From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Let's Play Attributions
Summary: Why are you wasting our time, Scott Roby?
Keywords: post, attributions
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:09:39 GMT

Although I have made it very clear in several posts that I know very well
how attributions work, some people in this newsgroup have still seen fit
to instruct me.  Here is a response I made to Scott Roby which defaulted
to the local net, in which I try to set him straight on this.

Subject: Re: More Explanation of attributes (was Re: Susan Garvin on Forgery
Keywords: Chaney/Hall, flame, typical
Distribution: uscar

In <Bx3tw1.E3p@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>OK, Let's try and explain this VERY CAREFULLY, so that SOME people may 
>finally understand.

I have always understood very well.

>First, Susan subsititutes the # sign for the > sign for a very simple 
>reason.

I never had a problem with that.

>Second, a users's text will always have precisely one more attribute marker 
>(a > sign -- or a # sign for Susan's posts) than does the attribute line 
>for that same user.

I caught onto that back in Wollongong.

>Now let's review attributes IN ACTION....

[Deletions.  There was more than even the most clueless newbie needs.]

>>In <BwLtMz.GDD.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>NOTE 3: Susan's attribute line has exactly ONE > sign preceding it, 
>therefore, we expect HER text to have exactly TWO > signs preceding it 
>(1+1=2).

>>>In article <1992Oct22.160749.18540@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>NOTE 4: Susan quotes Steve (the TWO > signs indicate that it is SUSAN 
>who is quoting Steve).  Since Steve's attribute line starts with TWO > signs, 
>we should expect THREE > signs for Steve's text (2+1=3).  But wait!  Remember 
>that Susan has to do a global substitution of # for > in order to quote 
>a lot and still get her article posted (explained at beginning).  So 
>we really expect to see two > signs and one # sign for Steve's text.

>>>#Susan: 

>NOTE 5: Bingo!  This is Steve's text as quoted by Susan.  (Remember to 
>think of the > sign when ever you see the # sign).  

No problem. 

>Now let's see if we all understand how this works...

You don't, apparently, because you deleted the very things I was 
referring to: two attribution lines which were exactly the way I 
described them below.

>>Verrrrry interesting.  When Adrienne Regard pulled her transparent "forgery",
>>the number of   >  agreed, showing how she was joking (despite the absence
>>of smileys: that's a Mikado thing most people, including Muriel, don't 
>>understand).  Look up there, folks: once again, the number of  > , namely
>>one, agree.  Both "In article"s are preceded by only one >.  Of course,
>>in Susan's post, there are none.

Now these were attributions to two separate articles, one supposedly
a follow-up to the other.

But don't worry, folks, you'll find out about these two articles below.
Roby is good at obliterating evidence, but not that good.

>Well now they are preceded by two > signs since I am now quoting Peter.
>But note that Steve's text has the additional # sign, which is really 
>just a substitute for the > sign.  Hopefully, Peter will now understand 
>that Steve's text has actually three > signs (2> + 1# = 3>, since > = #). 
>while his attribute line only contains two > signs (2> + 0# = 2>).  
>So in fact they DON'T agree in number, as Peter suggests.  

You do not display Steve's text.  Nor that of the other person who was
attributed in the attributions you deleted. Verrrrry interesting.

>Let's continue on with another example... (remember either > or # will do as 
>an attribute marker and the person's attribute line always has ONE LESS 
>marker than does their quoted text.

>>>In article <1992Sep23.014327.29219@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>NOTE: This MEANS: Chaney's text will have THREE >'s and/or #'s.

>>>#In article <1992Sep22.123959.2529@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes

Yes, my friend, NOW barnej's attribution has that extra # in it.
It did NOT have the extra # in the earlier attribution, which you
deleted.

You are citing two versions Susan has posted, of the same post.
I was only quarreling with the first one, from which you deleted
all the relevant evidence.

Why are you wasting our time, Scott?

>>>##In article <1992Sep22.052211.14940@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>NOTE: This MEANS: Larry's text will have FIVE >'s and/or #'s.

>>>####            For heaven's sake, Dan, it's only a TELEVISION SHOW...

>UH, OH... SIX markers -- this MEANS someone posted before Larry did and 
>their attribute line got editted out somewhere along the line.. Tsk. Tsk.

Which is pretty much what Adrienne did to me, deleting the >> attribute line to
Don Beaver and then acting as though the >>> attribute to her text was
meant by me to be applying to what Don Beaver said.  On top of which,
she also edited out the > attribute line to her follow-up to Don Beaver.

And I wonder why Adrienne is wasting everybody's time.

>Come to think of it, isn't this the second time that the same someone else 
>got confused about how attributes worked?  

I don't think anyone got confused.  I think you are trying to confuse
your readers, and I think you owe them an apology.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality