On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:54:08 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:02:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On 22/03/2022 19:53, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 12:35:43 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 22/03/2022 12:07, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is
>>>>>> a tendency I see in a lot of people who knew computers
>>>>>> in the days of DOS and keyboard. They've never entirely
>>>>>> learned to use mouse and GUI optimally. That's fine if it
>>>>>> works for you, but it's only optimal for you because you're
>>>>>> used to constant keyboarding and not fully acclimated
>>>>>> to GUI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't pretend to know what people did/do and why! It's presumptious
>>>>> and most of the time wrong.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Age has SFA to do with it
>>>
>>> I give up. What does "SFA" stand for? A quick search didn't find it.
>>
>>SFA = Sweet Fanny Adams = Sweet Fuck All!
>>
>>Sorry I thought every native English speaker knew that.
>
>
>Nope, not me. I've never heard "Sweet Fanny Adams," and although I've
>heard "Fuck All" (mostly by Brits, not USAns), I've never heard "Sweet
>Fuck All."

Is that the same expression as "Sweet Fairy Ann" (Ça ne fait rien).
which I have heard?

The first place I heard it was

"And how the hell Sweet Fairy Ann can I tell who you are,
with your 'ead tucked underneath your arm."

--
The real, original Ken Blake, not some other newcomer

On 22/03/2022 23:27, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:54:08 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:02:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22/03/2022 19:53, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I give up. What does "SFA" stand for? A quick search didn't find it.
>>>
>>> SFA = Sweet Fanny Adams = Sweet Fuck All!
>>>
>>> Sorry I thought every native English speaker knew that.
>>
>> Nope, not me. I've never heard "Sweet Fanny Adams," and although I've
>> heard "Fuck All" (mostly by Brits, not USAns), I've never heard "Sweet
>> Fuck All."
>
> Is that the same expression as "Sweet Fairy Ann" (Ça ne fait rien).
> which I have heard?
>
> The first place I heard it was
>
> "And how the hell Sweet Fairy Ann can I tell who you are,
> with your 'ead tucked underneath your arm."

Definitely sounds like a variant on the same theme, but, never having
heard your variant before, naturally I'd say mine was by far the more
common way of expressing it!

I guess we could do a straw poll, who reading this subthread besides Ken
and myself has never heard of Sweet Fanny Adams = Sweet Fuck All, and
who has never heard of Sweet Fairy Ann = Sweet Fuck All?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
[...]

> You really just haven't learned a mouse/GUI optimized
> computer. That's OK. But it's not heroic to struggle on with
> keyboard shortcuts. It's just comfortable habit.

[Fast forward/repeat:]

> | Don't pretend to know what people did/do and why! It's presumptious
> | and most of the time wrong.

In your first response and again in this one, you dishonestly
'conveniently' silently snipped my comments which contradict your
arguments. Your MO amounts to lying-by-omission, which by definition
invalidates your arguments.

This is the comment you snipped, which was directly following the
above quote:

[Unsnip:]

<quote>

In my case, it's also wrong. I already used GUIs (yes, also with
trackballs) before (Microsoft) Windows even existed and my first private
computer came with Windows (1.0). So there you go! I'm just not so
closed-minded that I *have* to use one or the other.

</quote>

This directly debunks your:

> You really just haven't learned a mouse/GUI optimized
> computer. That's OK. But it's not heroic to struggle on with
> keyboard shortcuts. It's just comfortable habit.

Your snipping that and earlier comments is pathetic dishonest
behaviour. Period. That you apparently think that you can get away with
it or/and fool anybody, is even more pathetic.

