Kodak re-enters inkjet biz

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Ron Baird" wrote in message
om
"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Ron Baird" wrote in message
om

[...]

Also, I always top post as it seems to me that most people want to
see that in a thread, in the future, I will bottom post your
messages.

I hope Kodak doesn't share your contempt for both standards and
logic.

Greetings Drs.

Actually, they are quite stringent. But 'contempt' is a strong word
wouldn't you agree. I would call it a preference. I have not seen a
manual on posting rules? I am glad to abide by any general standards
that all have agreed to and that you can provide, I will indeed
appreciate it and the chance to review.

You could always start with RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines:

"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews,
especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to
another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the
original."

The point about propagation is particularly important. Since there is no
guarantee any given post will reach any given NNTP server, it follows you
need to include just enough cited text to give your post context but no
more. The rules of logic say you put the question or cited material
before any answer. Furthermore, not only do you top-post *and* fail to
snip extraneous material but you remove the attribution (see the top of
this post for correctly formatted attributions). That means the reader
does not know to know you are replying. By excising the message-id you
are also making it harder for the reader to search for any given cited
post in Google and other archival mechanisms.

Since you're using OE to post, you can fix several of its design flaws,
including the one that automatically puts the cursor at the top of
replies, with http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/. It also
colour codes cited text, making the flow of the post easy to follow.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


Hi Drs,

As I noted to another, I appreciate the reference and information. I will be
visiting the link you noted and accept the suggestion. Editing the message
before reply is a good idea as well as calling out the content that you want
to share. Although I have been using newsgroups and their predecessors for
quite a while I have not run into this issue. Most of my time is spent in
forums of late, so thanks for the refresher. - - - I have downloaded the
program and sent a note for donation to DJain. Looks like a nice feature.

Thanks for sharing and best regards,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

"TJ" wrote in message

DRS wrote:
"Kram" wrote in message


[...]

Arrogance is the unwarranted assumption of superiority. Requesting
people show others the consideration of adhering to netiquette is
reasonable and fair. It is not arrogance because it cannot be. The
real arrogance is displayed by those who insist they are not bound
by standards, conventions or simple respect for anyone else.

I must be arrogant, then. You see, I pick and choose who I respect and
who I don't, based on their words, actions, and attitude. I approach
strangers with a certain moderate level of respect, a level I think
they deserve simply by being human. As I get to know of a person,
that level rises or lowers according to the experience. Much depends
on the level of respect they show others. Little depends on whether
or not they agree with me.

And I accordingly show all readers of my posts the respect of formatting
them properly. Their agreement or otherwise with anything I have to say
does not come into it.

You, Sir, show that you have little or no respect for those whose
opinions are in opposition to your own. I know you don't care, but in
my eyes the level of respect you deserve is dropping with every post
you make in this thread. Art Entlich, who seems to be bearing the
brunt of your disgust, rises higher because of the way he is handling
himself, even though I disagree with him on several points not
related to the present discussion.

I do not respect those who wilfully inconvenience others. Top-posters fall
into that category. If you deem me less worthy of respect because I adhere
to the relevant standards and can defend my position then that says more
about you than it does about me.

I expect others agree with me.

Argumentum ad populam fallacy.

DRS wrote:

"TJ" wrote in message


DRS wrote:

"Kram" wrote in message



[...]


Arrogance is the unwarranted assumption of superiority. Requesting
people show others the consideration of adhering to netiquette is
reasonable and fair. It is not arrogance because it cannot be. The
real arrogance is displayed by those who insist they are not bound
by standards, conventions or simple respect for anyone else.


I must be arrogant, then. You see, I pick and choose who I respect and
who I don't, based on their words, actions, and attitude. I approach
strangers with a certain moderate level of respect, a level I think
they deserve simply by being human. As I get to know of a person,
that level rises or lowers according to the experience. Much depends
on the level of respect they show others. Little depends on whether
or not they agree with me.


And I accordingly show all readers of my posts the respect of formatting
them properly. Their agreement or otherwise with anything I have to say
does not come into it.


You, Sir, show that you have little or no respect for those whose
opinions are in opposition to your own. I know you don't care, but in
my eyes the level of respect you deserve is dropping with every post
you make in this thread. Art Entlich, who seems to be bearing the
brunt of your disgust, rises higher because of the way he is handling
himself, even though I disagree with him on several points not
related to the present discussion.


