What is a "audio jack outlet" called?

Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:25 am   

Q: Why is top-posting bad?


A: Because it is counter-intuitive and difficult to read.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:50 am   

On Aug 31, 8:19 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

It comes from the phone industry. The RJ in an RJ-45
interconnection designates "Registered Jack".

Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:09 am   

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:38:51 -0700 (PDT), WallyWallWhackr
<gonna_get_you_boy_at_cox.net> wrote:


---
Good find.
---


---
Yes! Excellent!
---


---
I think: "A receptacle fitting"... would have been preferable, but
still...

Thanks,


---
JF

Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:59 pm   

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:25:17 +0100, adrian_at_poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:


---
You've hit the nail on the head, but that's not top posting.

Top posting would be:

A: Because it is counter-intuitive and difficult to read.

Q: Why is top-posting bad?

---
JF

Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:11 pm   

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:02:16 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
<lionslair_at_consolidated.net> wrote:


---
You top posters generally seem to be an inconsiderate lot who consider
USENET to be their own personal email.

Even Google Groups, that bastion of the ill-informed, has this to say
about top-posting:

From:

http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250

"Summarize what you're following up.

When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an existing
article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes, with the
cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just start
typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.
Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant.
Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your
post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.
And if your reply appears on a site before the original article does,
they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."

---
JF

Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:37 pm   

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:32:27 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
<lionslair_at_consolidated.net> wrote:




---
How so?
---


---
Where is "here"?

---
JF

Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:54 pm   

"John Fields" <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:40ks76tjtv6nsl2mdsqsrqejefr7tlo8p4_at_4ax.com...

Strange, I've met an awful lot more inconsiderate bottom posters.

It's a very irrational sort of thing, like religion and politics. And
like religion and politics, it's full of bigots and assholes, such as
yourself.


Funny, *proper* quoting is mentioned before bottom posting is. What does
that tell you about ettiquette?

How often do you see a bottom poster trim quotes, anyway? I'll give you a
hint: every time you see a 10k message, it's from some retarded bottom
poster. There are many on this newsgroup that do it habitually. In fact,
you even do it more often than not.

You're just as much a jerk as I am. Difference is, you don't even realize
it. And that means I'm better.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:35 pm   

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 12:54:57 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tmoranwms_at_charter.net> wrote:


---
Well, since there are so many more bottom posters than there are top
posters it's not surprising that you would.

In order to get a more objective view of it, you should consider the
ratio.

That is, if 50 out of 100 top-posters are inconsiderate, and 100 out
of a thousand bottom-posters are also inconsiderate, then you might
think that because you read 100 inconsiderate bottom-posted articles,
while only reading 50 inconsiderate top-posted articles, that
bottom-posters are inherently more inconsiderate than top-posters.

My view is that if 90% or more of a newsgroup bottom-posts and a
johnny-come-lately top-poster is asked to bottom-post, then, when in
Rome...
---


---
No, it's not, although I understand your desire to want it to seem to
be like that since, if it was, you could try to ride roughshod over
your critics with relative impunity by invoking some kind of banal
writ.

The fact of the matter is that it's based on that we're used to
reading chronologically, from left to right and from top to bottom.

Top posting, reductio ad absurdum, would present the last page of the
novel first and force the poor reader to swim through a sea of
confusion instead of gently guiding him along by presenting the thing
that happened first, first, and the thing that happened last, last.

Speaking of religion, your stance seems to me to favor Genesis being
the last book in the Bible, in spite of its starting off with: "In the
beginning...
---



---
I'm confused here...

What does "it's" refer to?
---


---
Since you seem to want to get technical, It's "etiquette".

In answer to your question, since trimming is almost parenthetical, it
easily takes a second seat to the admonition against top posting.
---


---
Every time _I_ see one?

How could you possibly know that they're retarded instead of just
lazy?

Just as an aside, how would you suggest trimming top posts?
---


---
Which of the two newsgroups you've crossposted to are you talking
about?
---


---
Perhaps.

Define "jerk"
---


---
Than what?

---
JF

Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:28 am   

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:02:16 -0500 "Martin H. Eastburn"
<lionslair_at_consolidated.net> wrote in Message id:
<Yg_eo.72118$MG3.12016_at_en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com>:


The convention on Usenet is to place your response *underneath* the
passage you're replying to -- much like the way your mother can often be
found underneath the UPS man.

Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:43 pm   

On 2010-09-02, Bill Palmer <Biiil_at_none.not> wrote:

And the majority of the "pages of junk" *should* have been
edited out -- leaving *only* what paragraph or sentence you are replying
to -- and perhaps a bit more for context.

If you have to go down to below what you are quoting to reply
to, you presumably will notice how much junk there is which needs
deleting.

This encouragement to edit is one of the benefits of bottom
posting when done right.

Just blindly moving to the bottom of screen after screen of
previously quoted text and adding your small addition to the text is
*not* proper bottom posting.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: <BPdnicholsBP_at_d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:31 pm   

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:35:17 -0500, John Fields
<jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:


Gosh John, are you saying you have never had a contraction before?

Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:37 pm   

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 10:31:03 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue_at_yahoo.com> wrote:


---
Yup; I never gave birth to my children. ;)

---
JF

Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:40 pm   

On Sep 4, 10:31 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You seem to enjoy giving birth to turds from your colon into this
group.

We do not need you, pregnant shithead. Come back when you have
truly
matured to a mental age that resembles that of an adult.

NOT a "modern day" definition either, boy.

Match that say of Alexander The Great.

You'll never make it.

Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:23 am   

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 12:37:00 -0500, John Fields
<jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:


OK. Had to check, way too many ways the text could sort out. ;-D

Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:26 am   

On 3 Sep 2010 22:43:10 GMT, "DoN. Nichols" <BPdnicholsBP_at_d-and-d.com>
wrote:


You are so darn picky. Do you expect Usenet posters to think or
something? 8*)