[More of the same and worse deleted.]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 09:23:49, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
[...]
> > I don't see any
> >problem with your method. It's like the way I look up my
> >paper list of phone numbers rather than program them into
> >my landline. I'm used to that method. I've never entirely
> >got used to looking up a number on the phone. Not a problem.
> >But if I then went to great lengths to rationalize how my
> >method is better than yours... well, I'd be like you! My method
> >is not better. I have to go find my phone # list when I want
> >to make a call.
>
> Now that shows you as sensible, and acknowledging we all have ways that
> suit us better ...
> >
> > You really just haven't learned a mouse/GUI optimized
> >computer. That's OK. But it's not heroic to struggle on with
> >keyboard shortcuts. It's just comfortable habit.
>
> ... But that doesn't )-:. (Phrases like "haven't learnt" and "struggle
> on" are needlessly provocative. I/we could just as easily say you
> "haven't learnt" some convenient keyboard shortcuts, and are "struggling
> on with the mouse.)

Exactly! It's obnoxious pompous twattery from someone with a misguided
superiority complex.

Adding insult to injury, he dishonestly silently snips parts in which
I gave a balanced - instead of either/or - view and snips parts which
directly contradict his assumptions. Also he seems to have problems with
the concepts of examples and questions.

> []
> >keyboard-based system. You haven't updated to the ubiquity
> >of click, double-click, drag/drop, etc.

And more of the same.

> I know about, and use, all of those.

No idea about any of these! :-) "just haven't learned a mouse/GUI
optimized computer" yet. I still "struggle on with keyboard shortcuts".
"It's just comfortable habit."

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]

> I did once read the suggestion that putting the cursor at the start of a
> reply _wasn't_ to encourage top-posting, but interposting with snipping;
> however, it sort of coincided with people starting to use email without
> any guidance (or even resenting such guidance), so that's when the rot
> set in. Of course also putting the signature before the quoted text
> stymied that.
> []

That suggestion might well be have mine! :-)

But seriously, the point is not "putting the cursor at the start of a
reply", but *directly below the attribution line*. A small but very
important difference.

So when I started this response, the cursor was directly below

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

and I could start 'interposting with snipping', hence my '[...]' snip
mark.

The problem with top-posting enticing agents was that they put the
cursor (some lines) *above* the attribution line, so people started to
type there, resulting in a top-post.

[...]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 10:33:01, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 22/03/2022 23:27, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:54:08 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:02:54 +0000, Java Jive
>>><java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 22/03/2022 19:53, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I give up. What does "SFA" stand for? A quick search didn't find it.
>>>>
>>>> SFA = Sweet Fanny Adams = Sweet Fuck All!
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I thought every native English speaker knew that.
>>>
>>> Nope, not me. I've never heard "Sweet Fanny Adams," and although I've
>>> heard "Fuck All" (mostly by Brits, not USAns), I've never heard "Sweet
>>> Fuck All."
>> Is that the same expression as "Sweet Fairy Ann" (Ça ne fait rien).
>> which I have heard?
>> The first place I heard it was
>> "And how the hell Sweet Fairy Ann can I tell who you are,
>> with your 'ead tucked underneath your arm."
>
>Definitely sounds like a variant on the same theme, but, never having
>heard your variant before, naturally I'd say mine was by far the more
>common way of expressing it!
>
>I guess we could do a straw poll, who reading this subthread besides
>Ken and myself has never heard of Sweet Fanny Adams = Sweet Fuck All,
>and who has never heard of Sweet Fairy Ann = Sweet Fuck All?
>
OK, I (British, nearly 62, use "fuck" less than some) _have_ come across
"sweet FA", know it as "sweet fuck all" (= nothing - e. g. "that's worth
sweet FA", "he did sweet FA about it"), and the variation "sweet Fanny
Adams" for use in more delicate company. (I think I even once came
across a suggestion who Fanny Adams might have been, but I suspect that
was analogous to folk etymology, i. e. a back-formation.) I've not come
across "_sweet_ fairy ann", only "san fairy ann", as a (wartime? Even
WW1?) way of showing Brits (and presumably Yanks) how to _say_ "ça ne
fait rien" (= "it doesn't matter", "no problem" - not _quite_ the same
as "sweet FA", though it may have come to be used similarly in places).

