A question about coil winding
in [Basics]
|
Prev: component tester, transistors and diodes / LEDs
Next: Discharging a lithium-ion battery, what is the third wire for?
From: Michael B on 7 Jan 2010 21:13 Go to the medical boards sometime. Arthritis, chronic pain, cancer, etc. See if your >99% observation applies. When economy of movement, as well as a small group that knows what has come before, top posting is most practical. Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an enormous number of specific-interest groups, more being formed all the time. That would suggest top posting being more appropriate, along with ignoring self-appointed net-cops that want to try to force a practice they know to be archaic and clumsy. On Dec 23 2009, 12:56 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > My position and that of probably >>99% of USENET is that bottom and > in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than > top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to > your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own > petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.
From: Josepi on 7 Jan 2010 21:33 Unbelievable. I didn't have to mouse scroll down and then back up again to see if I missed anything... and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are all in order. I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like Usenet. I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the curser at the top. There are always special keystrokes to get to the bottom but then you have to backtrack to find the top of the entry. Even the signatures lines are handled by deleting them. So many groups use this method now with the exception of a few old farts from the outdated IRC...LOL This should have them cringing in their boots. I used the words "browser", "forum" and a few others that the "everbody has to be like me" trolls like to cling onto...LOL Have a good one. "Michael B" <baughfam(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5dc8(a)a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... Go to the medical boards sometime. Arthritis, chronic pain, cancer, etc. See if your >99% observation applies. When economy of movement, as well as a small group that knows what has come before, top posting is most practical. Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an enormous number of specific-interest groups, more being formed all the time. That would suggest top posting being more appropriate, along with ignoring self-appointed net-cops that want to try to force a practice they know to be archaic and clumsy. On Dec 23 2009, 12:56 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: My position and that of probably >>99% of USENET is that bottom and in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.
From: John Fields on 7 Jan 2010 22:32 On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:46:45 -0800 (PST), Michael B <baughfam(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > >On Dec 24 2009, 11:21�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> >wrote: > >> As usual, when you try to give one of the mentally deficient >> Google-groupers a hand by clueing them in to USENET etiquette they fight >> tooth and nail to remain clueless and self-absorbed. >> >> JF >No, and we also don't need to become acquainted with >the intricate aspects of buggy-whip manufacture. --- You already have, since you've latched on to an "old" posting style which is convenient for email tete-a-tete where the participants are privy know what went before. It's not convenient for USENET however and, as much as you rail against it, bottom and inline posting is considered de rigueur by most of the grown-ups on USENET who are interested in making their communications as clear, cogent, and unhostile as possible. You and your ilk, on the other hand, seem to be intent on getting attention by being as annoying as you possibly can and having disdain heaped on you as a "reward" since you have, obviously, nothing of any value to share with the group yet want desperately to be considered important. --- >Some people adapt to changing times, others cling to >the habits they learned to barely survive as others >pass them by. --- Some people, like you, try to make things change for the sole purpose of trying to prove to yourselves that you're _not_ impotent when, if you had any sense, would realize really how far off the mark you are. --- >You cling, and seek to be buddies with other trailer- >park refugees whose only value is to provide amusement, >and protein if things get tough. --- As usual, more of the tawdry, knuckle-dragging blather you seem to think is clever. Oh, well, at least you're harmless. BTW, I fixed your top-posting faux pas so that everyone can more easily read your trash. That's what you want, isn't it? JF
From: John Fields on 7 Jan 2010 22:55 On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 21:39:38 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM(a)invaliid.con> wrote: >As seasoned and thinking Usenet operators we should know better than to >respond to the age old classic troll of posting style. --- "Seasoned and thinking Usenet operators"??? Shirley you must be joking. No matter how you try to cut it, your "defense" of an atrocious and contrived USENET posting style coupled with your obvious lack of knowledge of the origins of USENET brands you as an ignorant "johnny-come-lately" narcissistic troublemaker with no real interest in anything other than self-aggrandization at the cost of others. JF
From: Jasen Betts on 8 Jan 2010 04:51
On 2010-01-08, Josepi <JRM(a)invaliid.con> wrote: > Unbelievable. I didn't have to mouse scroll down and then back up again to > see if I missed anything... if you have to do that you are using the wrong newsreader, or using it incorrectly. > and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are > all in order. no, they aren't visible at all. > I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of > the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not > mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday > for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like > Usenet. there is no requirement to top post in email. > I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the > curser at the top. that way I can cursor down throught the message and delete the unwanted parts and reply to the bits that need attention. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |