|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.fan.douglas-adams » Regulars [B]
| Regulars [B] [message #35750] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 11:35 |
|
There's been some discussion about the nature of a regular. Generally
speaking, I hold myself as a newbie after over two years of being an
afdaniain. Therefore, a regular by my definition is anybody who's been here
longer than me.
This is quite clearly flawed as I think most people would consider me as
being a regular (I am pretty sure Lloyd does, anyway) and so the definition
must be changed.
Therefore, new definition:
A regular is somebody who has joined the froup and continued to post
actively for three months or so.
A regular is not somebody who joined because they saw the movie and will go
away again in a fortnight's time.
If you want to be considered a regular, your best bet, as far as I can see,
is to hang around til the new radio series has finished its run on BBC Radio
4 and the movie has been released everywhere.
If you want a change to the mFAQ then that's fine, but if you're just going
to disappear in a couple of months and go back to lurking then that's not
fine. Several people who were pro-afda.piracy during the Tertiary Phase
have now disappeared from the froup.
To those who are better informed than I (by which I mean people who've been
here longer than me) please feel free to contribute to my definitions etc.
Otherwise I reckon that's a pretty cool definition of How Things Are.
--
John Coxon
A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35755 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 13:10 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> There's been some discussion about the nature of a regular. Generally
> speaking, I hold myself as a newbie after over two years of being an
> afdaniain. Therefore, a regular by my definition is anybody who's been
> here longer than me.
I regard myself as a regular, yet you have been here considerably longer
than me....I consider you a regular, however I don't think of you as
*more* of a regular than me....
> A regular is somebody who has joined the froup and continued to post
> actively for three months or so.
But how did you come to that time scale?....And how about regular
readers of the group?...You know the people who don't necesarilly post
every day, but if you met them in a pub, they could tell you as much
about the newsgroup as you yourself know....
I tend not to confuse the word regular with the word veteran....I take
my meaning of regular from it's actual definition, which is 'something
that happens repeatedly and frequently'...So therefore, anyone who
either regularly posts or reads is in my opinion, a regular....
You have to form your own opinion of what words like *regular* mean, as
they are so subjective and open to lots of interpretation....
No one interpretation is right and likewise, no one interpretation is
wrong....
> A regular is not somebody who joined because they saw the movie and will
> go away again in a fortnight's time.
I agree with you....That would be a blow-in....
> If you want to be considered a regular,
I consider myself a regular....That's good enough for me....I've pulled
up a chair, had a cup of tea and made myself at home....I don't care if
anybody has a problem with that because they don't think I've been here
long enough....I'm not here to serve an apprenticeship....I'm here to
have fun and enjoy lively debate and discussion with intelligent people....
> your best bet, as far as I can
> see, is to hang around til the new radio series has finished its run on
> BBC Radio 4 and the movie has been released everywhere.
I intend to....Will you accept me as a regular then?....
> If you want a change to the mFAQ then that's fine,
I don't....I want to provoke thought....
> but if you're just
> going to disappear in a couple of months and go back to lurking then
> that's not fine.
Nothing wrong with Lurkers IMO....Perhaps they're just quiet people who
don't have a lot to say for themselves....It doesn't give them any less
right to enjoy the group....
> Several people who were pro-afda.piracy
Who advocated piracy of a newsgroup?....
> during the
> Tertiary Phase have now disappeared from the froup.
I do not diaprove of P2P sharing, and I have expressed that view a
couple of times....However, in the interests of the newsgroup, I have
tried to play that down and mention it as little as possible since it
was pointed out to me that there are members of the group who don't
approve....Please don't drag the subject up again....
In answer to your stament though, I am still here....I havent
dissapeared from the froup, nor have I any intention of doing so for the
forseeable future....
> To those who are better informed than I (by which I mean people who've
> been here longer than me) please feel free to contribute to my
> definitions etc. Otherwise I reckon that's a pretty cool definition of
> How Things Are.
In usenet, things are generaly however you interpret them....Your
definitions are as valid as anyone elses....
I have said it elsewhere, we are all born equal, and we all die
equal...What we do in-between times is largely immaterial....
I like you....I like the cut of your jib....You speak up and call a
spade a spade....There are too many people in the world who aren't
prepared to stand up for what they believe, preferring to either run
away and hide, or pretend they agree with the Alpha pack member so as
not to rock the boat....
Kudos to you John....
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35766 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 15:01 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> There's been some discussion about the nature of a regular. Generally
> speaking, I hold myself as a newbie after over two years of being an
> afdaniain. Therefore, a regular by my definition is anybody who's been
> here longer than me.
>
> This is quite clearly flawed as I think most people would consider me as
> being a regular (I am pretty sure Lloyd does, anyway) and so the
> definition must be changed.
>
>
> Therefore, new definition:
>
> A regular is somebody who has joined the froup and continued to post
> actively for three months or so.
>
> A regular is not somebody who joined because they saw the movie and will
> go away again in a fortnight's time.
>
> If you want to be considered a regular, your best bet, as far as I can
> see, is to hang around til the new radio series has finished its run on
> BBC Radio 4 and the movie has been released everywhere.
What a boring definition. It needs something more, something like
recursion or self reference...
How about:
Definition 1: (The regular definition)
A regular is a person who is considered a regular by the other
regulars.
Yes, that's more like it. It sounds good and has no meaning whatsoever.
Hmm... Okay, so that's settled. Now let's continue to who can change the
FAQ. Here we go:
Definition 2: (The FAQ maintainer definition)
i) A FAQ can only be changed by a FAQ maintainer
ii) A FAQ maintainer is anyone who maintains a FAQ
Yes, that's good.
Now, what's a FAQ?
Definition 3: (The FAQ definition)
A FAQ is a collection of Frequently Answered Questions, posted in
order to avoid answering the questions again
Ah, that's a good definition of a FAQ. Of course, that definition gioves
rise to the following corrolar:
Corrolar 4:
A FAQ always contains only the question where is the FAQ
Proof:
Let's say a question Q exists in the FAQ, and the answer to it is A.
The conversation in the
froup then goes:
person 1:
Q?
person 2:
Look it up in the FAQ.
person 1:
Where is the FAQ?
person 2:
At http://balbahlbahblah.blah/faq.html
Thus the question Q is never answered, unless the question is "where
is the FAQ".
QED.
Okay, that's that taken care of.
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35774 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 19:43 |
|
Kaare Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
> John Coxon wrote:
>
>> There's been some discussion about the nature of a regular. Generally
>> speaking, I hold myself as a newbie after over two years of being an
>> afdaniain. Therefore, a regular by my definition is anybody who's
>> been here longer than me.
>>
>> This is quite clearly flawed as I think most people would consider me
>> as being a regular (I am pretty sure Lloyd does, anyway) and so the
>> definition must be changed.
>>
>>
>> Therefore, new definition:
>>
>> A regular is somebody who has joined the froup and continued to post
>> actively for three months or so.
>>
>> A regular is not somebody who joined because they saw the movie and
>> will go away again in a fortnight's time.
>>
>> If you want to be considered a regular, your best bet, as far as I can
>> see, is to hang around til the new radio series has finished its run
>> on BBC Radio 4 and the movie has been released everywhere.
>
>
> What a boring definition. It needs something more, something like
> recursion or self reference...
>
> How about:
> Definition 1: (The regular definition)
> A regular is a person who is considered a regular by the other
> regulars.
>
> Yes, that's more like it. It sounds good and has no meaning whatsoever.
>
> Hmm... Okay, so that's settled. Now let's continue to who can change the
> FAQ. Here we go:
>
> Definition 2: (The FAQ maintainer definition)
> i) A FAQ can only be changed by a FAQ maintainer
> ii) A FAQ maintainer is anyone who maintains a FAQ
>
> Yes, that's good.
>
> Now, what's a FAQ?
