Sorry for the length...but hey, it should be fun reading!

Apparently I have offend some with my apparent lack of Newgroup Etiquette.
A simple 12 word post has ignited a firestorm of posts and emails. To some
of you I must aplogize. I am sure your emails and/or posts, while your
choice of wording may have been questionable, were not meant to be
insulting. They did however come to me amoung other posts/emails that were
meant to be insulting and thus I may have misunderstood your intention.

My simple posts has somehow led to:
1. Being accused of supporting spam.
2. Having my english questioned/insulted.
3. Having my "NewsGroup Etiquette" insulted.
4. Having my website insulted.
5. Even being personally insulted...and for some ungodly reason one
email even insulted my wife.

To those of you who took so much time and effort to actually offer some
constructive criticism and suggestions, I thank you.
To the rest of you:

On supporting spam:
Perhaps there is some value to your point about responding to posts that may
be veiled advertisements. Perhaps as well some of those advertisements may
actually hold value as well...but hey, how do you know for sure right.
First, perhaps one needs to define spam. An advertisement does not
automatically qualify a post as spam. I think perhaps the person who
suggested my support of spam should first find out what does qualify
spam...keeping in mind that industry professionals hold differing criteria
for things like newsgrops and your personal email. While one unsolicited
message in your email could definately be considered spam, it takes much
more in public forums before a poster can be considered to be spamming. One
(a single), and/or ocaasional (without schedule or regular consistancy)
and/or cross posted threads lacking repition and consistancy are typically
considered advertising...not spam. Add to this that in public forums you are
free to download or NOT download ANY given header...and it becomes more
difficult to classify a post as spam.
Second, what messages you qualify as spam and choose to reply or not to
reply to is entirely your business...as it is my business which I choose as
well. I am not so much a fool as to not recognize an advertisement or spam
when I see it and do not find myself in need of you pointing it out to me.
If my choice to reply and/or investigate some post I find interesting 9 and
this particular post did have my interest) violates some secret ethical code
about internet usage and the personal responsibilities of said usage...well
than that is something you will just have to live with.

On my English:
You are right. People get sloppy. Ya just start typing and the fingers
go haywire. ALTHOUGH...if you were to ask nearly any English professor they
would likely agree that forums, like the newsgroups, are informal venues. I
will surely try to identify my paragraphs more clearly. I will as well try
to make an effort to adhere to the rules of grammer. I will try to make each
and every post as easy for you to read as is possible. I can even do the
"See Spot Run..." thing if you would like.

On My NewsGroup Etiquette:
Whitespace:
I should try and watch my use of whitespace more carefully. These
post are difficult enough to read as it is.

Posts:
I always try to post on topic. Keep in mind that with many of the
posts...the topic has alot of room for interpretation from
individual readers.

Posts I read/respond to:
Is none of your business.

On my website:
I was just recently made aware of the problem my site has with FireFox.
Repair of the problem is somewhat more complicated than "Well Fix it" (but
thank you for that truely problem solving comment). While I have been
working towards doing just that...it is not done yet and will likely not
happen in a day or two. I have this little problem with "having a life".
While I know so many do not have a family and a job that ever interferes
with the really important things in life, I...sadly...am one of the
unfortunate ones.

It was stated that I "had" to fix it because it was my responsibility as a
"webmaster" to provide a "working product".
Okay....

That 20% of browsers use FireFox so I am excluding people....
not sure I believe the 20% figure...but I am loooking into it.

It was said that perhaps I should hire a professional designer because there
is enough "amatueristic bullshit websites" on the web already.
Yeah perhaps I will call the last guy back. This way he will get second
opportunity to charge me a ridiculous amount of money build a half
functional site, update it incorrectly, then want more money to fix his
mistakes, hold my web domain hostage when I refuse to pay him more than the
contract unless we renegociate a new one, and have him high jack my
DNS...all for what I can EVENTUALLY learn to do myself. I assume this email
came from a designer...to him...sorry dude, I do not trust you guys!

On the personal insults and insults to my wife:
You are right, I am an asshole. Most people who know me will readily
agree with you. One thing they will never say is that they are ever in doubt
of how I feel about something...that they would not trust me with their very
lives...and that my word is not as good as money in the bank.
...and my wife...She would eat you alive son! Chew you up, spit you out
and bury you beside the dog!

In article ,
RobDar wrote:
Perhaps there is some value to your point about responding to posts that may
be veiled advertisements. Perhaps as well some of those advertisements may
actually hold value as well...but hey, how do you know for sure right.