OK, I'll get back in my dictionary now (-:. [Well, my brother does work
for it (sorry if I've mentioned that before).]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It is important to write so that you can be understood. It is far more
important to write so that you cannot be misunderstood.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 15:41:09, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>[...]
>
>> I did once read the suggestion that putting the cursor at the start of a
>> reply _wasn't_ to encourage top-posting, but interposting with snipping;
>> however, it sort of coincided with people starting to use email without
>> any guidance (or even resenting such guidance), so that's when the rot
>> set in. Of course also putting the signature before the quoted text
>> stymied that.
>> []
>
> That suggestion might well be have mine! :-)

(Though as we've agreed, putting the _signature_ there too denies any
plausibility of the suggestion. Though I'm not sure it always was there
- it's a long time ago. It certainly was fairly soon, though.)
>
> But seriously, the point is not "putting the cursor at the start of a
>reply", but *directly below the attribution line*. A small but very
>important difference.

A very good point, which I hadn't thought of before.
>
> So when I started this response, the cursor was directly below
>
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>and I could start 'interposting with snipping', hence my '[...]' snip
>mark.

I tend to just use "[]" (which I've seen quite commonly - I sometimes
wonder if I "invented" it, though it seems unlikely and would be
impossible to prove anyway). If posting/emailing where I think the
convention might not be known, I sometimes put "[snip]" for the _first_
one.
>
> The problem with top-posting enticing agents was that they put the
>cursor (some lines) *above* the attribution line, so people started to
>type there, resulting in a top-post.

Which almost always eliminates snipping.

I've seen (especially when I was employed) emails containing many tens
of previous emails, which I'm sure 90% or more of those reading them
never even scrolled down to look at [I often suspected a fair number of
them didn't even know how to].
>
>[...]
(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It is important to write so that you can be understood. It is far more
important to write so that you cannot be misunderstood.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| "sweet FA", know it as "sweet fuck all" (= nothing

That's occasionally used by thuggish types in the US,
but without "sweet": "I know fuck all about that." It's
not very common in my experience. People who like
to swear so much usually do so because they don't
have adequate facility with language. As with teenagers,
their speech tends to be mostly vague superlatives:
"That was like fucking awesome as fuck."

I saw someone write awhile back: "I felt triggered as fuck."

Thaat seemed very odd to me. If someone's so emotionally
fragile that they get "triggered", then what are they doing
using such coarse language?

Take a breath, Frank. Are you going to argue all
week about who's right? Maybe you and Java Jive should
take in a boxing match -- blow off a little steam.

On 23/03/2022 17:02, Mayayana wrote:
>
> Take a breath, Frank. Are you going to argue all
> week about who's right? Maybe you and Java Jive should
> take in a boxing match -- blow off a little steam.

Only if you are the punch-bag.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Take a breath, Frank. Are you going to argue all
> week about who's right? Maybe you and Java Jive should
> take in a boxing match -- blow off a little steam.

Yes, of course it's the other guy's fault (in this case three other
guys), never Mayayana's.

Get a clue, Mayayana. For *me* (and Java Jive), it was never about
being right and I *clearly* spelled that out several times. But by
putting your fingers in your ears (read: silently snipping those
comments), you could pretend that it was never said and could whine on
about *you* being right (i.e. have the 'superior' (not) methods,
experience, <whatever>).

Clue-by-four: Read and try to grasp - if you're at all able to do that
- Guy Number Three's comments. Does he also need to take a breath and
blow off a little steam in a boxing match?

Bottom line: You behaved like a dishonest jerk and continue to behave
like one.

On 23 Mar 2022 15:41:09 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>[...]
>
>> I did once read the suggestion that putting the cursor at the start of a
>> reply _wasn't_ to encourage top-posting, but interposting with snipping;
>> however, it sort of coincided with people starting to use email without
>> any guidance (or even resenting such guidance), so that's when the rot
>> set in. Of course also putting the signature before the quoted text
>> stymied that.
>> []
>
> That suggestion might well be have mine! :-)
>
> But seriously, the point is not "putting the cursor at the start of a
>reply", but *directly below the attribution line*. A small but very
>important difference.
>
> So when I started this response, the cursor was directly below
>
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

I couldn't remember where the cursor was positioned here in Agent, so
I just checked--it's at the very start of the message: the beginning
of the attribution line.

