How can I speed up my computer

"Zaphod Beeblebrox" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In article <>,
> DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
>>
>> With close to 20 years on Usenet,
>
> Noob! ;-)

ARPANET here.... 1976.

Chris

From: "Chris S." <>

|
| "Zaphod Beeblebrox" <> wrote in
message
| news:...
>> In article <>,
>> DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
>>>
>>> With close to 20 years on Usenet,
>>
>> Noob! ;-)
|
| ARPANET here.... 1976.
|
| Chris

:-)

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

The_KiKi posted
>>> Uhm, No. I posted directly after you said you did not qualify t
answe
>>> this question, but that does not mean I was asking you. Whe
replyin
>>> to a thread without quoting someone it is implied that the questio
i
>>> directed at the Opening Poster, not the person who poste
immediatel
>>> beforehand

Gene posted
| That's a pretty silly rule, IMO, and one that I have never heard o
| (and would never try to follow). In effect, you are saying that
| direct reply to one post is actually a reply to another post i
there'
| no indication of which post the reply belongs to other than th
| *obvious* one of its position in the thread

| Some remarks about quoting that I've seen on a couple of newsgroup
| recently have said that it's courteous to quote enough of th
precedin
| post to make it clear to any person reading the response what i
refer
| to, and to trim not everything, but only stuff that's *irrelevant* t
| the reply

| If you post without quoting, there's *always* a chance o
| misinterpretation of what you are referring to, and when the OP is 7
| days old, it might not even be available to everyone..

| Just sayin'

Dave posted
> With close to 20 years on Usenet, I have never heard of that eithe
and
> one is expected to at least quote relevant section
==============

Good grief...yes quotes are helpful, but that thread was about as simpl
as they get. A little common sense please.... :rolleyes

Scenario
The OP is asking for help. I and a few others, post replies with helpfu
info. Another post is made immediately after mine, in which the poste
is requesting info about DSL and Vista. I do not have DSL or Vista no
did I ask for help, but I'll ignore the fact that the OP mentione
having DSL and Vista, and assume the poster is asking me for the inf
because the post follows mine and does not quote text. I'll also add
bit of attitude to my post because I am concerned about being courteou
to other users of the newsgroup. Then even after the poster tells me hi
post was for the OP, I'll insist his post was for me, rather than sayin
'oops my mistake', and then simply moving on to another thread where
could help someone. :

On 1/13/2012, rb posted:
> The_KiKi posted:
>>>> Uhm, No. I posted directly after you said you did not qualify to answer
>>>> this question, but that does not mean I was asking you. When replying
>>>> to a thread without quoting someone it is implied that the question is
>>>> directed at the Opening Poster, not the person who posted immediately
>>>> beforehand.

> Gene posted:
>> That's a pretty silly rule, IMO, and one that I have never heard of
>> (and would never try to follow). In effect, you are saying that a
>> direct reply to one post is actually a reply to another post if there's
>> no indication of which post the reply belongs to other than the
>> *obvious* one of its position in the thread.
>>
>> Some remarks about quoting that I've seen on a couple of newsgroups
>> recently have said that it's courteous to quote enough of the preceding
>> post to make it clear to any person reading the response what it refers
>> to, and to trim not everything, but only stuff that's *irrelevant* to
>> the reply.
>>
>> If you post without quoting, there's *always* a chance of
>> misinterpretation of what you are referring to, and when the OP is 78
>> days old, it might not even be available to everyone...
>>
>> Just sayin'.

> Dave posted:
>> With close to 20 years on Usenet, I have never heard of that either and
>> one is expected to at least quote relevant sections
> ===============

> Good grief...yes quotes are helpful, but that thread was about as simple
> as they get. A little common sense please....

> Scenario:
> The OP is asking for help. I and a few others, post replies with helpful
> info. Another post is made immediately after mine, in which the poster
> is requesting info about DSL and Vista. I do not have DSL or Vista nor
> did I ask for help, but I'll ignore the fact that the OP mentioned
> having DSL and Vista, and assume the poster is asking me for the info
> because the post follows mine and does not quote text. I'll also add a
> bit of attitude to my post because I am concerned about being courteous
> to other users of the newsgroup. Then even after the poster tells me his
> post was for the OP, I'll insist his post was for me, rather than saying
> 'oops my mistake', and then simply moving on to another thread where I
> could help someone.

It's pretty easy to ignore information that was not quoted, and came
from a post that was about 2-1/2 months old, which, if you can believe
it, is long enough for me to forget what was in it. Also, there was
(obviously) nothing in the reply to indicate which of the other posts
in the thread it referred to. Or even if it happened to be in the right
thread, come to think of it.

If the reply poster can't be more helpful (and, for that matter, just
plain *courteous*) than that, I'm not going to do his work for him by
looking in the thread for what he might be talking about.

I have to say that I'm disappointed in you, rb. ISTM that the least you
could do, if you're going to be indulging in ad hominem attacks, is to
be cogent and interesting :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch said:
It's pretty easy to ignore information that was not quoted, and came
from a post that was about 2-1/2 months old, which, if you can believe
it, is long enough for me to forget what was in it. Also, there was
(obviously) nothing in the reply to indicate which of the other posts
in the thread it referred to. Or even if it happened to be in the righ

thread, come to think of it.

If the reply poster can't be more helpful (and, for that matter, just
plain *courteous*) than that, I'm not going to do his work for him by
looking in the thread for what he might be talking about.