I do not respect those who wilfully inconvenience others. Top-posters fall
into that category. If you deem me less worthy of respect because I adhere
to the relevant standards and can defend my position then that says more
about you than it does about me.


I expect others agree with me.


Argumentum ad populam fallacy.



To believe or adhere to your "form follow function" is indeed argumentum
ad populam fallacy.
Sorry, but I see that you chose to fight the wrong battles while losing
sight of war itself.
Frank

"Ron Baird" wrote in message
om
"DRS" wrote in message
...

[...]

Since you're using OE to post, you can fix several of its design
flaws, including the one that automatically puts the cursor at the
top of replies, with
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/. It also colour
codes cited text, making the flow of the post easy to follow.

[...]

As I noted to another, I appreciate the reference and information. I
will be visiting the link you noted and accept the suggestion.
Editing the message before reply is a good idea as well as calling
out the content that you want to share. Although I have been using
newsgroups and their predecessors for quite a while I have not run
into this issue. Most of my time is spent in forums of late, so
thanks for the refresher. - - - I have downloaded the program and
sent a note for donation to DJain. Looks like a nice feature.

Thank you for taking others into consideration.

One minor note on style, it is generally considered good form to not cite
more than two levels of text. I say generally as context is a contingent
thing. However, excessive quoting is an error in its own right. The worst
offenders are those who cite several KB of text only to post one line of
original material. Having to scroll down several screens of quoted text
only to find "I agree." at the bottom is the single most common
justification for top-posting, even though the two errors together merely
compound the problem of making any given post as easy to follow as possible
for the reader.

If you are now using OE-Quotefix then you'll notice that not only have I
editted the cited text but that what you see is colour coded according to
the level of citation (original text in black, first level citation in blue,
second level in magenta, etc). The result should be as easy to read as is
possible in this medium. I could have responded to individual points within
the cited text rather than putting all my original material at the bottom, a
practice known as in-line posting. In-line posting is common and accepted
as it still adheres to the rule that the answer should follow the question.
You will know it when you see it.

"Frank" wrote in message

DRS wrote:
"TJ" wrote in message


[...]

I expect others agree with me.

Argumentum ad populam fallacy.

To believe or adhere to your "form follow function" is indeed
argumentum ad populam fallacy.

Not so. What you have is two positions, one defensible, one not. My
argument is not predicated on simple popularity but on logic.

Sorry, but I see that you chose to fight the wrong battles while
losing sight of war itself.

I see top-posting and the like as part of a general breakdown in civility
and consideration for others. It is worth fighting.

DRS wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message


DRS wrote:

"TJ" wrote in message
m


[...]


I expect others agree with me.

Argumentum ad populam fallacy.

To believe or adhere to your "form follow function" is indeed
argumentum ad populam fallacy.


Not so. What you have is two positions, one defensible, one not. My
argument is not predicated on simple popularity but on logic.


Sorry, but I see that you chose to fight the wrong battles while
losing sight of war itself.


I see top-posting and the like as part of a general breakdown in civility
and consideration for others. It is worth fighting.


Oh please...you are no Don Quichotte de la Manche and you are not the
"rule setter" as there is not really any such person.
If this were a moderated group, you might have a point.
However it isn't and you don't.
As they say in Greece..."sca schilla mu".
Frank

Ron Baird wrote:
"DRS" wrote in message
...

"Ron Baird" wrote in message
om

"DRS" wrote in message
...

"Ron Baird" wrote in message
om

[...]


Also, I always top post as it seems to me that most people want to
see that in a thread, in the future, I will bottom post your
messages.

I hope Kodak doesn't share your contempt for both standards and
logic.

Greetings Drs.

Actually, they are quite stringent. But 'contempt' is a strong word
wouldn't you agree. I would call it a preference. I have not seen a
manual on posting rules? I am glad to abide by any general standards
that all have agreed to and that you can provide, I will indeed
appreciate it and the chance to review.

You could always start with RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines:

"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews,
especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to
another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the
original."

The point about propagation is particularly important. Since there is no
guarantee any given post will reach any given NNTP server, it follows you
need to include just enough cited text to give your post context but no
more. The rules of logic say you put the question or cited material
before any answer. Furthermore, not only do you top-post *and* fail to
snip extraneous material but you remove the attribution (see the top of
this post for correctly formatted attributions). That means the reader
does not know to know you are replying. By excising the message-id you
are also making it harder for the reader to search for any given cited
post in Google and other archival mechanisms.



