(I'm crossposting this to alt.tv.futurama for the sake of expedience.)
To confirm that this is not some cruel hoax, the URL for the article is:
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117872510& categoryID=14&cs=1
Nonsubscribers to Variety.com will only see the first paragraph, so a 31st Century thank you and a hearty bowl of Admiral Crunch to Greg for providing the full article!
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 9:22:48 -0400, Greg Brobeck wrote (in message ):
"Richard Bensam" wrote in message news:[email]...
<...>
different
In other words most of Cartoon Networks production budget for 1/4 year Per Ep.
vaulted
Compaired of couse to encores of shows on earlyer in the day on most of the other cable stations.
Not that I don't watch Adult Swim Between 10:00pm-10:30pm and then from 11:00pm-1:00am. (I can't abide "The Oblongs") Every Sunday.
for
*Gag*
Yeay!
Has anyone witnessed the horror of the new episodes of "Home Movies"? I'd just like to cast my vote against Cartoon Network making new episodes of Futurama.
<...>
is
TV
episodes.
That kind of sucks. I had hoped that Cartoon Networks purchase would have freed up the road to U.S. DVD release.
thats GREAT news!! :):)
theres a news article on Animation Magazine online about this as well - http://www.animationmagazine.net/television/9_9_02.html :)
~Stewart :)
My Futurama Message Board - http://azure.bbboy.net/futurama
My Nickelodeon TV, Nicktoons, Classic Nick, Nickelodeon UK & AU, Nick At Nite message board - http://bb.bbboy.net/nickdisk (Now with an added Nick shows & Nicktoons characters RPG)
Richard Bensam wrote in message news:...
Whoopee! More chances to watch a boring series that should have left the airwaves after the first episode.
And is it just me or does every voice Billy West does sound like Stimpy? I can always tell it is him.
[email] (Nickdisk) wrote in message news:...
Then why are you here? To tell us how cultivated your tastes are, or something? O.K., I bow down in humble reverence for your obviously superior intellect. Now go away and play Klingons with your friends.
-- L.Y.
"Luxury Yacht" wrote in message news:3d7fea1c$0$1426$[email]...
No, Joe B is just one of those folks that, while disliking Futurama so much, finds The Simpsons refreshingly funny and unique.
"Heavyarms" wrote in message news:eRcg9.10776$[email]...
much,
Yes I know I never laughed harder then the time Homer was Raped by a panda. So sophisticated and hip.....
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 20:12:59 -0500, Luxury Yacht wrote:
He's not here, he's there and we're here. Now he might say that he is here and we are there, but he's wrong. So there!
This is the problem with cross posting. He posted a reply on the cartoon network board (there), where his opinion is valid, even if I disagree. You read the reply on the Futurama board (here) where his reply would be out of place.
He may seem like a jerk for coming to a Futurama fan board and putting the show down. However, that's not what he did.
It is almost impossible to cross post without some kind of misunderstanding / flame war breaking out.
--Larry
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Larry wrote:
D'oh!
Aye Carumba!
-- L.Y.
Thanks for coming to my defense, Larry. That is exactly what happened. I was in the Cartoon Network group and did not realize the message I was responding to would be cross-posted to the Futurama group. Naturally, I am entitled to my opinion about the show... and, of course, people should not be resorting to personal attacks of me just because they don't agree with my opinion... but I also should have been more careful and not cross-posted my opinion to the Futurama group in the first place.
Joe
Larry wrote in message news:...
In alt.tv.futurama, on the "Re: Futurama Officially Announced!!" thread, Larry wrote:
That's why I configured my newsreader to insert the newsgroup from which I'm posting in the introduction line.
: honestly i hear a little stimpy every now and then but i like the show it shows the varying morals of the future
gee do you hear freddy flat everytime you hear bart simpson
Whoopee! More Bevilacqua whining.
And is it just me or does every article Joe Bevilacqua writes sound like sour grapes on not making it big in the voice-acting profession?
