On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:24:00 +1000, Alan S <nothere.RemoveThis@there.com>
wrote in <e8ohf311hb1f1g6o81hrtumq9l8dul87i0.RemoveThis@4ax.com> :
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:42:08 GMT, kangaroo16
><kangaroo16.RemoveThis@invalid.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>>It cost me very little to draft a letter for my doctor's
>>>signature and to carry a current prescription for my meds.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cheers, Alan, Australia
>>
>>Thanks for the support, Alan.
>>
>>Question: Do you find my posts hard to understand? You seem
>>very perceptive.
>>
>>Actually, the only "expertise" I can claim as being a successful
>>U.S. migrant of Australia.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Kangaroo 16
>
>Not hard to understand, but I do have a tendency to skip any
>but very important posts that exceed a couple of paras. So,
>those that were long I didn't finish.
>
>Two words you might considering adding to your lexicon, one
>to do, one to aim for:
>
><snip>
>brevity
>
>(well, you did ask:-)
1/ Had I the motivation, which I don't.
As to "snipping", firstly I see no need for it. New material is
easily spotted by the signs preceding the words, and on the
browser I use, it is in a different colour as well.
2/ In my experience on usenet, which is considerable, people
often snip others posts to avoid answering questions, or even to
try to change what earlier authors have written.
3/ When on a particular thread, I personally find it annoying to
have to refer to an earlier post, or sometimes even to my
original post.
4/ We aren't communicating by Morse code, or even by telex
standards. There is plenty of space at high speed transmission
and reception for text only messages using ASCII or ANSI.
5/ I touch type at around 55 wpm, so I don't find it difficult
to write fairly long posts, in any groups am following. My
reading speed is many times that.
6/ What I consider a waste of space and time is reading HTML
posts that have coloured type, photos attached, etc. ...Which is
precisely _why_ I use ASCII or ANSI plain text.
No problem reading a 3,000 to 5,000 word message in plain text.
However, color is a distraction, music is a distraction, blinking
text is a distraction...and I very seldom open any attachments to
a post.
Reading a novel, such as "Gone With The Wind" takes about
two and a half hours.
Yes, they do have tapes and C.D.'s of "talking books" here. I've
sampled them, but find them extremely irritating. I wonder where
they find people who read aloud at what seems to be 20 to 30
words per minute?
7/ As you and others probably have noted, I give usenet
references when I feel it desirable to do so.
However, if I go to a site, and it starts laboriously downloading
a photo before displaying any text, I quickly drop off it and go
to another source. I speak and read English, and don't need
illustrations, especially when they come before text.
If I am looking for some obscure info about a 'roo, I don't
require an illustration. I know what they look like. Have
hunted them, have eaten them. [Quite nice lean meat, actually!]
Were I to look for a particular recipe for roast pork, I don't
want or need a photo of the finished dish. Let alone illustrated
instructions on how to kill or butcher a pig, let alone a photo
of a live pig.
8/ As to brevity, someone once said "I write long letters as I
lack the time to edit or condense them."
As you and others may have noticed, I don't usually proofread
what have written off the top of my head. I write it, usually
run a quick spellcheck, but that is about all.
9/ I don't consider a usenet post as a book suitable for
publication. If writing a book, would probably take far more
care on the original draft, proofread it, revise it, provide
footnotes and references, and so on.
O.K. perhaps some people don't read as rapidly as I do, or
have never learned to touch type.
I used to live in a fairly remote area in the US, and was in my
late teens before even saw a black and white T.V.
Even though have long had PAL color, I very seldom watch
a T.V. program, even the news. Would much prefer 30 minutes or
an hour reading the news off various internet resources.
The last program I followed in detail was the terrorist
incident of 9/11. In retrospect, even that waste of time,
as could have got more info by catnapping and listening to the
radio news, and even more by checking various sources on the net.
10/ However, as they say "different strokes for different folks".
I really don't give a damn how many people on the this group read
my posts, or, for that matter if anyone does
Both this group and the immigration group are very slow. From
memory, neither group has had even 10 posts a day. Can read
the average number of posts on both groups in well under five
minutes.
In other groups, some with 200 posts a day, I never had any
trouble keeping up!
Admittedly, am retired, no kids, and probably have much more
free time than others do
.
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
>
>Cheers, Alan, Australia
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
