Earl Grey

I actually saw one lost last week; there was an error message, and I clicked the back button, and the edit was gone.

I've since discovered that if I'd clicked the "Reply" widget it would have reopened the edit box, and my text would probably still be in there (Firefox is stickier than IE for edit-box contents, so YMMV).

Given that Google's not a high-reliability system (reliability may be a forethought to some google coders, but I'm not expecting them to have done a FMEA on it nor to be standardized as to their diligence) I'll just have to take care to preserve content myself.

--Blair "ctrl-A ctrl-C tab tab tab enter"

Lewis snipped-for-privacy@panix1.panix.com1/5/06 12: snipped-for-privacy@panix.com

Lew, that's a good idea. It works especially well for me since the two programs I use color code the generations of text and also indicate the generations with lines or other marks. I understand though that some programs don't separate the generations, so it would be a problem for them. Adding the name of the poster to the top of each paragraph, which I learned from other posters here, solves that problem. In any event, those of us who feel more comfortable in a contextualized world appreciate it.

Michael

Blair P. snipped-for-privacy@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com1/6/06

00: snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com

It would not be necessary in "every case," but it would be appreciated in those cases where it is.

I do have a threaded newsreader. It is unfair to expect your reader to sift back through a thread's history to find your referent. At this point, I agree to disagree with you.

Michael

The only error I've ever seen to the Post Message button is Server Not Available. Sending the information in the Text Message box back to Google is a function of your Web Browser and ISP. That is the Modus Operandi of the Client Server model of the Internet. The only consistent glitch I can replicate in Google is keep the edit window open a long time before the Post Message. Occasionally it return you to the edit window again with the same information like you didn't do a Post Message. This is because in the meantime other Usenet posts have been rolled up in the same thread so your position has changed. You hit the Post Message one more time to get the 'wait momentarily' message while you are properly positioned in the thread. I don't even worry about any backup strategy to my posts anymore. I cut my teeth on Google when 24 hour postings were the standard and not momentarily. I also log in and out for each post because the Internet is a stateless system that is there is no guarantee you will be recognized as a Client the next time you use the Post method expected by the Server. There are ways around this conundrum but no standards. BTW the non standard communications are also used by viruses.

Jim

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

Let's think of it in terms of economics. There's only one of you, and on the other side we have the (possibly dwindling) multitude of your readers. You could do the work yourself, or *each* of your readers could do it. Which way is more efficient?

You appear to be a recent convert to Contextualism, brother, but we welcome all reformed sinners.

/Lew

Threaded views are an eyesore. It is normally used for genesis and scope of more than one post. It isn't used to verify that someone simply is or isn't talking to themself.

Jim

Michael Plant wrote:

"Blair P. Houghton" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

FLUSH!

There is no hook. Are you presuming to be the king of Usenet?

I do so when it's necessary and efficient, to me. When it's not, I won't bother.

You're responsible for understanding what you're reading. I'm not responsible for your misunderstanding it. I could cross-index every word to the moment I learned it in school, and you could still misunderstand the meanings of them. That's not my problem. If you need more context than you got, you know where to find it.

--Blair

on the other side we have the (possibly dwindling) multitude...

That's not economics, it's politics, which indicates that you either don't understand what you're saying or are dissembling for a purpose.

and you will understand as little as you desire. We'll see who loses the most.

--Blair

Another feature on most newsreaders that many people don't know about is the quote highlight thing. You just drag your mouse over just the part of the post you wish to appear in your reply, and select it, so that it becomes highlighted. THEN you hit the 'reply' button, and when your page comes up it will contain only what you highlighted previously, along with the proper attribution.

I hope the above is intelligible.

Would you mind if I use that as my new signature?

/Lew

[Blair] [...] [Blair] [...]

This whole thread would be a great case study for an "Effective Communication Skills" seminar.

"What we have here.... is a failure... to communicate" (cant figure out how to put that southern drawl in there)

Not quoting pertinent points in a long thread is simply ineffective communications. Consider these points:

1) It is a fallacy to "assume" that readers will have a threaded Usenet client. 2) Don't assume that your audience is even Usenet savvy. The proliferation of various http Usenet clients has opened the door to many users who do not even know what the Usenet is, or for that matter what a "thread" is. 3) Even if the reader does have a threaded client it is inconsiderate to force them to sort through any number of previous posts just to understand your context. 4) It is widely accepted and time honored "Netiquette" to judicially quote the context in a threaded medium. Hundreds upon hundreds of resources can be found that clearly document this, for instance or and I highly recommend reading in its entirety.

The bottom line is if your intended audience does not understand your context then you are NOT communicating effectively. If you don't care about communicating effectively then why bother at all?

That's my 2 cents worth,

Mike Petro

Mike Petro

dickface

I was trying to be the slightest bit colorful in warning that your position was still vulnerable to the argument immediately following.

So your readers' needs are unworthy of consideration?

That sounds like a Yes.

/Lew

I was about to reply that my argument was economic because it (the part you snipped) was about efficiency:

You could do the work yourself, or *each* of your readers could do it. Which way is more efficient?

But, come to think of it, there *is* a political assumption in there. I was assuming that the "normal" point of view, the one governing what is to be optimized in an economic sense, was that of the whole community following the thread. But of course, in the abstract, there's nothing to recommend the community's interest as superior to your own.

Well, I think we understand each other now.

/Lew

Girls, when you're done trying to pretend that I am required to care what you think, we'll get on with things.

--Blair

Only in the sense that nobody quite understands that I'm perfectly happy with not making things easier for you.

If you need a threaded newsreader, get one.

--Blair

snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com1/7/06 15: snipped-for-privacy@xprt.net

Great comment, crymad! No need for context here?

Best, michael