Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:01:50 -0500 (CDT)
From:      Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   top-posting 'condescending asshats' (to use Ryan Coleman's description of himself)
Message-ID:  <201108031901.p73J1ofu046001@mail.r-bonomi.com>
In-Reply-To: <CDE77A04-BD21-4759-A92F-8A5E76115BFE@d3photography.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

> Subject: Re: printing to Kyocera FS-1030D
> From: Ryan Coleman <editor@d3photography.com>
> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:22:51 -0500
>
> Screw off.

I'd suggest that you "take your own advice', except for the fact that you 
probably don't know *how*.

>            Top posting is actually a default in the mail software 
> community.

FALSE TO FACT.

"top posting" was _universally_ frowned upon in the early days of email.
It became 'common', albeit *NOT* preferred/desirable, when Microsoft 
introduced that botch in _their_ e-mail client, and the vast majority of 
their users "didn't know any better."

There are sound 'human factors' reasons why bottom-posting is preferable in
most situations.

*ANY* situation where the elapsed time between messages is longer than the
recipient's ability to retain the 'frame of reference' (i.e., the previous
message) in memory, it _is_ harder for the recipient of the message to follow
top-posted content than interleaved/bottom-posted.  They _do_ have to scan
back-and-forth to find out (first) _what_ is being talked about,and (then)
what the response is.

Top posting _can_ be appropriate in situations where it is *KNOWN* that 
eall_ parties will receive, and _read_,  the 'reply' in a 'near-immediate'
time-frame relative to when the original was sent.

Those who fail to recognize this inherent _FACT_ of all 'non-local'
store-and-forward communications systems -- where the sender has _NO_ idea 
of 'how soon' the recipient will read the message, or what they may have 
been doing in the mean time -- *are* being 'inconsiderate' to their readers.
Those who _insist_ on doing it, despite attempts at education, are *arrogant*,
inconsiderate, ignoramuses.

>            And I will always do it.

No doubt.  Marking you as an arrogant, and *deliberately* inconsiderate, 
asshat.

> More annoying: Extra spaces and not removing the cruff from the bottom of 
> emails. And condescending asshats.

I see you believe in the double-standard of "do as I say, not as I do" given 
that you left in over 60 lines of material that was entirely irrelevant to 
your empty-headed posturing. 

Note: The _entire_ prior conent is left intact here, to expressly document 
the truth of the above statement.

>
> On Aug 3, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> >
> > Pierre, please do not 'top post' replies -- it makes the 'logic' of the 
> > message hard to follow,  to wit:
> >
> > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> >
> >
> >
> > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> >
> >
> >
> > A: Top-posting.
> >
> >
> >
> > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > See also _RFC 1855_ for the closest thing to an 'official' stance on 
> > the matter.
> >
> >
> >> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:10:03 -0400 From: Pierre-Luc Drouin 
> >> <pldrouin@pldrouin.net> To: Chris Whitehouse <cwhiteh@onetel.com> Cc: 
> >> User Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: printing 
> >> to Kyocera FS-1030D
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I would install CUPS and use the PPD file recommended on 
> >> openprinting.org
> >> (http://www.openprinting.org/printer/Kyocera/Kyocera-FS-1030D).
> >
> > This is -guaranteed- to be *ineffective*.
> >
> > Apparently you missed the mention in the OP's original message that the 
> > printer is running in 'PCL' emulation mode, and that he _cannot_ change 
> > that.
> >
> >> Cheers, Pierre-Luc
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Chris Whitehouse <cwhiteh@onetel.com> 
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> before I use up too many trees experimenting, could some kind soul 
> >>> tell me how I can get OpenOffice to print to this printer. This is 
> >>> the first time I have tried to get anything printed from FreeBSD.
> >>>
> >>> I'm following the handbook. I think the basic setup is ok, I can get 
> >>> text printed using eg
> >>> # lptest 20 5 | lpr -Plp
> >>>
> >>> If I try to print the postscript program given in the handbook
> >>> %!PS
> >>> 100 100 moveto 300 300 lineto stroke
> >>> 310 310 moveto /Helvetica findfont 12 scalefont setfont
> >>> (Is this thing working?) show
> >>> showpage
> >>>
> >>> # cat <ps-file> |lpr -Plp
> >>>
> >>> I get the whole text of the file not just "Is this thing working?".
> >>>
> >>> The printer has various emulations, it is set to PCL 6 and I can't 
> >>> change it
> >>> (not my printer)
> >>>
> >>> Printing from OpenOffice just produces screeds of garbage, starting 
> >>> with %!PS so I presume the text of the postscript that OO has 
> >>> produced.
> >>>
> >>> The bit I'm stuck on is in section 9.4.1.3 Simulating PostScript on 
> >>> Non PostScript Printers (which I presume is what I need), 
> >>> specifically setting the device. gs -h doesn't show this printer or 
> >>> any Kyocera printer. So either what should I set Device to, or how do 
> >>> I get ghostscript to know about this printer?
> >>>
> >>> I'm using 8.1-RELEASE, openoffice.org-3.2.1, ghostscript8-8.71_6
> >>>
> >>> thanks
> >>>
> >>> Chris
>





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201108031901.p73J1ofu046001>