unknown wrote:
> William Crawford <wccrawford / gmail.com> wrote:
>>unknown wrote:
> 
> Whats with the "unknown" attribute?  Are you afraid to associate
> my name with the statements I make?
> 

The forum doesn't say your name.  I assume that's because you are on 
usenet, and it's failing to parse your name.  No slight is intended.

>>use a web browser than know how to use usenet?
> Which doesn't mean that any significant percentage of them read
> Web forums, much less that particular forum.

Ditto for those reading usenet.

>>Google indexes
>>ruby-forum.com.  It is MUCH easier and MUCH more useful to search google
>>than search usenet if you want answers about Ruby.  You will not only
>>get posts from this forum, but also from the rest of the internet.  So
>>from your own argument, the forum is prime.
> 
> For the google search engine, they are exactly equal.

My argument was searching the newsgroup vs searching the entire 
internet, including this newsgroup via ruby-forum.com.  There's no way 
you can possibly think those are going to provide the same results.  The 
'entire internet' method has got to provide more.

>>In reality, the mailing list is prime.
> 
> Not even close.
> 

You aren't arguing that with me.  Someone earlier provided evidence that 
the mailing list is prime.  You'll have to argue that with them.

>>When you want an answer, the number of potential readers
>>does not matter.
> 
> You seem willing to make just about *any* damned fool statement,
> regardless of what it means...
> 
> That is trivially false.
>

Only when taken out of context.  You shouldn't split my paragraphs and 
try to make each sentence an entire argument by itself.

>>Only the number of potential (correct) responders
>>does.  That majority of those are on the mailing list.
> 
> And the reverse?  For those who wish to post useful answers?
> The vast majority of readers they target will not be on the
> mailing list.

We have already determined that those here who post useful answers all 
do so under the rules of the mailing list/newsgroup/forum.  I can't 
imagine why you'd want to start arguing about nothing.

> Regardless, where the "majority" of those potentially correct
> responders are located is not significant for someone who wants
> an answer.  They still want maximum exposure, simply because the
> one correct answer that they understand best might come from a
> minority.

Before you argued that getting your message across to those who can 
answer is the goal.  Now you say it isn't.  The method of communication 
HAS to match the arena it is presented in.  You wouldn't try to use 
hand-signals on the radio, and you wouldn't top-post in a forum that 
doesn't allow top-posting, if you truly wanted an answer.  Assuming you 
KNOW these limitations, of course.  Not everyone does, hence the OP's 
question.

> You are blowing blue smoke.

"You seem willing to make just about *any* damned fool statement,
regardless of what it means..." - unknown

> On *any* forum there are often articles that garner less
> response than others simply because the questions are ill
> stated, the article is awkwardly formatted, or any number of
> similar limiting factors.

Yes, if the poster is unable to make sense in his post, it will 'garner 
less response.'  I'm not talking about not making sense.  I'm talking 
about top-posting.  It does not inherently 'make less sense', no matter 
what you think.  For the majority of the people here, it is trivial to 
read the post prior to the response.  Any half-arse attempt at a post 
will make sense with little or no context.  Only if the poster 
deliberately posts only an answer with no context whatsoever is there a 
problem.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.