On 6/3/2023 2:28 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 6/3/23 07:38, Newyana2 wrote:
>> "Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>
>> | As I was reading the replies, I recalled seeing, in some U.S, T.V.
>> | program a while ago, a soft drink can with 'Royal C' (on the partially
>> | obscured can), which I wondered if it might have been 'Royal Crown
>> Cola'
>> | which was another Cola Brand we used to have here-abouts!!
>>
>>    An early cola drink in the US. I remember it as
>> a child, but I don't remember it ever being popular.
>> Maybe it was in some parts of the country. We used
>> to have two very popular brands. Canada Dry was for
>> when you wanted to splurge, and could afford it.
>> American Dry was the cheapo brand. They made all
>> the popular drinks in generic versions. 20 cans for $1.
>> I don't think I had Coca Cola until I'd got a paper
>> route, had my own income, and could splurge on
>> luxury. :)
>
> I had Coca-Cola as a child. My grandfather drunk 7-Up instead. He said
> that since it was clear it couldn't be bad for him.
That's what the holy man said about his urine. The less blessed just
drank vodka.
--
Jeff Barnett

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote

| I have been a "recorder" guy since my SL7200 Betamax in 1975. I have
| noticed most commercials have fast forward in their design. Even going
| as fast as it can go, their message still gets through and they know
| you are staring at the screen to see when the commercials end. My TiVo
| has a 30 second skip option but the Replay TV was best. It skipped
| commercials automatically. The powers that be sued them out of
| existence.

I used to record on VHS but I don't remember those days
very well. As I recall, I had cable for awhile with a movie station.
Each week I'd buy a TV Guide and then schedule several
movies to record overnight. So no ads.

These days I have Netflix and Hoopla in the browser, piped
to the TV. And I have an antenna. But if I'm going to watch TV
at all then I typically watch 2 or 3 things at once. Maybe a nature
documentary and two movies. So I don't see ads. As soon as they
ask whether I'm dead from asbestos or vaginal mesh implants... or
as soon as they start with the new pickup truck maneuvering up
a rock pile... I'm back to one of the other shows. None of them
are interesting enough to record, so I've never actually had a DVR.

Though I did see a commercial recently that I've been hoping
to catch the rest of. Ben Affleck is in Dunkin Donuts. People
think he looks familiar. With a crestfallen expression he says,
"Yeah, I'm Matt Damon." In the background a voice says, "Oh,
I love that guy!" ... Something to that effect. It looked like a
kick. Though I would never go into a Dunkin Donuts for one
of their candy sugar drinks. I can't even stand to look at the
fluorescent pink and orange exterior. It's like a coffee shop that
turned into a Disney ride for aspiring diabetics.

"Johnny" <johnny@invalid.net> wrote

| You never had a RC Cola and a Moon Pie? Both were very popular in the
| South where I grew up.
| | I still drink RC and Pepsi.
|

A moon pie? I've ever heard of that. I drink water, coffee,
iced coffee, and one all-malt beer before dinner. If I'm sick
I might make fresh ginger tea. I haven't drunk anything
else for many years. No tea. No soda. No juice.

I remember RC, but I don't think I ever saw it for sale.
But I'm also in the Northeast. Things are very different here
from most of the country. Once you get west of NY, every
market seems to be a Safeway and every drugstore seems
to be a Walgreens. There are no Safeways here and Walgreen's
is a recent arrival.

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| There is one country, where rum is cheaper than Coke,
| and if you ask for a rum and Coke at the bar, the
| glass is mostly rum,

You have such unique areas of expertise. I get an image
of an intense man sitting in the back corner of a Caribean
beach bar, soldering his motherboard, oblivious to the
thong-clad ladiers nearby. :)

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote

| I'd reckon anyone that has a smart phone is aware of the 3 dot thing.
| | In fact, I've been developing a Windows dekstop program/utility that
batch-runs a
| number of wireless link tests, and there is no menu bar, because it
doesn't need one.
| However, I thought it would be good to offer some settings for the
utility, and was
| considering using the 3 dots thing, in the upper right'ish corner of the
main (and at this
| time, only) form, to open said 'Options' form.
| | I stil haven't floated the idea to anyone else...
|

I think it's very good design for a cellphone but terrible
for a Desktop. On a computer there's plenty of space
for convenience. It's not just a matter of figuring
out who will recognize the 3 dots. It's simply poor design.
I have to get to that tiny icon in Chromium, which
then gives me a tedious, multi-stepped, fly-out menu.
A real menu is much easier to navigate and more self-
explanatory.

