Kodak re-enters inkjet biz

I appreciate your willingness to accommodate these brutes, Ron, and I
won't try to talk you out of it, but they are just flexing some muscle
they believe they have some right to regarding a bunch of foolishness.

The internet is an evolving process, and anything that was "convention"
is open to rapid reconsideration and change, as equipment and usage
alters to embrace the changes.

I am sure that people who read their email and lists/groups on a
blackberry of cell phone screen, or other potable device don't have a
lot of patience for having to scroll down quotes to get to the most
recently added posting materials. I expect as more and more people get
email delivery through smaller screened devices, top posting will become
even more of the norm. Although I read valuable information regardless
of how it is packaged, I prefer top posting, not only for my own
replies, but when reading those of others.

Here in Canada some years ago, people were actually complaining (and
refusing to buy) cornflakes because the box contained information in
both official languages here (French and English). Some even objected
to the ingredients being in both languages (I guess French speakers, in
their minds, didn't have a right to know what they were eating).

Thankfully, these zealots were ignored, the law was further strengthened
to read that all foods sold in Canada MUST have both French and English
versions of any required information. I suppose those who objected
either all died of starvation, or they learned to tolerate the French
information on the food packaging.

If the internet was an artform, I'm afraid, according to these people,
we'd all be stuck having to use the same 3 crayon colors and any image
that didn't conform would be burned.

Art

Ron Baird wrote:

Hi Bill,

OK, if it makes you feel better I will bottom post. Since many people like
to read answers to a string first or they have in many of the groups and
such that I have frequented, I post at the top.

If there is a process that should be followed that I have not yet found, I
would appreciate reading it over, i.e. the same concern as Measikite.

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company


"Bill" wrote in message
news:MPG.204524d09b62623e9897be@localhost...

In article ,
says...

Greetings Warren,

The Kodak web sites are great for general inforamtion and as more facts
about these printers becomes available, I will be glad to share it. At
the
time, however, I only have what is made available.

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

You would be wrong.


I will bottom post your messages.

Won't matter, your's will no longer be seen here.
If Kodak's employees have so little appreciation for Usenet norms and
netiquette, then Kodak doesn't get consideration when purchasing time
rolls around.

snip

Bill
--
Gmail and Google Groups. This century's answer to AOL and WebTV.

The first thing I would like to bring to EVERYONE'S attention is that
the link we were sent to by Warren as the "gospel of netiquette" was
last updated over SIX YEAR AGO. In computer and communications
technology that is in the ice age.

Last Updated: Sunday, October 29, 2000

Just think about the changes in wireless and mobile technologies since
then, Blackberry, internet access with a cell phones, etc.

Secondly, rather than "the law", or even some kind of "rule", if one
actually bothers to read this article, one finds it is a set of
suggested practices (as of 6+ years ago) based upon a time when messages
were kept on a server for longer time periods. Today many servers
scroll message off within a few days, or less, due to volume, so
"judiciously edited material" soon becomes "very lacking in context
material".

Lastly, I have probably been an active newgroup member for longer than
the vast majority of the people here. I've became a regular poster in
newsgroups back in the very early 1990s, (and before that, on BBSs for
quite a few years) so this isn't about respecting the old farts, because
in terms of the internet, I'm one of them.

I will "judiciously edit" the materials below, just to prove my point,
and to also show the danger of judicious editing, because it can just as
easily change the intent of material.


Q4: But isn't it sometimes handy to be able to refer to the entire
previous posting, for example when you see the response first?

A4: Yes! That's why most newsreading software gives you a way to call up
the previous posting. Of course, this works only if your news server
hasn't yet "expired" (removed) the previous posting to make room for new
ones. If you respond reasonably quickly, most people will have a chance
to read your response before the original posting expires from their
servers.

(My comment: gee, now that doesn't waste any time, having to find
earlier versions of the posting to read the full original messages)

Q5: But doesn't "trimming" quoted material expose me to charges of
quoting out of context?

A5: Possibly, if you trim with too heavy a hand. A few people object to
any trimming of their words, and there's not much that you can do about
that except not to respond to them any further.

(My comment: so rather than engage someone who objects to having their
posted edited, the answer is to not respond to them at all?)

Q7: Why shouldn't I put my comments above the quoted material?

A7: When you have just a single question and response, and they're both
short, and the discussion doesn't develop any further, it really doesn't
make that much difference in practice.

(Mt Comment: and yet if you look at the postings Ron Baird was chastised
for they were relatively short replies)

Q8: When I start composing a response, my news-posting software always
puts the insertion point above the quoted material. Doesn't that mean
that "top posting" is the normal thing to do?

A8: Not necessarily. Some people theorize that the designers of such
software aren't very familiar with newsgroups and the conventions that
have developed in them.