Since you're using OE to post, you can fix several of its design flaws,
including the one that automatically puts the cursor at the top of
replies, with http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/. It also
colour codes cited text, making the flow of the post easy to follow.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?



Hi Drs,

As I noted to another, I appreciate the reference and information. I will be
visiting the link you noted and accept the suggestion.
You should be more concerned that your post does not contain
advertising, sales information, or public relations then where to put
you sales information.



Editing the message
before reply is a good idea as well as calling out the content that you want
to share. Although I have been using newsgroups and their predecessors for
quite a while I have not run into this issue. Most of my time is spent in
forums of late, so thanks for the refresher. - - - I have downloaded the
program and sent a note for donation to DJain. Looks like a nice feature.

Thanks for sharing and best regards,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

DRS wrote:
"TJ" wrote in message


DRS wrote:

"Kram" wrote in message



[...]


Arrogance is the unwarranted assumption of superiority. Requesting
people show others the consideration of adhering to netiquette is
reasonable and fair. It is not arrogance because it cannot be. The
real arrogance is displayed by those who insist they are not bound
by standards, conventions or simple respect for anyone else.


I must be arrogant, then. You see, I pick and choose who I respect and
who I don't, based on their words, actions, and attitude. I approach
strangers with a certain moderate level of respect, a level I think
they deserve simply by being human. As I get to know of a person,
that level rises or lowers according to the experience. Much depends
on the level of respect they show others. Little depends on whether
or not they agree with me.


And I accordingly show all readers of my posts the respect of formatting
them properly. Their agreement or otherwise with anything I have to say
does not come into it.


You, Sir, show that you have little or no respect for those whose
opinions are in opposition to your own. I know you don't care, but in
my eyes the level of respect you deserve is dropping with every post
you make in this thread. Art Entlich, who seems to be bearing the
brunt of your disgust, rises higher because of the way he is handling
himself, even though I disagree with him on several points not
related to the present discussion.


I do not respect those who wilfully inconvenience others. Top-posters fall
into that category.

I think bottom posters fall into that category. Those who are frequent
visitors to a ng have to scroll down to find an answer when they are
following a thread as opposed to have it conventiently on the top.
If you deem me less worthy of respect because I adhere
to the relevant standards and can defend my position then that says more
about you than it does about me.


I expect others agree with me.


Argumentum ad populam fallacy.

"Frank" wrote in message

DRS wrote:

[...]

I see top-posting and the like as part of a general breakdown in
civility and consideration for others. It is worth fighting.

Oh please...you are no Don Quichotte de la Manche and you are not the

Indeed not. I do not tilt at windmills.

"rule setter" as there is not really any such person.

Nor have I claimed to be.

If this were a moderated group, you might have a point.
However it isn't and you don't.

Moderation is not required for there to be standards, nor does the lack of
moderation prevent anyone from requesting others not behave in ways that
inconvenience them.

DRS wrote:
"Ron Baird" wrote in message
om

"DRS" wrote in message
...


[...]


Since you're using OE to post, you can fix several of its design
flaws, including the one that automatically puts the cursor at the
top of replies, with
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/. It also colour
codes cited text, making the flow of the post easy to follow.


[...]


As I noted to another, I appreciate the reference and information. I
will be visiting the link you noted and accept the suggestion.
Editing the message before reply is a good idea as well as calling
out the content that you want to share. Although I have been using
newsgroups and their predecessors for quite a while I have not run
into this issue. Most of my time is spent in forums of late, so
thanks for the refresher. - - - I have downloaded the program and
sent a note for donation to DJain. Looks like a nice feature.


Thank you for taking others into consideration.

One minor note on style, it is generally considered good form to not cite
more than two levels of text. I say generally as context is a contingent
thing. However, excessive quoting is an error in its own right. The worst
offenders are those who cite several KB of text only to post one line of
original material. Having to scroll down several screens of quoted text
only to find "I agree." at the bottom is the single most common
justification for top-posting, even though the two errors together merely
compound the problem of making any given post as easy to follow as possible
for the reader.

If you are now using OE-Quotefix then you'll notice that not only have I
editted the cited text but that what you see is colour coded according to
the level of citation (original text in black, first level citation in blue,
second level in magenta, etc). The result should be as easy to read as is
possible in this medium. I could have responded to individual points within
the cited text rather than putting all my original material at the bottom, a
practice known as in-line posting. In-line posting is common and accepted
as it still adheres to the rule that the answer should follow the question.
You will know it when you see it.

I do not agree