If I were writing that same utlility I guess I'd probably
put a Settings button in the lower right if there were
good reason for no menu bar.

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| Can anyone say what the three dots (or, earlier, three lines, sometimes
| referred to as "hamburger") is supposed to _represent_?

I'm guessing it's just one of the smallest patterns they could
come up with that's recognizable. I like the cog, though. That
can be almost as small and has the advantage of being self-
explanatory. Things shouldn't require prior knowledge. They
should be self-documenting and traditional as much as possible,
so that people don't need to figure things out for every program
interface.

On 6/3/2023 8:25 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>
> | There is one country, where rum is cheaper than Coke,
> | and if you ask for a rum and Coke at the bar, the
> | glass is mostly rum,
>
> You have such unique areas of expertise. I get an image
> of an intense man sitting in the back corner of a Caribean
> beach bar, soldering his motherboard, oblivious to the
> thong-clad ladiers nearby. :)
>
I don't usually travel with a soldering iron :-)

The TSA would classify that as "some sorta weapon".
And then they'd take my bottle of shampoo away.

Paul

In message <70om7i94i3o09vkmcpmq8kkh0ndjg99nnl@4ax.com> at Sat, 3 Jun
2023 09:04:50, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
>On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 14:30:14 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>(Though not quite the same thing, I had one boss who _ordered_ me to
>>top-post in emails. I did - but only ones to him! No-one else
>>complained.)
>
>
>I retired before e-mailing within a company became common, so I'm not
>sure, but I suspect that top-posting is a requirement in most
>companies these days.

Well, I left in about 2017, but it was well-established by then - not
sure if it was compulsory, but I've encountered people - both there and
since - who actually find my _interposting_ hard to read. (Usually poor
drones at companies I write to. [Then there's "please reply above this
line" - I usually move away from companies that use that one.])
>
>I've never understood the appeal of top-posting, but that's the way
>almost all of my friends and relatives post. I suspect they do so
>because the e-mail clients they use make it very difficult to not
>top-post, so everyone thinks it's the normal way. So I blame
>Microsoft (and Apple? I'm not sure) for the popularity of top-posting.

Yes and no. IMO, there is a good reason for the reply cursor to appear
at the top of the quoted text: to encourage interposting, as I'm doing
here (with the replies below the points they are responding to). But
such software appeared about the same time companies stopped teaching
people how to do emails, with the obvious result.
>
>I've only once gotten a complaint about my not top-posting, in a
>Google group I belonged to. The person who complained said she thought
>top-posting should be made a standard in the group. I replied "make it
>a standard, and I'll leave the group." That was the last I heard of
>her opinion.

There's the old joke sig.:

A. top-posting.
Q. What's the most irritating ...

or something like that.
>
>The standard justification that many people give for top-posting is
>that they don't want to have to scroll down to see what was posted. To
>me that's nonsense. My reply is that I don't want to have to scroll
>down to see what the message is about, then scroll back up to see the
>reply.

Indeed: I'm convinced it produces, or at least encourages, woolly
thinking: you get five answers, then have to scroll up and down
repeatedly to find what the questions were.

It probably coincides with (and may well be the reason for) the
inability to actually deal with more than one, or at most two, points.
I've so often found responses from companies only answer one point (and
that, frequently, incompetently) - even numbering them often doesn't
work.
>
>The real problem with a lot of bottom posting is that many
>bottom-posters don't adequately trim what they're replying to, so it's
>necessary to scroll much farther down than it should be.

Yes, snipping is a more or less lost art. Though completely
bottom-posting is (I'd say _almost_) as bad as completely top-posting:
you still have to scroll back to see what the answers are to.
Interposting rules!

