Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS - CP/M

This is a discussion on Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS - CP/M ; CBFalconer wrote: > glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > > Laurie Boshell wrote: > >> "Mark Kent" wrote in message > > > > (snip) > > > >>> Top-posting is awful, please don't do it. Abuse is worse, and > >>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44

Thread: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

  1. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS


    CBFalconer wrote:
    > glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
    > > Laurie Boshell wrote:
    > >> "Mark Kent" wrote in message

    > >
    > > (snip)
    > >
    > >>> Top-posting is awful, please don't do it. Abuse is worse, and
    > >>> ingnorance if netiquette is just plain rude.

    > >
    > >> I find top-posting easier to follow, as you read each response.
    > >> You have ignored the insulting political foot note from CBFalconer.
    > >> Is that acceptable netiquette?

    > >
    > > For a one line reply to a long post, and which is unlikely to need
    > > any follow up, top posting works better. If I can't find anything
    > > useful in the first or second screen, (15 lines each on my current
    > > browser), and sometimes only the first, I won't scroll down any further.

    >
    > For heavens sake, just snip the non-relevant portions and
    > bottom-post. A one line reply can't possibly refer to the whole of
    > a long post, unless it's a me-too, and that just shouldn't be
    > posted at all.
    >
    > --
    > Some informative links:
    > news:news.announce.newusers
    > http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
    > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    > http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
    > http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html


    Not sure where this will end up - top bottom or middle - all I know
    that an interesting conversation thread was just just trashed because
    someone used the wrong fork to eat their salad.

    Bill H www.ts1000.us


  2. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    In article <1150110528.642976.105310@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>
    bill@ts1000.us "Bill H" writes:

    > CBFalconer wrote:


    [snip]

    > > For heavens sake, just snip the non-relevant portions and
    > > bottom-post. A one line reply can't possibly refer to the whole of
    > > a long post, unless it's a me-too, and that just shouldn't be
    > > posted at all.


    [snip]

    > Not sure where this will end up - top bottom or middle - all I know


    A good newsreader allows one to quote/snip/post exactly as one
    desires -- even this old DOS one.

    > that an interesting conversation thread was just just trashed because
    > someone used the wrong fork to eat their salad.
    >
    > Bill H www.ts1000.us


    Not at all; the reason one posts to a newsgroup is to make a
    point or express an opinion, and the more one conforms to the
    netiquette guidelines (developed over many decades) the more
    likely is one's article to be read. Personally, I just skip any
    top-postings -- possibly my loss -- others' mileage may vary.

    Pete
    --
    "We have not inherited the earth from our ancestors,
    we have borrowed it from our descendants."

  3. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    *glen herrmannsfeldt* wrote on Sun, 06-06-11 21:23:
    >For a one line reply to a long post, and which is unlikely to need any
    >follow up, top posting works better.


    If you faithfully promise not to let it go any further, I will let you
    into an extremely well kept secret:

    It is possible to trim quotes. Yes I know, I too found that hard to
    believe at first and wouldn't quite dare to try it, after all, who
    knows what a wounded quote might do? But then I gathered together all
    my courage and to my utter surprise it really worked.

    Anyone seeing your reply is bound to have already read the reference,
    and if she hasn't, your reply is probably of no use to her anyway. In
    traditional correspondence, do you also include photocopies of the
    complete earlier correspondence with every letter? Why not?

    N.B: I agree with you on one thing: Whenever I see a full screen of all
    quote I always move on to the next message without bothering to read.
    And whenever I read a top post, I wish I had, but it's too late then.


  4. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:49:23 +0000 (UTC), pete@nospam.demon.co.uk
    wrote:
    >
    >A good newsreader allows one to quote/snip/post exactly as one
    >desires -- even this old DOS one.
    >


    I don't know of anyone that has suggested that the so called browsers,
    mail and news readers from Microsoft are good. That's one of the
    reasons they are forced upon you when you install one of their bug
    ridden systems. Unfortunately, not everyone is bright enough to
    replace them anyway.

    Bob McConnell
    N2SPP


  5. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    Axel Berger wrote:

    > If you faithfully promise not to let it go any further, I will let you
    > into an extremely well kept secret:
    >
    > It is possible to trim quotes. Yes I know, I too found that hard to
    > believe at first and wouldn't quite dare to try it, after all, who
    > knows what a wounded quote might do?
    >
    > Whenever I see a full screen of all
    > quote I always move on to the next message ...


