Why Is Austria Skiing Dirt Cheap For USA Right Now?
|
Why Is Austria Skiing Dirt Cheap For USA Right Now?
In , Ace typed:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:36:04 +0100, "MoonMan" wrote: In , Alex Heney typed: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:13:37 +0100, "MoonMan" wrote: snip Bottom posting is a pain! it is a remnant of using teletypes. Why can't we move with the technology? Bottom posting is the norm because that is the way we read. the norm with email is to add your comment at the top, this is why OE defaults to it. a) it's not a universal norm b) usenet |=email I didn't say it was, I was using it as an example just as I was with HTML it makes life simpler because the text which you have responded to is always immediatly below what you are typing. this is still linear text with the most relevant information at the top and older less relevant information after it, much more logical and much more usable. This may be fine and dandy in a two-way conversation, but usenet just isn't like that. Somebody might be replying to a thread that's already ten-deep, and will need to see exactly who said what to whom, in response to what. This isn't easily done in a top-post stylee. In internal emails one typically quotes the entirety of each post so far, so one _could_ read them all, by going to the bottom and working upwards, but on usenet it's accepted that quoted material is trimmed to the relevant only. This is mainly my point, if people snipped irrelevant information it wouldn't matter but the fact is THEY DON'T. And there are many occasions, even working in a company where top-posting email is the rule, that I, and others, have resorted to putting comments in-line with the previous posting, very much like is normal on usenet. We use comments in line, usually using different colours, it depends on wether you are answering the whole message or are answering points. Do you not like HTML because it isn't "the way we read"? Many people use newsreaders that are not HTML-enabled so would be unable to read it. Usenet is a text-only concept, so it's no good saying all these peeps should upgrade to the latest Windoze kit, particularly as many of them will have been around, using textonly software, since before 'the internet' was born. I did not mean HTML in usenet, Usenet is text only. what I meant was do you not like Hypertext because as it is not linear it is not the same as the text we use to read as children. -- Chris *:-) Downhill Good, Uphill BAD! www.suffolkvikings.org.uk |
Why Is Austria Skiing Dirt Cheap For USA Right Now?
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:36:04 +0100, "MoonMan"
wrote: In , Alex Heney typed: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:13:37 +0100, "MoonMan" wrote: snip Bottom posting is a pain! it is a remnant of using teletypes. Why can't we move with the technology? Because it is NOTHING to do with teletypes. Bottom posting is the norm because that is the way we read. the norm with email is to add your comment at the top, this is why OE defaults to it. it makes life simpler because the text which you have responded to is always immediatly below what you are typing. this is still linear text with the most relevant information at the top and older less relevant information after it, much more logical and much more usable. With email, you are most commonly making very quick responses, and are responding to the person who wrote the email specifically, rather than to a group. Both of those features mean that you should rarely need to read the quoted text. When there is a need, it is just as hard to read it properly with top posted email. I also strongly suspect that you have cause and effect mixed up when you say that is why OE does it that way. It is only relatively recently (since Outlook and OE became the most common mail clients) that I have come across it as the norm. Do you not like HTML because it isn't "the way we read"? I have never seen anything in HTML (other than some newsgroup postings) which has not had all the paragraphs following in normal reading order. So no, there is nothing about HTML which is "not the way we read". I don't actually think HTML has any place in usenet, but that is a different issue. that is because it takes around three times as much bandwidth, and many news clients (including mine) will not render it. Which they shouldn't, if they are following the standards. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Why can't women put the toilet seat back up? To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom |
Why Is Austria Skiing Dirt Cheap For USA Right Now?
MoonMan wrote: Bottom posting is a pain! it is a remnant of using teletypes. Why can't we move with the technology? Rubbish ! A. Top posters Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet? There's another one along similar lines : A: Because it upsets the logical flow of the thread. Q: Why is top posting a bad idea? |
Why Is Austria Skiing Dirt Cheap For USA Right Now?
Ralf Langanke wrote in message ...
