Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:07:42AM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 12 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Neal P. Murphy a écrit :
> > You have to print the file in reverse bit order for that to work. :)
> 
[...]

> And of course, this is for PCM. For MP3, reversing the bit order or the
> octet order [...]

Woah, woah. Palyndrome Opus (bit or bytewise). Must resist, gotta work
to do...

:-)

- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlZf9A4ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZiwQCeNDgFjOG8zpNFZhDAwkMvlSuZ
tfsAn0s9rfXoSIkRDmzx7jBKdqVdL3Dm
=OkYw
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Nicolas George]

Le duodi 12 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Neal P. Murphy a écrit :
> You have to print the file in reverse bit order for that to work. :)

Nitpick: in reverse SAMPLE order. If you play the file in reverse bit order,
you will get the low-order bits white noise with maximum volume, making it
complete garbage.

And of course, this is for PCM. For MP3, reversing the bit order or the
octet order would result in unplayable garbage, since MP3 or any compressed
codec has some internal structure. It would probably be possible to write a
bitstream filter capable of reversing the order of the samples in a MP3
frame, that would probably make an interesting waste of time for a competent
hacker. It would probably not be possible for Opus, though.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Bob Bernstein]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Mart van de Wege wrote:

It may be that inline replies are associated with the practice 
of 'fisking' [...]


Yes. I stumbled into that mental association some time around 
3:30am ET, at which ungodly hour thoughts of fisking seem to 
rise of their own accord. 


[...] which in conservative circles is interleaving 
derogative comments with the target of derision's original 
content (usually a blog post).


My inner conservative wants to ask, "Are not liberals smart 
enough to fisk each other's written work?"


My inner liberal wants to ask, "Why are conservatives such a 
picky, fussy, argumentative bunch?


I believe most fisking is done by conservatives, but much of 
that activity, and certainly the best of it, is aimed at their 
conservative comrade's work.


If the only time you see interleaved comments is in 'fisked' 
pieces, then I could understand not feeling comfortable when 
someone does that in an email reply.


Yes, point well taken.

--
Bob Bernstein

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Chris Bannister]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> 
> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> top-post it that way.
> 
> Then they see it from my perspective.

What is 'tac'?

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Ric Moore]

On 12/02/2015 03:03 PM, John Hasler wrote:

Chris Bannister writes:
What is 'tac'?

DESCRIPTION
Write each FILE to standard output, last line first.


That's the beauty of UNIX. They have thought of everything you could 
ever possibly need, including backwards printing. :/ Ric




--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Ric Moore]

On 12/02/2015 12:19 PM, Bob Bernstein wrote:

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Mart van de Wege wrote:



If the only time you see interleaved comments is in 'fisked' pieces,
then I could understand not feeling comfortable when someone does that
in an email reply.


Yes, point well taken.


I suppose we can start to expect fisk offender lists soon? Maybe a 12 
step program?? "My name is RIC and I have fisked!" :) Ric



--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Erwan David]

Le 02/12/2015 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
>> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
>> top-post it that way.
>>
>> Then they see it from my perspective.
> What is 'tac'?
>
TAC(1)  
 
User
Commands
   
TAC(1)

NAME
   tac - concatenate and print files in reverse

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[John Hasler]

Chris Bannister writes:
What is 'tac'?

DESCRIPTION
   Write each FILE to standard output, last line first.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:41:44AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> > 
> > I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> > top-post it that way.
> > 
> > Then they see it from my perspective.
> 
> What is 'tac'?

Properly answered by others; just a little addendum: like 'cat' but
backwards :-)

- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlZfV1kACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZ0/wCfaF0XtymMDO3XGCu2yFSlurDw
1z8AnjKWWWZZ1tmEBOebATrvB6WW+PYa
=GnZW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Lisi Reisz]

On Wednesday 02 December 2015 04:21:04 Stuart Longland wrote:
> On 01/12/15 11:56, John Hasler wrote:
> > Bob Bernstein writes:
> >> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
> >> of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
> >> lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status
> >> of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt these
> >> nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, a solid uppercut?
> >
> > Waste of effort.  The usual reason for top-posting (or bottom-posting
> > without editing) is laziness.
>
> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> top-post it that way.
>
> Then they see it from my perspective.

That is brilliant!!  I can'tr wait to try it on a desreving recipient.

Now, has anyone got an equivalent to impose on People who WILL send HTML?

Lisi

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Chris Bannister]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:47:00PM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 02/12/2015 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> >> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> >> top-post it that way.
> >>
> >> Then they see it from my perspective.
> > What is 'tac'?
> >
> TAC(1)
>
> User
> Commands  
>  
> TAC(1)
> 
> NAME
>tac - concatenate and print files in reverse

Ahh! So you can feed mp3s through it and listen for any messages from
the devil, no doubt. :)

Thanks everyone for the info.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Reco]

Hi.

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 21:42:40 -0500
"Neal P. Murphy"  wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:34:58 +1300
> Chris Bannister  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:47:00PM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> > > Le 02/12/2015 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
> > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> > > >> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> > > >> top-post it that way.
> > > >>
> > > >> Then they see it from my perspective.
> > > > What is 'tac'?
> > > >
> > > TAC(1)
> > >
> > > User
> > > Commands  
> > >  
> > > TAC(1)
> > > 
> > > NAME
> > >tac - concatenate and print files in reverse
> > 
> > Ahh! So you can feed mp3s through it and listen for any messages from
> > the devil, no doubt. :)
> 
> tac only prints in reverse line order.
> 
> You have to print the file in reverse bit order for that to work. :)

And for this task they give "sox reverse" in Debian.

If only such trick could be used for video too - that would be
awesome :)

Reco

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Neal P. Murphy]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:34:58 +1300
Chris Bannister  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:47:00PM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> > Le 02/12/2015 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
> > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> > >> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> > >> top-post it that way.
> > >>
> > >> Then they see it from my perspective.
> > > What is 'tac'?
> > >
> > TAC(1)  
> >  
> > User
> > Commands
> >
> > TAC(1)
> > 
> > NAME
> >tac - concatenate and print files in reverse
> 
> Ahh! So you can feed mp3s through it and listen for any messages from
> the devil, no doubt. :)

tac only prints in reverse line order.

You have to print the file in reverse bit order for that to work. :)

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Mart van de Wege]

Bob Bernstein  writes:

> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
>>> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
>>> annoying."
>
>> What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean, how on
>> earth could it possibly be patronising?
>
> I haven't asked him yet, in the interest of not muddying still
> waters. I've been thinking about his "patronizing" response and I
> believe it is an objection to the obvious clarity and precision that
> inline responses afford.

It may be that inline replies are associated with the practice of
'fisking', which in conservative circles is interleaving derogative
comments with the target of derision's original content (usually a blog
post).

If the only time you see interleaved comments is in 'fisked' pieces,
then I could understand not feeling comfortable when someone does that
in an email reply.

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Bob Bernstein]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, anxious...@gmail.com wrote:

If I bottom posted at work, no-one would ever discover my 
replies. I occasionally interleave if a point by point 
response seems sensible, or if the joke only works that way


Word dat. 

--
Bob Bernstein

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[anxiousmac]

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 16:40:05 UTC, Bob Bernstein  wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Chris Bannister wrote:
> 
> >> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and 
> >> annoying."
> 
> > What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean, 
> > how on earth could it possibly be patronising?
> 
> I haven't asked him yet, 
> 
> -- 
> Bob Bernstein

If I bottom posted at work, no-one would ever discover my replies. I 
occasionally interleave if a point by point response seems sensible, or if the 
joke only works that way

anxiousmac

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Stuart Longland]

On 01/12/15 11:56, John Hasler wrote:
> Bob Bernstein writes:
>> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
>> of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
>> lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status
>> of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt these
>> nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, a solid uppercut?
> 
> Waste of effort.  The usual reason for top-posting (or bottom-posting
> without editing) is laziness.
> 

I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
top-post it that way.

Then they see it from my perspective.
-- 
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)

I haven't lost my mind...
  ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Mart van de Wege]

Bob Bernstein  writes:

> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
> annoying."
>
> I have acquired over the years a habit of carefully quoting and
> replying to those quoted snippets. But it rubs some in my family the
> wrong way. They don't see it as part and parcel of effective
> communication, or as, at bottom, simply good netiquette. They feel
> talked down to. My nephew's father had the same problem with me years
> ago but I think I have brought him around over time so that he no
> longer "takes it personal."
>
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
> of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
> lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status
> of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt these
> nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, a solid uppercut?
>
Why not do your correspondents the courtesy of replying in the style
*they* want?

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Lisi Reisz]

On Tuesday 01 December 2015 08:54:27 Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Bob Bernstein  writes:
> > "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
> > annoying."
> >
> > I have acquired over the years a habit of carefully quoting and
> > replying to those quoted snippets. But it rubs some in my family the
> > wrong way. They don't see it as part and parcel of effective
> > communication, or as, at bottom, simply good netiquette. They feel
> > talked down to. My nephew's father had the same problem with me years
> > ago but I think I have brought him around over time so that he no
> > longer "takes it personal."
> >
> > With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
> > of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
> > lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status
> > of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt these
> > nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, a solid uppercut?
>
> Why not do your correspondents the courtesy of replying in the style
> *they* want?

That's fine, so long as you are not required to reply.  And so long as you 
don't want the discussion to remain vaguely on track.

Lisi

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Nicolas George]

Le decadi 10 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Bob Bernstein a écrit :
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware of a
> spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for lack of a
> better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status of a "net
> classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt these nay-sayers, who seem to
> LIKE top-posting, a solid uppercut?

I do not have a pointer to that kind of text, but I have found this analogy
rather relevant:

When you watch a TV series episode, does it end with an announce "Previously
in $series" and the full rerun of the last episode?

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Bob Bernstein]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, Lisi Reisz wrote:


On Tuesday 01 December 2015 08:54:27 Mart van de Wege wrote:


Why not do your correspondents the courtesy of replying in 
the style *they* want?


That's fine, so long as you are not required to reply.  And so 
long as you don't want the discussion to remain vaguely on 
track.


And, so long as you _know_ what that desired style is. I've been 
trading emails with my nephew for years with nary a peep from 
him that he was annoyed by, of all things, my email reply style. 
Last night, I guess he had just had it "up to HERE" with me and 
my pompous internet posing!


I have to think about this a bit more because I am starting to 
have it UP TO HERE with him just writing this message! 


Thanks all. I knew I could find cooler heads here than in my 
family.


--
Bob Bernstein

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Chris Bannister]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:27:02PM -0500, Neal P. Murphy wrote:
> I'll top-post here because I am replying to the entire message (quoted below).

Sorry to be picky, but there was nothing in the text to which you
directly replied to. 

I think personal correspondence is completely different to posting and
replying on a mailing list where it is presumed that posters are using
and familiar with a thread capable mail client.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Chris Bannister]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 08:31:29PM -0500, Bob Bernstein wrote:
> 
> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
> annoying."

What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean, how on
earth could it possibly be patronising?

I'm guessing your nephew isn't subscribed to any mailing lists.

Would I be correct in that he uses Windoze and outhouse as a mailer?

Of course I could be completely wrong, it is just a guess, but I am
intrigued as to how he could find inline responses annoying ... unless
... his client doesn't handle it properly.

I must admit reading mail from yahoo and outhouse mailers is difficult
at the best of times, and is perhaps one reason why top posting is
preferred.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Bob Bernstein]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Chris Bannister wrote:

"Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and 
annoying."


What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean, 
how on earth could it possibly be patronising?


I haven't asked him yet, in the interest of not muddying still 
waters. I've been thinking about his "patronizing" response and 
I believe it is an objection to the obvious clarity and 
precision that inline responses afford. Clarity and precision 
are not exactly in the ascendancy as far as cultural values are 
concerned. It is thought much more important to be "passionate" 
and "authentic," In the introductory assay of a little book of 
his from 1928, _Sceptical Essays_, Russell said


"...it is undesirable to believe a proposition for which there 
is no ground whatever for supposing it true."


Nobody anymore has the least interest in such an approach to 
life, in fact, it is deemed dangerous and probably evil in most 
of our university English departments and beyond.


However Russell's little gem of a claim describes very 
accurately what is done on email lists devoted to computing 
topics. We want to know what is the case, and why. The vast 
majority of our fellow citizens *do* find a constant focus on 
those aims quite disconcerting in any context, and, very likely, 
"patronizing." They think "How dare you subject me to 
your rules of inference and standards of factuality! What sort 
of horrible person are you?"


I'm guessing your nephew isn't subscribed to any mailing 
lists.


I doubt it.

Would I be correct in that he uses Windoze and outhouse as a 
mailer?


He uses a gmail account with "Ipad Mail".

Oh well. Thanks Chris.

--
Bob Bernstein

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Bob Bernstein]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015, Stephen Powell wrote:

How about this one: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ?


That may be a great place for me to start.

After skimming it my sense was the author was bending over 
backwards to be "fair," i.e. inflating the supposed virtues of 
top and bottom posting styles. I don't see any a priori need to 
impose moral equivalence on these different styles.


Hmmm...I don't seem to be exactly neutral on this question. Oh 
well.



--
Bob Bernstein

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Stephen Powell]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:31:29 -0500 (EST), Bob Bernstein wrote:
> ...
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone 
> aware of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective 
> quoting," (for lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps 
> has achieved the status of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net 
> genius has dealt these nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, 
> a solid uppercut?

How about this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ?

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Mike Castle]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Neal P. Murphy
 wrote:
> When you reply to and critique an essay, you would likely reply in top-post 
> form and leave the essay at the bottom so that readers, whom you may safely 
> assume have already read it, may conveniently reference it.


I don't think you can ever safely assume that anyone as read it.
That is why top-posting is always frowned upon.

mrc

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[John Hasler]

Bob Bernstein writes:
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
> of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
> lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status
> of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt these
> nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, a solid uppercut?

Waste of effort.  The usual reason for top-posting (or bottom-posting
without editing) is laziness.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

[Neal P. Murphy]

I'll top-post here because I am replying to the entire message (quoted below).

Whether you top-post, in-post or bottom-post depends on the nature of that to 
which you reply.

When you reply to and critique an essay, you would likely reply in top-post 
form and leave the essay at the bottom so that readers, whom you may safely 
assume have already read it, may conveniently reference it.

When you reply and critique technical matter, you would typically reply in 
in-post form and reply to individual items. But on another paw, if you are 
proof-reading the essay, the you must reply in in-post form so that the author 
knows to which pieces your comments apply.

The difference is that an essay can be considered a single thought and should 
be replied to as a whole. Conversely, technical matters are a collection of 
thoughts; it is better to reply to each item so that the author, again, knows 
to which items your comments apply.

N

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:31:29 -0500 (EST)
Bob Bernstein  wrote:

> I have a roughly forty year old nephew who uses email as a 
> vehicle for political and philosophical discussion. His father 
> is named Dave Bernstein, but not the same Dave Bernstein who 
> teaches law at George Mason and recently came out with a book, 
> _Lawless_, which looks at the current prez's penchant for um 
> shall we say um "improvising" on the limits of the chief 
> executive's powers. You get the drift I'm sure.
> 
> So I sent my nephew a review of the book that I found in 
> _Commentary_, a fairly conservative organ of opinion. I headed 
> the email with the subject line "DAVE BERNSTEIN HAS A NEW BOOK 
> OUT" in order to tweak his curiosity. It worked. He treated me 
> to a spirited reply, rather long too for him, but concluded it 
> with this thought:
> 
> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
> annoying."
> 
> I have acquired over the years a habit of carefully quoting and 
> replying to those quoted snippets. But it rubs some in my family 
> the wrong way. They don't see it as part and parcel of effective 
> communication, or as, at bottom, simply good netiquette. They 
> feel talked down to. My nephew's father had the same problem 
> with me years ago but I think I have brought him around over 
> time so that he no longer "takes it personal."
> 
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone 
> aware of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective 
> quoting," (for lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps 
> has achieved the status of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net 
> genius has dealt these nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, 
> a solid uppercut?
> 
> Thanks,
>