>
> Definition 3: (The FAQ definition)
> A FAQ is a collection of Frequently Answered Questions, posted in
> order to avoid answering the questions again
>
> Ah, that's a good definition of a FAQ. Of course, that definition gioves
> rise to the following corrolar:
>
> Corrolar 4:
> A FAQ always contains only the question where is the FAQ
>
> Proof:
> Let's say a question Q exists in the FAQ, and the answer to it is A.
> The conversation in the
> froup then goes:
>
> person 1:
> Q?
> person 2:
> Look it up in the FAQ.
> person 1:
> Where is the FAQ?
> person 2:
> At http://balbahlbahblah.blah/faq.html
>
> Thus the question Q is never answered, unless the question is "where
> is the FAQ".
>
> QED.
>
> Okay, that's that taken care of.
>
> Best
> Kåre
Kare and John, have you two ever considered careers as Vogon Beurocrats?
;-)
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35775 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 19:45 |
|
In which case, John, I am most definitely an irregular ;-)
Perhaps there should also be a secondary category of towelness?
Therefore, I am an "irregular with towel". There, quite obviously, would
then also be "irregular without towel", "regular with towel" and
"regular without towel".
This coffee is damn good stuff....though for sanity's sake, I shall
revert back to tea.
SJK
(Irregular with Towel)
John Coxon wrote:
> There's been some discussion about the nature of a regular. Generally
> speaking, I hold myself as a newbie after over two years of being an
> afdaniain. Therefore, a regular by my definition is anybody who's been
> here longer than me.
>
> This is quite clearly flawed as I think most people would consider me as
> being a regular (I am pretty sure Lloyd does, anyway) and so the
> definition must be changed.
>
>
> Therefore, new definition:
>
> A regular is somebody who has joined the froup and continued to post
> actively for three months or so.
>
> A regular is not somebody who joined because they saw the movie and will
> go away again in a fortnight's time.
>
> If you want to be considered a regular, your best bet, as far as I can
> see, is to hang around til the new radio series has finished its run on
> BBC Radio 4 and the movie has been released everywhere.
>
>
> If you want a change to the mFAQ then that's fine, but if you're just
> going to disappear in a couple of months and go back to lurking then
> that's not fine. Several people who were pro-afda.piracy during the
> Tertiary Phase have now disappeared from the froup.
>
>
> To those who are better informed than I (by which I mean people who've
> been here longer than me) please feel free to contribute to my
> definitions etc. Otherwise I reckon that's a pretty cool definition of
> How Things Are.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35776 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 19:48 |
|
Kaare Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
> John Coxon wrote:
>
>> There's been some discussion about the nature of a regular. Generally
>> speaking, I hold myself as a newbie after over two years of being an
>> afdaniain. Therefore, a regular by my definition is anybody who's
>> been here longer than me.
>>
>> This is quite clearly flawed as I think most people would consider me
>> as being a regular (I am pretty sure Lloyd does, anyway) and so the
>> definition must be changed.
>>
>>
>> Therefore, new definition:
>>
>> A regular is somebody who has joined the froup and continued to post
>> actively for three months or so.
>>
>> A regular is not somebody who joined because they saw the movie and
>> will go away again in a fortnight's time.
>>
>> If you want to be considered a regular, your best bet, as far as I can
>> see, is to hang around til the new radio series has finished its run
>> on BBC Radio 4 and the movie has been released everywhere.
>
>
> What a boring definition. It needs something more, something like
> recursion or self reference...
>
> How about:
> Definition 1: (The regular definition)
> A regular is a person who is considered a regular by the other
> regulars.
>
> Yes, that's more like it. It sounds good and has no meaning whatsoever.
>
> Hmm... Okay, so that's settled. Now let's continue to who can change the
> FAQ. Here we go:
>
> Definition 2: (The FAQ maintainer definition)
> i) A FAQ can only be changed by a FAQ maintainer
> ii) A FAQ maintainer is anyone who maintains a FAQ
>
> Yes, that's good.
>
> Now, what's a FAQ?
>
> Definition 3: (The FAQ definition)
> A FAQ is a collection of Frequently Answered Questions, posted in
> order to avoid answering the questions again
>
> Ah, that's a good definition of a FAQ. Of course, that definition gioves
> rise to the following corrolar:
>
> Corrolar 4:
> A FAQ always contains only the question where is the FAQ
>
> Proof:
> Let's say a question Q exists in the FAQ, and the answer to it is A.
> The conversation in the
> froup then goes:
>
> person 1:
> Q?
> person 2:
> Look it up in the FAQ.
> person 1:
> Where is the FAQ?
> person 2:
> At http://balbahlbahblah.blah/faq.html
>
> Thus the question Q is never answered, unless the question is "where
> is the FAQ".
>
> QED.
Aaaah, but if you include the question "Where can I find the FAQ", then
you need never give another answer to another question again....
So a conversation might go something like this...
person 1:
Q?
person 2:
Look it up in the FAQ.
person 1:
Where can I find this FAQ?
person 2:
You'll find the answer to that in the FAQ.
It's beautifull at every level of it's infuriatingly illogical
beurocracy....
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35781 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 20:27 |
|
Fat Sam wrote:
> Kaare Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
>
>> John Coxon wrote:
>>
>>> There's been some discussion about the nature of a regular.
>>> Generally speaking, I hold myself as a newbie after over two years of
>>> being an afdaniain. Therefore, a regular by my definition is anybody
>>> who's been here longer than me.
>>>
>>> This is quite clearly flawed as I think most people would consider me
>>> as being a regular (I am pretty sure Lloyd does, anyway) and so the
>>> definition must be changed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Therefore, new definition:
>>>
>>> A regular is somebody who has joined the froup and continued to post
>>> actively for three months or so.
>>>
>>> A regular is not somebody who joined because they saw the movie and
>>> will go away again in a fortnight's time.
>>>
>>> If you want to be considered a regular, your best bet, as far as I
>>> can see, is to hang around til the new radio series has finished its
>>> run on BBC Radio 4 and the movie has been released everywhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> What a boring definition. It needs something more, something like
>> recursion or self reference...
>>
>> How about:
>> Definition 1: (The regular definition)
>> A regular is a person who is considered a regular by the other
>> regulars.
>>
>> Yes, that's more like it. It sounds good and has no meaning whatsoever.
>>
>> Hmm... Okay, so that's settled. Now let's continue to who can change
>> the FAQ. Here we go:
>>
>> Definition 2: (The FAQ maintainer definition)
>> i) A FAQ can only be changed by a FAQ maintainer
>> ii) A FAQ maintainer is anyone who maintains a FAQ
>>
>> Yes, that's good.
>>
>> Now, what's a FAQ?
>>
>> Definition 3: (The FAQ definition)
>> A FAQ is a collection of Frequently Answered Questions, posted in
>> order to avoid answering the questions again
>>
>> Ah, that's a good definition of a FAQ. Of course, that definition
>> gioves rise to the following corrolar:
>>
>> Corrolar 4:
>> A FAQ always contains only the question where is the FAQ
>>
>> Proof:
>> Let's say a question Q exists in the FAQ, and the answer to it is A.
>> The conversation in the
>> froup then goes:
>>
>> person 1:
>> Q?
>> person 2:
>> Look it up in the FAQ.
>> person 1:
>> Where is the FAQ?
>> person 2:
>> At http://balbahlbahblah.blah/faq.html
>>
>> Thus the question Q is never answered, unless the question is "where
>> is the FAQ".
>>
>> QED.
>
>
> Aaaah, but if you include the question "Where can I find the FAQ", then
> you need never give another answer to another question again....
>
> So a conversation might go something like this...
>
> person 1:
> Q?
> person 2:
> Look it up in the FAQ.
> person 1:
> Where can I find this FAQ?
> person 2:
> You'll find the answer to that in the FAQ.
>
> It's beautifull at every level of it's infuriatingly illogical
> beurocracy....
Ah, but taht doesn't work. Because then the question is never answered
and can then never be written in the FAQ, because I defined that as
"Frequently Answered Questions", and since we reach a contradiction
there, I can conclude that this is not possible.
