On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:16:55 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> Just because Outlook[1] vict^H^H^H^Husers succumb to its pressure to
> top-post doesn't make it a Good Thing.

At work (the environment Outlook was designed for) top posting
above a full quote is exactly the right thing to do. This is because there
is no list and so the entire thread has to be in every message so that if
someone else is added to the discussion they get the entire context. It
just means that when one of these monsters lands in the inbox you have to
start reading from the bottom, but at least by the time you get to the top
you know what they're on about.

> [1] Properly pronounced "Look out!"

or "Out House".

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 2021-09-24, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:16:55 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Just because Outlook[1] vict^H^H^H^Husers succumb to its pressure to
>> top-post doesn't make it a Good Thing.
>
> At work (the environment Outlook was designed for) top posting
> above a full quote is exactly the right thing to do. This is because there
> is no list and so the entire thread has to be in every message so that if
> someone else is added to the discussion they get the entire context. It
> just means that when one of these monsters lands in the inbox you have to
> start reading from the bottom, but at least by the time you get to the top
> you know what they're on about.
>
>> [1] Properly pronounced "Look out!"
>
> or "Out House".

My analogy to this is a memo that gets sent around the office.
When you receive it, you photocopy the whole thing, staple your
reply to the top, and pass it on. Each time it comes back to you
you have another copy of the whole damned thing, growing thicker
every time. And all of those copies would be filling up everyone's
filing cabinets. Worst of all, trying to read such a monstrosity
from the beginning (i.e. bottom up) is a nightmare. If books were
printed that way, they would start with the last chapter, followed
by the second-to-last one, all the way down to the first chapter,
which appears at the end. Reading such a book in order would be a
supreme pain in the ass.

I realize that this habit has gotten so ingrained that it'll
probably never be eradicated. But I don't have to like it.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful -
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:16:55 GMT
>Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Just because Outlook[1] vict^H^H^H^Husers succumb to its pressure to
>> top-post doesn't make it a Good Thing.
>
> At work (the environment Outlook was designed for) top posting
>above a full quote is exactly the right thing to do. This is because there
>is no list and so the entire thread has to be in every message so that if
>someone else is added to the discussion they get the entire context. It
>just means that when one of these monsters lands in the inbox you have to
>start reading from the bottom, but at least by the time you get to the top
>you know what they're on about.
>

Easily resolved if outlook would simply position the cursor at the
point of the new reply rather than at the start of the message when
reading new messages.

On 24/09/2021 in message
<20210924190832.0e313ded01553756081c757e@eircom.net> Ahem A Rivet's Shot
wrote:

>At work (the environment Outlook was designed for) top posting
>above a full quote is exactly the right thing to do.

That's email, not Usenet posts. When you had to have some technical
knowledge to use a computer nobody top posted - email or Usenet - in fact
you would get chucked off mailing lists for top posting. It's only since
the hoi polloi started using email that top posting has been prevalent.

Some languages read left to right, some right to left, but they are all
read top to bottom.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
Those are my principles – and if you don’t like them, well, I have others.
(Groucho Marx)

On 24/09/2021 19.16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-09-24, SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> wrote:
>
>> Remember when disk drives used more mechanical means,
>> sometimes linear actuators or even worm screws and stepper
>> motors, to move the heads ? Few today have seen the old
>> removable-platter units, about the size of a dish washer,
>> where the arms (usually square tube-in-tube) moved straight
>> in and out. Took the better part of a second to move from
>> inner to outer tracks - and then there was some fine-tuning
>> to center perfectly over the desired track.
>
> The first such drives I worked with were Univac's clones of
> the IBM 2311 and 2314. They had hydraulic actuators; there
> was a felt-lined drip pad under the actuator.
>
> One time we left the air conditioning on over a weekend
> when the machine was shut down, and when we came back in
> our breath was condensing in the machine room. The oil
> in the actuators had congealed; we had to let the disks
> spin for half an hour or so before it warmed up enough
> to let the heads load.
>
>> Most could
>> move the heads independently, so there was an art to
>> placing your data on the platters so one head could pick
>> up for the other on the next platter and there'd be
>> minimal delay and head movement. Didn't always work out
>> in a multi-user/multi-tasking situation though. STILL
>> a lot faster than mag-tape reels. You'd store your
>> programs and bulk data on those :-)
>
> I never saw a drive with multiple actuators, although I
> wouldn't be surprised if such a thing existed. I did hear
> about drives that had fixed heads mounted on a few tracks
> for rapid access.

Me, I don't understand why modern disks don't have multiple actuators.
It would reduce the access time and increase i/o.

>
> Some systems allowed split-cylinder allocation; if you
> did it right you could access two files without moving
> the head assembly. It would take so much care in setting
> up properly, though, that I never saw it actually used.
>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In comp.os.linux.misc Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, I'll do that when you learn how to format text properly.
> Top posting is what emphaises is on, and, if lot of text, they
> will not even read what is written.

A: Because it reverses the normal top to bottom temporal order of
English language text.

Q: Why should one not top post?

SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> wrote:
> Disks read from the inside out.

CD/DVD disks read from the inside out.

Floppy disks numbered their track zeros at the outermost track and read
inward.

Hard drives, before internal sector remapping, also read from outside
in (track zero was outermost).

Modern SATA drives with internal sector remapping could read the
physical disk surface in any order their designers wished, and the OS
would be unaware.

On 24.09.2021 at 23:08, Carlos E. R. scribbled:

> On 24/09/2021 19.16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
> > I never saw a drive with multiple actuators, although I
> > wouldn't be surprised if such a thing existed. I did hear
> > about drives that had fixed heads mounted on a few tracks
> > for rapid access.
>
> Me, I don't understand why modern disks don't have multiple actuators.
> It would reduce the access time and increase i/o.

I have recently read about a new hard disk design from one of the usual
manufacturers that had dual actuators.

--
With respect,
= Aragorn =

Ana He even didn't notice THAT I AM NOT TOP POSTING,
rateher put text on WHAT I AM REPLYING UNDER '--',
SIGNATURE :P

--
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\d

On 2021-09-24, Andrea Croci <andrea.croci@gmx.de> wrote:
> Same here. I so much hate having to scroll down to read what I want to
> read, that could be just there for me to see.
>
> On 24.09.21 15:05, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>> Ok, I'll do that when you learn how to format text properly.
>> Top posting is what emphaises is on, and, if lot of text, they
>> will not even read what is written.
>> YES, CPC464 was very popular, and breaking SPEEDLOCK protections
>> as excercize :P
>> --
>> 7-77-777
>> \|/
>> /|\
>>
>> On 2021-09-24, Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:47:53 GMT Branimir Maksimovic
>>> <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had CPC6128 2x64kb and FLOPPY! z80 CPU alright and CP/M OS. Worked in
>>>> bakershop in England to save money ti buy it. Learned to program on z80.
>>>>
>>>> -- 7-77-777 \|/ --- /|\
>>>>
>>> Please adopt usenet convention and post your reply text at the bottom,
>>> there's a good chap. And some judicious snipping would help too. (Yup I
>>> didn't do it last time, mea culpa).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2021-09-24, Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:21:01 +0200
>>> []
>>>>>
>>>>> Drifting; the Amstrad early version (z80 based) CPC464 had a builtin
>>>>> cassette recorder.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Evil Sinner!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Evil Sinner!

OK, I am learning, bit NOT TOP POSTING, NOTE '--' SIGNATURE :P

--
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\

On 2021-09-24, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2021-09-24, Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I'll do that when you learn how to format text properly.
>
> Or when you learn to spell "OK" properly... :-)
>
>> Top posting is what emphaises is on, and, if lot of text, they
>> will not even read what is written.
>
> That only happens when people don't trim quoted text appropriately.
>
> If you can't be bothered taking the time to make your message
> easy to read, I can't be bothered taking the time to decipher it.
>
> Just because Outlook[1] vict^H^H^H^Husers succumb to its pressure to
> top-post doesn't make it a Good Thing.
>
> [1] Properly pronounced "Look out!"
>

--
Evil Sinner!