But I almost never care. Since I interpost, I want it neither at the
top nor the bottom, and it's highly unlikely that it will be put where
I want it, and I'm going to have to put it where I want it myself.

>
>and I could start 'interposting with snipping', hence my '[...]' snip
>mark.
>
> The problem with top-posting enticing agents was that they put the
>cursor (some lines) *above* the attribution line, so people started to
>type there, resulting in a top-post.
>
>[...]

--
The real, original Ken Blake, not some other newcomer

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 10:33:01 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 22/03/2022 23:27, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:54:08 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:02:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 22/03/2022 19:53, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I give up. What does "SFA" stand for? A quick search didn't find it.
>>>>
>>>> SFA = Sweet Fanny Adams = Sweet Fuck All!
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I thought every native English speaker knew that.
>>>
>>> Nope, not me. I've never heard "Sweet Fanny Adams," and although I've
>>> heard "Fuck All" (mostly by Brits, not USAns), I've never heard "Sweet
>>> Fuck All."
>>
>> Is that the same expression as "Sweet Fairy Ann" (Ça ne fait rien).
>> which I have heard?
>>
>> The first place I heard it was
>>
>> "And how the hell Sweet Fairy Ann can I tell who you are,
>> with your 'ead tucked underneath your arm."
>
>Definitely sounds like a variant on the same theme, but, never having
>heard your variant before,

It's the song "With Her Head Tucked Underneath Her Arm," about the
ghost of Anne Boleyn. I think it's a well-known song in the UK.

It's from the verse that goes

With her head tucked underneath her arm
She walks the Bloody Tower
With her head tucked underneath her arm
At the midnight hour
One night she caught King Henry
He was in the canteen bar
Said he, "Are you Jane Seymour
Anne Boleyn, or Catherine Parr?
For how the sweet san-fairy-ann
Do I know who you are
With your head tucked underneath your arm!"

Cut and pasted with slightly different lyrics from what I know.

> naturally I'd say mine was by far the more
>common way of expressing it!
>
>I guess we could do a straw poll, who reading this subthread besides Ken
>and myself has never heard of Sweet Fanny Adams = Sweet Fuck All, and
>who has never heard of Sweet Fairy Ann = Sweet Fuck All?

--
The real, original Ken Blake, not some other newcomer

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 16:12:08, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 10:33:01 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On 22/03/2022 23:27, Ken Blake wrote:
[]
>>> The first place I heard it was
>>>
>>> "And how the hell Sweet Fairy Ann can I tell who you are,
>>> with your 'ead tucked underneath your arm."
>>
>>Definitely sounds like a variant on the same theme, but, never having
>>heard your variant before,
>
>
>
>It's the song "With Her Head Tucked Underneath Her Arm," about the
>ghost of Anne Boleyn. I think it's a well-known song in the UK.
[]
>For how the sweet san-fairy-ann
>Do I know who you are
>With your head tucked underneath your arm!"
[]
Mainly in recordings by Stanley Holloway (perhaps best-known as a film
actor in USA, such as the Major in My Fair Lady, but he had a large
earlier career of recorded humorous monologues [this isn't one of the
best IMO]), of which there are many copies on YT - e. g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRBPr5jbS5M, which seems to be from
1934, suggesting "san fairy ann" dates as I suspected from WW1, where it
was a guide to troops how to pronounce the French for "no problem", "it
doesn't matter" [literally "that makes nothing"].

In that recording (at 4:33) it's in the form as above - with both
"sweet" and "san".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Thay have a saying for it: /Geiz ist geil/, which roughly translates as, "It's
sexy to be stingly". - Joe Fattorini, RT insert 2016/9/10-16