I think you need a rental car in innsbruck if you want to reach the resorts fast. The local buses leave town at about 9am and take about an hour to get to the closer ski areas. Return buses are infrequent, so you are committed to staying even if you have skied all of the runs and are ready to return. |
Why Is Austria Skiing Dirt Cheap For USA Right Now?
In message , Ian Spare
writes On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:41:23 +0200, Ace wrote: 'Mere' is the misleading part here. In French, anywhere there is skiing is referred to as a Station de Ski. It's in no way connected to the existence or otherwise of town, village or city. Quite right, I'd forgotton that the French "stations de ski" was generally translated as ski resorts until you mentioned it. Personally, resorts doesn't sound right to me, it suggest places you vaction in, 90% of my skiing (probably like yours) is weekends in one of my flats or days from the house (which should improve this year as we're living near enough for Verbier). But you wouldn't call a place a "station de bagnade" if it had only a beach, would you? You'd expect hotels, a promenade - all the facilities of a seaside/lakeside resort. Isn't it the place with two lifts and a cafe that doesn't deserve to be called a "station"? (My grandmother went to the hill station each hot weather; Indian English still has the coastal station too.) -- Sue ]:(:) |
Why Is Austria Skiing Dirt Cheap For USA Right Now?
David Off wrote:
Ian Spare wrote: On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:24:02 +0100, Sue wrote: But you wouldn't call a place a "station de bagnade" if it had only a beach, would you? You'd expect hotels, a promenade - all the facilities of a seaside/lakeside resort. Isn't it the place with two lifts and a cafe that doesn't deserve to be called a "station"? I assume you mean baignade ? Sorry, I don't understand. In French we do use the terms station de ski and staion de montagne, the fact we don't say station de baignade No, it is 'station balneaire', but you need to know when and when not to use the expression. I go to one of those when I want a whale of a time.... |
Why Is Austria Skiing Dirt Cheap For USA Right Now?
BrritSki wrote:
David Off wrote: Ian Spare wrote: On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:24:02 +0100, Sue wrote: But you wouldn't call a place a "station de bagnade" if it had only a beach, would you? You'd expect hotels, a promenade - all the facilities of a seaside/lakeside resort. Isn't it the place with two lifts and a cafe that doesn't deserve to be called a "station"? I assume you mean baignade ? Sorry, I don't understand. In French we do use the terms station de ski and staion de montagne, the fact we don't say station de baignade No, it is 'station balneaire', but you need to know when and when not to use the expression. I go to one of those when I want a whale of a time.... tout a fait :-) |
Why Is Austria Skiing Dirt Cheap For USA Right Now?
"Ace" wrote in message
... On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:24:02 +0100, Sue wrote: But you wouldn't call a place a "station de bagnade" if it had only a beach, would you? You'd expect hotels, a promenade - all the facilities of a seaside/lakeside resort. Well it may be a moot point, but if I saw somewhere on the coast marked as a 'Station de Baignade' I would _expect_ access to the sea, be it beach or jetty, possibly a lifeguard, maybe even a shower. Shops & cafés would be a bonus, hotels & promenade unlikely. That's what _I_ would take it to mean, if such a term was used. Isn't it the place with two lifts and a cafe that doesn't deserve to be called a "station"? Ace ecrit: Sounds like the term is ideally suited. It would be innacurate to call such a place a 'resort'. What term would you prefer? drivel My point entirely. /drivel -- -- Jonathan |
Why Is Austria Skiing Dirt Cheap For USA Right Now?
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 09:53:15 +0100, "Jonathan Gogan"
wrote: "Ace" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:24:02 +0100, Sue wrote: snip To make it easier to read just your comments, you might like to change your outlook settings to prefix each line of quoted text with a , like what most other folk do. Also you could try snipping unneeded test in the post you're quoting. Ace ecrit: Sounds like the term is ideally suited. It would be innacurate to call such a place a 'resort'. What term would you prefer? drivel My point entirely. /drivel Eh? Not entirely, I feel, as you were the one saying we should _not_ use station for anywhere that was large enough to call a town, which is not what I was saying at all. -- Ace (bruce dot rogers at roche dot com) Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SkiBanter.com