    Axel, thanks for starting a new thread on this subject, as it's pretty
    far from discussion of BIOS documentation (although I think that thread
    has concluded). I'm surprised at some of the reactions, but I think
    it's good that people OCCASIONALLY express their opinions on an
    otherwise fine point of netiquette. So I'll add mine.

    I edit posts all the time. I see no point in repeating text that is
    readily available via any Web-based newsreader, so I only retain such
    text as to put some context with my reply; just as I've done above.
    I've had negative reactions, but only from persons who are already in
    negative territory. Likewise, for me it's easy enough to bottom-post,
    again using a Web based or graphically-based newsreader.

    That said, some people may not have access to such tools; they may have
    preferences to older and/or less flexible tools; or they may have
    visual or other limitations. These may oblige them to only add text at
    the top of a previous message.

    So I judge messages on content, not format, to the extent I can keep up
    with traffic; and to the extent some subject interests me. When
    discussion gets heated, my interest declines in proportion.

    Herb Johnson

    Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA
    web site
    domain mirror
    my email address: hjohnson AAT retrotechnology DOTT com
    if no reply, try in a few days: herbjohnson ATT comcast DOTT net
    "Herb's Stuff": old Mac, SGI, 8-inch floppy drives
    S-100 IMSAI Altair computers, docs, by "Dr. S-100"


  6. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    On 13 Jun 2006 10:21:32 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    wrote:

    I happen to be one that both snips and also inline posts. No doubt a
    renegade.

    >I edit posts all the time. I see no point in repeating text that is
    >readily available via any Web-based newsreader, so I only retain such
    >text as to put some context with my reply; just as I've done above.
    >I've had negative reactions, but only from persons who are already in
    >negative territory. Likewise, for me it's easy enough to bottom-post,
    >again using a Web based or graphically-based newsreader.


    I have found none that prohibit that. Though some do put you at teh
    top of the post by default.

    >That said, some people may not have access to such tools; they may have
    >preferences to older and/or less flexible tools; or they may have
    >visual or other limitations. These may oblige them to only add text at
    >the top of a previous message.


    Ove the last 20 years I've used tools that were VMS based, Unix Based,
    PC dos based, Win3.1 based nad various flavors of winders up to XP.
    That covers near everything that can access the net for the most part
    save for a few truly scarce and oddball systems that are worthy of
    discussion unto themselves.

    The number of tools for both unix/linix and DOS/Winders base
    is staggering. A large number of them are free. The best I've
    used is Forte' Free Agent, and the version I have used the longest
    was free on the net when Win3.1 was current back in the early 90s
    and still runs fine to better under Win95, NT4, Win98se, win2000 and
    even XP all from athe same kit downloaded via FTP back in the
    early 90s for FREE. Recently I upgraded to V1.93 as it had a few new
    features but runs well on NT4, Win98se and even an old 486/75 laptop
    running Win95c.

    To be direct about it, there is no technical excuse for bad posting.

    >So I judge messages on content, not format, to the extent I can keep up
    >with traffic; and to the extent some subject interests me. When
    >discussion gets heated, my interest declines in proportion.


    Content is everything. I'll tolerate a lot of fluff and all
    provided there is content.


    Allison

  7. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    Herb Johnson wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > That said, some people may not have access to such tools; they may
    > have preferences to older and/or less flexible tools; or they may
    > have visual or other limitations. These may oblige them to only
    > add text at the top of a previous message.


    I greatly doubt that any such depraved newsreader system exists.

    --
    Some informative links:
    news:news.announce.newusers
    http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
    http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html



  8. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:

    > As a very long time poster to usenet the top post is a fairly recent
    > event and propagated by the present of the evil scorge M$ and
    > Outlook.


    To be pedantic, it's Outlook Express. Outlook doesn't do Usenet.

    --
    Alex Taylor

  9. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:43:21 GMT, zeem
    wrote:

    >nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
    >
    >> As a very long time poster to usenet the top post is a fairly recent
    >> event and propagated by the present of the evil scorge M$ and
    >> Outlook.

    >
    >To be pedantic, it's Outlook Express. Outlook doesn't do Usenet.


    Pendantic you were. But you should have included the add in for
    newgroups for Outlook.

    Besides for those that have it they know, for those that don't it's
    because they are actively avoiding it.


    Allison


  10. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    > On 13 Jun 2006 10:21:32 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    > wrote:
    >> [Tools or personal limitations] may oblige them to only add text at
    > >the top of a previous message.