I don;t top post, notice '--', SIGNATURE.

--
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\

On 2021-09-24, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:05:37 GMT, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I'll do that when you learn how to format text properly.
>> Top posting is what emphaises is on, and, if lot of text, they
>> will not even read what is written.
>> YES, CPC464 was very popular, and breaking SPEEDLOCK protections
>> as excercize :P
>
> It's not only to (please) avoid top posting, regarding usenet conventions
> existing since the 1980s. It's also to trim unnecessary quotes. Like I
> just did. Isn't that easier to read?

--
Evil Sinner!

Questions of topicallity are always ON TOPIC. Is it OK to quote
in SIGNATURE, or SHOULD I SNIP IT?

--
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\

On 2021-09-24, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:16:55 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-09-24, Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, I'll do that when you learn how to format text properly.
>>
>> Or when you learn to spell "OK" properly... :-)
>
> ?
>
>>> Top posting is what emphaises is on, and, if lot of text, they
>>> will not even read what is written.
>>
>> That only happens when people don't trim quoted text appropriately.
>>
>> If you can't be bothered taking the time to make your message
>> easy to read, I can't be bothered taking the time to decipher it.
>>
>> Just because Outlook[1] vict^H^H^H^Husers succumb to its pressure to
>> top-post doesn't make it a Good Thing.
>
> Outlook (Express) can be configured to put the cursor below the
> quote. Default is top posting thought. One of the countless annoying
> "features" of it. Am amazed, that people today still use Outlook.
>
> F'up2 comp.os.linux.misc, although it's off topic in either group.

--
Evil Sinner!

> On 2021-09-24, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
<...>
>
> Easily resolved if outlook would simply position the cursor at the point of
> the new reply rather than at the start of the message when reading new
> messages.
It is easy in VIM, just gq}, you have formated text and cursor position, BOTH.

--
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\

--
Evil Sinner!

On 2021-09-24, Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<...>
>
> Some languages read left to right, some right to left, but they are all read
> top to bottom.
>
Sure, but to make people *THINK* on WHAT YOU ARE REPLYING is MORE IMPORTANT.

--
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\

--
Evil Sinner!

On 2021-09-24, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
<...>
> A: Because it reverses the normal top to bottom temporal order of English
> language text.
>
> Q: Why should one not top post?
>
>
Because you break automatism and MAKE people AWARE of TEXT, because they
HAVE TO READ ALL in order to FIGURE OUT what you are replying.

--
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\

--
Evil Sinner!

On 25/09/2021 01.57, Aragorn wrote:
> On 24.09.2021 at 23:08, Carlos E. R. scribbled:
>
>> On 24/09/2021 19.16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> I never saw a drive with multiple actuators, although I
>>> wouldn't be surprised if such a thing existed. I did hear
>>> about drives that had fixed heads mounted on a few tracks
>>> for rapid access.
>>
>> Me, I don't understand why modern disks don't have multiple actuators.
>> It would reduce the access time and increase i/o.
>
> I have recently read about a new hard disk design from one of the usual
> manufacturers that had dual actuators.
>

I have a feeling of having heard of that.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 25.09.2021 at 00:07, Branimir Maksimovic scribbled:

> Ana He even didn't notice THAT I AM NOT TOP POSTING,
> rateher put text on WHAT I AM REPLYING UNDER '--',
> SIGNATURE :P