This is a discussion group. Advertisements are
inappropriate. If Usenet were overrun by advertisers (and
the only reason that it's not is that there's a large and
active group of people working to prevent it every single
day) it would not be useful for discussion, or much else.

Furthermore, businesses that need to resort to deceptive
advertising practices are really not ones that ought to be
given the hey, yeah! treatment.

First, perhaps one needs to define spam. An advertisement does not
automatically qualify a post as spam. I think perhaps the person who
suggested my support of spam should first find out what does qualify
spam...keeping in mind that industry professionals hold differing criteria
for things like newsgrops and your personal email.

You know, there might be reason to think I have a better
handle on this issue than you do, not the least of which is
that I don't fall for phony ads posted as helpful hints.

In terms of netiquette, for several decades now (literally)
it's been recommended that newbies read a newsgroup for
several weeks before jumping in, so that they can learn how
the newsgroup culture operates, what's actually topical and
what's not, what sort of behavior is tolerate and is not,
and so on. But inevitably there's some newbie who thinks
it's more appropriate to try to get all the regulars to
change their behavior to meet his standards of behavior.

Good luck with it! Let us know how that works out.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

on 2005-11-22 at 02:24 wrote:

Sorry for the length...but hey, it should be fun reading!

fun for some, as they say. what i want to know, though, is
why you reposted this in *health? none of this discussion
occurred there, so why introduce a thoroughly off-topic debate
into that forum?

Apparently I have offend some with my apparent lack of
Newgroup Etiquette.

offend? i think you may be reading too much into the
responses to your posts. just because someone takes issue
with something you've written does not mean they found it
offensive.

A simple 12 word post has ignited a firestorm of posts and
emails.

yes, you are definitely reading too much into it. that was
nothing at *all* like a "firestorm."

First, perhaps one needs to define spam. An advertisement
does not automatically qualify a post as spam. I think
perhaps the person who suggested my support of spam should
first find out what does qualify spam...

advertising is against this group's charter, so it should not
be supported or encouraged, period.

will surely try to identify my paragraphs more clearly.

shortening your line length would, i'm sure, be appreciated,
too.

I always try to post on topic. Keep in mind that with
many of the posts...the topic has alot of room for
interpretation from individual readers.

which explains your reposting this in *health, how, exactly?

Posts I read/respond to:
Is none of your business.

don't be silly. of course they're everyone's business.

I was just recently made aware of the problem my site has
with FireFox. Repair of the problem is somewhat more
complicated than "Well Fix it" (but thank you for that truely
problem solving comment).

much like telling the dog owner, who complains that his dog is
peeing in the house, to "not let your dog do that," it really
*is* that simple. there really *is* only one solution to your
problem, and that's to fix it. of course, you can choose to
whinge about all the reasons why fixing it will be a pain in
your arse, but doing so won't solve the problem.

While I have been working towards doing just that...it is not
done yet and will likely not happen in a day or two. I have
this little problem with "having a life".

waaah! you aren't the only one with a life. in fact, i'm
pretty confident in stating that everyone has one of those.

That 20% of browsers use FireFox so I am excluding people....
not sure I believe the 20% figure...but I am loooking into
it.

in my experience, it's more than 20%. i expect that figure
will continue to rise, too, as more and more people and
institutions migrate to Firefox.

It was said that perhaps I should hire a professional
designer because there is enough "amatueristic bullshit
websites" on the web already.

i think you missed the point. there's a lot of amateurish BS
out there (i'm an enthusiastic contributer!). the problem is
that some of those amateurs try to use every fancy schmancy
tool available, in an effort to show off their 133t ha0r
sk1llz. they'd be better off with fewer bells and whistles,
and more good, solid code. simple is good.

--
shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com/

shelly wrote:



waaah! you aren't the only one with a life. in fact, i'm
pretty confident in stating that everyone has one of those.

Well everybody likely to read this post anyway...the rest of them, being
dead and either ashes or in the ground, aren't a great target audience
for usenet.


That 20% of browsers use FireFox so I am excluding people....
not sure I believe the 20% figure...but I am loooking into
it.


in my experience, it's more than 20%. i expect that figure
will continue to rise, too, as more and more people and
institutions migrate to Firefox.

Yep. And like I say--the first to jump on the Firefox bandwagon are the
most computer savvy, the most at ease with the internet, the most
knowledgable about the internet. So gee, where would I want to get my
clients from???


It was said that perhaps I should hire a professional
designer because there is enough "amatueristic bullshit
websites" on the web already.


i think you missed the point. there's a lot of amateurish BS
out there (i'm an enthusiastic contributer!). the problem is
that some of those amateurs try to use every fancy schmancy
tool available, in an effort to show off their 133t ha0r
sk1llz. they'd be better off with fewer bells and whistles,
and more good, solid code. simple is good.