    "Allison" nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:

    > Over the last 20 years I've used tools that....
    > covers near everything that can access the net for the most part...
    > To be direct about it, there is no technical excuse for bad posting.


    Perhaps my term "oblige" was too strong, and "encourage" would a better
    term. Here's an example of my statement in terms of "encouragement".

    Since my email address for posts is at "gmail.com", it's no surprise
    that I use Google Groups to post to comp.os.cpm. Straightforward use of
    Google Groups via Web browser to reply to a post, brings up a window
    which contains the entire post and displays the topmost part of that
    post with a blank line above it. A straightforward way to edit in a
    reply is to add text at the top of that window, and then click the
    "post message" button. That scheme also encourages full quotations, and
    quotations of quotations, etc.

    For myself, it's an effort to winnow out the quotes and edit and format
    to my tastes (as I just did, for this reply.) So that scheme for reply
    does not an "oblige" me to top-post or excessively quote. But I am able
    to edit with ease; some may not be, due to physical imparement. That
    was also part of my point.

    Of course some may be indifferent to the issue, or have their own
    preferences for their own reasons. While a reasoned discussion is
    informative, it may not change everyone's mind or circumstances.

    Herb Johnson

    Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA
    web site
    domain mirror
    my email address: hjohnson AAT retrotechnology DOTT com
    if no reply, try in a few days: herbjohnson ATT comcast DOTT net
    "Herb's Stuff": old Mac, SGI, 8-inch floppy drives
    S-100 IMSAI Altair computers, docs, by "Dr. S-100"


  11. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    On 13 Jun 2006 15:29:45 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    wrote:

    >> On 13 Jun 2006 10:21:32 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    >> wrote:
    >>> [Tools or personal limitations] may oblige them to only add text at
    >> >the top of a previous message.

    >
    >"Allison" nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
    >
    >> Over the last 20 years I've used tools that....
    >> covers near everything that can access the net for the most part...
    >> To be direct about it, there is no technical excuse for bad posting.

    >
    >Perhaps my term "oblige" was too strong, and "encourage" would a better
    >term. Here's an example of my statement in terms of "encouragement".
    >
    >Since my email address for posts is at "gmail.com", it's no surprise
    >that I use Google Groups to post to comp.os.cpm. Straightforward use of
    >Google Groups via Web browser to reply to a post, brings up a window
    >which contains the entire post and displays the topmost part of that
    >post with a blank line above it. A straightforward way to edit in a
    >reply is to add text at the top of that window, and then click the
    >"post message" button. That scheme also encourages full quotations, and
    >quotations of quotations, etc.
    >
    >For myself, it's an effort to winnow out the quotes and edit and format
    >to my tastes (as I just did, for this reply.) So that scheme for reply
    >does not an "oblige" me to top-post or excessively quote. But I am able
    >to edit with ease; some may not be, due to physical imparement. That
    >was also part of my point.


    After looking at google groups I can say that is the best example of
    of the worst example. I happen to like Google as a search engine
    adn for maps but the groups thing really falls into "what were they
    thinking.." pile. I have no fondness for their current format
    compared to what it used to be. It encourages to many bad
    habits that should be limited to the ALT.* part of usenet.


    Allison



    >
    >Of course some may be indifferent to the issue, or have their own
    >preferences for their own reasons. While a reasoned discussion is
    >informative, it may not change everyone's mind or circumstances.
    >
    >Herb Johnson
    >
    >Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA
    > web site
    > domain mirror
    >my email address: hjohnson AAT retrotechnology DOTT com
    >if no reply, try in a few days: herbjohnson ATT comcast DOTT net
    >"Herb's Stuff": old Mac, SGI, 8-inch floppy drives
    >S-100 IMSAI Altair computers, docs, by "Dr. S-100"



  12. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    *Herb Johnson* wrote on Wed, 06-06-14 00:29:
    >A straightforward way to edit in a reply is to add text at the top of
    >that window, and then click the "post message" button.


    How is it straightforward? When installing Netscape (which I consider
    the least bad reader under Windows) for others I usually disable the
    "quote automatically" feature. But if I consider people to be
    reasonable, well mannered and willing to learn, as for myself, I retain
    the default of placing the cursor at the top. This way I begin deleting
    up to the bit bit I'm referring to and start writing there.

