Albert wrote:
>
> What I start to understand is that there is a little group of guys here
> with a very strong local culture. I respect that, fine for me, have a
> nice time guys. If you guys have decided to play certain rules between
> yourselves, why not.
>
> So, I completely disagree with you about the so-called 'dress code' here.
> This place is public, not private. Correct ? Nobody is entitled to
> define the rules here.

Public society defines rules all the time. If they're not followed you
get excluded. Here, if you go against the grain people will stop
listening to you. The experience of this newsgroup will be lost on you,
and it usually ends up permanent since they can't see when you repent

Goodbye.
--
Ben M.

So anyway, it was like, 18:24 CEST Oct 22 2004, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
Albert was all like, "Dude,

I've taken the liberty of removing the intial part of your text. I
hope you will not consider this too rude or impolite, but if you or
anyone should think me inconsiderate, the complete original text can
be found in the article with message-id

<41793422$0$535$626a14ce@news.free.fr>

In addition, I have included two quotes from other articles, the
message-ids are, in order,

<609l42-nr1.ln1@news.linuxuser.org.uk> and
<417804c8$0$290$626a14ce@news.free.fr>

> [..] Sorry, I'm saying that I am against acting like sheep, that it
> is up to each person. Uniformity is very sad. The world of Linux and
> Internet is not the world of uniformity, on the contrary.

It's about standards. Standards are the basis on which the
non-uniformity works. You seem to think that it's okay to disregard
the ones you don't like, and when someone disagrees by asking you to
adhere to the conventions it's okay for you to call them fascists.

I think you may just have a little attitude problem.

> Don't play with words concerning flaming. I misunderstood one reply
> due to the hostile context.

There was no hostility in the reply you misunderstood because of
a very unfortunate typo, only calm reasoning. In fact, here's the
paragraph just a couple of lines above the one that you took offense
to:

-----8<-----
You're quite right of course. You're free to post any way you like
just like I'm free to read and respond to your posts or ignore them if
I want.
----->8-----

The first person to use invectives in that thread was you. It's pretty
obvious from your reply to the article in question that you went on
the defensive right away. Here's a lovely allegory of yours:

-----8<-----
Do you want to send me to the Gulag directly, comrade, or do you give
me a last opportunity to make a kneeling public apology ?
----->8-----

I'm sure you can see how we all consider you slightly on the agressive
side when looking back on that rather inflammatory remark, no? If not,
you might want to consider one of the others where you referenced
dictators and assorted genocidal maniacs and think about it again.

hth, hand.

--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
15:53:08 up 46 days, 1:21, 11 users, load average: 0.02, 0.03, 0.00
Linux 2.6.8 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

Down here is a best-of of what I've read from several people here. I've
had other reactions, but not exagerated such as these ones, which seem
to point to zealotry. I'm amazed by some reactions, my preferred one
being : "If you want our help, act the way we want you to act", which is
pure despotism. Sybren, you win the Gold Medal. Ben Measures wins the
Silver Medal with "the experience of this newsgroup will be lost on you,
and it usually ends up permanent since they can't see when you repent".
He wrote "repent" did he ? This is a religious word. I'm soo going to
receive a *fatwa* from you, am I not ?

1- Is top-posting bad ? No, some research on the web will show you it is
a very big controversy, there is a mixed opinion. I personnally prefer
to read top-posted answers in 90% of the cases.
2- Is the rule of this forum bottom-posting ? No, nobody is in a
position to impose any rule on any public forums, it is an open place
where everybody is equally welcome, top or bottom poster.
3- Is the tradition of this forum bottom-posting ? Yes, it seems so.
Fine for me. No obligations to follow that tradition, and people of all
traditions are equally welcome. I'm a top-poster, for sure, and I'm
equally free to participate to any forum.
4- Am I aggressive or impolite ? No, I don't think so, this is not my
basic nature. I've seen integrist reactions, and I really hate
integrists. I try to explain my point with lenghty posts and a lot of
patience, although I'm close to saturation.
5- Conclusion ? I would say f*** you if I were impolite, but since I'm
not, I simply say this is my last post in the present thread. It is a
shame that quality people as the ones who posted on this thread lose
their precious time and pushed me to justify myself with lenghty posts,
for stupid controversies and zealotry. And sorry in advance for all my
future top-posted replies.

