Kennedy gets his own TFR

On 2008-05-25, Tina wrote:
What an astute reader would have inferred is that I think Dudley's
contribution to the aviation content of this group is high, even if he
chooses, or forgets, to trim his posts to meet some standards others
wish to impose.

I don't disagree about Dudley's contributions in the slightest. It is only
that I wish to see more people take advantage of his expertise that I asked
him to follow longstanding Usenet etiquette.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Jay Maynard wrote:
.....I asked him to follow longstanding Usenet etiquette.

When does etiquette change. So much has changed in society. It will of
course change in usenet also. Manners are not what they used to be. Such
as table manners or wearing hats in front of ladies. Is ettiquete
defined by popular standards of society? Should it flex with time as it has?

I for one will top post if I am not necassarily adding "in line" to
something. But here I am.

I am not offended by top posting, so to me it isn't a breach of
ettiquete. Is anyone truely "offended"?

John

On Sun, 25 May 2008 15:06:41 -0400, The Visitor
wrote in
:


Jay Maynard wrote:
....I asked him to follow longstanding Usenet etiquette.

When does etiquette change. So much has changed in society. It will of
course change in usenet also.

There is an established formal method of changing Usenet policy via
RFCs.

Manners are not what they used to be. Such as table manners or
wearing hats in front of ladies.

That may be the case where you reside, but it has no bearing on
Usenet.

Usenet conventions are the result of thoughtful debate, and careful
design.

Is ettiquete defined by popular standards of society?

Usenet netiquette is defined he
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/doc/zen/ze...toc.html#SEC44

Please also see: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/doc/zen/zen-1.0_6.html

Should it flex with time as it has?

Usenet is made possible through the generosity of those computer
system owners who provide the resources upon which it depends. Usenet
is intended to be an exercise in self-governance. Those Usenet
participants who are not evolved enough to be capable of
self-governance are easily distinguished from responsible netizins.

I for one will top post if I am not necassarily adding "in line" to
something.

Top-posting in follow up articles fractures the chronology of the
thoughts expressed in proceeding articles, thus making it exceedingly
difficult for future researchers of the GoogleGroups (nee dejavu)
Usenet archive to follow the message thread.

But here I am.

I am not offended by top posting, so to me it isn't a breach of
ettiquete.

While I truly respect individualism, failure to follow netiquette
conventions will not earn you respect among its participants.

But Larry, all that was said about the degradation of social ettiquete.
(One could virtually substitute "social" for "usenet".

And yes social ettiquete was definded in books also. Such as sending a
thank you note after attending a dinner party. There was a rule for
everything.
Those who broke the rules were respected less and lost social standing.
If we tried to get by with our knowledge of ettiqute and manners in old
society, we would be social outcasts for sure.

My point is I think we are witnessing a change.
Like it or not.
Times are changing.
Conventions are changing.
We are in a state of change.
20 or 30 years from now I expect things to be very different.


John
(low class usenet user)
=================
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008 15:06:41 -0400, The Visitor
wrote in
:


Jay Maynard wrote:
....I asked him to follow longstanding Usenet etiquette.

When does etiquette change. So much has changed in society. It will of
course change in usenet also.


There is an established formal method of changing Usenet policy via
RFCs.


Manners are not what they used to be. Such as table manners or
wearing hats in front of ladies.


That may be the case where you reside, but it has no bearing on
Usenet.

Usenet conventions are the result of thoughtful debate, and careful
design.


Is ettiquete defined by popular standards of society?


Usenet netiquette is defined he
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/doc/zen/ze...toc.html#SEC44

Please also see: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/doc/zen/zen-1.0_6.html


Should it flex with time as it has?


Usenet is made possible through the generosity of those computer
system owners who provide the resources upon which it depends. Usenet
is intended to be an exercise in self-governance. Those Usenet
participants who are not evolved enough to be capable of
self-governance are easily distinguished from responsible netizins.


I for one will top post if I am not necassarily adding "in line" to
something.


Top-posting in follow up articles fractures the chronology of the
thoughts expressed in proceeding articles, thus making it exceedingly
difficult for future researchers of the GoogleGroups (nee dejavu)
Usenet archive to follow the message thread.


But here I am.

I am not offended by top posting, so to me it isn't a breach of
ettiquete.


While I truly respect individualism, failure to follow netiquette
conventions will not earn you respect among its participants.

The Visitor wrote:

My point is I think we are witnessing a change.
Like it or not.
Times are changing.
Conventions are changing.
We are in a state of change.
20 or 30 years from now I expect things to be very different.

Change is a universal happening. It's constant. (Oxymoron of the day :-)
Change might very well be man's ultimate paradox, as man requires some
form of social structure to exist, but as change progresses onward, what
was socially acceptable yesterday might very well be today's chaos.
It's interesting to watch this happen.
Man seems destined not to be able to cope with the answer.
Rules...rules......rules......some can withstand the test of time while
others become obsolete even as they are written.
Sometimes even the origin of a "rule" or protocol is lost as time
marches on. Yet man will cling to some obscure "rule" long since in need
of major overhaul, trying desperately to maintain what worked yesterday,
fighting in some endless useless conflict with his fellow humans to
convince them that the "rule" MUST be followed.
Perhaps the answer lies in man finally coming to the conclusion that
there is a dichotomy that exists between man's need for social structure
and the simple truth that change exists and dealing with change is
necessary.



--
Dudley Henriques

In communication, it's content over format. Content can be enhanced by
prudent trimming, of course, but the point is to get the author's idea
into the reader's brain in an understandable way. Except, maybe,
here.





On May 26, 12:27 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
The Visitor wrote:
My point is I think we are witnessing a change.
Like it or not.
Times are changing.
Conventions are changing.
We are in a state of change.
20 or 30 years from now I expect things to be very different.

Change is a universal happening. It's constant. (Oxymoron of the day :-)
Change might very well be man's ultimate paradox, as man requires some
form of social structure to exist, but as change progresses onward, what
was socially acceptable yesterday might very well be today's chaos.
It's interesting to watch this happen.
Man seems destined not to be able to cope with the answer.
Rules...rules......rules......some can withstand the test of time while
others become obsolete even as they are written.
Sometimes even the origin of a "rule" or protocol is lost as time
marches on. Yet man will cling to some obscure "rule" long since in need
of major overhaul, trying desperately to maintain what worked yesterday,
fighting in some endless useless conflict with his fellow humans to
convince them that the "rule" MUST be followed.
Perhaps the answer lies in man finally coming to the conclusion that
there is a dichotomy that exists between man's need for social structure
and the simple truth that change exists and dealing with change is
necessary.

--
Dudley Henriques

Tina wrote:
In communication, it's content over format. Content can be
enhanced by prudent trimming, of course, but the point is to
get the author's idea into the reader's brain in an understandable
way. Except, maybe, here.

Some confuse "rules" with etiquette/netiquette. Etiquette/Netiquette is
an accepted guideline, not a *requirement*, and it's each person's
decision to follow it or not. Thank God, as *some* etiquette is just
plain silly.

I appreciate prudent trimming -- I hate having to scroll through miles
of already quoted and no longer pertinent s to get to the new
stuff, especially when it's only a one-line quip or insult! But I'm with
you re content over format ... and you *do* get to know, in short order,
which authors are worth scrolling through all the superfluous quotes for
and which are not.

Tina wrote:
In communication, it's content over format. Content can be enhanced by
prudent trimming, of course, but the point is to get the author's idea
into the reader's brain in an understandable way. Except, maybe,
here.


This is true, especially on Usenet. It can get extremely confusing as
threads increase in size on a forum dealing with technical and or
scientific information such as aviation.

This really can get confusing when a reply to a posting involving
something highly technical, especially where a correction is involved,
might require a multiple reference to information posted by separate
individuals running a range of posts involving several different posters
in order for an answer to convey what the author intends.



--
Dudley Henriques

Tina wrote:
In communication, it's content over format. Content can be enhanced by
prudent trimming, of course, but the point is to get the author's idea
into the reader's brain in an understandable way.

I've always maintained proper trimming makes the top / bottom posting
debate almost moot.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
The Visitor wrote:

My point is I think we are witnessing a change.
Like it or not.
Times are changing.
Conventions are changing.
We are in a state of change.
20 or 30 years from now I expect things to be very different.

Change is a universal happening. It's constant. (Oxymoron of the day :-)
Change might very well be man's ultimate paradox, as man requires some
form of social structure to exist, but as change progresses onward, what
was socially acceptable yesterday might very well be today's chaos.
It's interesting to watch this happen.
Man seems destined not to be able to cope with the answer.
Rules...rules......rules......some can withstand the test of time while
others become obsolete even as they are written.
Sometimes even the origin of a "rule" or protocol is lost as time marches
on. Yet man will cling to some obscure "rule" long since in need of major
overhaul, trying desperately to maintain what worked yesterday, fighting
in some endless useless conflict with his fellow humans to convince them
that the "rule" MUST be followed.
Perhaps the answer lies in man finally coming to the conclusion that there
is a dichotomy that exists between man's need for social structure and the
simple truth that change exists and dealing with change is necessary.


If you cant dazzlem with brilliance, bafflem with bull****.

Why dont you make up your own traffic patterns the next time you fly. You
seem good at making your own rules.