    Top posting began when stupid people started to use tools they did and
    do not understand. It is like the horn in cars. As a security feature
    it tends to be the control easiest to get to, which is why in third
    world countries it is also the most and most continuously used one.

    >But I am able to edit with ease; some may not be, due to physical
    >imparement.


    It must be a very bad editor, where deleting a hundred lines is more
    effort than typing two. I know none such.


  13. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    CBFalconer writes:

    >Herb Johnson wrote:


    >> These may oblige them to only
    >> add text at the top of a previous message.


    >I greatly doubt that any such depraved newsreader system exists.


    Oh; even my old and (t)rusty text-mode "nn" places the cursor at
    the first line of the original text, that is under "CB... wrote"
    and befor ">Herb ... wrote"

    But I think that the reason is, that I may have the chance to
    read _and_delete_ anything that has nothing to do with my in-
    tended answer.

    And I am sure that _any_ (Web-) Editor has a function to *delete*
    some text (-passage).

    Yours, Holger

  14. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    CBFalconer wrote:
    >
    > Herb Johnson wrote:
    > >

    > ... snip ...
    > >
    > > That said, some people may not have access to such tools; they may
    > > have preferences to older and/or less flexible tools; or they may
    > > have visual or other limitations. These may oblige them to only
    > > add text at the top of a previous message.

    >
    > I greatly doubt that any such depraved newsreader system exists.
    >

    The words "defective" and "seriously broken" come to mind about
    such a system...

    --
    +----------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
    +----------------------------------------------------------------+

  15. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    Axel Berger wrote:
    >
    > *Herb Johnson* wrote on Wed, 06-06-14 00:29:
    > >A straightforward way to edit in a reply is to add text at the top of
    > >that window, and then click the "post message" button.

    >
    > How is it straightforward? When installing Netscape (which I consider
    > the least bad reader under Windows) for others I usually disable the
    > "quote automatically" feature. But if I consider people to be
    > reasonable, well mannered and willing to learn, as for myself, I retain
    > the default of placing the cursor at the top. This way I begin deleting
    > up to the bit bit I'm referring to and start writing there.
    >
    > Top posting began when stupid people started to use tools they did and
    > do not understand. It is like the horn in cars. As a security feature
    > it tends to be the control easiest to get to, which is why in third
    > world countries it is also the most and most continuously used one.
    >

    IMHO stupid people *not* only fail to understand the tools...they
    do *not* give a rat's ass. Also IMHO, many younger folks today wear
    stupidity like a badge of honor. They are proud that they do *not*
    know very much, and claim that one does *not* need to know these things.

    (Of course, I am *not* refering to Herb or Watzman, or any of the other
    recalcitrant members of this group.)
    >
    > >But I am able to edit with ease; some may not be, due to physical
    > >imparement.

    >
    > It must be a very bad editor, where deleting a hundred lines is more
    > effort than typing two. I know none such.
    >

    It's like my high school math teacher used to say:

    "A drunk can give you 10,000 reasons for drinking, and none
    of them are worth a damn."


    --
    +----------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
    +----------------------------------------------------------------+

  16. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:09:30 GMT, nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:

    >The number of tools for both unix/linix and DOS/Winders base
    >is staggering. A large number of them are free. The best I've
    >used is Forte' Free Agent, and the version I have used the longest
    >was free on the net when Win3.1 was current back in the early 90s
    >and still runs fine to better under Win95, NT4, Win98se, win2000 and
    >even XP all from athe same kit downloaded via FTP back in the
    >early 90s for FREE. Recently I upgraded to V1.93 as it had a few new
    >features but runs well on NT4, Win98se and even an old 486/75 laptop
    >running Win95c.


    Now that IS curious .... every so often I decide to hunt around
    Tucows, Download.com, and others for a 'better' news reader.

    Been doing that for years now.

    For the old (78's) music I collect, nothing beats News Reaper
    (now running ver 3.0 beta). On Cox, plain old vanilla cable
    internet, I can open two connections per zone (East, Central,
    and West) and get six simultaneous feeds to work on a big
    file, at around 2.5 - 3 megabits. For somebody who started with
    a 300 baud accoustic, calling in to BBSes, this is something!

    But ...Totally useless for READING messages.

    And ...still can't find anything to take the place of Forte's News
    Agent ... and just so happens, I also prefer the 1.93 flavor.

    Just one question. I've been collecting interesting messages
    for years. Several .data files are into the hundreds of megs.
    But I can't seem to get a grip on all the non-text 'stuff' mostly
    at the beginning and end of each message, making a mass
    'extraction' sorta difficult.