(My Comment: The designers of internet mail clients didn't understand
how newsgroups work? Give me a break.)

Q11: Who made these rules, anyway? Who enforces them?

A11: Nobody in particular made these "rules". Nobody really "enforces"
them, in the sense that nobody can deny your posting privileges for
violating them.

In some newsgroups, if you quote the entire previous posting and put
your comments above it, people are likely to "flame" you for "top posting"

In other newsgroups, you don't see much visible acrimony about "top
posting," People may simply be more polite in those groups. After all,
most people agree that it's a Good Thing to use correct spelling and
grammar, but they also agree that it's usually in bad taste to correct
mistakes publicly.

(My comment: So even the supposed six year old netiquette FAQ admits
that there are no rules, just conventions that people may or may not
choose to follow. He does acknowledge that some less than polite people
might complain if the convention isn't maintained, but that polite
people agree it is bad taste to publicly admonish people for such
things. So, even by this antiquated standard, people who make a big
issue over posting positions are boars and impolite.)

I'm glad that's settled ;-)

Art

Who will still eat a muskmelon with any darn spoon he wishes.


Warren Block wrote:

Ron Baird wrote:


OK, if it makes you feel better I will bottom post.


Thank you. Done correctly, it will make your responses much easier to
understand. More below:


Since many people like to read answers to a string first or they have
in many of the groups and such that I have frequented, I post at the
top.


A lot of people miss a very important point:

Remove all unnecessary text.

If you're responding to one sentence, remove everything else. Don't
force the reader to figure out what question you're answering.

Does editing a response take longer? Maybe. If what you have is worth
saying, isn't it worth making readable?


If there is a process that should be followed that I have not yet found,


http://www.xs4all.nl/%7ewijnands/nnq/nquote.html


I would appreciate reading it over, i.e. the same concern as Measikite.


You've met this newsgroup's pet troll. Caveat emptor.

Thanks again.

Please note:

Guidelines, not rules.

Please note:

OE, has "design flaws" because it natively top posts (no bias there, eh?)

Please note:

Since messages may never even end up on a particular server, or may end
up there out of order, how does the integrity of the original posted
message remain if subsequent quoters disrespect its integrity by editing it?

Please note:

Attribution is not lost by top posting, and if everyone top posted it
would even be in "logical order".

Art

DRS wrote:

"Ron Baird" wrote in message
om

"DRS" wrote in message
...

"Ron Baird" wrote in message
r.com


[...]


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.

No assumptions there... ;-)

Art

DRS wrote:

"Kram" wrote in message


I have not displayed the least arrogance. It's the top-posters who
are too selfish and contemptuous of anyone but themselves to take


You pompous ass, you are arrogant.


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.

Thank you for your kind words, but seriously, I'm not feeling any pain
over this matter. In fact, I'm rather enjoying the debate, and I am
taking it to be a jovial joust over relative silliness. (it has a
certain "Monty Python" quality to it, don't you think?) If I am to be
judged by where my responses to postings are positioned, how seriously
can I really take the criticism? ;-)

I have a very different measure than this of what makes a person
deserving of respect, and I hope it holds up to more substance and
scrutiny than posting placement.

Art

PS: I am intrigued by the points you disagree with me about... perhaps a
discussion for private email?

TJ wrote:

DRS wrote:

"Kram" wrote in message


I have not displayed the least arrogance. It's the top-posters who
are too selfish and contemptuous of anyone but themselves to take


You pompous ass, you are arrogant.


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.

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 expect others agree with me. Something for you to think about while
you nitpick.

TJ

Now maybe we should have the following posting he

A Kodak rep
A Canon rep
A HP rep
A Nikon rep
A Lexmark rep
A Dell rep
A Compaq (now HP) rep
A Microsoft rep
A Photoshop rep
All of the relabelers - Maybe 50 of them
A Sony rep
A Hammermill rep
A Ilford rep
A Epson rep

I can add 200 more. That is why advertising, selling, public relations
or anything like that is not allowed in ng. If someone thinks that is
nonsense than too bad but the milk is still good.

And notice that the holier than thou did not criticize the TOP POST. ;-)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
I normally do not reply to anything Measekite posts, if fact, I have
him filtered out as to not be bothered by such nonsense, but since
this showed up, due to being a quote, I would like to comment.

There is a distinct difference between someone who happens to be an
employee of a corporation responds to questions or provides his/her
expertise in a forum, and in someone directly promoting commercially.

Although I don't personally know Ron Baird, in the years I have seen
his postings here and elsewhere, I have known him to be respectful of
the groups and list he is on, and the information to be informative
and helpful, without emphasizing commercial bias.

Certainly, he believes in the products his employer sells for the most
part, and I wouldn't expect him to belittle them, but I have mainly
seen him come in to provide information and assistance when people
have requested resource information regarding Kodak products.

In fact, I distinctly recall him providing some direction to one same
Measekite when he had some issues with some Kodak inkjet paper
products, regarding suggested profiles on a Kodak website.

Certainly, having such people frequent groups like this is a valuable
and useful benefit to those who come here, and I for one, wish more
representatives would read and reply when issues come up, not so much
to defend and certainly not to advertise, but to help provide
resources and answers.

On the other hand, when I think about the content of many of Measekite's
postings, the foolishness, the pettiness, the downright profane, if
this isn't the ultimate irony, I don't know what is.



Art
Ron Baird wrote:

Hi Measekite,

Indeed they do, and it is not PR but help. You can write to them if
you wish. I have been doing this regularly for years.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"measekite" wrote in message
et...


Ron Baird wrote:

Greetings Warren,

The Kodak web sites are great

I wonder if Kodak knows and condones your attempt at PR (a for of
advertising) that should not be done in this forum. If your boss
knew what a black eye this gives Kodak what would he say?

for general inforamtion and as more facts about these printers
becomes available, I will be glad to share it. At the time,
however, I only have what is made available.

Also, I always top post

That does make sense

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

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

"Warren Block" wrote in message
...


Ron Baird wrote:


I am quite confident of the configuration of the new Kodak
printers. You
should try it at a dealer (Best Buy for example). The way the
printer is
built will save you a lot of ink and cost.


Please stop top-posting, reading your messages is like hearing
half of a
phone conversation. At least edit the text to just those sections to
which you are responding.

I'm curious about the new printers, but the web page is very light on
details. You'd think a photographic company would have some detailed
closeup photos.

Obviously the new printers are not host-based, but will programming
information be available so they can be used under Linux and other
operating systems?

--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA

OMG, civilization has rotted to its very core. Top posting is
responsible for global warming, war, and the decline of personkind.

We are all lost.

Best you inform homeland security immediately.

However, kudos to you for convincing another convert.

I do hope you sleep better at night for it, content with the knowledge
another top poster has be thwarted of this form of self-abuse.

I believe I just noticed Kodak shares rose on this announcement.

;-)

Art

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.

No No, not belittlement, bemusement...
there's a difference.

Have you ever read 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?'
Dear (departed) Douglas Adams had a good handle on bureaucratic
silliness disguised as self-important purpose.

I won't spoil it for you. Recommended reading. If you don't enjoy
reading, watch the BBC version. Stay away from the feature movie release.

Art

DRS wrote:

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:KN_Dh.1112701$1T2.982029@pd7urf2no

DRS wrote:


[...]


You need to get around more. Just because those of us with a clue
don't complain about every single instance of top-postingdoesn't
mean we don't care about it.


Forcing people to scroll to the bottom of a message, even with
judicious quoting and editing (which, BTW, rarely occurs), to get at
your valuable "bits", is arrogance.


Putting the answer after the question is reasonable and logical.

[...]


Anyone who could consider the issues of "netequette" of such major
import really needs to reconsider their priorities and perhaps may
wish to have their i-meds or e-meds readjusted ;-).


No-one who has complained about top-posting has said it is the most
important thing in the world. Neither is it unimportant. Pointing out that
selfish and inconsiderate behaviour is selfish and inconsiderate is a mere
statement of fact. As usual, it is those so criticised who respond with
indignant hyperbole, deliberately overstating the case as a means of
belittlement since they have no cogent argument.

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:RQFEh.1143240$5R2.276193@pd7urf3no
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.

OMG, civilization has rotted to its very core. Top posting is
responsible for global warming, war, and the decline of personkind.

No-one who has complained about top-posting has said it is the most
important thing in the world. Neither is it unimportant. Pointing out that
selfish and inconsiderate behaviour is selfish and inconsiderate is a mere
statement of fact. As usual, it is those so criticised who respond with
indignant hyperbole, deliberately overstating the case as a means of
belittlement since they have no cogent argument.

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
newsMGEh.1150040$R63.880882@pd7urf1no
DRS wrote:

[...]

No-one who has complained about top-posting has said it is the most
important thing in the world. Neither is it unimportant. Pointing
out that selfish and inconsiderate behaviour is selfish and
inconsiderate is a mere statement of fact. As usual, it is those so
criticised who respond with indignant hyperbole, deliberately
overstating the case as a means of belittlement since they have no
cogent argument.

No No, not belittlement, bemusement...
there's a difference.

Have you ever read 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?'

Many times.

Dear (departed) Douglas Adams had a good handle on bureaucratic
silliness disguised as self-important purpose.

The bureaucratic silliness he criticised was illogical, like top-posting.