Re: Writing good articles that have much better chance to be seen by
others
In article <4a6b5487-5f11-4845-8335-d46653060270@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 Dec, 04:21, ta...@mongo.net (tanix) wrote:
In article <20091229152640....@gmail.com>, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2009-12-24, tanix <ta...@mongo.net> wrote:
So, from this standpoint, try to keep the context of the
article intact. No not delete some section of the article
you are following upon because you think it is
"insignificant" in YOUR opinion.
In my opinion, it is bad netiquette not to trim the quoted
article as much as possible.
Just the other way around.
Not according to the official documents. Quoting RFC 1855:
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.
It's not a question of opinion. It happens to be part of an
official standard.
I would expect THIS kind of response from you, personally.
I think your brain functions much better than this.
Ok, lemme spend a couple of minutes on this.
You see, "official standard" can ONLY be applied to technical
issues, not the posting style or personal preferences.
Those are CONTENT issues.
You can not "standartize" the content issues.
So, to me, personally, if some fools start writing THESE kinds
of things into standards, then those very standards have little,
if not less, significance.
It is like a programmer deciding to dictate others how to do
business or diplomacy.
Simply does not make sense.
Secondly, things like these, even if written into standards,
only mean an agreement between the members of the "board".
I wonder if Russ Allbery signed under THIS kinds of standard.
I have my doubts he would. But... You never know, you never know.
I'll do you a favor and check this paper.
Wow!
NETIQUETTE STANDARD?
:--}
Have they gone totally insane to produce THIS kind of garbage?
And who wrote this?
Sally Hambridge
Intel Corporation
2880 Northwestern Parkway
SC3-15
Santa Clara, CA 95052
Phone: 408-765-2931
Fax: 408-765-3679
EMail: sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com
INTEL writing THESE kinds of guidelines?
:--}
This is not even a joke. This is PATHETIC.
And this so called standard was written by a SINGLE individual,
who apparently is dumb enough even to CONCEIVE such a thing.
This is the biggest disgrace in the entire history of Usenet.
:--}
Quite often, this stripping procedure is explicitly meant to
distort the material and present it as something else.
That happens, but it's pretty rare. And most of the time, it's
obvious when it happens.
Secondly, there is absolutely no issues with technical aspect of it.
A Usenet archive to be useful must preserve the tree structure of
threads.
Not true.
Apparently, you don't understand Usenet, or are confusing it
with some other medium.
My humble friend, I understand Usenet better than you,
probably an order of magnitude better.
Are you getting bored out of your head and there is nothing MORE
exciting than getting into things like these?
:--}
--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:
http://preciseinfo.org
Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.