LUTHER - please mail me, I got your transcripts

I guess your email is faked so please get back to me.

-< Moon >-

Hi- I don't my real address up there because that is a source of where spammers get emails from. There are very sophisticated spiders that run through newsgroups and even strip out things like 'NO SPAM' from the emails, so I won't put my complete/correct email in a news posting.

Sorry about that. try: luther (@ usa.net)

"Moon" wrote in message news:[email]...

<< Hi- I don't my real address up there because that is a source of where spammers get emails from. There are very sophisticated spiders that run through newsgroups and even strip out things like 'NO SPAM' from the emails, so I won't put my complete/correct email in a news posting. >>

This is good strategy that seems to work:

boogabooga115

at

yahoo

dotcom

usign outlook express...

how do i change my email "address" as it appears on the newsgroup?

Mike

"Robert J. Muldoon" wrote in message news:rUUd7.81564$[email]...

emails,

the

Michael Pretlove wrote:

Michael Pretlove also wrote in another thread:

I find it hard to believe that anyone making fun of AOLers doesn't even know how to change the e-mail address in Outlook Express.

scnr

PS: No, I'm not using AOL. I just don't make fun of AOLers. But I do know how to change the e-mail address in OE.

Happy?

"Martin Schmidt" wrote in message news:9loe1h$a978u$[email]...

know

Michael Pretlove wrote:

Yes. You finally found out how to change the e-mail address. Congratulations. Now all you need is a brain and you might become a respected member of the usenet community.

BTW, you're top-posting and full-quoting. Please turn it off.

by "top posting", do you mean he puts his new message text at the top of the message when he replies, putting the quoted parts of the old message underneath? I find this much better - its easier to scan through new messages - I don't have to scroll down on each one to see what was written. If that's not what you meant, never mind.

the

written.

That's exactly what I meant. The netiquette demands that you do *not* top post. But much worse (and also against the netiquette) are full quotes. When you reply, please quote only the parts of the message you are directly referring to. There are still people with slow connections and/or small hard disks. It's all a question of respect for others. :)

Unfortunately top posts und full quotes have become very common, but since Michael was making fun of AOLers *and* made stupid newbie mistakes himself, I took the time to reply to him.

In article , [email] says...

Actually you're referring to *German* netiquette which naturally enough popped up later on the Inet, is different to the international one and not necessarily better. While I concur on top and full quotes the ridiculous 'you gotta use your real name' rule still makes me laugh.

As you simply can't verify that the guy behind the posting is giving his real name (and believe me, you can't!) it isn't less polite or 'honest' to choose one's favourite nick and stick with it.

But that's typical German: insist on the 'rules' no matter how stupid they are. One of those reasons for me to lurk only in there...

-< Moon >-

Moon wrote:

No. Top-posting and full-quoting are seen as a netiquette violation everywhere. In every alt.*- and rec.*-NG I currently read, this discussion pops up from time to time and is usually led by people from the USA and the UK.

and

I'm not talking about the realname rule - that one is clearly not typical for many hierarchies. I'm only talking about top-posting and full-quoting, which is against the netiquette everywhere.

Gassner's Law: Someone, who calls certain things "typical German", has lost automatically. "Typical German" is used by people without arguments. Noschinski's addition: Usually it are Germans, who call something "typical German".

"Martin Schmidt" wrote in message news:9lql5o$aia8a$[email]...

the

one

lost

Ok, so I'd like to pick a side here... someone explain the importance of full-quoting and top-posting and which is preferable as well as the whole real name rule...

On da fence over here...

Nyth

8)

In article , "Nadimo Nyth" writes:

Full-quoting wastes bandwidth (it is still a concern for many) and makes messages redundant. You should quote only as much of the prior discussion as is necessary to provide the proper context for the response.

Top-posting removes any chronological flow from discussions, putting answers above questions. Some people claim to like top-posted responses, on the grounds that "I don't have to scroll down to see the response." Most people, on the other hand, realize that 95% of the time you've got to scroll down anyway, in order to get the context or question that the response is addressing, then you've got to scroll back up to read it in the proper context. So it's considered very rude to top-post.

So much for the internet being a place of free expression. Someone always has to come along and tell you how it "should" be done.

In article , petben writes:

Go ahead and express yourself freely. No one's stopping you.

But, when we enter into exchanges with fellow human beings, we develop etiquettes and common standards and practices, to enable the communication to be fruitful and productive. You're welcome to express yourself freely however you choose. But if you're posting in Swahili and no one else understands Swahili, then you haven't expressed much...

You can do it however you want. Someone asked a question, and I answered it. Top-posting is rude, but no one's going to make you stop doing it.

=v= It's a limitation of "free expression" to give advice on how to post something that isn't annoying to try to read?

=v= You are, of course, totally free to ignore the "shoulds" and post things however you want. The thing is, nobody's worried about the content of these postings, just the fact that it's hard to read when posted that way. "Free expression" is kind of useless if people give up trying to read it in the first place. <_Jym_>

I wasn't really looking to get into a debate on the matter.

It's also considered rude to give advice when someone hasn't asked for it.

In article , [email] says...

Hehehe, thanks for proving my point.

BTW, you forgot to mention Brannigan's law:

Someone who replies listing ridiculous laws invented by ignorants (preferrable Germans) has lost automatically.

-< Moon >-

Moon wrote:

Huh?

I didn't know that Godwin (the usenet law #1) was German.

In article , [email] says...

I said that this kind of behaviour is typical German and you (being German) are the first one to complain in _this_ ng about top posters while most of the regulars have been top posting and full quoting for years. Got it?

I said 'preferrably' Germans, not 'definitely'; besides I haven't seen anyone else besides Germans refer to these so called 'laws' (LOL!) quoting them instead of a real argument in a discussion.

Ok, enough for me to drop the subject.

-< Moon >-

=v= Uh, no. This netiquette predates the Internet itself, and goes all the way back to the days when Usenet was carried over a bunch of Unix machines that phoned each other in the middle of the night, when the rates were cheaper, to transfer messages over slow modems.

=v= Trimming what you're following up to is really basic, and if you're in dialogue with excerpts of another message, it only makes sense to intersperse it, not append it to the bottom. <_Jym_>

"Michael Pretlove" wrote in message news:ptMf7.1665$[email]...

where

Okay point taken about my comment about the AOL users.. and yes I am relatively new to the futurama ng scene. I have subscribed to another ng (alt.ford.falcon) for a lot longer than alt.tv.futurama that was a fair bit more lax about any "correct" posting methods. However... people say that top posting interrupts the flow of the conversation... my post was relatively off topic for that not to matter... which you can see -above- this bottom post that it does not interrupt the flow. I will no longer top post.

Mike