Exactly. YOu know, I've been designing websites professionally since
1994, self-employed since 2000. I have yet to use flash on a site. Now I
like flash, I think it's seriously cool, and when the site comes along
that needs it, by golly I'll learn it and add it. But I honestly have
only designed one site that could have benefitted by an opening flash
clip--agilityinmotion. And some day I'm going to give them one.

on 2005-11-22 at 13:48 wrote:

Well everybody likely to read this post anyway...the rest of
them, being dead and either ashes or in the ground, aren't a
great target audience for usenet.

well, being alive *is* one of the prerequisites, i guess.
though, an argument can be said that those no longer alive
*did* have lives.

Exactly. YOu know, I've been designing websites
professionally since 1994, self-employed since 2000. I have
yet to use flash on a site. Now I like flash, I think it's
seriously cool, and when the site comes along that needs it,
by golly I'll learn it and add it. But I honestly have only
designed one site that could have benefitted by an opening
flash clip--agilityinmotion. And some day I'm going to give
them one.

*that* would be a good use of flash. what would *not* be a
good use of flash is to use it on a splash page, in order to
force the user to complete a puzzle before allowing them to
enter the site. with no text to indicate that that's what's
going on. why on *earth* would a company do that? i mean,
they wouldn't put up a wacky maze in front of their bricks and
mortar store and force shoppers to complete it before
entering, would they? i just don't get why anyone who
presumably wants visitors would make it difficult for those
visitors to use their website.

--
shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com/

shelly wrote:
on 2005-11-22 at 13:48 wrote:

Exactly. YOu know, I've been designing websites
professionally since 1994, self-employed since 2000. I have
yet to use flash on a site. Now I like flash, I think it's
seriously cool, and when the site comes along that needs it,
by golly I'll learn it and add it. But I honestly have only
designed one site that could have benefitted by an opening
flash clip--agilityinmotion. And some day I'm going to give
them one.


*that* would be a good use of flash. what would *not* be a
good use of flash is to use it on a splash page, in order to
force the user to complete a puzzle before allowing them to
enter the site. with no text to indicate that that's what's
going on. why on *earth* would a company do that? i mean,
they wouldn't put up a wacky maze in front of their bricks and
mortar store and force shoppers to complete it before
entering, would they? i just don't get why anyone who
presumably wants visitors would make it difficult for those
visitors to use their website.

Go figure. Or those sites that just come up blank, and you're supposed
to guess where to click to enter. See, I think it's Geek Guys that
convince companies to do this, probably for a bazillion trillion dollars.

I finally have the right hardware and software to actually do something
with the agilityinmotion stuff, so I really do need to get started on that.

on 2005-11-22 at 14:03 wrote:

Go figure. Or those sites that just come up blank, and you're
supposed to guess where to click to enter.

aaack! that, too. or, forcing you to have your browser at
full size in order to see the navigation links. what on earth
is wrong with making it scalable?

See, I think it's Geek Guys that convince companies to do
this, probably for a bazillion trillion dollars.

that must be it. i've noticed that lots of art-oriented sites
tend toward perpetrating Flash cruelty.

I finally have the right hardware and software to actually do
something with the agilityinmotion stuff, so I really do need
to get started on that.

so, is this where i say "so do it"? HTH!

--
shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com/

shelly wrote:
on 2005-11-22 at 14:03 wrote:



I finally have the right hardware and software to actually do
something with the agilityinmotion stuff, so I really do need
to get started on that.


so, is this where i say "so do it"? HTH!


Oh thanks! In my spare time....see since I'd be using it to learn, I
wouldn't feel right about charging them and, say, it will take a lot of
hours. So I keep putting it off, like I keep putting off completing the
totaldobe site (www.totaldobe.com). It's mine so it can just sit, right?

on 2005-11-22 at 14:46 wrote:

Oh thanks! In my spare time....see since I'd be using it to
learn, I wouldn't feel right about charging them and, say, it
will take a lot of hours.

hey now! you aren't saying you have a life, are you?

So I keep putting it off, like I keep putting off completing
the totaldobe site (www.totaldobe.com).

i like it. it's purty!

It's mine so it can just sit, right?

yep, absolutely.

--
shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com/

This coversation reminds me:

I'm putting together a little website on Geocities (yeah, I know, it's
a crap site, but it's cheap), and have found that I apparently need an
FTP interface to upload files larger than 5 mb.
Any suggestions as to a small & inexpensive standalone program?