(I've just checked, and I _haven't_ snipped any of your post. But I
think that's because I've actually said something in response to most of
your points. I certainly do snip where appropriate.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Air conditioned environment - Do not open Windows.

In message <t7pm7ih2kdkssa14tlv18t4rm754tgcill@4ax.com> at Sat, 3 Jun
2023 09:09:36, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
>On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 15:12:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
[]
>>Can anyone say what the three dots (or, earlier, three lines, sometimes
>>referred to as "hamburger") is supposed to _represent_?
>
>To me, "hamburger, still refers to three horizontal lines (top one
>bread, middle one meat, bottom one bread), not three dots.
>
(Yes, I thought that was why some call it that - though if they're three
identical rectangles, I think it's pushing the parallel a bit far.)
>
>>The cogwheel
>>some use at least suggests machinery - the spanner (wrench in USA)
>>better for something involved with adjusting things. But three
>>dots/lines? (It's not even a diaeresis - those are horizontal.)
>
>Ellipsis?
>
Sorry, yes. (A diaeresis is an umlaut - though has a different purpose.)
>
>>Most logos/symbols have _some_ origin, though it may be unknown to many.
>>(I know what the pause symbol represents, for example, but I suspect
>>many younger folk don't.)
>>>
>>>I stil haven't floated the idea to anyone else...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>[Did you know your post had that many lines at its end? (-:]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Air conditioned environment - Do not open Windows.

On 6/3/2023 8:33 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
> | Can anyone say what the three dots (or, earlier, three lines, sometimes
> | referred to as "hamburger") is supposed to _represent_?
>
> I'm guessing it's just one of the smallest patterns they could
> come up with that's recognizable. I like the cog, though. That
> can be almost as small and has the advantage of being self-
> explanatory. Things shouldn't require prior knowledge. They
> should be self-documenting and traditional as much as possible,
> so that people don't need to figure things out for every program
> interface.

One of the terms used for interfaces, is "discoverable".

But for me, the spatial navigability of an interface
is important too.

We settled on a menu line at the top of the screen
with "File" and "Edit" as an example. So then, part of
the learned user experience is "oh yeah, the controls are at the top".
Then, if you want to put a hamburger or a cog wheel up
there, there's a good chance a user will see that and
say "well, it's up in the area reserved for controls, I
should actuate the control and see what it exposes".

When you move controls, even a little bit, it pisses
people off to no end. Linux has done this a few times.
Like putting "Save" or "Cancel" in a place that causes
maximum grief.

The Windows Mail.App though, it takes the cake for
interface mistakes. This isn't the worst part of it,
but it tells you what to expect. They wanted to make
the dialog modal and strong-arm the user into entering
scrape-able information. That's the design intent.

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/mrb3dpxQ/Win10-mail.gif

Hardly any mail program just "relaxes" and lets the user explore,
and if the user *then* feels like defining an email account,
the File:New should make it easy for them.

Paul

Newyana2 wrote on 3/6/23 10:12 pm:
> "Spalls Hurgenson" <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote
>
> | And that doesn't even get into the question of what to call the damn
> | stuff: pop, cola, coke, pepsi, soda, fizzy-tooth-rotter, whatever.
> | Depending on what you ask for and where can get you different things.
> | USA is a weird place.
>
> I've seen different variations on word maps
> showing that soda, pop, and soda pop are the 3
> main usages. Coke is also common. And in parts
> of the Northeast it's tonic, presumably a carryover
> from the days before the AMA kidnapped medicine.
>
> Another interesting one is "pecan". Every variation
> of pronunciation is common: PEE-can, pe-CAN,
> PEE-cahn and pe-CAHN.
>
>
My sister has a 'Soda-syphon' machine/thingee which injects carbonate
gas into plain water.

I hate the end product and have wondered if it's possible to get a
'Tonic-syphon' machine/thingee. That couldn't be any worse, would it??
--
Daniel

gfretwell@aol.com wrote on 4/6/23 2:10 am:
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 08:31:32 -0400, "Newyana2"
> <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> I'm struck by how manic our culture has become when
>> I watch movie previews, action movies, TV commercials, etc.
>> It's even more notable with the sound off. The frames come
>> so fast that there's no actual "moment" in the video when
>> something is occurring. It's more like a manic slideshow of
>> disparate images meant to evoke assoications.
>>
>
> I have been a "recorder" guy since my SL7200 Betamax in 1975.

