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 10 Jan 2010 03:53 I'm not convinced it's a trolling. I looked at the listing from a year ago at this time. There were several active topics, and three spams. Now, there are only about three active threads, and they have deviated considerably off topic, and there are at least 19 spams ranging from sneakers to nudes. So indeed, there is still a batch of daily messages, if you call them that, but the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten really bad since this time last year. And that doesn't speak well for the future. On Jan 10, 12:46 am, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...(a)ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: > You start blathering on a group where there direct disproof of your > opinion. > Daily a batch of messages, and only when people like you come around, > trolling , things get ugly. > So improve the group and vanish.....
From: John Fields on 10 Jan 2010 07:52 On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:30:43 -0800 (PST), Michael B <baughfam(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >If you get around to any roses-sniffing, here's a comment >that was in alt.home.repair that might be relevant to your >assertion that >90 % prefer bottom-posting. > >> Gets me, too. Ths group's the worst one I've ever seen >> for it, and I don't know why that should be. I don't ever KF >> people, but if I don't see some of their new content in a >> message without having to scroll, I don't bother reading it. --- Trying to be cute, huh? One post out of millions hardly refutes my assertion, and that straw man you're trying to pass off as top posting, isn't What you've posted is a commentary on an article which you're quoting, with the quotation (which you've failed to mark as a quotation, BTW) following the comment. That isn't top posting and is an acceptable construct. However, failing to trim the irrelevant material following your quote isn't, so I trimmed it for you just so you could see how much neater and more readable your posts would look if you posted like they do in Rome. JF
From: nospam on 10 Jan 2010 07:55 Sjouke Burry wrote: > nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>> nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: >>> >>>> Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the >>>> next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the >>>> groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to >>>> 1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post. >>>> When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days >>>> between new posts its days are numbered. >>> Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a >>> sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start >>> banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all >>> over!!!" >>> >> >> >> Typical, don't like the message and attack the messenger....You don't >> believe postings are now far lower to this group than what they were >> even two years ago? > You start blathering on a group where there direct disproof of your > opinion. > Daily a batch of messages, and only when people like you come around, > trolling , things get ugly. > So improve the group and vanish..... I have been posting to alt.energy.homepower since 1998, there used to be in excess of 100 post a day here at one point...Telling the truth does not make one a troll.
From: John Fields on 10 Jan 2010 08:37 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:53:30 -0800 (PST), Michael B <baughfam(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >I'm not convinced it's a trolling. >I looked at the listing from a year ago at this time. >There were several active topics, and three spams. >Now, there are only about three active threads, and >they have deviated considerably off topic, and there >are at least 19 spams ranging from sneakers to >nudes. >So indeed, there is still a batch of daily messages, >if you call them that, but the signal-to-noise ratio >has gotten really bad since this time last year. And >that doesn't speak well for the future. --- SPAM is easy to control with properly configured filters and a decent newsreader, and threads will wind about and go on and off topic; that's why they're called threads... On the other hand, shunning malevolent elements like you is a little more difficult and putting you in your place usually requires more time and effort than is devoted to answering the simple technical queries expected here. I'm sure that some folks object to your shenanigans and leave, just to get you out of their hair, just as I'm sure there are many more who enjoy seeing you getting slapped around and some, indeed, who enjoy doing the slapping. :-) Bottom line is, I think, if the attrition isn't natural because of, say, a growing lack of interest in basic electronics, then it's at least partially due to trolls like you who make spending time here less than enjoyable for those who wish the newsgroup's charter would be more closely adhered to. JF
From: nospam on 10 Jan 2010 09:38
John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:53:30 -0800 (PST), Michael B > <baughfam(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> I'm not convinced it's a trolling. >> I looked at the listing from a year ago at this time. >> There were several active topics, and three spams. >> Now, there are only about three active threads, and >> they have deviated considerably off topic, and there >> are at least 19 spams ranging from sneakers to >> nudes. >> So indeed, there is still a batch of daily messages, >> if you call them that, but the signal-to-noise ratio >> has gotten really bad since this time last year. And >> that doesn't speak well for the future. > > --- > SPAM is easy to control with properly configured filters and a decent > newsreader, and threads will wind about and go on and off topic; that's > why they're called threads... > > On the other hand, shunning malevolent elements like you is a little > more difficult and putting you in your place usually requires more time > and effort than is devoted to answering the simple technical queries > expected here. > > I'm sure that some folks object to your shenanigans and leave, just to > get you out of their hair, just as I'm sure there are many more who > enjoy seeing you getting slapped around and some, indeed, who enjoy > doing the slapping. :-) > > Bottom line is, I think, if the attrition isn't natural because of, say, > a growing lack of interest in basic electronics, then it's at least > partially due to trolls like you who make spending time here less than > enjoyable for those who wish the newsgroup's charter would be more > closely adhered to. > > > JF Trolls are hardly the issue, the legendary trolls and spammers of the 1990's couldn't kill usenet, even though they could block a group for days with massive attacks. The attrition is what it is, with the exception of downloading media files Usenet has been is serious decline for the last five years, it's now getting down to the diehards ( of which I'm one) who get fewer all the time. |