The Spare Tire

On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:51:00 +0200, Lictor wrote:

"Luna" wrote in message
...
What does WHO not understand about "spare tire"? Who are you talking
to?
What did they say?

References:




All that is already in the news header. Quoting is just a courtesy to
people
with non-standard news reader softwares. If you use a reasonnably well
written software, it will do all the job for you, and store the post in
the
right place in the thread for you.



That's assuming that you look at all the posts, which I don't.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

In article ,
Bob in CT wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:51:00 +0200, Lictor wrote:

"Luna" wrote in message
...
What does WHO not understand about "spare tire"? Who are you talking
to?
What did they say?

References:




All that is already in the news header. Quoting is just a courtesy to
people
with non-standard news reader softwares. If you use a reasonnably well
written software, it will do all the job for you, and store the post in
the
right place in the thread for you.



That's assuming that you look at all the posts, which I don't.

And assuming that you constantly read the newsgroup, instead of reading
some posts in the morning, marking them as read, then coming home in the
evening and reading the new posts. So now I'm supposed to remember who
wrote what in what thread? I do have other things going on besides this
group, you know.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:34:58 GMT, Luna
wrote:

In article ,
Bob in CT wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:51:00 +0200, Lictor
wrote:

"Luna" wrote in message
...
What does WHO not understand about "spare tire"? Who are you talking
to?
What did they say?

References:




All that is already in the news header. Quoting is just a courtesy to
people
with non-standard news reader softwares. If you use a reasonnably well
written software, it will do all the job for you, and store the post
in
the
right place in the thread for you.



That's assuming that you look at all the posts, which I don't.

And assuming that you constantly read the newsgroup, instead of reading
some posts in the morning, marking them as read, then coming home in the
evening and reading the new posts. So now I'm supposed to remember who
wrote what in what thread? I do have other things going on besides this
group, you know.


Oops! By "look", I meant what you just said. Thanks for the
clarification. Everytime I read posts, I mark them all as read and the
read ones do not show up.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

But if you read the original post yesterday and the reply today you still
have a disconnect.

In ,
Lictor stated
| References:
|
|
|
|
| All that is already in the news header. Quoting is just a courtesy to
| people with non-standard news reader softwares. If you use a
| reasonnably well written software, it will do all the job for you,
| and store the post in the right place in the thread for you.

In Luna
wrote:
That's assuming that you look at all the posts, which I don't.

And assuming that you constantly read the newsgroup, instead of
reading some posts in the morning, marking them as read, then coming
home in the evening and reading the new posts. So now I'm supposed
to remember who wrote what in what thread? I do have other things
going on besides this group, you know.


I'm always amazed at folks telling others what to do on newsgroups.
There are many folks here...rude, smart, stupid, computer savy, barely
understanding simple computer concepts sorts, angry, nice..and on and on...
and then those who feel the need to fix all of the above to their own
idea of correct.

Of course by pointing this out at all..i'm doing the same. So nevermind

Lictor wrote:
All that is already in the news header. Quoting is just a courtesy to people
with non-standard news reader softwares. If you use a reasonnably well
written software, it will do all the job for you, and store the post in the
right place in the thread for you.

As there is no central server for Usenet, and posts are passed from
server to server, they often come in out of order with some replies
received before the post being replied to. Some posts can be lost on
the way to some servers, or be delayed for days.

Even if the prior post *was* received, if you read it yesterday or the
day before, it won't be seen in the thread with most news software,
unless you re-retrieve posts that you've already seen.

Quoting isn't usually necessary on a web-board, where it can be presumed
that you have access to the prior post, but Usenet is quite different.

--
jamie )

"There's a seeker born every minute."

If you exercise 3-4 times a week with some cardio for at least a 1/2
hour, and you do some crunches ( I do 200) All different types. To work
on the abs, the upper and lower belly area, and the obliques which is
where my lil tire likes to reside. I have lost a total of 2 inches
around my waist and it's not just the low carb way. It's the exercise
too.
Work hard and it will come off.
--
Sheli

i agree. its the only way to get rid of it. i'm doing "walk away the
pounds "everyday & 300 crunches...and i"m older than the OP. 30 pounds
from goal and i see it isnt going to move witout exercise




**When I was young we used to go 'skinny dipping'. Now I just 'chunky
dunk'.

witchy

In article ,
mimsy wrote:

In Luna
wrote:
That's assuming that you look at all the posts, which I don't.

And assuming that you constantly read the newsgroup, instead of
reading some posts in the morning, marking them as read, then coming
home in the evening and reading the new posts. So now I'm supposed
to remember who wrote what in what thread? I do have other things
going on besides this group, you know.


I'm always amazed at folks telling others what to do on newsgroups.
There are many folks here...rude, smart, stupid, computer savy, barely
understanding simple computer concepts sorts, angry, nice..and on and on...
and then those who feel the need to fix all of the above to their own
idea of correct.

Of course by pointing this out at all..i'm doing the same. So nevermind

I never told her to do anything. I asked her if she would quote what she
was responding to, and pointed out the _fact_ that it would make it easier
to understand the discussion. If you don't want to quote, you don't have
to, but a natural consequence of that is that some other people won't know
what you're talking about, so they won't respond to your responses, and you
may be left out of the discussion. It's not a matter of telling people
what to do, but rather of warning them of what might happen if they don't
do it. There's no "right way" or "wrong way," but there are "ways that
will make the experience more useful for everyone involved" and "ways that
will make the experience more frustrating for the OP and anyone reading his
or her posts."

If someone posts here, I assume that means they want to communicate, and if
they want to communicate they have to be understood, and if I can't
understand them I'll tell them that I can't, and why I can't. Sometimes
it's because they don't quote, sometimes it's because they misspelled
something so badly that I don't know what word they meant, sometimes
they're just being vague, and sometimes I'm ignorant and I need more
information. I'm here because I want to help and I want to learn, but none
of that is possible without understandable communication.

I wasn't attacking Nancy, I just wanted to understand her and what she was
talking about, so she could be part of the discussion, which is what I
assume people want when they respond to a post.

Sorry about the long windedness, lots of coffee today. )

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

In Luna
wrote:
I wasn't attacking Nancy, I just wanted to understand her and what she
was talking about, so she could be part of the discussion, which is
what I assume people want when they respond to a post.

Sorry about the long windedness, lots of coffee today. )


No need to explain. I didn't take it as an attack anyways...and it
wasn't my business. I find it amusing..since generally the opposite
bugs me. I hate posts that have the last 40 replies all still attached.
Too much scrolling for my lazy self. I also delete everything as you do,
so WOULD like some small reference of who and what they are talking
about. So essentially I agree with you. I generally just find it a
waste bothering with others who are posting indecipherable or uncropped
messages. She may of even appreciated your advice, if she had stayed.
I believe she made a big todo on leaving..but I bet she eavesdropped and
got your messages. ;P

Kristine

mimsy

writes:

In Luna
wrote:
I wasn't attacking Nancy, I just wanted to understand her and what she
was talking about, so she could be part of the discussion, which is
what I assume people want when they respond to a post.


snip

I also delete everything as you do,
so WOULD like some small reference of who and what they are talking
about. So essentially I agree with you. I generally just find it a
waste bothering with others who are posting indecipherable or uncropped
messages. She may of even appreciated your advice, if she had stayed.
I believe she made a big todo on leaving..but I bet she eavesdropped and
got your messages. ;P

I slammed Nancy in response to her "suicide note" and I stand by what I did.
How on earth are we supposed to carry on any kind of dialogue here if there's
no cooperation? Nancy posted things like "more spinach would be a good idea"
and "no, that's not what I said" in complete isolation, with no context at all.
And when Luna *politely* explained why it would be better to quote what she
was responding to, she said that she wouldn't. What the ...? She added
nothing but confusion and she wasn't willing to change. I find people like
that exceedingly frustrating. Normally, I ignore posters who annoy me, and I
hope most newbies stay, but her kind of intransigence was so unnecessary. I'm
glad she's gone.

Daria
166/141/140
sugar-free since 2/1/04
low-carb since 2/17/04