On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 21:44 -0600, Dan C wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:43:53 +0100, Darryl LeCount wrote:
>
> > Which is why I would recommend SME server to a newbie - no resource
> > hogging X server, but an Apache webserver providing a decent web-based
> > GUI.
>
> But who is going to put much stock in the recommendation of a top-poster,
> especially one who is (apparently) smart enough to use Linux, but still
> top-posts?
>

By top-posting I assume you mean the fact that I'm placing my answer
above the original message. However I fail to see what bearing my lack
of knowledge of newsgroup etiquette has on my ability to use Linux or
the probability that people are going to consider what I say.

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:35:33 +0100, Darryl LeCount wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 21:44 -0600, Dan C wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:43:53 +0100, Darryl LeCount wrote:
>>
>> > Which is why I would recommend SME server to a newbie - no resource
>> > hogging X server, but an Apache webserver providing a decent
>> > web-based GUI.
>>
>> But who is going to put much stock in the recommendation of a
>> top-poster, especially one who is (apparently) smart enough to use
>> Linux, but still top-posts?
>>
>>
> By top-posting I assume you mean the fact that I'm placing my answer
> above the original message.

Yes.

> However I fail to see what bearing my lack
> of knowledge of newsgroup etiquette has on my ability to use Linux or
> the probability that people are going to consider what I say.

Your ability to use Linux... no.

The probability that people are going to consider what you say... yes.

Don't top post.

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:35:33 +0100, Darryl LeCount wrote:

>> But who is going to put much stock in the recommendation of a
>> top-poster, especially one who is (apparently) smart enough to use
>> Linux, but still top-posts?

> By top-posting I assume you mean the fact that I'm placing my answer
> above the original message.

Exactly.

> However I fail to see what bearing my lack of knowledge of newsgroup
> etiquette has on my ability to use Linux or the probability that people
> are going to consider what I say.

Many experienced Usenet users will not even bother reading anything that a
top-poster writes. Ignoring newsgroup etiquette, or not bothering to
learn about it, shows others that you don't care enough to have an opinion
worth considering. That in turn reflects poorly on your perceived Linux
knowledge. It's all tied together. Welcome to Usenet, n00b.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:49:01 +0000, IvanMarsh wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:35:33 +0100, Darryl LeCount wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 21:44 -0600, Dan C wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:43:53 +0100, Darryl LeCount wrote:
>>>
>>> > Which is why I would recommend SME server to a newbie - no resource
>>> > hogging X server, but an Apache webserver providing a decent
>>> > web-based GUI.
>>>
>>> But who is going to put much stock in the recommendation of a
>>> top-poster, especially one who is (apparently) smart enough to use
>>> Linux, but still top-posts?

Complaints about top-posts make the most helpful poster appear to
be a nuisance.


--
stonerfish

dare to explore

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:17:30 +0000, jellybean stonerfish wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:49:01 +0000, IvanMarsh wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:35:33 +0100, Darryl LeCount wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 21:44 -0600, Dan C wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:43:53 +0100, Darryl LeCount wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Which is why I would recommend SME server to a newbie - no resource
>>>> > hogging X server, but an Apache webserver providing a decent
>>>> > web-based GUI.
>>>>
>>>> But who is going to put much stock in the recommendation of a
>>>> top-poster, especially one who is (apparently) smart enough to use
>>>> Linux, but still top-posts?
>
> Complaints about top-posts make the most helpful poster appear to be a
> nuisance.

Thank you for not top posting.

It's not a suggestion... if you top post you will either be ignored or end
up in a thread about top posting...

RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

IvanMarsh wrote:
> Thank you for not top posting.
>
Netsheriffs are worse than top posters.

* Laszlo Lebrun wrote in alt.os.linux:
> IvanMarsh wrote:
>> Thank you for not top posting.

> Netsheriffs are worse than top posters.

No they arent.

--
David
Kitchen activity is highlighted. Butter up a friend.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:37:11 +0100, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:

>> Thank you for not top posting.

> Netsheriffs are worse than top posters.

What's even worse is when Win-droids clutter up a Linux newsgroup.

> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028

Like what you're doing, for example.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Dan C wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:37:11 +0100, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
>
>>> Thank you for not top posting.
>
>> Netsheriffs are worse than top posters.
>
> What's even worse is when Win-droids clutter up a Linux newsgroup.
>
Oh! You mean that we should not have the right to post something in a newsgroup that is Linux-private?
Interesting, indeed. Where have you read that in the Charta?

* Laszlo Lebrun wrote in alt.os.linux:
> Dan C wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:37:11 +0100, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:

>>>> Thank you for not top posting.

>>> Netsheriffs are worse than top posters.

>> What's even worse is when Win-droids clutter up a Linux newsgroup.

> Oh! You mean that we should not have the right to post something in a newsgroup that is Linux-private?
> Interesting, indeed. Where have you read that in the Charta?

So you think your post was interesting? Here's a clue, it wasn't.
--
David
Nothing is but what is not.

SINNER wrote:
> So you think your post was interesting? Here's a clue, it wasn't.
Gratefully yours...
;-)

* Laszlo Lebrun wrote in alt.os.linux:
> SINNER wrote:
>> So you think your post was interesting? Here's a clue, it wasn't.
> Gratefully yours...
> ;-)

Nice to see you can amuse yourself, it wont be so lonely in the padded
room.

--
David
It's gonna be alright,
It's almost midnight,
And I've got two more bottles of wine.

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:33:39 +0100, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:

>>>> Thank you for not top posting.

>>> Netsheriffs are worse than top posters.

>> What's even worse is when Win-droids clutter up a Linux newsgroup.

> Oh! You mean that we should not have the right to post something in a
> newsgroup that is Linux-private? Interesting, indeed. Where have you
> read that in the Charta?

No, that isn't what I mean, doofus. If you Win-droids have something
useful to say about Linux, then fine. My point was that your entire post
was the one sentence (above) regarding "netsheriffs". How is that useful
to anybody?

If you don't want to talk about Linux, go do it somewhere else. The real
Linux users are tired of your babbling.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:44:52 -0600, Dan C wrote:

>>> What's even worse is when Win-droids clutter up a Linux newsgroup.
>
>> Oh! You mean that we should not have the right to post something in a
>> newsgroup that is Linux-private? Interesting, indeed. Where have you
>> read that in the Charta?
>
> No, that isn't what I mean, doofus. If you Win-droids have something
> useful to say about Linux, then fine. My point was that your entire
> post was the one sentence (above) regarding "netsheriffs". How is that
> useful to anybody?
>
I fear you have probably been absolutely right, the posting was useless.

> If you don't want to talk about Linux, go do it somewhere else. The
> real Linux users are tired of your babbling.

That's exactly what I wanted to express to the netsheriffs. But you are
right, it's lost efforts. They will never accept that their babbling on
top posting or signatures are as boring as crap.

Laszlo

By the way: what is a "real" Linux user? Is it the opposite of a vitual
one?
When I am using CoLinux on XP, am I a virtual or a real Linux user?

Maybe am I no qualified user at all, failing to pass any certification on
the command line?
That is for sure jeopardising any effort to express any valid opinion in
this group, isn't it?

;-)

* Laszlo Lebrun wrote in alt.os.linux:

> That's exactly what I wanted to express to the netsheriffs. But you are
> right, it's lost efforts. They will never accept that their babbling on
> top posting or signatures are as boring as crap.
>
> Laszlo
>
> By the way: what is a "real" Linux user? Is it the opposite of a vitual
> one?
> When I am using CoLinux on XP, am I a virtual or a real Linux user?
>
> Maybe am I no qualified user at all, failing to pass any certification
on
> the command line?
> That is for sure jeopardising any effort to express any valid opinion
in
> this group, isn't it?
>

So lets get this straight, its NOT ok to talk about signatures or top
posting but perfectly OK to tell everyone that the CLI is crap and you
should never tell a newb to use it over the GUI. So you can 'netsherrif'
all you like wheil we sit by idly and watch your nonsence?

Erm NO.

oh and here:

;)

--
David