Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

-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,

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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)

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

-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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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?"

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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

Re: OT: reply styles, family matters

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