I brought a Sony Betamax in about 1982. It had a very hard live .... so
much so that each Christmas Holidays, whilst on holidays, I'd get the
heads replaced .... by a guy who used to work for Sony!

> I have
> noticed most commercials have fast forward in their design. Even going
> as fast as it can go, their message still gets through and they know
> you are staring at the screen to see when the commercials end. My TiVo
> has a 30 second skip option but the Replay TV was best. It skipped
> commercials automatically. The powers that be sued them out of
> existence.

I heard, years ago, that in Japan the recorders had an in-bult system to
skip the ads in recorded programs automatically. I figured it was
related to the presence or otherwise of 'Sub-titles'. Ads made for the
Japanese market wouldn't need sub-titles, whereas programs mainly made
for English-speaking markets would have Japanese sub-titles so .... no
sub-titles ... skip-it!!
--
Daniel

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| Indeed: I'm convinced it produces, or at least encourages, woolly
| thinking: you get five answers, then have to scroll up and down
| repeatedly to find what the questions were.
|

You must have had a very hard time back in letter-writing
days. "What does he mean 'Ethel had her baby'? Did I ask
about Ethel? If I did then why didn't he copy that over to his
letter so I'd know what he's talking about? And who's Ethel?
I know his wife's name is Ethel, but how am I supposed to
know if that's the Ethel he's talking about? Lucky thing I used
carbon paper when writing my letter, so I can refer back to it."

Top-posting is simply replying. It's what everyone outside
of Usenet does. If someone leaves the older text then it's
there for reference, or because they didn't know they could
delete it. I find that many people actually don't know about
cut, copy, paste.

Bottom posting, as near as I can tell, is a leftover from before
Usenet readers had treeview format. Some people still read
posts arranged singly by time, so they have no idea what's
been said unless all the text is there. I can't remember the last
time I re-read such a long pile of rubbish, but I do bottom-post
because if I don't then some people will react as though I'd
taken away their pacifier. Especially in Linux groups, where peer
pressure is pretty much the only reason for the group to exist.

I've actually had people ask me, when replying to an email
interspersed-style, how I did it. They actually didn't know
that they could do anything but type at the prompt. They might
even use MS Word, yet never thought that maybe that editing
functionality could be carried over to email.

"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

|> And in parts
|> of the Northeast it's tonic, presumably a carryover
|> from the days before the AMA kidnapped medicine.

| My sister has a 'Soda-syphon' machine/thingee which injects carbonate
| gas into plain water.
| | I hate the end product and have wondered if it's possible to get a
| 'Tonic-syphon' machine/thingee. That couldn't be any worse, would it??

Ayeh, you can. No, I don't imagine it would. 'Course, they
don't sell those on Sundays.

I got curious and looked up some of this stuff. Something I
never knew was that drugstores used to have "soda fountains"
(same in Australia?) because carbonated water was considered
medicinal. The Cokes and banana splits came later... It's funny
how, at least in the US, virtually anything new is regarded as
a magical, beneficent influence.

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| The Windows Mail.App though, it takes the cake for
| interface mistakes. This isn't the worst part of it,
| but it tells you what to expect. They wanted to make
| the dialog modal and strong-arm the user into entering
| scrape-able information. That's the design intent.
| | [Picture]
| | https://i.postimg.cc/mrb3dpxQ/Win10-mail.gif
|

That's an interesting one. Mail.app is some kind of Metro
thing? I've never seen that "file extension" notation before.
It's as though they just spread icons around to make the
window look familiar.

Microsoft were the ones who helped to standarde File,
Edit, View, etc. -- but then they break their own rules.
For example, why do I have to accept that some genius
in the GUI dept "discovered" that a ribbon works better?

The modal dialogues have been a problem for decades.
That drove me crazy in Outllook Express. Their excuse is
that people will get confused if they can switch windows.
But that's just making excuses for not checking input for
errors when the window is closed. I used to often find
myself 3 modals in and then I'd need to check a value on
the first window... OE wouldn't let me see it... so I'd have to
start all over again. Modal should be restricted to public
service warnings about imminent tsunamis.

It's surprising how irritating it can be, when you're used
to whizzing around at high speed, to suddenly hit a dead end.
What? GIMP can't save a BMP or JPG? What the... Oh. Export.
You gotta be kidding me. Political statements on a File menu?!

It's not so complicated, but it's like having no standard for
which way faucets turn, or where the toilet flusher arm goes.
An easy, automatic action become a small project.

In message <u5huvf$1d94i$1@paganini.bofh.team> at Sun, 4 Jun 2023
08:10:30, Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| Indeed: I'm convinced it produces, or at least encourages, woolly
>| thinking: you get five answers, then have to scroll up and down
>| repeatedly to find what the questions were.
>|
>
> You must have had a very hard time back in letter-writing
>days. "What does he mean 'Ethel had her baby'? Did I ask
>about Ethel? If I did then why didn't he copy that over to his
>letter so I'd know what he's talking about? And who's Ethel?
>I know his wife's name is Ethel, but how am I supposed to
>know if that's the Ethel he's talking about? Lucky thing I used
>carbon paper when writing my letter, so I can refer back to it."

An easy thing to say, but email and letter-writing are _not_ the same:
there is more immediacy to email (usually). And even in letter-writing,
if I wrote a letter asking five questions, I'd be a bit miffed if I got
a reply that said "1: yes. 2: maybe. 3: No. 4: yes."
>
> Top-posting is simply replying. It's what everyone outside
>of Usenet does.

It is now, yes.

> If someone leaves the older text then it's
>there for reference, or because they didn't know they could
>delete it. I find that many people actually don't know about
>cut, copy, paste.

Certainly, I don't think some of them do know about the ability to
delete the old text - or, if they do, they don't think they should
"waste" their time doing so; when I was in work I frequently found
emails that were many times the size they needed to be, because they
contained earlier messaging going back to the year dot (OK I exaggerate
slightly), much of which is no longer relevant (or even contradicted -
or answered - by subsequent bits).

Cut (or at least delete), yes, encourage; copy and paste I'm not sure
about - I think it could lead them to make an incomprehensible mess.
>
> Bottom posting, as near as I can tell, is a leftover from before
>Usenet readers had treeview format. Some people still read

Assuming you're saying you think treeview format is a good thing, i. e.
earlier posts are there to be looked at, I'd agree _if_ people then
_did_ delete old text from their new posts.

>posts arranged singly by time, so they have no idea what's
>been said unless all the text is there. I can't remember the last
>time I re-read such a long pile of rubbish, but I do bottom-post

Certainly, snipping needs to be used more. It's rare (though not
unknown) that I leave more than two or three levels of >>> in.

>because if I don't then some people will react as though I'd
>taken away their pacifier.

Abuse is beneath you.

> Especially in Linux groups, where peer
>pressure is pretty much the only reason for the group to exist.

So why do you stay in them, if you have so little respect for them?
>
> I've actually had people ask me, when replying to an email
>interspersed-style, how I did it. They actually didn't know
>that they could do anything but type at the prompt. They might

I could believe that. That's probably the same people - or, at least,
there's a large overlap - who find interposted communication difficult
to understand.

>even use MS Word, yet never thought that maybe that editing
>functionality could be carried over to email.
>
Quite possibly.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of
Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in
Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 06:20:49 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <70om7i94i3o09vkmcpmq8kkh0ndjg99nnl@4ax.com> at Sat, 3 Jun
>2023 09:04:50, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
>>On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 14:30:14 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>(Though not quite the same thing, I had one boss who _ordered_ me to
>>>top-post in emails. I did - but only ones to him! No-one else
>>>complained.)
>>
>>
>>I retired before e-mailing within a company became common, so I'm not
>>sure, but I suspect that top-posting is a requirement in most
>>companies these days.
>
>Well, I left in about 2017,

I retired in 1993.

