OT: posting from Google Groups (was Re: Need help with perl script using threads.)

r_stringer66@xxxxxxxxx <r_stringer66@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> First of all I did not snip the context


Who said that you _did_ snip the context?

(Since you didn't quote what you are commenting on, we cannot tell
what you are commenting on. It goes round and round and round...
)


> when i press reply everhting is
> blank to begin with.


I had noticed that effect last week, when it seemed to me
that we were suddenly awash in no-context followups.

Scoring started at -1000 when postings started from google,
which is where all domains that provide a WWW posting
interface go as soon as I identify them as such.

That only lasted a few weeks until I changed upped it to -5000,
due to Google's horrid reformating of code.

This no-quoting scourge encouraged me to modify it yet again:

% wasteland domains
Score:: -9000
Organization: http://groups.google.com
From: aol\.com
From: msn\.com
[snip lesser-used domains]


I am afraid that their choice of default is hurting their users
chances of getting questions answered.


I see a strident dichotomy:

Google rocks! Coming up with a better way of indexing was
brilliant, these guys are like Programming rock stars!

Google rocks again! Look at that homepage!
No flash, only substance.

Google cluster rocks! Enough Linux boxes to melt the polar ice
cap, awesome dude!

Google rocks The Street! Boy howdy what an IPO!

Google Groups rocks! (for searching) It is my very 1st bookmark,
even ahead of regular Google (which is 2nd).

Google Groups sucks a big one with unsightly bumps on it!
(for posting) because it encourages quoting nothing.

I am depressed that the rock stars are slipping away to drugs
(figuratively speaking), I hope they can kick it and return to sanity.

I think allowing posting from GG has been a very bad business
decision by Google (the only bad one that I'm aware of). It
has hurt their reputation more than the increased advertising
hits are worth IMO.


> Second of all I don't think that there is a hard iron rule that
> dictates that a) I have to formulate my message by including the
> original context and b) that I have to put in code.


You are correct.

If you want many of the frequent-answerers to see your questions,
then it *is* a pretty hard rule, as most answerers will just move
on to help somebody else instead.

It is only a "rule" if you really want to get the most generous
and knowledgeable people to look at your question.


> And also I never said that I wanted to use threads


Hnuh?

Does Google even fill in the Subject: headers for you?

Subject: Need help with perl script using threads.

You didn't say that?


(I smell an XY problem...)


> it is very presumptious of you to imply that I did not do
> any research on my own before I asked the question


No it isn't. Have you been lurking here for some time and are
speaking from first-hand experience?

No? Then who is being presumptious in telling us How It Should Be?

There are a great many posts here that are of the "gimme gimme"
variety, I don't know how you missed seeing at least some of them.

So, it is presumptious so assume that attempts _have_ been made
when there is no code presented to confirm that work has been done.


> In any event I don't have the time to get into a discussion with you as
> of how I should post my messages.


Me either, so I'll make one more edit to my newsreader's config file:

Score:: -9998
From: r_stringer66@xxxxxxxxx


So long!


> So far all my questions have been
> answered , for which I am very thankful btw, and that by itself is
> confirmation enough for me that i am posting my questions in a correct
> manner.


So then, you are saying that your attitude is one of "the ends justify
the means" ?

I think somebody's "gimme gimme" detector is working just fine.


--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
tadmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Newbie-hoods End"?
    ... google is NOT), ... to people posting to usenet via Google. ... Plus, most people on here aren't reading via the web, but using specific newgroup readers such as Knode, tin, pan et al and so trying to follow a thread when you don't see all the postings at the same time makes it really frustrating when in the middle of a coherent thread someone posts a reply with no context whatsoever. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Conservative Patrilineal Descent
    ... Your post has no context. ... to Google (my IE groups were not posting well at all) and so I ... quoting an especially acrimonious excange between Jacko and Dan. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Perl System Calls
    ... absolutely no context? ... USENET newsgroups are *not* using Google. ... When I read your posting, all I could see was the two lines quoted above, the ones starting with "I wouldn't". ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: Conservative Patrilineal Descent
    ... Your post has no context. ... not including the text I was referring to. ... to Google (my IE groups were not posting well at all) and so I ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: OS X compile
    ... Because people keep posting them, and their posts are wrong and need ... this Neo guy or not, for some silly reason, and the ones that think I am ... except for google groups users. ... discussing Neo or for calling people names that you think might be Neo. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.angband)