P.S. Reply goes *after* quoted material.
"Matthew W. Miller" wrote in message > And is it just me or does every article Joe Bevilacqua writes sound like
Matt, there's a big difference between what I have been posting and your response. My posts are just my opinion about a show or a voice. I never personally attack anyone. Your response to me is a personal attack. Not only that, you are wrong. My career is doing just fine, thank you. You might want to check out my recent work at my website: www.comedyorama.com, before you make claims that are untrue.
There is no such rule, Matt. They can go before or after. Read other posts and you will see this. Generally, if you are responded to a lot of scetions of someone's post it is best to put the reply after their quote. But if you are only adding one paragraph and you need to leave a longer quote in for reference, it is perfectly acceptable to put your response before their quote so that the reader does not have to scroll down past it to get to the new material.
Joe Bevilacqua wrote:
Actually, there is such a rule. Quoted text should be placed above new text or snipped in order to maintain the thread's chronology. It is not acceptable to put your response before someone else's quote, no matter how long it is or if the poorly written newsreader (Outlook in particular) does it by default. If you're that concerned about people too lazy or ignorant to scroll down, you should snip text instead of top quoting.
"Exatron" wrote in message news:[email]...
I always wonder about this. Because Originaly quoted text went beneath new text. I think on a couple of the really old News Groups out there in comp.* rec.* etc...Still use the reply over quote. And most news clients still want to put new text on top. So what really is the deal? Why,when, and how was the switch made?
There was no switch -- replying after (and in context) has always been the usenet way. See RFC1855:
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
News clients put you at the top of a message so you can go through the quoted text and trim it appropriately.
See also <http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html>.
(note i'm not matthew w miller. to keep the thread confusion at minimum)
Quoting RFC1855:
=v= Exactly. Might I add that it's possible to give context just by writing, rather than quoting. <_Jym_>
This entire discussion is ludicrious. It makes perfect sejse under certain circumstances to add your comments at the top and then let the reader see part of the thread you are commenting on below it. Like I'm doing right now. Is it any less clear this way?
Anyone so concerned by this that they need to continuing arguing about it needs to seriously reconsider their life's priorities.
Joe
See the messages I am commenting on BELOW:
Jym Dyer wrote in message news:...
What if someone wants to respond to what you're saying *and* something in the earlier thread? It becomes almost impossible. On the other hand, if what was said before isn't real relevant or necessary, why include it at all?
You're making usenet less useful. That's important to me. It's not the most important thing in my life, but it *is* worth a few minutes every now and then.
in article [email], Matthew Miller at [email] wrote on 9/21/02 12:18 PM:
No it's not. It's pedantic prattling!
On 21 Sep 2002 11:51:17 -0700, [email] (Joe Bevilacqua) wrote:
So why are you arguing about it Joe?
I agree. Too often people get obsessed with posting a certain way and then act like assholes when everyone else doesn't follow their lead. What bothers me the most is it is casual users with little experience, not professionals, who come up with these so-called rules.
Joe Bevilacqua wrote:
See where your comment should have gone?
This discussion is not ludicrous. It makes no sense under any circumstances to top quote someone. Just don't quote them instead. It will be much less annoying and significantly clearer that way.
Can't you just follow one simple rule?
Exatron wrote in message
Since it is not really a rule, only a suggested guideline, no. I still contend there are times when placing comments above the quoted section is a better and more clear way to post... and I will continue doing so when I feel it makes sense to do so. I have been responding above or below (as I am now) for 13 years now without any complant or problem until this one thread. Many others do it as well and I see nothing wrong with it. It is perfectly legimate.
I've wasted enough time on this completely ridiculious non-problem. You all can debate it until Hell freezes over. I'm not resnded to this anymore.
Joe
RFC stands for "Request for Comments". It is in no way a standard, but rather a way to propose a standard. In fact, RFC 1855 specifically states it isn't a standard.