> but it was well-established by then - not
>sure if it was compulsory, but I've encountered people - both there and
>since - who actually find my _interposting_ hard to read. (Usually poor
>drones at companies I write to. [Then there's "please reply above this
>line" - I usually move away from companies that use that one.])

I hate to see "please reply above this line," but I almost never see
it anywhere but in response to my writing to a company asking for help
with a problem. So I have to tolerate it.

>>I've never understood the appeal of top-posting, but that's the way
>>almost all of my friends and relatives post. I suspect they do so
>>because the e-mail clients they use make it very difficult to not
>>top-post, so everyone thinks it's the normal way. So I blame
>>Microsoft (and Apple? I'm not sure) for the popularity of top-posting.
>
>Yes and no. IMO, there is a good reason for the reply cursor to appear
>at the top of the quoted text: to encourage interposting, as I'm doing
>here (with the replies below the points they are responding to).

I don't think the reply cursor appearing at the top of the quoted text
encourages people to interpost any more than having it at the bottom
of the quote text would. Moreover, people who want to interpost use an
e-mail client makes it easy to do so, and people who don't want to use
an e-mail client that makes it difficult to do so, and puts the cursor
at the top.

I use Thunderbird for e-mail, and to tell the truth, since I almost
always interpost, I really don't care where the cursor starts out,
since I'm almost always going to move it to where I need it. But I do
think that all e-mail clients should at the very least make where the
cursor starts out an option.

>But
>such software appeared about the same time companies stopped teaching
>people how to do emails, with the obvious result.
>>
>>I've only once gotten a complaint about my not top-posting, in a
>>Google group I belonged to. The person who complained said she thought
>>top-posting should be made a standard in the group. I replied "make it
>>a standard, and I'll leave the group." That was the last I heard of
>>her opinion.
>
>There's the old joke sig.:
>
>A. top-posting.
>Q. What's the most irritating ...
>
>or something like that.

Yes, I've often seen it, but only in newgroups.

>>The standard justification that many people give for top-posting is
>>that they don't want to have to scroll down to see what was posted. To
>>me that's nonsense. My reply is that I don't want to have to scroll
>>down to see what the message is about, then scroll back up to see the
>>reply.
>
>Indeed: I'm convinced it produces, or at least encourages, woolly
>thinking: you get five answers, then have to scroll up and down
>repeatedly to find what the questions were.

Yes.

>It probably coincides with (and may well be the reason for) the
>inability to actually deal with more than one, or at most two, points.
>I've so often found responses from companies only answer one point (and
>that, frequently, incompetently) - even numbering them often doesn't
>work.

Yes.

>>The real problem with a lot of bottom posting is that many
>>bottom-posters don't adequately trim what they're replying to, so it's
>>necessary to scroll much farther down than it should be.
>
>Yes, snipping is a more or less lost art.

Not only a lost art, but I've run into many individuals and companies
that are dead set *against* any snipping.

>Though completely
>bottom-posting is (I'd say _almost_) as bad as completely top-posting:
>you still have to scroll back to see what the answers are to.
>Interposting rules!

Yes, unless enough has been snipped so that very little scrolling in
either direction is necessary.

>(I've just checked, and I _haven't_ snipped any of your post. But I
>think that's because I've actually said something in response to most of
>your points.

Yes.

>I certainly do snip where appropriate.)

I wish I could say the same. I always try to do that, but there are
almost certainly cases where I should have done more snipping, but
didn't. I'm not perfect.

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 08:10:30 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Top-posting is simply replying. It's what everyone outside
>of Usenet does.

Everyone? Nonsense. Yes, it's most people, but it's far from everyone.
I don't, for example, and I know many other who don't.

Why is it most people? Because Microsoft's e-mail clients (and
Apple's?) make it very difficult to not top-post. Microsoft has
essentially dictated that everyone should;d top-post and, like sheep,
most people do what they're told to do.

> If someone leaves the older text then it's
>there for reference,

True for some people, but not for everyone.

I've more than once gotten an e-mail reply to something I had said
without anything quoted, and had no idea what it was a reply to.

Perhaps that's not a problem for someone who gets and sends very few
messages, but it's a big problem for me.

>or because they didn't know they could
>delete it. I find that many people actually don't know about
>cut, copy, paste.