    By any chance, something you've looked at?

    Bill


  17. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:35:00 +0200, Axel_Berger@b.maus.de (Axel
    Berger) wrote:

    >
    >Top posting began when stupid people started to use tools they did and
    >do not understand. It is like the horn in cars. As a security feature
    >it tends to be the control easiest to get to, which is why in third
    >world countries it is also the most and most continuously used one.


    I don't normally get into top/bottom posting wars, since they have all
    the intelligence of Ford/Chevy wars, however your statement above
    rankles.

    When I first started reading and posting on rbbs's back 30 or so years
    ago (long before the internet and net-nazis) I was given the advice
    from one of our local sysops that when composing a message, if your
    point wasn't made on the first screen, then you failed. Top posting
    was the norm there, the quoted part of a message was just to allow
    latecomers to the thread to know what had gone before, since rbbs's
    normally had limited storage and had to compact the message base on a
    regular basis.

    I have always wanted to neither top post or bottom post, I have always
    wanted side by side, with the new text off to the right (for all users
    except those reading in Japanese or Hebrew). Bottom posting isn't
    natural, reading left to right is.

    I could go on for pages, but keeping in the 24 line limit that I
    learned back in the days of cp/m anything further would generally be
    skipped as the reader just read the first screen then went to the next
    message.


  18. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    Let us start with one thing we wholeheartedly agree on:
    *primo* wrote on Thu, 06-06-15 17:28:
    >if your point wasn't made on the first screen, then you failed.


    >posting on rbbs's back 30 or so years ago


    Have to admit I came in very much later than that, but still at a time
    when a 2400 bps modem (my first, used it for many years) was considered
    one of the fast ones. 30 years ago was '76, so there was the Altair and
    IMSAI and the first Apple had just come out. Highest available data
    rate then seems to have been 1200 bps.

    Now I can well remember that untrimmed quotes caused far more of a
    stink then than they do now and could easily get you banned from
    systems - unnnecessarily long download cost people real time and money,
    not just a slight bit of inconvenience as they do now.
    And I do admit my habits were formed then. There were no cheap mass
    providers and I could quickly and easily be chucked out by my sysop if
    not closely adhereing to netiquette.

    N.B: The RID or the "references" are one of the oldest standrds in mail
    and news in in some groups it was considered best form never to quote
    at all. That of course was after the advent of offlinereaders, bit they
    had come in before I arrived, but not very long, I believe, and not
    everywhere.

    --
    Tschö wa
    Axel


  19. Re: TOFU, was: Documentation focusing ...

    Axel Berger wrote:

    > *glen herrmannsfeldt* wrote on Sun, 06-06-11 21:23:


    >>For a one line reply to a long post, and which is unlikely to need any
    >>follow up, top posting works better.

    (snip)

    > It is possible to trim quotes. Yes I know, I too found that hard to
    > believe at first and wouldn't quite dare to try it, after all, who
    > knows what a wounded quote might do? But then I gathered together all
    > my courage and to my utter surprise it really worked.


    Yes. While I don't claim to be perfect, I do try.

    But IF someone doesn't trim a 200 line post, and wants to add one line,
    I would rather have it at the top than the bottom. I won't see it at
    the bottom if they do post it there.

    It is hard to tell how much context is needed. Often I read new from
    newest to oldest, so I might not have seen the previous posts.
    The context should be near the minimal require. Sometimes I put in
    a one line description of what I snipped like:

    (snipped previous discussion on top posting)

    -- glen


  20. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    Bob McConnell espoused:
    > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:49:23 +0000 (UTC), pete@nospam.demon.co.uk
    > wrote:
    >>
    >>A good newsreader allows one to quote/snip/post exactly as one
    >>desires -- even this old DOS one.
    >>

    >
    > I don't know of anyone that has suggested that the so called browsers,
    > mail and news readers from Microsoft are good. That's one of the
    > reasons they are forced upon you when you install one of their bug
    > ridden systems. Unfortunately, not everyone is bright enough to
    > replace them anyway.
    >


    True. We also have a generation of people who don't seem to consider
    anyone but themselves... I always like quotes like:

    "...well, I find it easier to... not bother to trim posts properly ...
    and just put extra stuff at the top because... I'm too lazy to edit
    them..."

    just a little irritating.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    Kiss a non-smoker; taste the difference.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast