barrel roll in 172

On 2006-08-08, Jose wrote:
That's one place where I disagree - top posting saves money.

Although there may be a correlation between top posters and post
trimming, it is the post non-trimming that costs money (to others), not
the top posting. Actually, top posting saves money for those who, after
reading your comments, don't need to read what you were referring to
(because they remember it), and therefore don't need to download it KB
by KB.

News readers don't work like that unfortunately. When you select an
article, the reader downloads the *whole* article, not just the bits of
it you are reading. Therefore, a top post with an untrimmed set of
quotes (usually, when top posters reply to top posters, you get an
enormously long history of quoted material at the bottom). Unless the
top poster trims the quoted material (which almost none of them do), you
end up downloading their 5 line comment along with 300+ lines of quotes.

The only occasion where someone reading Usenet would only download a bit
of the article they are reading is if they are reading Usenet over an
ssh connection to a remote server. However, the latency over GPRS is so
bad, this is quite painful - so anyone reading Usenet using a mobile
device will almost certainly use a news reader on their mobile device
rather than an ssh connection to a remote system.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

News readers don't work like that unfortunately. When you select an
article, the reader downloads the *whole* article, not just the bits of
it you are reading.

This is not true for all software that accesses Usenet. My palm VIIx
(rest in peace) did it a K at a time. My cell phone does the same, but
even slower. (it's a perfectly awful way to read Usenet, so I don't do
it, but that's irrelevant).

Therefore, a top post with an untrimmed set of
quotes (usually, when top posters reply to top posters, you get an
enormously long history of quoted material at the bottom)

Then your objection is =not= to top posting, but to non-trimming.
Non-trimming is more painful in a bottom posted article - at least with
a top posted article, once I come to the end of the original material, I
can move on.

While your association of top posters with non-trimmers may be valid, it
is irrelevant. I've seen many bottom posters who add five lines to a
300+ line quote (and far too many nested quoting that ends up being 300
lines repeated for the most part post after post - supposedly good
netiquette taken to the extreme - feh!)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:26:27 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

On 2006-08-08, Jose wrote:
That's one place where I disagree - top posting saves money.

Although there may be a correlation between top posters and post
trimming, it is the post non-trimming that costs money (to others), not
the top posting. Actually, top posting saves money for those who, after
reading your comments, don't need to read what you were referring to
(because they remember it), and therefore don't need to download it KB
by KB.

News readers don't work like that unfortunately. When you select an
article, the reader downloads the *whole* article, not just the bits of
it you are reading. Therefore, a top post with an untrimmed set of
quotes (usually, when top posters reply to top posters, you get an
enormously long history of quoted material at the bottom). Unless the
top poster trims the quoted material (which almost none of them do), you
end up downloading their 5 line comment along with 300+ lines of quotes.

The only occasion where someone reading Usenet would only download a bit
of the article they are reading is if they are reading Usenet over an
ssh connection to a remote server. However, the latency over GPRS is so
bad, this is quite painful - so anyone reading Usenet using a mobile
device will almost certainly use a news reader on their mobile device
rather than an ssh connection to a remote system.

Bottom posters do the same thing:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote:
Although there may be a correlation between top posters and post
trimming, it is the post non-trimming that costs money (to others), not
the top posting.
Bottom posters do the same thing:-))

That is exactly what the Grand-Grand-Parent said.

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:39:52 +0200, "Anno v. Heimburg"
wrote:

Roger wrote:
Although there may be a correlation between top posters and post
trimming, it is the post non-trimming that costs money (to others), not
the top posting.
Bottom posters do the same thing:-))

That is exactly what the Grand-Grand-Parent said.
Hey! What gives? You trimmed off most of the post to which I was
refering. Without it the rest just seems to lose meaning. :-))


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com