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35782 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 20:44 |
|
Kaare Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
> Fat Sam wrote:
>
>> Kaare Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
>>
>>> John Coxon wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's been some discussion about the nature of a regular.
>>>> Generally speaking, I hold myself as a newbie after over two years
>>>> of being an afdaniain. Therefore, a regular by my definition is
>>>> anybody who's been here longer than me.
>>>>
>>>> This is quite clearly flawed as I think most people would consider
>>>> me as being a regular (I am pretty sure Lloyd does, anyway) and so
>>>> the definition must be changed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, new definition:
>>>>
>>>> A regular is somebody who has joined the froup and continued to post
>>>> actively for three months or so.
>>>>
>>>> A regular is not somebody who joined because they saw the movie and
>>>> will go away again in a fortnight's time.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to be considered a regular, your best bet, as far as I
>>>> can see, is to hang around til the new radio series has finished its
>>>> run on BBC Radio 4 and the movie has been released everywhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What a boring definition. It needs something more, something like
>>> recursion or self reference...
>>>
>>> How about:
>>> Definition 1: (The regular definition)
>>> A regular is a person who is considered a regular by the other
>>> regulars.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's more like it. It sounds good and has no meaning whatsoever.
>>>
>>> Hmm... Okay, so that's settled. Now let's continue to who can change
>>> the FAQ. Here we go:
>>>
>>> Definition 2: (The FAQ maintainer definition)
>>> i) A FAQ can only be changed by a FAQ maintainer
>>> ii) A FAQ maintainer is anyone who maintains a FAQ
>>>
>>> Yes, that's good.
>>>
>>> Now, what's a FAQ?
>>>
>>> Definition 3: (The FAQ definition)
>>> A FAQ is a collection of Frequently Answered Questions, posted in
>>> order to avoid answering the questions again
>>>
>>> Ah, that's a good definition of a FAQ. Of course, that definition
>>> gioves rise to the following corrolar:
>>>
>>> Corrolar 4:
>>> A FAQ always contains only the question where is the FAQ
>>>
>>> Proof:
>>> Let's say a question Q exists in the FAQ, and the answer to it is A.
>>> The conversation in the
>>> froup then goes:
>>>
>>> person 1:
>>> Q?
>>> person 2:
>>> Look it up in the FAQ.
>>> person 1:
>>> Where is the FAQ?
>>> person 2:
>>> At http://balbahlbahblah.blah/faq.html
>>>
>>> Thus the question Q is never answered, unless the question is "where
>>> is the FAQ".
>>>
>>> QED.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aaaah, but if you include the question "Where can I find the FAQ",
>> then you need never give another answer to another question again....
>>
>> So a conversation might go something like this...
>>
>> person 1:
>> Q?
>> person 2:
>> Look it up in the FAQ.
>> person 1:
>> Where can I find this FAQ?
>> person 2:
>> You'll find the answer to that in the FAQ.
>>
>> It's beautifull at every level of it's infuriatingly illogical
>> beurocracy....
>
>
> Ah, but taht doesn't work. Because then the question is never answered
> and can then never be written in the FAQ, because I defined that as
> "Frequently Answered Questions", and since we reach a contradiction
> there, I can conclude that this is not possible.
>
> Best
> Kåre
Almost like a temporal paradox....Except it's an FAQ paradox....
I recall something by DNA in one of the books, about a cathedral, which
developers from the future went back in time and prevented from ever
being built, so they could use the land for whatever...Consquently,
postcards of the cathedral became immensely valuable....I think my
details may be very sketchy on this....I need to re-read the books again....
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35798 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 23:42 |
|
On 15/05/2005 18:45, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and SJK spewed up:
> In which case, John, I am most definitely an irregular ;-)
>
> Perhaps there should also be a secondary category of towelness?
>
> Therefore, I am an "irregular with towel". There, quite obviously, would
> then also be "irregular without towel", "regular with towel" and
> "regular without towel".
>
> This coffee is damn good stuff....though for sanity's sake, I shall
> revert back to tea.
OK. That makes sense. So I am a regular with towel, I think (I'm finally
letting go of my newbieness and embracing the fact that I am sad enough to
have been here for over two years. This may or may not be a good thing).
--
John Coxon
A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35799 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 23:48 |
|
On 15/05/2005 12:10, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Fat Sam spewed up:
> John Coxon wrote:
>
>> There's been some discussion about the nature of a regular. Generally
>> speaking, I hold myself as a newbie after over two years of being an
>> afdaniain. Therefore, a regular by my definition is anybody who's
>> been here longer than me.
>
> I regard myself as a regular, yet you have been here considerably longer
> than me....I consider you a regular, however I don't think of you as
> *more* of a regular than me....
As SJK said, I am "regular with towel" in that I've been here ages. You are
a regular without towel in that you post a lot but you haven't been here
long enough to enjoy full perks.
>> A regular is somebody who has joined the froup and continued to post
>> actively for three months or so.
>
>
> But how did you come to that time scale?....And how about regular
> readers of the group?...You know the people who don't necesarilly post
> every day, but if you met them in a pub, they could tell you as much
> about the newsgroup as you yourself know....
But they can't if they don't join in the discussion because this is a
discussion group. It's like the difference between the biographer and the
subject of the biography[9].
They would be considered as either irregular without towel (lurking for less
than three months) or irregular with towel (lurking for more than that
time). This means that the regular with towel can be considered higher in
the hierarchy.
> I tend not to confuse the word regular with the word veteran....I take
> my meaning of regular from it's actual definition, which is 'something
> that happens repeatedly and frequently'...So therefore, anyone who
> either regularly posts or reads is in my opinion, a regular....
So towel analogies may be introduced to introduce new complexity to the
definition.
> You have to form your own opinion of what words like *regular* mean, as
> they are so subjective and open to lots of interpretation....
> No one interpretation is right and likewise, no one interpretation is
> wrong....
>
>> A regular is not somebody who joined because they saw the movie and
>> will go away again in a fortnight's time.
>
> I agree with you....That would be a blow-in....
Yeah, which is why I don't consider a regular to be anybody who's not been
here three months - they might go away, y'see.
>> If you want to be considered a regular,
>
> I consider myself a regular....That's good enough for me....I've pulled
> up a chair, had a cup of tea and made myself at home....I don't care if
> anybody has a problem with that because they don't think I've been here
> long enough....I'm not here to serve an apprenticeship....I'm here to
> have fun and enjoy lively debate and discussion with intelligent people....
I see your point. It only matters if you think it does.
>> your best bet, as far as I can see, is to hang around til the new
>> radio series has finished its run on BBC Radio 4 and the movie has
>> been released everywhere.
>
> I intend to....Will you accept me as a regular then?....
Yeah, you will join the list of those considered regular with towel.
>> If you want a change to the mFAQ then that's fine,
>
> I don't....I want to provoke thought....
>
>> but if you're just going to disappear in a couple of months and go
>> back to lurking then that's not fine.
>
> Nothing wrong with Lurkers IMO....Perhaps they're just quiet people who
> don't have a lot to say for themselves....It doesn't give them any less
> right to enjoy the group....
They can enjoy it but they shall not achieve regularity unless they post
regularly.
>> Several people who were pro-afda.piracy
>
> Who advocated piracy of a newsgroup?
I mean piracy on afda.
>> during the Tertiary Phase have now disappeared from the froup.
>
> I do not diaprove of P2P sharing, and I have expressed that view a
> couple of times....However, in the interests of the newsgroup, I have
> tried to play that down and mention it as little as possible since it
> was pointed out to me that there are members of the group who don't
> approve....Please don't drag the subject up again....
> In answer to your stament though, I am still here....I havent
> dissapeared from the froup, nor have I any intention of doing so for the
> forseeable future....
Yes. I do not disapprove of P2P sharing, but I do not discuss it on afda.
