Is it safe to ... - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Is it safe to ... - Mozilla ; On 1/17/2006 1:52 PM Pacific, Brian J. Graham wrote: > Johannes Kastl wrote: >> On 01/17/2006 03:59 AM Daniel wrote: >> >>> No, Lee, never give up the habit of quoting all so people have a bit of >>> a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Is it safe to ...

  1. Re: Is it safe to ...

    On 1/17/2006 1:52 PM Pacific, Brian J. Graham wrote:
    > Johannes Kastl wrote:
    >> On 01/17/2006 03:59 AM Daniel wrote:
    >>
    >>> No, Lee, never give up the habit of quoting all so people have a bit of
    >>> a clue as to why you say what you say........

    >> Im not sure what you are talking about here. I find it much more "easy
    >> readable" if just the parts of the message are quoted, that you
    >> actually refer to.
    >>
    >> OJ

    >
    > Those of us who are used to secnews find that to be much *less* readable
    > when important bits get snipped and you have to wade back through the
    > thread to make sense of the post.
    >
    > I agree with Daniel!
    >

    Don't forget that these newsgroups have mailing lists
    https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo
    and that some people are still on dial-up while others still pay for
    bandwidth used.

    Irwin

    --
    Irwin Greenwald - Mozilla Champion

    Etiquette - http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
    About Profiles -
    http://users.adelphia.net/~irwingree...0Profiles.html
    OE Quotefix - http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

  2. Re: Is it safe to ...

    Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
    > /Brian J. Graham/:
    >
    >> Johannes Kastl wrote:
    >>
    >>> Im not sure what you are talking about here. I find it much more
    >>> "easy readable" if just the parts of the message are quoted, that you
    >>> actually refer to.

    >>
    >>
    >> Those of us who are used to secnews find that to be much *less*
    >> readable when important bits get snipped and you have to wade back
    >> through the thread to make sense of the post.

    >
    >
    > I only excuse the full-quoting on secnews because of the short retention
    > policy. The amount of quoted material should not necessary be stripped
    > to just few lines from the previous post, but when people start trying
    > to strip extra quotes they began to learn how much is necessary to
    > leave. And as rule of thumb, if the amount of new text is much smaller
    > than the amount of the quoted text, then the quotes should probably be
    > reduced.
    >
    > Another rule is to read the whole thread - all branches, before posting,
    > so one (or many people) don't post duplicate information. Full-quoting
    > doesn't prevent people from posting duplicate information (if it already
    > appears in different branch) but makes reading the whole thread more
    > difficult.
    >


    The full quoting on secnes was NOT due to a short retention policy!
    The full quoting was intended to SAVE the work of re-reading each and
    every thread before replying.

    Heck, if I have to re-read each and every thread in the newsgroups, I
    would never answer because there isnt enough time in the day to do so.
    You go re-read a couple of hundred posts, heck, on some days its a
    thousand posts or more!

    Can you honestly tell me you REMEMBER the subject AND all the details
    for each and every message in this group? For YOUR messages perhaps, but
    try it when you are attempting to help others.

  3. Re: Is it safe to ...

    Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    > On 1/17/2006 1:52 PM Pacific, Brian J. Graham wrote:
    >> Johannes Kastl wrote:
    >>> On 01/17/2006 03:59 AM Daniel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> No, Lee, never give up the habit of quoting all so people have a bit of
    >>>> a clue as to why you say what you say........
    >>> Im not sure what you are talking about here. I find it much more "easy
    >>> readable" if just the parts of the message are quoted, that you
    >>> actually refer to.
    >>>
    >>> OJ

    >> Those of us who are used to secnews find that to be much *less* readable
    >> when important bits get snipped and you have to wade back through the
    >> thread to make sense of the post.
    >>
    >> I agree with Daniel!
    >>

    > Don't forget that these newsgroups have mailing lists
    > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo
    > and that some people are still on dial-up while others still pay for
    > bandwidth used.
    >
    > Irwin
    >


    Pick me on both accounts, Irwin. Well sort of, $50 per month gets me 100
    hrs dialed in or 150 M byte d/l, then I start paying more.

    Daniel

  4. [OT] Full-quoting (was: Is it safe to ...)

    /Moz Champion (Dan)/:
    > Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
    >
    >> I only excuse the full-quoting on secnews because of the short
    >> retention policy.

    > [...]
    >
    > The full quoting on secnes was NOT due to a short retention policy!