1. Your signature delimiter is broken. It should be
"dash dash space", not "dash dash".

2. The signature should be no longer than four lines.

--
With respect,
= Aragorn =

On 9/24/21 11:29, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-09-24, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:16:55 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-09-24, Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, I'll do that when you learn how to format text properly.
>>>
>>> Or when you learn to spell "OK" properly... :-)
>>
>> ?
>
> Both letters should be capitalized. That way you ensure that
> it's pronounced "oh kay". It's not a word, but a concatenation
> of letters, like "TCP/IP". If I see someone writing it "Ok",
> I make sure to pronounce it "awk" just to piss them off.
>
> Going back to the obligatory Microsoft-bashing, the first time
> I saw "Ok" was the prompt from their BASIC interpreter for CP/M,
> so I assign them the blame. It was carried over into GW-BASIC
> on MS-DOS, which I still use from time to time; to keep my
> blood pressure down I patched the .EXE file to display "OK".
>
Or "Okay, okay" from the Dutch I believe in New Amsterdam Oll Korrect.
So looked it up and now Dutch involved.
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-hilarious-history-of-ok-okay>
<https://expresswriters.com/the-bizarre-real-origins-of-the-word-okay/>

I was wrong but okay was in use when we had no word/text
processors. Frequently people would mark work sheets simply "OK"
back in the 1940s.

bliss - 'Nearly any fool can use a Linux computer. Many do.' After all
here I am...

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 24 Sep 2021 21:05:57 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 24/09/2021 in message
> <20210924190832.0e313ded01553756081c757e@eircom.net> Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> wrote:
>
> >At work (the environment Outlook was designed for) top posting
> >above a full quote is exactly the right thing to do.
>
> That's email, not Usenet posts. When you had to have some technical

Correct, more to the point it is direct email not mailing list
email.

> knowledge to use a computer nobody top posted - email or Usenet - in fact

Mailing list or USENET correct. My point was that Outlook is not
designed for mailing lists or USENET it is designed for direct email in a
corporate setting where top posting and full quotes are appropriate in
complete contrast to USENET and mailing lists where they are not.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 21:02:38 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

> Easily resolved if outlook would simply position the cursor at the
> point of the new reply rather than at the start of the message when
> reading new messages.

You have missed the point - in this context you want the replies to
be at the top and you want a complete copy of the entire thread. Interleaved
replies and snipping in that context is completely wrong it destroys
essential information.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Corrected.

--
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\
On 2021-09-25, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> wrote:
> On 25.09.2021 at 00:07, Branimir Maksimovic scribbled:
>
>> Ana He even didn't notice THAT I AM NOT TOP POSTING,
>> rateher put text on WHAT I AM REPLYING UNDER '--',
>> SIGNATURE :P
>
> 1. Your signature delimiter is broken. It should be
> "dash dash space", not "dash dash".
>
> 2. The signature should be no longer than four lines.
>

--
Evil Sinner!

Why just four lines?

--
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\
On 2021-09-25, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> wrote:
> On 25.09.2021 at 00:07, Branimir Maksimovic scribbled:
>
>> Ana He even didn't notice THAT I AM NOT TOP POSTING,
>> rateher put text on WHAT I AM REPLYING UNDER '--',
>> SIGNATURE :P
>
> 1. Your signature delimiter is broken. It should be
> "dash dash space", not "dash dash".
>
> 2. The signature should be no longer than four lines.
>

--
Evil Sinner!

On 25.09.2021 at 03:51, Branimir Maksimovic scribbled:

> Corrected.

Not really. Your "signature" contains more than four lines, and your
message body contains no reference whatsoever as to what you are
replying to.

Most people on Usenet are subscribed to more than one newsgroup. Your
style of quoting makes that into a nightmare every time they stumble
upon your posts.

Usenet netiquette and convention stipulate that you would sbip the
irrelevant quoted content from your replies and that you write your own
replies underneath the remaining paragraphs in an interleaved fashion.

Any deviation from that standard makes the Usenet experience only
harder for everyone else, and needlessly so, because it really doesn't
cost any effort to do it right.

--
With respect,
= Aragorn =

On 25.09.2021 at 03:52, Branimir Maksimovic scribbled:

> Why just four lines?

Netiquette. It's supposed to be a signature, not the Encyclopedia
Britanica.

--
With respect,
= Aragorn =

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 06:35:19 +0200, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be>
wrote:

>On 25.09.2021 at 03:52, Branimir Maksimovic scribbled:
>
>> Why just four lines?
>
>Netiquette. It's supposed to be a signature, not the Encyclopedia
>Britanica.

Geez, just plonk the twit.