And I do not generally use it to download commercially available material,
either.
>> To those who are better informed than I (by which I mean people who've
>> been here longer than me) please feel free to contribute to my
>> definitions etc. Otherwise I reckon that's a pretty cool definition of
>> How Things Are.
>
> In usenet, things are generaly however you interpret them....Your
> definitions are as valid as anyone elses....
>
> I have said it elsewhere, we are all born equal, and we all die
> equal...What we do in-between times is largely immaterial....
>
> I like you....I like the cut of your jib....You speak up and call a
> spade a spade....There are too many people in the world who aren't
> prepared to stand up for what they believe, preferring to either run
> away and hide, or pretend they agree with the Alpha pack member so as
> not to rock the boat....
>
> Kudos to you John....
Thanks, I think. I'm tired, so I don't think. That makes sense[9].
[9] Confused? Good.[10]
[10]This should be made an ISFN.[10]
--
John Coxon
A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35801 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 00:04 |
|
John Coxon <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3epttlF4doojU6 [at] individual.net:
> On 15/05/2005 18:45, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
> storms of unreason and SJK spewed up:
>
>> In which case, John, I am most definitely an irregular ;-)
>>
>> Perhaps there should also be a secondary category of towelness?
>>
>> Therefore, I am an "irregular with towel". There, quite
>> obviously, would then also be "irregular without towel", "regular
>> with towel" and "regular without towel".
>>
>> This coffee is damn good stuff....though for sanity's sake, I
>> shall revert back to tea.
>
> OK. That makes sense. So I am a regular with towel, I think (I'm
> finally letting go of my newbieness and embracing the fact that I
> am sad enough to have been here for over two years. This may or
> may not be a good thing).
>
Congratulations.
I'm going to hang on to mine I think, I've been lurking in these parts
for around 3years, but I'm not a very regular poster. I've only picked
that up for the movie discussions.
peter
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35809 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 04:42 |
|
Peter.QLD wrote:
> John Coxon <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:3epttlF4doojU6 [at] individual.net:
>
>
>>On 15/05/2005 18:45, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
>>storms of unreason and SJK spewed up:
>>
>>
>>>In which case, John, I am most definitely an irregular ;-)
>>>
>>>Perhaps there should also be a secondary category of towelness?
>>>
>>>Therefore, I am an "irregular with towel". There, quite
>>>obviously, would then also be "irregular without towel", "regular
>>>with towel" and "regular without towel".
>>>
>>>This coffee is damn good stuff....though for sanity's sake, I
>>>shall revert back to tea.
>>
>>OK. That makes sense. So I am a regular with towel, I think (I'm
>>finally letting go of my newbieness and embracing the fact that I
>>am sad enough to have been here for over two years. This may or
>>may not be a good thing).
>>
>
> Congratulations.
>
> I'm going to hang on to mine I think, I've been lurking in these parts
> for around 3years, but I'm not a very regular poster. I've only picked
> that up for the movie discussions.
I've been lurking for around 4 years myself, so I guess I should
re-introduce myself as another "irregular with towel" -- would that be
correct? :)
Also, does being an "official" Regular mean that the unwritten rules or
guidelines or whatever are generally followed when one posts? For
example, the whole mess about top-posting versus the more afda-friendly
bottom-posting? Any ideas?
~'ber
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35815 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 09:56 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> On 15/05/2005 18:45, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
> storms of unreason and SJK spewed up:
>
>> In which case, John, I am most definitely an irregular ;-)
>>
>> Perhaps there should also be a secondary category of towelness?
>>
>> Therefore, I am an "irregular with towel". There, quite obviously,
>> would then also be "irregular without towel", "regular with towel" and
>> "regular without towel".
>>
>> This coffee is damn good stuff....though for sanity's sake, I shall
>> revert back to tea.
>
>
> OK. That makes sense. So I am a regular with towel, I think (I'm
> finally letting go of my newbieness and embracing the fact that I am sad
> enough to have been here for over two years. This may or may not be a
> good thing).
>
When I was your age, most of my friends were books. Your path will
at least be a bit different from mine just because of this alone...
--
Tian
5/14: I met a woman named Tamar. She told me
"Tamar is a very common womans name in Israel."
5/15: I "ran" Bay To Breakers. I say "ran" because
at 13 minutes per mile, it wasn't running the way
I used to run back when I ran on a regular basis.
http://tian.greens.org
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35828 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 14:58 |
|
"Tian Harter" <DontBeFuelish [at] aol.com22350775> wrote in message
news:d69jr2$b4l$2 [at] domitilla.aioe.org...
> John Coxon wrote:
>> On 15/05/2005 18:45, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms
>> of unreason and SJK spewed up:
>>
>>> In which case, John, I am most definitely an irregular ;-)
>>>
>>> Perhaps there should also be a secondary category of towelness?
>>>
>>> Therefore, I am an "irregular with towel". There, quite obviously, would
>>> then also be "irregular without towel", "regular with towel" and
>>> "regular without towel".
>>>
>>> This coffee is damn good stuff....though for sanity's sake, I shall
>>> revert back to tea.
>>
>>
>> OK. That makes sense. So I am a regular with towel, I think (I'm
>> finally letting go of my newbieness and embracing the fact that I am sad
>> enough to have been here for over two years. This may or may not be a
>> good thing).
>>
> When I was your age, most of my friends were books. Your path will
> at least be a bit different from mine just because of this alone...
>
> --
> Tian
> 5/14: I met a woman named Tamar. She told me
> "Tamar is a very common womans name in Israel."
> 5/15: I "ran" Bay To Breakers. I say "ran" because
> at 13 minutes per mile, it wasn't running the way
> I used to run back when I ran on a regular basis.
> http://tian.greens.org
So I'm probably a bit of an odd duck here. I was introduced to the
books/radio show/video game a long time ago (played the game when it was
new), and am still sad to think that Douglas Adams isn't around anymore.
However, I just found this newsgroup when I subscribed to a newsgroup
service and looked for stuff after the movie was coming out. So I'm a
newbie in the sense that I haven't been around the group long (and therefore
don't understand why top posting is bad - probably because I use Outlook
Express for my newsreader and have to scroll all the dang time to get to the
replies and I'm sure non-newbies have better ways of doing it). But I'm
hoopy enough to understand most of the topics going back-and-forth here.
Suppose I should read that FAQ a bit!
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35834 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 16:29 |
|
On 16/05/2005 03:42, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Amber Joy spewed up:
> Peter.QLD wrote:
>
>> John Coxon <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3epttlF4doojU6 [at] individual.net:
>>
>>> On 15/05/2005 18:45, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
>>> storms of unreason and SJK spewed up:
>>>
>>>> In which case, John, I am most definitely an irregular ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps there should also be a secondary category of towelness?
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, I am an "irregular with towel". There, quite
>>>> obviously, would then also be "irregular without towel", "regular
>>>> with towel" and "regular without towel".
>>>>
>>>> This coffee is damn good stuff....though for sanity's sake, I
>>>> shall revert back to tea.
>>>
>>> OK. That makes sense. So I am a regular with towel, I think (I'm
>>> finally letting go of my newbieness and embracing the fact that I
>>> am sad enough to have been here for over two years. This may or
>>> may not be a good thing).
>>
>> Congratulations.
>>
>> I'm going to hang on to mine I think, I've been lurking in these parts
>> for around 3years, but I'm not a very regular poster. I've only
>> picked that up for the movie discussions.
>
> I've been lurking for around 4 years myself, so I guess I should
> re-introduce myself as another "irregular with towel" -- would that be
> correct? :)
>
> Also, does being an "official" Regular mean that the unwritten rules or
> guidelines or whatever are generally followed when one posts? For
> example, the whole mess about top-posting versus the more afda-friendly
> bottom-posting? Any ideas?
Unwritten rules and guidelines are followed, or one does not achieve
towelship. A towelship is only granted when somebody is willing to follow
the rules.
That's easy.
--
John Coxon
A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35835 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 16:30 |
|
On 16/05/2005 13:58, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Kevin Saliga spewed up:
> So I'm probably a bit of an odd duck here. I was introduced to the
> books/radio show/video game a long time ago (played the game when it was
> new), and am still sad to think that Douglas Adams isn't around anymore.
> However, I just found this newsgroup when I subscribed to a newsgroup
> service and looked for stuff after the movie was coming out. So I'm a
> newbie in the sense that I haven't been around the group long (and therefore
> don't understand why top posting is bad - probably because I use Outlook
> Express for my newsreader and have to scroll all the dang time to get to the
> replies and I'm sure non-newbies have better ways of doing it). But I'm
> hoopy enough to understand most of the topics going back-and-forth here.
> Suppose I should read that FAQ a bit!
http://www.zootle.net/afda - there are FAQs etc there. Out of date,
eversoslightly, however. Search Google Groups for the nFAQ if you want to
read that, I posted it recently. :-)
You are extremely odd. It goes without saying - everybody here is!
--
John Coxon
A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35836 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 16:34 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> On 15/05/2005 12:10, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
> storms of unreason and Fat Sam spewed up:
>
>> John Coxon wrote:
>>
>>> There's been some discussion about the nature of a regular.
>>> Generally speaking, I hold myself as a newbie after over two years of
>>> being an afdaniain. Therefore, a regular by my definition is anybody
>>> who's been here longer than me.
>>
>>
>> I regard myself as a regular, yet you have been here considerably
>> longer than me....I consider you a regular, however I don't think of
>> you as *more* of a regular than me....
>
>
> As SJK said, I am "regular with towel" in that I've been here ages. You
> are a regular without towel in that you post a lot but you haven't been
> here long enough to enjoy full perks.
I'll make do with a flannel until such times as I can rightfully claim a
towel....Think of it as a *swiss army towel*....Small, but infinitely
usefull....
I don't do rank or class structures....Had enough of that in the Air
Farce....
Nowadays, I deal with people on a level playing field....I find some
folks can accept that and some can't....I don't mind either way, because
I continue to treat everyone as an equal....
>>> A regular is somebody who has joined the froup and continued to post
>>> actively for three months or so.
>>
>>
>>
>> But how did you come to that time scale?....And how about regular
>> readers of the group?...You know the people who don't necesarilly post
>> every day, but if you met them in a pub, they could tell you as much
>> about the newsgroup as you yourself know....
>
>
> But they can't if they don't join in the discussion because this is a
> discussion group. It's like the difference between the biographer and
> the subject of the biography[9].
> [9] Confused?
A little, but I'll get it in a bit....I am sufferring caffienne
withdrawals at the moment ;-)
> They would be considered as either irregular without towel (lurking for
> less than three months) or irregular with towel (lurking for more than
> that time). This means that the regular with towel can be considered
> higher in the hierarchy.
Aaah, but I don't do rank or class structures.....
>> I tend not to confuse the word regular with the word veteran....I take
>> my meaning of regular from it's actual definition, which is 'something
>> that happens repeatedly and frequently'...So therefore, anyone who
>> either regularly posts or reads is in my opinion, a regular....
>
>
> So towel analogies may be introduced to introduce new complexity to the
> definition.
How very *Vogon* of you... ;-)
>> You have to form your own opinion of what words like *regular* mean,
>> as they are so subjective and open to lots of interpretation....
>> No one interpretation is right and likewise, no one interpretation is
>> wrong....
>>
>>> A regular is not somebody who joined because they saw the movie and
>>> will go away again in a fortnight's time.
>>
>>
>> I agree with you....That would be a blow-in....
>
>
> Yeah, which is why I don't consider a regular to be anybody who's not
> been here three months - they might go away, y'see.
But whats to stop someone staying 3 months and 5 days, then buggering
off and never coming back?....
>>> If you want to be considered a regular,
>>
>>
>> I consider myself a regular....That's good enough for me....I've
>> pulled up a chair, had a cup of tea and made myself at home....I don't
>> care if anybody has a problem with that because they don't think I've
>> been here long enough....I'm not here to serve an
>> apprenticeship....I'm here to have fun and enjoy lively debate and
>> discussion with intelligent people....
>
>
> I see your point. It only matters if you think it does.
LOL, true....And for what it's worth, that's a great approach to life in
general....If more people shared that opinion, I think there would be a
lot less war....And no-one would have to get nailed to anything either ;-)
>>> your best bet, as far as I can see, is to hang around til the new
>>> radio series has finished its run on BBC Radio 4 and the movie has
>>> been released everywhere.
>>
>>
>> I intend to....Will you accept me as a regular then?....
>
>
> Yeah, you will join the list of those considered regular with towel.
LOL, I'll trade in my Swiss Army Flannel then....
>>> If you want a change to the mFAQ then that's fine,
>>
>>
>> I don't....I want to provoke thought....
>>
>>> but if you're just going to disappear in a couple of months and go
>>> back to lurking then that's not fine.
>>
>>
>> Nothing wrong with Lurkers IMO....Perhaps they're just quiet people
>> who don't have a lot to say for themselves....It doesn't give them any
>> less right to enjoy the group....
>
>
> They can enjoy it but they shall not achieve regularity unless they post
> regularly.
What about if they eat loads and loads of Bran?
Sorry, couldn't resist that....I apologise....
>>> Several people who were pro-afda.piracy
>>
>>
>> Who advocated piracy of a newsgroup?
>
>
> I mean piracy on afda.
I know....I was being deliberately obtuse again....And once again, I
apologise....
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35837 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 16:37 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> On 16/05/2005 03:42, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
> storms of unreason and Amber Joy spewed up:
>
>> Peter.QLD wrote:
>>
>>> John Coxon <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:3epttlF4doojU6 [at] individual.net:
>>>
>>>> On 15/05/2005 18:45, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
>>>> storms of unreason and SJK spewed up:
>>>>
>>>>> In which case, John, I am most definitely an irregular ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps there should also be a secondary category of towelness?
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, I am an "irregular with towel". There, quite
>>>>> obviously, would then also be "irregular without towel", "regular
>>>>> with towel" and "regular without towel".
>>>>>
>>>>> This coffee is damn good stuff....though for sanity's sake, I
>>>>> shall revert back to tea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK. That makes sense. So I am a regular with towel, I think (I'm
>>>> finally letting go of my newbieness and embracing the fact that I
>>>> am sad enough to have been here for over two years. This may or
>>>> may not be a good thing).
>>>
>>>
>>> Congratulations.
>>>
>>> I'm going to hang on to mine I think, I've been lurking in these
>>> parts for around 3years, but I'm not a very regular poster. I've
>>> only picked that up for the movie discussions.
>>
>>
>> I've been lurking for around 4 years myself, so I guess I should
>> re-introduce myself as another "irregular with towel" -- would that be
>> correct? :)
>>
>> Also, does being an "official" Regular mean that the unwritten rules
>> or guidelines or whatever are generally followed when one posts? For
>> example, the whole mess about top-posting versus the more
>> afda-friendly bottom-posting? Any ideas?
>
>
> Unwritten rules and guidelines are followed, or one does not achieve
> towelship. A towelship is only granted when somebody is willing to
> follow the rules.
>
> That's easy.
>
Is there an official presentation ceremony?....I only ask, because in
most of the other newsgroups I frequent, we have meet-ups, and it could
be a laugh to actually get together and have a mock presentation
ceremony where towels get dished out to people....Hell, it could even be
a fancy-dress thing, where we all come dressed up as a character from
DNA's world....I'll come as a Vogon....I won't need to do very much to
turn myself into one, LOL....
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35840 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 17:05 |
|
Fat Sam wrote:
> John Coxon wrote:
>
>> On 16/05/2005 03:42, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
>> storms of unreason and Amber Joy spewed up:
>>
>>> Peter.QLD wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Coxon <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:3epttlF4doojU6 [at] individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/05/2005 18:45, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
>>>>> storms of unreason and SJK spewed up:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In which case, John, I am most definitely an irregular ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps there should also be a secondary category of towelness?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, I am an "irregular with towel". There, quite
>>>>>> obviously, would then also be "irregular without towel", "regular
>>>>>> with towel" and "regular without towel".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This coffee is damn good stuff....though for sanity's sake, I
>>>>>> shall revert back to tea.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. That makes sense. So I am a regular with towel, I think (I'm
>>>>> finally letting go of my newbieness and embracing the fact that I
>>>>> am sad enough to have been here for over two years. This may or
>>>>> may not be a good thing).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to hang on to mine I think, I've been lurking in these
>>>> parts for around 3years, but I'm not a very regular poster. I've
>>>> only picked that up for the movie discussions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've been lurking for around 4 years myself, so I guess I should
>>> re-introduce myself as another "irregular with towel" -- would that
>>> be correct? :)
>>>
>>> Also, does being an "official" Regular mean that the unwritten rules
>>> or guidelines or whatever are generally followed when one posts? For
>>> example, the whole mess about top-posting versus the more
>>> afda-friendly bottom-posting? Any ideas?
>>
>>
>>
>> Unwritten rules and guidelines are followed, or one does not achieve
>> towelship. A towelship is only granted when somebody is willing to
>> follow the rules.
>>
>> That's easy.
>>
> Is there an official presentation ceremony?....I only ask, because in
> most of the other newsgroups I frequent, we have meet-ups, and it could
> be a laugh to actually get together and have a mock presentation
> ceremony where towels get dished out to people....Hell, it could even be
> a fancy-dress thing, where we all come dressed up as a character from
> DNA's world....I'll come as a Vogon....I won't need to do very much to
> turn myself into one, LOL....
We've tried a few times, but our newsgroup covers a _lot_ of geography,
and, for some reason, it seems a lot of the froup is rather poor, and
doesn't have the money to travel to somewhere to meet.
It might be possible to make a decent get-together somewhere in England
and maybe even a few places in the US, but getting the entire froup
together is probably impossible.
I suppose Rasmus, Nikitta and I could manage a three-people Danish
get-together, at some point when Nikitta was visiting Denmark.
Who knows, we might even get hold of Jacob :-)
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35846 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 19:36 |
|
"Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
news:4288b6a9$0$674$edfadb0f [at] dread16.news.tele.dk...
> Fat Sam wrote:
>> Is there an official presentation ceremony?....I only ask, because in
>> most of the other newsgroups I frequent, we have meet-ups, and it could
>> be a laugh to actually get together and have a mock presentation ceremony
>> where towels get dished out to people....Hell, it could even be a
>> fancy-dress thing, where we all come dressed up as a character from DNA's
>> world....I'll come as a Vogon....I won't need to do very much to turn
>> myself into one, LOL....
>
> We've tried a few times, but our newsgroup covers a _lot_ of geography,
> and, for some reason, it seems a lot of the froup is rather poor, and
> doesn't have the money to travel to somewhere to meet.
>
> It might be possible to make a decent get-together somewhere in England
> and maybe even a few places in the US, but getting the entire froup
> together is probably impossible.
>
> I suppose Rasmus, Nikitta and I could manage a three-people Danish
> get-together, at some point when Nikitta was visiting Denmark.
>
> Who knows, we might even get hold of Jacob :-)
>
> Best
> Kåre
Sounds like a blast. Sounds like some of the group members need to get a
copy of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to Europe" - or, if they're a bit better
off, maybe the can afford "Europe on Five Dollars a Day". So long as we all
end up drunk on our backs in Innsbruck, the journey would be worth it!
But I'd love some regional get-togethers. Is there a way we can post our
information? For example, my wife uses "Yahoo Groups", and members of those
groups can make their information public. Again, long-time-Adams fan and
also a techo-geek, but new to the idea of newsgroups and on-line
communities.
-Kevin
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35851 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 20:01 |
|
Kevin Saliga wrote:
> I just found this newsgroup when I subscribed to a newsgroup
> service and looked for stuff after the movie was coming out.
> So I'm a newbie in the sense that I haven't been around the
> group long (and therefore don't understand why top posting is
> bad - probably because I use Outlook Express for my newsreader
> and have to scroll all the dang time to get to the replies and
> I'm sure non-newbies have better ways of doing it). But I'm
> hoopy enough to understand most of the topics going
> back-and-forth here. Suppose I should read that FAQ a bit!
>
>
That is a good reason to snip stuff that isn't part of what
you are replying to! :-) That way your readers don't have to
snip as much as the other guys readers...
--
Tian
5/14: I met a woman named Tamar. She told me
"Tamar is a very common womans name in Israel."
5/15: I "ran" Bay To Breakers. I say "ran" because
at 13 minutes per mile, it wasn't running the way
I used to run back when I ran on a regular basis.
http://tian.greens.org
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35862 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 21:21 |
|
Irreglar veteran with towel (self-declared)
DaveH
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35868 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 22:51 |
|
Kevin Saliga wrote:
> "Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
> news:4288b6a9$0$674$edfadb0f [at] dread16.news.tele.dk...
>
>>Fat Sam wrote:
>>
>>>Is there an official presentation ceremony?....I only ask, because in
>>>most of the other newsgroups I frequent, we have meet-ups, and it could
>>>be a laugh to actually get together and have a mock presentation ceremony
>>>where towels get dished out to people....Hell, it could even be a
>>>fancy-dress thing, where we all come dressed up as a character from DNA's
>>>world....I'll come as a Vogon....I won't need to do very much to turn
>>>myself into one, LOL....
>>
>>We've tried a few times, but our newsgroup covers a _lot_ of geography,
>>and, for some reason, it seems a lot of the froup is rather poor, and
>>doesn't have the money to travel to somewhere to meet.
>>
>>It might be possible to make a decent get-together somewhere in England
>>and maybe even a few places in the US, but getting the entire froup
>>together is probably impossible.
>>
>>I suppose Rasmus, Nikitta and I could manage a three-people Danish
>>get-together, at some point when Nikitta was visiting Denmark.
>>
>>Who knows, we might even get hold of Jacob :-)
>>
>>Best
>> Kåre
>
>
> Sounds like a blast. Sounds like some of the group members need to get a
> copy of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to Europe" - or, if they're a bit better
> off, maybe the can afford "Europe on Five Dollars a Day". So long as we all
> end up drunk on our backs in Innsbruck, the journey would be worth it!
>
> But I'd love some regional get-togethers. Is there a way we can post our
> information? For example, my wife uses "Yahoo Groups", and members of those
> groups can make their information public. Again, long-time-Adams fan and
> also a techo-geek, but new to the idea of newsgroups and on-line
> communities.
There is no standard for newgroups in general for posting information
about yourself.
However, AFDA being what AFDA is, we have a webpage where you can find
out everything about everybody of they have out it there.
See
http://www.zootle.net/afda
under 'inmates'.
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35894 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 09:11 |
|
On 16/05/2005 15:34, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Fat Sam spewed up:
> John Coxon wrote:
>
>> On 15/05/2005 12:10, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
>> storms of unreason and Fat Sam spewed up:
>>
>>> John Coxon wrote:
>>>
>>>> A regular is not somebody who joined because they saw the movie and
>>>> will go away again in a fortnight's time.
>>>
>>> I agree with you....That would be a blow-in....
>>
>> Yeah, which is why I don't consider a regular to be anybody who's not
>> been here three months - they might go away, y'see.
>
> But whats to stop someone staying 3 months and 5 days, then buggering
> off and never coming back?....
Three months is a relative term. I.e. Nobody's really counting.
--
John Coxon
A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35895 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 09:13 |
|
On 16/05/2005 21:51, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Kaare Fiedler Christiansen spewed up:
> Kevin Saliga wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a blast. Sounds like some of the group members need to
>> get a copy of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to Europe" - or, if they're a
>> bit better off, maybe the can afford "Europe on Five Dollars a Day".
>> So long as we all end up drunk on our backs in Innsbruck, the journey
>> would be worth it!
>>
>> But I'd love some regional get-togethers. Is there a way we can post
>> our information? For example, my wife uses "Yahoo Groups", and
>> members of those groups can make their information public. Again,
>> long-time-Adams fan and also a techo-geek, but new to the idea of
>> newsgroups and on-line communities.
>
> There is no standard for newgroups in general for posting information
> about yourself.
>
> However, AFDA being what AFDA is, we have a webpage where you can find
> out everything about everybody of they have out it there.
>
> See
>
> http://www.zootle.net/afda
>
> under 'inmates'.
*twitches*
--
John Coxon
A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35896 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 09:13 |
|
On 16/05/2005 20:21, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and DaveH spewed up:
> Irreglar veteran with towel (self-declared)
Veteran, eh? How long have you been here, then?
--
John Coxon
A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35899 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 10:04 |
|
It's simple really.
A regular is someone who knows what the [B] in the subject stands for.
In this case, obviously, it's for Bistre, which any regular knows is
the colour code for posts made by a regular.
Am I a regular? I must be. I'm posting in a Bistre coloured thread. :)
I'm certainly a veteran... I can trace a %afda heritage to 1994...
how's that for scary? :)
..../Nemo
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #35902 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 11:31 |
|
On 17/05/2005 09:04, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and earthnative [at] gmail.com spewed up:
> It's simple really.
>
> A regular is someone who knows what the [B] in the subject stands for.
And then you go and explain what it means!
--
John Coxon
A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #37867 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 12:57 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> On 16/05/2005 15:34, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
> storms of unreason and Fat Sam spewed up:
>
>> John Coxon wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/05/2005 12:10, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
>>> storms of unreason and Fat Sam spewed up:
>>>
>>>> John Coxon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A regular is not somebody who joined because they saw the movie and
>>>>> will go away again in a fortnight's time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you....That would be a blow-in....
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, which is why I don't consider a regular to be anybody who's not
>>> been here three months - they might go away, y'see.
>>
>>
>> But whats to stop someone staying 3 months and 5 days, then buggering
>> off and never coming back?....
>
>
> Three months is a relative term. I.e. Nobody's really counting.
>
Aaaah, so lets take two hypothetical people...Person A and Person B...
Person A might get accepted as a regualar with towel after only 2
months, 13 days....Whereas Person B might take 3 months, 21 days to
become accepted?....
Taken to an extreme, we might get someone being heralded as a regular
after only posting for a week, yet we might find other people who never
get accepted as a regular....
Am I right in suspecting that there are some other, forces at work
here?....Something stealthy?....For example, those who please the
newsgroup-geriatrics will get accepted by them quicker?....
And if that's the case, where does somebody like me stand?...Somebody
who really doesn't give two hoots if the *established regulars* have
accepted him, as he's gone ahead and made himself at home anyway.....
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #37871 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 14:25 |
|
Fat Sam <janetandsam [at] beeteeinternet.co.uk> hit the keyboard.
Afterwards the following was on the screen:
>>>> Yeah, which is why I don't consider a regular to be anybody who's
>>>> not been here three months - they might go away, y'see.
>>>
>>>
>>> But whats to stop someone staying 3 months and 5 days, then
>>> buggering off and never coming back?....
>> Three months is a relative term. I.e. Nobody's really counting.
>>
> Aaaah, so lets take two hypothetical people...Person A and Person B...
> Person A might get accepted as a regualar with towel after only 2
> months, 13 days....Whereas Person B might take 3 months, 21 days to
> become accepted?....
I'd say that people are regular, when they've been here for a good
amount of times *and* shown by their attitude (like you) that they
intend to stay.
As John says, it is a relative amount of time - three months may be a
good time-scale, but not definite the One and True Answer.
> Taken to an extreme, we might get someone being heralded as a regular
> after only posting for a week, yet we might find other people who
> never get accepted as a regular....
If people want to stay only for a week, they probably won't bother too
much trying to change they way that Things Are in teh froup.
> And if that's the case, where does somebody like me stand?...Somebody
> who really doesn't give two hoots if the *established regulars* have
> accepted him, as he's gone ahead and made himself at home anyway.....
As noted you've been here for a while now (actually I do not remember
exactly how long ;))
You, however, have given the impression (at least I get the
impression), that you want to stay. I therefore see you as a
regular. A newbie regular, yes, but still a regular.
By the way - I still see myself as a newbie too, although I have been
here for around a year or so ;o)
Also I find that we probably should not (and oribably won't even be
able to) establish rules or guidelines for what a regular
is. Everybody here probably have their own idea of the term (like John
seeing himself as a newbie, although I see him like one of the
regulars).
/Rasmus
--
-- [ Rasmus "Møffe" Bøg Hansen ] ---------------------------------------
Defense??
What am I to defend??
Am I in war??
----------------------------------------------[ moffe at zz9 dot dk ] --
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #37872 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 14:29 |
|
Kaare Fiedler Christiansen <news [at] kaarefc.dk> hit the keyboard.
Afterwards the following was on the screen:
> Corrolar 4:
> A FAQ always contains only the question where is the FAQ
>
> Proof:
> Let's say a question Q exists in the FAQ, and the answer to it is A.
> The conversation in the
> froup then goes:
>
> person 1:
> Q?
> person 2:
> Look it up in the FAQ.
> person 1:
> Where is the FAQ?
> person 2:
> At http://balbahlbahblah.blah/faq.html
>
> Thus the question Q is never answered, unless the question is "where
> is the FAQ".
>
> QED.
Hey stop that! Somebody might vanish in a puff of logic.
We wouldn't want that to happen, would we?
Or, perhaps, it may happen to non-regulars but not to regulars (or the
opposite)? Or not to FAQ maintainers, or perhaps only to FAQ
maintainers (as they are the ones answering the question that is never
answered)?
/Rasmus
--
-- [ Rasmus "Møffe" Bøg Hansen ] ---------------------------------------
Great idea. By the time you'll be done you will realize that 40 years
have passed, 386 has been obsolete for a few decades and the end result
is not really that much faster.
-- Wichert Akkerman
----------------------------------------------[ moffe at zz9 dot dk ] --
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #37877 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 15:24 |
|
John Coxon <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> hit the keyboard.
Afterwards the following was on the screen:
>> out. So I'm a newbie in the sense that I haven't been around the
>> group long (and therefore don't understand why top posting is bad -
>> probably because I use Outlook Express for my newsreader and have to
>> scroll all the dang time to get to the replies and I'm sure
>> non-newbies have better ways of doing it). But I'm hoopy enough to
It is agreed upon on most of the usenet that topposting makes reading
longer threads hard.
Actually I do not remember if it is in the FAQ - it has been a good
while since I read the FAQ - and the arguments for topposting are
found in many places on the inter, so if I read it, it might not even
be in an afda-related FAQ ;o)
> You are extremely odd. It goes without saying - everybody here is!
At least it is probably good to be odd. I assume that it would be hard
to stay here without being odd.
I think I'll go have a cup of InsaniTea more.
/Rasmus
--
-- [ Rasmus "Møffe" Bøg Hansen ] ---------------------------------------
checkuary, n:
The thirteenth month of the year. Begins New Year's Day and ends
when a person stops absentmindedly writing the old year on his checks.
----------------------------------------------[ moffe at zz9 dot dk ] --
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #37878 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 15:27 |
|
Kaare Fiedler Christiansen <news [at] kaarefc.dk> hit the keyboard.
Afterwards the following was on the screen:
>> Is there an official presentation ceremony?....I only ask, because
>> in most of the other newsgroups I frequent, we have meet-ups, and it
>> could be a laugh to actually get together and have a mock
>> presentation ceremony where towels get dished out to people....Hell,
>> it could even be a fancy-dress thing, where we all come dressed up
>> as a character from DNA's world....I'll come as a Vogon....I won't
>> need to do very much to turn myself into one, LOL....