Bye
Albert

Some reading :

Objections to top-posting, as a general rule, seem to come from persons
who first went online in the earlier days of Usenet Usenet, or Unix User
Network is a communications medium in which users read and post textual
messages (called "articles") to a number of distributed newsgroups
(incorrectly called bulletin boards because of their similarity for the
unaware observer). The medium is sustained among a large number of
servers, which store and forward messages with one another. Usenet is of
significant cultural importance in the networked world, having given
rise to, or popularized, many widely recognized concepts and terms such
as "FAQ" and "spam", and in communities that date to Usenet's early
days, among the most vehement communities those in the Usenet comp.lang
hierarchy, especially comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++. Etiquette is looser
(as is almost everything) in the alt hierarchy. Newer online
participants, especially those with limited experience of Usenet, tend
as a general rule, to be less sensitive to top-posting, and tend to
reject any argument against top-posting as irrelevant. A typical
contrarian view holds that their software top-posts and they like it.

It may be that users used to older, terminal-oriented software which was
unable to easily show references to posts being replied to, learned to
prefer a the summary that not top-posting gives; it's also likely that
the general slower propagation times of the original Usenet groups made
that summary a useful reminder of older posts. As news and mail readers
have become more capable, and as propagation times have increased, newer
users may find top-posting more efficient.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/top-posting

Best-of :

Sybren Stuvel

"Please, next time, think about the way you post. Many people don't
think about this and put their reply at the top of their post, quoting
all of the original post below it."

"You barge in here asking for help, and we gladly help you out, but
when someone asks you to behave yourself a little you start making a
big deal out of it. You should show your gratitude a little bit more."

"There is no need to get such an attitude. I helped you! Is this the
only gratitude you can show us? Is this how happy you are that I
taught something to you about Linux? Wow, what a great person you must
be. Do you really think I take advice from someone like you? Think
again."

"The point we're trying to make is simple: if you want our help, act
the way we want you to act. When we want your help, we'll act the way
you want"

Andy Fraser

Apologise to all members of this group who have seen all this before and are
bored with it (he forgot the "I").

Johan Lindquist

"Incredibly aggressive and insulting behaviour"

Ben Measures

Well we've all told you the "dress-code" here. Rather than accept you
belligerently protest, "it's a free country, I can wear jeans if I want
to". Not at this party you can't.

"Public society defines rules all the time. If they're not followed you
get excluded. Here, if you go against the grain people will stop
listening to you. The experience of this newsgroup will be lost on you,
and it usually ends up permanent since they can't see when you repent"

Albert enlightened us with:
> What I start to understand is that there is a little group of guys
> here with a very strong local culture. I respect that, fine for me,
> have a nice time guys. If you guys have decided to play certain
> rules between yourselves, why not.

Well, it's not a large group of people that help others here on a
daily basis.

> Normalization is a fascist attitude, comrades, nothing to do with
> good manners.

You seem to think fascism and communism ('comrade') are the same
thing.

> So, I completely disagree with you about the so-called 'dress code'
> here. This place is public, not private. Correct ? Nobody is
> entitled to define the rules here.

Correct.

> And I don't think a dirty top-poster like me merits such reaction.
> Except that I top-post, I'm not as bad as you seem to think,
> selfish, belligerent, not civil etc (I don't remember all the
> adjectives you used).

Calling people fascists and comparing them to one of the worst
mass-murderers of our recent history isn't really what I would call
civil.

> OK, I don't follow the little red book by the word. But big parts of
> it are obsolete, it is 10 years old or more.

The idea that one shouldn't kill someone else has been around for
eons. That doesn't mean it's less appropriate.

> I wish I can modestly bring something to the newsgroup, this would
> make me feel good. And I don't need anybody's permission, allright ?

Of course not.

> So, I'm sorry, but I'm going to top-post here more and more everyday.

For whom are you posting? Do you want other people to read it, or just
yourself? If the majority of the readers like to read inline posted
stuff, why not post that way?

> A couple of guys here are not welcoming me because I'm a dirty
> top-poster.

You're mis-interpreting things. A couple of guys here are not
welcoming you because you called them fascists and mass murderers.

> Up to you. I think you are ludicrous.

I think you're not aware of what you're saying.

Sybren
--
The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be a
capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

Albert enlightened us with:
> Down here is a best-of of what I've read from several people here.
> I've had other reactions, but not exagerated such as these ones,
> which seem to point to zealotry.

Or enthousiasm.

> I'm amazed by some reactions, my preferred one being : "If you want
> our help, act the way we want you to act", which is pure despotism.
> Sybren, you win the Gold Medal.

Note the IF in that statement. I don't *force* you to do anything, do
I? I mean, how could I?

> Ben Measures wins the Silver Medal with "the experience of this
> newsgroup will be lost on you

I agree with him there.

> and it usually ends up permanent since they can't see when you
> repent".

Ok, that's a little over the top.

> 1- Is top-posting bad ? No, some research on the web will show you
> it is a very big controversy, there is a mixed opinion. I
> personnally prefer to read top-posted answers in 90% of the cases.

Shouldn't you focus on the way others like to read your post, instead
of how you like to read your own posts?

> 2- Is the rule of this forum bottom-posting ? No, nobody is in a
> position to impose any rule on any public forums, it is an open
> place where everybody is equally welcome, top or bottom poster.

Nope, no rules. Think about this, though: people will help you more if
they like you.

> 3- Is the tradition of this forum bottom-posting ? Yes, it seems so.

The tradition is more inline posting than bottom-posting.

> 4- Am I aggressive or impolite ? No, I don't think so

Comparing people to mass murderers and fascists is both impolite and
aggressive. If you don't agree with me on that point then I think you
should join your local Nazi group and have fun with them, because in
that case there is no place for you in this group.

Note the "if" and "I think" in that sentence. You seem to miss those
details quite often, so I thought I'd point them out for you.

> Objections to top-posting, as a general rule, seem to come from
> persons who first went online in the earlier days of Usenet

Well, I didn't. I compared top-, bottom- and inline-posting, and the
last one seemed to make the most sense to me.

> It may be that users used to older, terminal-oriented software which
> was unable to easily show references to posts being replied to,
> learned to prefer a the summary that not top-posting gives

I use terminal software (slrn). Not because it's older, but because I
like it. And it's very capable of finding the parent of a post.

Sybren
--
The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be a
capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

Sybren Stuvel wrote:
>
>>and it usually ends up permanent since they can't see when you
>>repent".
>
> Ok, that's a little over the top.

Heh, thinking about it now, perhaps the biblical connotations of
"repent" are a bit much. However, I meant it as the dictionary put it:

"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Repent Re*pent" (r?-p?nt"), v.
2. To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account
of regret or dissatisfaction.

--
Ben M.

Why do you select N°2 only ? There are 3 definitions in that dictionary.

BTW, "repent" comes from old French, so I am in a good position to
understand it.
It has a very strong religious meaning. In common language one would
rather use 'regret'.

repent
c.1290, "to feel regret for sins or crimes," from O.Fr. repentir (11c.),
from re-, intensive prefix, + V.L. *penitire "to regret," from L.
poenitire "make sorry," from poena (see pain). The distinction between
regret (q.v.) and repent is made in many modern languages, but the
differentiation is not present in older periods. Repentance is recorded
from c.1300, from O.Fr. repentance (12c.).
(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=r&p=10)

Last time I said it was my last post, but I cannot let you be bad faith.
From 'apologise to this forum' to 'repent' or 'act as we tell you to
act ...", yes, I've fallen on the Gentoo mollahs.
Please, don't put a fatwa on me, it's too strong a punishment.


Ben Measures wrote:

> Heh, thinking about it now, perhaps the biblical connotations of
> "repent" are a bit much. However, I meant it as the dictionary put it:
>
> "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
> Repent Re*pent" (r?-p?nt"), v.
> 2. To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account
> of regret or dissatisfaction.
>

Ben Measures enlightened us with:
> Heh, thinking about it now, perhaps the biblical connotations of
> "repent" are a bit much. However, I meant it as the dictionary put it:

Heh, ok! I didn't know the word, so I looked it up:

From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:

repent
v 1: turn away from sin or do penitence [syn: {atone}]
2: feel remorse for; feel sorry for; be contrite about [syn: {regret},
{rue}]

I thought nr. 1 was a /bit/ over te top ;-)

Sybren
--
The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be a
capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

Sybren Stuvel wrote:
> Ben Measures enlightened us with:
>
>>Heh, thinking about it now, perhaps the biblical connotations of
>>"repent" are a bit much. However, I meant it as the dictionary put it:
>
> I thought nr. 1 was a /bit/ over te top ;-)

Heheheh, understandable

--
Ben M.