    So, I've said _I_ only excuse it because of the short retention policy.

    > The full quoting was intended to SAVE the work of re-reading each and
    > every thread before replying.


    Why you should re-read it at first?

    > Heck, if I have to re-read each and every thread in the newsgroups, I
    > would never answer because there isnt enough time in the day to do so.


    Seems full-quoting doesn't make you easier to understand just the
    exact text, from just the message you're replying to (see my first
    comment), but I admit it may be because of my bad English.

    > You go re-read a couple of hundred posts, heck, on some days its a
    > thousand posts or more!


    When you get involved in a discussion, you're supposed to get into
    it. On secnews, more often I see a short reply primarily intended
    for just the previous message and I'm not even sure you re-read
    every full-quote with every new reply of yours you post to a thread.
    If you post just for the numbers - you're not taking a quality
    participation in the discussion, most probably.

    > Can you honestly tell me you REMEMBER the subject AND all the details
    > for each and every message in this group? For YOUR messages perhaps, but
    > try it when you are attempting to help others.


    I don't take part in every topic. The topics I'm interested in I've
    read in full once and then I read the new replies appearing.
    Occasionally I may re-read couple of previous messages if the
    discussion doesn't progress quickly and replies go between longer
    intervals (a week, for example).

    So I think full-quoting adds just junk to the news server. You may
    submit a feature request to automatically compile an aggregate
    message for you to read from all messages in a thread, the branch of
    the message you've selected, for example. This may involve stripping
    of the quoted material supplied with every message and has other
    things to think of, but won't cause to people to learn bad habits
    and the same time you'll get what you say you wanna get.

    --
    Stanimir

  5. Re: [OT] Full-quoting

    On 01/18/2006 01:07 PM Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:

    >> The full quoting was intended to SAVE the work of re-reading each and
    >> every thread before replying.


    The amount of lines read should be the same when reading the whole
    thread or the full quotes.
    The amount of lines read should be bigger when full quoting, but
    smaller when irrelevant parts are snipped.

    I personally find it more convenient to have the text in single posts,
    so I see up to which point I have read the thread. One single big post
    with hundreds of lines is much more inconvenient for me, IMHO.

    OJ
    --
    "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the
    day they start making vacuum cleaners."

  6. Re: Is it safe to ... (OT)

    Daniel wrote:
    >
    > $50 per month gets me 100 hrs dialed in
    > or 150 M byte d/l, then I start paying more.
    >
    > Daniel


    WTF! where do you live Daniel? That's expensive even by Australian
    standards! The dial-up account I just ditched was $28.95/month,
    unlimited d/l, unlimited time. It would time out after 10 hours or 1
    hour with no traffic but you could dial straight back up again.

    For $49.95 a month now, I get "always on" 512k/128k adsl, with a
    10Gb/month limit, then shaped back to 64k after that but at no extra
    charge. $0 instillation, BYO Modem, it is a 12 months contract though. :-(

    I could get adsl cheaper still, but I wanted one of the better ISPs and
    not bundled with a phone plan. Big enough so they don't have to charge
    for data transfered across networks, the account can be payed by B-pay
    and lots of gaming servers, VoIP support in a few months. I live way out
    in the sticks (er... :-) country) which doesn't help when it comes to
    choice.

    I would be quit interested to hear what other people pay for their adsl.
    I have heard it's quite expensive and slow here compared to other
    countries. But I don't really know.


    --
    -Adrian
    "A good sermon should be like a woman's skirt:
    short enough to arouse interest
    but long enough to cover the essentials." (-;
    ~Ronald Knox

  7. Re: Is it safe to ... (OT)

    Adrian wrote:
    > Daniel wrote:
    >>
    >> $50 per month gets me 100 hrs dialed in or 150 M byte d/l, then I
    >> start paying more.
    >>
    >> Daniel

    >
    > WTF! where do you live Daniel? That's expensive even by Australian
    > standards! The dial-up account I just ditched was $28.95/month,
    > unlimited d/l, unlimited time. It would time out after 10 hours or 1
    > hour with no traffic but you could dial straight back up again.
    >
    > For $49.95 a month now, I get "always on" 512k/128k adsl, with a
    > 10Gb/month limit, then shaped back to 64k after that but at no extra
    > charge. $0 instillation, BYO Modem, it is a 12 months contract though. :-(
    >
    > I could get adsl cheaper still, but I wanted one of the better ISPs and
    > not bundled with a phone plan. Big enough so they don't have to charge
    > for data transfered across networks, the account can be payed by B-pay
    > and lots of gaming servers, VoIP support in a few months. I live way out
    > in the sticks (er... :-) country) which doesn't help when it comes to
    > choice.
    >
    > I would be quit interested to hear what other people pay for their adsl.
    > I have heard it's quite expensive and slow here compared to other
    > countries. But I don't really know.
    >
    >


    Yes, I suppose it is a bit expensive, but it (the time, the d/l limits,
    the local help line, etc.) suits me better than getting one of the
    national providers which don't have local assistance.

    I was looking to go ADSL but the 'phone lines need upgrading to reach
    me. This was supposed to happen late last year, but I'm still waiting.
    My ISP sends me Telstra line loss reports every couple of months, so I
    should know when things get fixed. Price, to me, will be $66 per month
    for 2 G Bytes d/l.

    Daniel

  8. Re: Is it safe to ... (OT)

    Daniel wrote:
    > Adrian wrote:
    >> Daniel wrote:
    >>>
    >>> $50 per month gets me 100 hrs dialed in or 150 M byte d/l, then I
    >>> start paying more.
    >>>
    >>> Daniel

    >>
    >> WTF! where do you live Daniel? That's expensive even by Australian
    >> standards! The dial-up account I just ditched was $28.95/month,
    >> unlimited d/l, unlimited time. It would time out after 10 hours or 1
    >> hour with no traffic but you could dial straight back up again.
    >>
    >> For $49.95 a month now, I get "always on" 512k/128k adsl, with a
    >> 10Gb/month limit, then shaped back to 64k after that but at no extra
    >> charge. $0 instillation, BYO Modem, it is a 12 months contract though.
    >> :-(

    >
    > Yes, I suppose it is a bit expensive, but it (the time, the d/l limits,
    > the local help line, etc.) suits me better than getting one of the
    > national providers which don't have local assistance.
    >
    > I was looking to go ADSL but the 'phone lines need upgrading to reach
    > me. This was supposed to happen late last year, but I'm still waiting.
    > My ISP sends me Telstra line loss reports every couple of months, so I
    > should know when things get fixed. Price, to me, will be $66 per month
    > for 2 G Bytes d/l.
    >
    > Daniel



    Oh I didn't realize you are in Australia.
    I guess I should have looked at your headers.
    Anyway that explains the prices :-)

    I was with bigpond for about 5 years.
    That's the dial-up I was talking about.
    They have 1300 support, 24/7, 365 days a year.

    The local support thing doesn't really make
    much difference unless they would come to you.
    Once you are up and running you hardly need
    support. So you are paying all that extra
    for a service you never use.
    I would have stayed with bigpond except
    they are $30 a month dearer for the same thing.

    I had to wait 2 years for them to upgrade the
    exchanges here for adsl. I even wrote letters
    to the editors of the local papers to get enough
    people to register their expressions of interest
    in having adsl, as you need 60 people before they
    will even think about doing it.

    Before you commit to anything have a look here.

    bc.whirlpool.net.au/

    It could save you hundreds of dollars a year.

    Since this conversation is so off topic,
    if we want to continue it we should do it by email.
    My email address is: dryd at bigpond dot com
    Country to the newsgroup guidelines my address is smudged.
    Sorry about that and the off topic thread everyone else.
    I live in Far North Queensland (FNQ)
    About 150k inland from Cairns.
    See you on the flip side! :-)
    Oops showing my age there! :-)

    --
    -Adrian
    "A good sermon should be like a woman's skirt:
    short enough to arouse interest
    but long enough to cover the essentials." (-;
    ~Ronald Knox

  9. Re: Is it safe to ... (OT)

    Adrian wrote:
    > Since this conversation is so off topic,
    > if we want to continue it we should do it by email.
    > My email address is: dryd at bigpond dot com
    > Country to the newsgroup guidelines my address is smudged.
    > Sorry about that and the off topic thread everyone else.
    > I live in Far North Queensland (FNQ)
    > About 150k inland from Cairns.
    > See you on the flip side! :-)
    > Oops showing my age there! :-)
    >


    Oh if you want to see my mugshot have a look here:
    http://users.bigpond.com/dryd/
    This will only be there until the 25th of this month.

    --
    -Adrian
    "A good sermon should be like a woman's skirt:
    short enough to arouse interest
    but long enough to cover the essentials." (-;
    ~Ronald Knox

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