I have to say that I'm disappointed in you, rb. ISTM that the least yo

could do, if you're going to be indulging in ad hominem attacks, is to
be cogent and interesting :-)
==================

Gene,
My comments were a stupid attempt at sarcasm...nothing more...sorry,
just think your reply to that poster makes no sense. It makes even les
sense now, knowing you forgot what the original post was about, were no
sure if the reply post was in the right thread, and did not want t
bother to read 8 posts in that thread to refresh your memory.
:confused

On 1/15/2012, rb posted:
> Gene E. Bloch said:
> It's pretty easy to ignore information that was not quoted, and came
> from a post that was about 2-1/2 months old, which, if you can believe
> it, is long enough for me to forget what was in it. Also, there was
> (obviously) nothing in the reply to indicate which of the other posts
> in the thread it referred to. Or even if it happened to be in the right

> thread, come to think of it.

> If the reply poster can't be more helpful (and, for that matter, just
> plain *courteous*) than that, I'm not going to do his work for him by
> looking in the thread for what he might be talking about.

> I have to say that I'm disappointed in you, rb. ISTM that the least you

> could do, if you're going to be indulging in ad hominem attacks, is to
> be cogent and interesting :-)
> ==================

> Gene,
> My comments were a stupid attempt at sarcasm...nothing more...sorry, I
> just think your reply to that poster makes no sense. It makes even less
> sense now, knowing you forgot what the original post was about, were not
> sure if the reply post was in the right thread, and did not want to
> bother to read 8 posts in that thread to refresh your memory.
>> confused:

OK, sarcasm I can accept :-)

But why my reply confuses you is beyond my ken.

1. I read enough Usenet so that there's *no way* that, in January, I
can remember every thread back to October. This strikes me as more than
obvious...

2. It would hardly be the first time a reply appeared in a thread
unrelated to the reply. For instance, just a couple of days ago I
helped someone (I *think* I helped him!) who thought he lost a post; he
had accidentally replied to an unrelated thread, but in that case the
time span was short enough for me to remember it.

BTW, there are people who answer posts older than my server's retention
time - the OP is not here. This wasn't one of those, but still.

3. And all in all, what I meant was more like this:
If the poster doesn't care enough to quote the matter he is referring
to, and to reply under the post he is referring to, I don't care enough
to search through the thread even if the thread is only eight posts
long. This is only partly because there's no guarantee that the post in
question is there...

Yes, it's hard-hearted, but I read enough posts[1] not to want to deal
with such a posting "style".

Although it looks to me like we will continue to disagree, I
respectfully request that you think about these issues with this
concept in mind: why not devote a moment's thought & effort to make it
easy for my readers to read my reply?

[1] There are those who would translate that as "I waste enough time
already" :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene wrote:
> But why my reply confuses you is beyond my ken.

>3. And all in all, what I meant was more like this:
>If the poster doesn't care enough to quote the matter he is referring
>to, and to reply under the post he is referring to, I don't care enoug

>to search through the thread even if the thread is only eight posts
>long. This is only partly because there's no guarantee that the post i

>question is there...

>Yes, it's hard-hearted, but I read enough posts[1] not to want to deal
>with such a posting "style".

>[1] There are those who would translate that as "I waste enough time
already" :-)

>Although it looks to me like we will continue to disagree, I
>respectfully request that you think about these issues with this
>concept in mind: why not devote a moment's thought & effort to make i

>easy for my readers to read my reply?
=================

Gene,
I realize this discussion is getting long in the tooth, but I d
understand
and agree with your points, and agree that thought and effort should g

into every post to make reading, and assisting in threads as easy as
possible for all posters. That is what I strive to do, but we all nee
to
use a bit of common sense too.
Where we disagree(or maybe you missed what my point was), is about the
'attitude' you displayed(which I took for machismo) in your reply.
It's one thing for you to think the reply might have been for you a
first (because of
lack of quoted text), but to insist you know what the posters intention
are
even after the poster said he did not ask you for info is, in m
opinion, ridiculous.
It was at that point, and for that reason, why I posted a comment.
I readily admit I made a mistake starting this discussion.

The_KiKi said:
> If I had asked YOU, I didn't, I asked the person with
> the problem who already listed some of their processes, has DSL and
> Vista.

Gene said:
>Actually, you *did* ask me.

rb said:
>"That poster was clearly NOT asking you for info. You even said i
"makes
>no sense". Rather than making yourself look even more foolish an
cluttering
>up the newsgroup with 'jugar al quien es mas macho' posts, how abou
just
>admitting you made a mistake. Good grief

On 1/17/2012, rb posted:
> but to insist you know what the posters intentions
> are
> even after the poster said he did not ask you for info is, in my
> opinion, ridiculous.

Actually, I didn't refer to the other posters intentions, I just said
that he answered my post. But how I said it was

"Actually, you *did* ask me".

which is ambiguous wording, I have to say :-)

Anyway, at least we agree on some part of this, and I am willing to
stop defending myself any further...

....even though I *am* right (OK, now I'm joking).

BTW, I'm not what I'd call macho, but as for sarcasm, well, that's
another issue...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:27:14 -0700, "Me" <meatacmewidgetsdotcom>
> wrote:
>
>>> How much RAM ?
>>
>>
>> I don't know. I know that's random access memory but I don't know
>> where do I find it.
>
>
> There are many ways to find out. Here's an easy one: hold down the
> Windows key and press Pause|Break.

Wow! That's a nice tip.