>
> We've tried a few times, but our newsgroup covers a _lot_ of
> geography, and, for some reason, it seems a lot of the froup is rather
> poor, and doesn't have the money to travel to somewhere to meet.
It could be fun - but the coordination would be rather hard and
require many kilometers (or miles - we also cover different
measurement systems) traveled by plane ;o)
> I suppose Rasmus, Nikitta and I could manage a three-people Danish
> get-together, at some point when Nikitta was visiting Denmark.
That should be possible - Denmark is not really that large ;o)
> Who knows, we might even get hold of Jacob :-)
Which I assume disappeared before I showed up?
/Rasmus
--
-- [ Rasmus "Møffe" Bøg Hansen ] ---------------------------------------
Life is that property, which a being will lose as a result of falling
out of a cold and mysterious cave 30 miles above ground level.
- HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
----------------------------------------------[ moffe at zz9 dot dk ] --
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #37879 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 15:30 |
|
John Coxon <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> hit the keyboard.
Afterwards the following was on the screen:
> On 17/05/2005 09:04, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
> storms of unreason and earthnative [at] gmail.com spewed up:
>
>> It's simple really.
>> A regular is someone who knows what the [B] in the subject stands
>> for.
>
> And then you go and explain what it means!
That would probably make all the non-regulars regular, right?
/who just became aware that Nemo is 10 years more a regular than me
;o)
In 1994 I even had not heard of this "internet" thingie...
/Rasmus
--
-- [ Rasmus "Møffe" Bøg Hansen ] ---------------------------------------
Yeah and we all know that Tolkien barely sold a copy before the film
came out.
-- Betagam7 on alt.fan.douglas-adams
----------------------------------------------[ moffe at zz9 dot dk ] --
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #37881 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 16:10 |
|
yup. Thus infecting EVERYONE with being a REGULAR!
haha! ... fibre.
..../Nemo
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #37885 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 17:28 |
|
On 17/05/2005 11:57, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Fat Sam spewed up:
> John Coxon wrote:
>
>> Three months is a relative term. I.e. Nobody's really counting.
>>
> Aaaah, so lets take two hypothetical people...Person A and Person B...
> Person A might get accepted as a regualar with towel after only 2
> months, 13 days....Whereas Person B might take 3 months, 21 days to
> become accepted?....
Yes, that could happen.
> Taken to an extreme, we might get someone being heralded as a regular
> after only posting for a week, yet we might find other people who never
> get accepted as a regular....
No. That won't happen. Tis just that if the member joins in a rush of
newbies created from a movie they'll get accepted slower than a newbie who
joins in the middle of a dry spell. That sort of thing.
> Am I right in suspecting that there are some other, forces at work
> here?....Something stealthy?....For example, those who please the
> newsgroup-geriatrics will get accepted by them quicker?....
Well, it all depends. Have you discovered afda's website yet? Made a bio?
Have you found the IRC channel? Those probably count as "other" forces -
once you've done all that you'll be more readily accepted, yes.
> And if that's the case, where does somebody like me stand?...Somebody
> who really doesn't give two hoots if the *established regulars* have
> accepted him, as he's gone ahead and made himself at home anyway.....
As long as you follow the rules we accept you. If you don't, you never get
your towel. But you bottompost, and you've not been talking about piracy
too much...
--
John Coxon
A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #37886 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 17:35 |
|
On 17/05/2005 14:27, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Rasmus Bøg Hansen spewed up:
> Kaare Fiedler Christiansen <news [at] kaarefc.dk> hit the keyboard.
> Afterwards the following was on the screen:
>
>>We've tried a few times, but our newsgroup covers a _lot_ of
>>geography, and, for some reason, it seems a lot of the froup is rather
>>poor, and doesn't have the money to travel to somewhere to meet.
>
> It could be fun - but the coordination would be rather hard and
> require many kilometers (or miles - we also cover different
> measurement systems) traveled by plane ;o)
Yeah, it would take much co-ordination.
>>I suppose Rasmus, Nikitta and I could manage a three-people Danish
>>get-together, at some point when Nikitta was visiting Denmark.
>
> That should be possible - Denmark is not really that large ;o)
Oh ah.
>>Who knows, we might even get hold of Jacob :-)
>
> Which I assume disappeared before I showed up?
I think he made a film or something, didn't he?
We all exist in his imagination. Without Jacob the froup would not exist.
--
John Coxon
A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #37898 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 22:06 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> On 16/05/2005 20:21, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
storms of
> unreason and DaveH spewed up:
>
> > Irreglar veteran with towel (self-declared)
>
> Veteran, eh? How long have you been here, then?
>
> --
> John Coxon
>
> A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?
>
> Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
> Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
> Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
> ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
Might I apply for "Semi-Regular/Irregular - with Towel"?
I have been coming here on and off for a few years. I have a towel.
Brought it with me to Istanbul for work, it looked like it wanted a
holiday.
In my defence, I am considered probably the maddest person in the
office and the first book I ever read was Hitchhiker's after hearing
the radio series in 1978.
Having said all that, I'm quite happy to be a newbie without towel, but
only if someone will explain that to the towel - it's rather picky
about such things :-)
Cheers,
Gary
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #37899 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 22:11 |
|
Rasmus Bøg Hansen wrote:
> John Coxon <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> hit the keyboard.
> Afterwards the following was on the screen:
>
>
>>>out. So I'm a newbie in the sense that I haven't been around the
>>>group long (and therefore don't understand why top posting is bad -
>>>probably because I use Outlook Express for my newsreader and have to
>>>scroll all the dang time to get to the replies and I'm sure
>>>non-newbies have better ways of doing it). But I'm hoopy enough to
>
>
> It is agreed upon on most of the usenet that topposting makes reading
> longer threads hard.
>
> Actually I do not remember if it is in the FAQ - it has been a good
> while since I read the FAQ - and the arguments for topposting are
> found in many places on the inter, so if I read it, it might not even
> be in an afda-related FAQ ;o)
>
>
>>You are extremely odd. It goes without saying - everybody here is!
>
>
> At least it is probably good to be odd. I assume that it would be hard
> to stay here without being odd.
>
> I think I'll go have a cup of InsaniTea more.
>
> /Rasmus
>
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
| Re: Regulars [B] [message #37900 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 22:19 |
|
Rasmus Bøg Hansen wrote:
> John Coxon <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> hit the keyboard.
> Afterwards the following was on the screen:
>
>
>>>out. So I'm a newbie in the sense that I haven't been around the
>>>group long (and therefore don't understand why top posting is bad -
>>>probably because I use Outlook Express for my newsreader and have to
>>>scroll all the dang time to get to the replies and I'm sure
>>>non-newbies have better ways of doing it). But I'm hoopy enough to
>
>
> It is agreed upon on most of the usenet that topposting makes reading
> longer threads hard.
I've found that opinion is divided across usenet....Some groups
generally prefer bottom posting, some prefer top posting, and others are
happy to accept either....
I find it's similar to the crosspost-versus-multipost debate sometimes....
> Actually I do not remember if it is in the FAQ - it has been a good
> while since I read the FAQ - and the arguments for topposting are
> found in many places on the inter, so if I read it, it might not even
> be in an afda-related FAQ ;o)
Personally, I can see benefits to both styles of posting....
Having said that, I generally watch any new newsgroup for a while before
posting myself....I watch to see what the generally accepted posting
style is for that group, and ammend my posting style accordingly....
For example, I've found that what I'm doing now, quoting, snipping and
middle-posting is frowned upon in some newsgroups....However, my
observations have shown me that it's deemed acceptable for this group....
There's a big difference between wanting to stir up debate, and being
just downright rude by deliberately doing things that one knows will
upset people....I hope I fall into the former of those two categories....
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 12:04:24 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09860 Sekunden |