I agree. Yes, many people don't know how, or if they do know how, they
think they shouldn't.

>Bottom posting, as near as I can tell, is a leftover from before
>Usenet readers had treeview format.

Not as far as I'm concerned.

>Some people still read
>posts arranged singly by time, so they have no idea what's
>been said unless all the text is there.

*Some* people. Not me.

I've more than once gotten an e-mail reply to something I had said
without anything quoted, and had no idea what it was a reply to.

Perhaps that's not a problem for someone who gets and sends very few
messages, but it's a big problem for me.

>I've actually had people ask me, when replying to an email
>interspersed-style, how I did it. They actually didn't know
>that they could do anything but type at the prompt.

Yes, but again, their e-mail clients probably make it very difficult
to do anything else.

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 08:33:46 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Microsoft were the ones who helped to standarde File,
>Edit, View, etc. -- but then they break their own rules.
>For example, why do I have to accept that some genius
>in the GUI dept "discovered" that a ribbon works better?

I would have no problem with the ribbon if Microsoft had made it an
option. It should never have been a replacement interface.

If something is thought to be better, fine, make it an option (even
make it the default option, if you want), but never take away what
people are used to.

> It's not so complicated, but it's like having no standard for
>which way faucets turn, or where the toilet flusher arm goes.
>An easy, automatic action become a small project.

Yes. I once had a lot of pain in a hotel room where the hot and cold
faucets were reversed. I burned myself, but fortunately not too badly.

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 06:23:46 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <t7pm7ih2kdkssa14tlv18t4rm754tgcill@4ax.com> at Sat, 3 Jun
>2023 09:09:36, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
>>
>>>The cogwheel
>>>some use at least suggests machinery - the spanner (wrench in USA)
>>>better for something involved with adjusting things. But three
>>>dots/lines? (It's not even a diaeresis - those are horizontal.)
>>
>>Ellipsis?
>>
>Sorry, yes. (A diaeresis is an umlaut - though has a different purpose.)

Yes, a diaeresis looks like an umlaut, but it's actually a very
different thing.

>>>Most logos/symbols have _some_ origin, though it may be unknown to many.
>>>(I know what the pause symbol represents, for example, but I suspect
>>>many younger folk don't.)

I'm older than you, but I didn't until I just looked it up.

>>>[Did you know your post had that many lines at its end? (-:]

No, I didn't. Sorry.

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| > Especially in Linux groups, where peer
| >pressure is pretty much the only reason for the group to exist.
| | So why do you stay in them, if you have so little respect for them?

There's that temper again. A Brit who abhors witty
digs. Who'd a thunk?

I don't hang around in Linux groups. I never have. But I
do sometimes have occasion to ask for help. And I consistently
find them competitive, abusive, adolescent. Windows groups
have never been that way. Even in the Android group I ask
questions only as a last resort.

"Ken Blake" <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote

> Top-posting is simply replying. It's what everyone outside
>of Usenet does.

| Everyone? Nonsense. Yes, it's most people, but it's far from everyone.
| I don't, for example, and I know many other who don't.

I've never received a bottom-post email that I can
remember. I would suspect that the people you receive
them from probably know Usenet.

| I've more than once gotten an e-mail reply to something I had said
| without anything quoted, and had no idea what it was a reply to.
| Perhaps that's not a problem for someone who gets and sends very few
| messages, but it's a big problem for me.

I get those a lot. For instance, I got an email about a dinner
date coming up. We both sent secondary notes back and forth.
No big deal. If I'm not sure what they're talking about then I
can check the last email. If I asked what I can bring and I get
a response the same day that says simply "Red wine" that's not
confusing.

In message <u5ige4$1f43q$1@paganini.bofh.team> at Sun, 4 Jun 2023
13:08:27, Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| > Especially in Linux groups, where peer
>| >pressure is pretty much the only reason for the group to exist.
>|
>| So why do you stay in them, if you have so little respect for them?
>
> There's that temper again. A Brit who abhors witty
>digs. Who'd a thunk?