"Status of This Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. " http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
In reality, RFCs act as standards. They're not enforced by anyone, but they serve as guidelines for making the internet work.
[email] (Matthew Miller) wrote in message news:...
Actually their are basically no guidelines are laws for the internet.Basically,there is no internet goverment.
Kevo says...
So, they're not enforced by anyone, but they serve as guidelines, then?
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 16:36:12 -0400, Robert Hutchinson wrote:
Yes. In other words, they serve as guidelines, but they're not enforced by anyone.
ds
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:50:49 GMT, drumslut wrote:
So who enforces these guidelines?
[email] (Kevo) wrote in message > Actually their are basically no guidelines are laws for the
Thank you. I rest my case.
In alt.tv.futurama, on the "Re: RFC is not a standard (was Futurama Officially Announced!!)" thread, Yohan the Lost wrote:
This is something of a "legal fiction." RFCs aren't standards mainly because there is no organization that imposes them on people. Despite this, the often become *de facto* standards. If your e-mail program doesn't comply with the RFC for e-mail headers, for example, then you won't be able to send messages to your friends, and they're not going to have much luck sending anything to you. Crying, "but the RFC isn't a standard" won't help you one bit.
The "nettiquite" RFC isn't as strict as the e-mail one, of course, so you can go against its recommendations, if you want. Although I prefer top-posting, I would not complain *only* because someone top-posted their reply. A bigger problem, in my opinion, is the people who the text of a long message (either at the top or the bottom), just to add a two- or three-line reply.
Michael Zaite wrote:
The switch from bottom to top quoting was made when software companies, like Microsoft, released newsreaders that put the cursor before quoted text. The natural influx of newbies led to people top quoting because that was what their newsreader implied they should do.
Exatron wrote in message >
I don't see what the heck difference it makes. As long as the post is clear.
I'm not a newby by the way. I've been on the Internet since 1989.
Joe
"Joe Bevilacqua" wrote in message news:[email]...
clear.
Your phone bill must be huge by now. (Ba-dum, CHING!)
"Rob T Firefly" wrote in message news:<dH1j9.55483
Ouch!
=v= There is of course no way to enforce a "rule," but it makes no cognitive sense to reply to something that shows up later.
=v= The real issue is the practice of including the *entire* quoted message. From early on, newsreaders inserted the quoted message and the idea was that you'd edit it down to only the excerpts that you'd be replying to. *Not* including the whole thing.
=v= Despite "Emily Postnews" etiquette guides and desperate pleas, people persisted in leaving entire quoted messages in, even if it was to put a remark or two at the bottom ("I agree!"). This practice was called "bottom-posting." At some point someone figured out that nobody was slogging through a whole quoted message to read their one-line replies, so they "solved" this problem by putting replies on the top, and this is called "top-posting."
=v= I've read that a Microsoft newsreader helped top-posting along by locating the blinking cursor above a quoted message. More brilliant engineering. :^\
=v= There is nearly never a need to include a whole message. A good newsreader will follow the message-ID in the "References:" header so that you can see the whole referenced message if you really want to.
=v= Well, comp.* and rec.* aren't really old; *really* old newsgroups, from before The Great Renaming, started with fa.*, net.*, or something local.
=v= The oldest program I know of is "postnews", from the early 1980s, which definitely put quoted messages at the top. A funny thing happened during an "improvement" to this program, though. Somebody added fixes that would put the string, "*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***", where you were supposed to type your message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=646%40t4test.UUCP
This led to a bunch of articles with that string embedded in it, before and/or after the actual messages. But that was fixed ages ago, and nobody uses that old software anymore. <_Jym_>
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
In the dim and distant past on 20 Sep 2002 12:43:15 -0700, it was rumoured that Jym Dyer spake thus on the subject of "META: Top-Posting, Etc. (was: Futurama Officially Announced!!)" in alt.tv.futurama:
a.k.a. Jeopardy-style posting. ;-)