Going by your method, all this would be lost without quoting and attribution, which is why it makes sense to do it.
> As a rule I don't read the old content every time I read a message.
That may explain why you're often confused about things.
-- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
: > john joseph <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote: : > : > : I'm rather surprised to read Frank's comment. He's an old-timer and : > : admin expert. : > : > It makes sense when you think about it. I set tin to thread on : > subject. This means when I see a thread I'm interested in with say 10 : > posts. I select that thread and I get the first post in the thread : > then I get the second and so on. By the time I get to the second post : > I've already read the posts that preceeded it and I'm only interested : > in the new content. When the new posts are top posted the new content : > is at the top and is easy to find and read. When the new post is : > bottom posted I have to go look for it.
: Well, actually, it *doesn't* make sense when you really think about it.
Actually when you think about it, it makes more sense to top post then to bottom post.
: Your statement above assumes that a thread takes a linear path and : sticks strictly to its subject. As we all know, this is often not the : case here. Sometimes someone will take a particular aspect of the : question and discuss it, or even introduce an entirely new part of the : topic, or a new topic altogether. Going by your method, all this would : be lost without quoting and attribution, which is why it makes sense to : do it.
It's still a single thread to at least my newsreader. If I need to reread what the poster was responding to I have a number of choices. The quickest and most obvious is to simply continue reading. Since what the poster is responding to is on top it's easy to find. The next choice is to simply read the post the responder was replying to. There's always the option to have my newsreader show a graphical tree of the thread with all the subthreads.
: > As a rule I don't read the old content every time I read a message.
: That may explain why you're often confused about things.
As always you're right and everyone else in the world is wrong. Over a billion people in the world and you're the only one that's always right.
--
------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
: > David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote: : > : > : On 6/9/2009 10:16 AM Frank Pittel spake thus: : > : > : Well, actually, it *doesn't* make sense when you really think about it. : > : > Actually when you think about it, it makes more sense to top post then to : > bottom post.
: And yet you bottom-post.
I'm clearly not as religous about it as you are. In this thread I'm following your lead in the worst possible posting methods. I'm posting in the middle of the previous post.
: > : > As a rule I don't read the old content every time I read a message. : > : > : That may explain why you're often confused about things. : > : > As always you're right and everyone else in the world is wrong. Over a : > billion people in the world and you're the only one that's always right.
: It's not just me. The overwhelming majority of posters in this group : bottom-post.
Yet top posting in this group and most others top post. --
------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
> : > David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote: > : > > : > : On 6/9/2009 10:16 AM Frank Pittel spake thus: > : > > : > : Well, actually, it *doesn't* make sense when you really think about it. > : > > : > Actually when you think about it, it makes more sense to top post then to > : > bottom post.
> : And yet you bottom-post.
> I'm clearly not as religous about it as you are. In this thread I'm following > your lead in the worst possible posting methods. I'm posting in the middle > of the previous post.
Actually, that's what you're spozed to do. It's called "QUILA" (meaning "quote and in-line answers"), an acronym I hadn't heard of until just today. It's really bottom posting, because your replies come below the text being replied to, just like in a normal conversation.
Very easy to follow.
-- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
In article <wb-dnUXx_rCnwKjXnZ2dnUVZ_hhi4...@giganews.com>, Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> Yet top posting in this group and most others top post.
I don't know of any groups I post to where top posting is the norm, and that sentence awkward -- possibly due to mild dyslexia. Mildly dyslexic people sometimes find interleaved posts confusing to adapt to. My news reader puts the older material in fainter type, so it's clear what's new and what isn't.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > Richard Knoppow wrote:
> Thanks, and to everyone who suggested something. I went to another lighting
> store today and found a bunch of GE 15 watt bulbs (made in Hungary).I bought > six, so I am set for a long time.
> I'm still thinking about the other possibilities as I need more safe lights, > and I doubt that there are more Beehive lamps around (here).
_____ Geoff,
Got my Thunderbird newsreader working again on Mac OS X after a month or more switching from OpenBSD.
I noted your question about safe lights. Someone suggested a regular triac based light dimmer. That would work fine as they can usually handle 600 Watts.
I have used with great success a single diode to run several safe lights on half power by inserting a simple and cheap silicon diode in the line. The diode i picked was the 1N4004. It is small and can be hidden in the standard plug, or in one of those Bakelite in-line rocker switches. Current limitation is 1 Amp, so this means that you can drive up to 220 Watts worth of safe lights with one diode. This comes to about five 40 Watt bulbs. I use this simple trick to dim the safe lights while focusing the enlarger. I use amber dome filters on my lights.
|