Sorry - if you were being witty, I didn't detect it. (You weren't
digging at me: I don't take any Linux 'groups.)
>
> I don't hang around in Linux groups. I never have. But I
>do sometimes have occasion to ask for help. And I consistently
>find them competitive, abusive, adolescent. Windows groups
>have never been that way. Even in the Android group I ask
>questions only as a last resort.
>
How _do_ you seek advice or assistance?
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Today, I dare say more people know who starred as /The Vicar of Dibley/ than
know the name of the vicar of their local parish. - Clive Anderson, Radio
Times 15-21 January 2011.

In message <mqbp7ihii30fftuho74iqhpbd81sd24a27@4ax.com> at Sun, 4 Jun
2023 08:41:25, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
>On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 08:33:46 -0400, "Newyana2"
><Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>
>> Microsoft were the ones who helped to standarde File,
>>Edit, View, etc. -- but then they break their own rules.
>>For example, why do I have to accept that some genius
>>in the GUI dept "discovered" that a ribbon works better?
>
>
>I would have no problem with the ribbon if Microsoft had made it an
>option. It should never have been a replacement interface.

Or defaulted to one of the sides. I fear it appeared slightly before
widescreen became the default, and thus remained where it uses too much
screen estate. (Like web pages that have an irritating sticky top
[and/or bottom] bit that covers too much of the available space.)
>
>If something is thought to be better, fine, make it an option (even
>make it the default option, if you want), but never take away what
>people are used to.
>
Agreed. Yes, it probably does have to be the default, otherwise most
people will not use even something that genuinely is better.
>
I remember not long after the ribbon came in, we had a talk (voluntary
attendance IIRR) by someone from (I think) Microsoft to explain and
evangelise about it. (Office that was.) His enthusiasm was actually
refreshing, in that I think he genuinely did think it was better - and I
_did_ accept his point that the old-fashioned menu structure had become
illogical because as extra features had been added, they had to be put
in illogical places because the structure was rather full. (Didn't stop
me having "muscle memory" of how to do things the old way, though! And I
stick with it - I use 2003 [with the docx/xlsx patches], and genuinely
am not aware of any actual added feature in later versions that I
actually want. But that's a different matter.)
>
>> It's not so complicated, but it's like having no standard for
>>which way faucets turn, or where the toilet flusher arm goes.

Not _quite_ sure where you mean by that last bit: I think UK cisterns
usually have holes either side so they can be fed from wherever the
pipes happen to run, with the unused one being blocked by a white
grommet.

>>An easy, automatic action become a small project.
>
>
>Yes. I once had a lot of pain in a hotel room where the hot and cold
>faucets were reversed. I burned myself, but fortunately not too badly.

I can't remember - are you UK, and just using the word "faucet" because
of the audience? Usually, when the subject comes up with USAnians, they
remark (I find, anyway) on the oddity of having two taps at all (whereas
I find single, two-axis-control, ones fiddly to use).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Today, I dare say more people know who starred as /The Vicar of Dibley/ than
know the name of the vicar of their local parish. - Clive Anderson, Radio
Times 15-21 January 2011.

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 13:17:14 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Ken Blake" <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>
>> Top-posting is simply replying. It's what everyone outside
>>of Usenet does.
>
>| Everyone? Nonsense. Yes, it's most people, but it's far from everyone.
>| I don't, for example, and I know many other who don't.
>
> I've never received a bottom-post email that I can
>remember.

I've had many.

> I would suspect that the people you receive
>them from probably know Usenet.

True of some of them, but definitely not all.

>| I've more than once gotten an e-mail reply to something I had said
>| without anything quoted, and had no idea what it was a reply to.
>| Perhaps that's not a problem for someone who gets and sends very few
>| messages, but it's a big problem for me.
>
> I get those a lot. For instance, I got an email about a dinner
>date coming up. We both sent secondary notes back and forth.
>No big deal. If I'm not sure what they're talking about then I
>can check the last email.

Yes, I can do that too. But it's a pain in the ass to have to go and
look for it.

>If I asked what I can bring and I get
>a response the same day that says simply "Red wine" that's not
>confusing.

If it were the same day, I'd probably also not be confused. But it's
often several days later. I have one friend who checks his e-mail
about once every two weeks.