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: John Fields on 22 Dec 2009 19:32 On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:29:43 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM(a)inv.alid.com> wrote: >Yup, top posting is the favouite troll of the unoriginal ones. --- So, by top posting, you're admitting that's your favorite method of trolling _and_ that you're unoriginal? --- >I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not >read by me or most others. --- "Polls??? "Most others"??? JF
From: Michael B on 22 Dec 2009 20:43 Your position, at the bottom, assumes that your responses will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past all your other trolldom utterances. I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not particularly surprised. Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily ignored. On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to > say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go > thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine > what you were talking about.
From: John Fields on 23 Dec 2009 12:56 On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:11:59 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM(a)inv.alid.com> wrote: >I must say I do like the way the browsers were designed to top post. I hate >scrolling to the bottom and then reading backwards to find the top of their >statements. --- Browsers aren't designed to top post, but simpletons who can't be bothered (or don't know how) to locate the cursor properly before they start typing use that as an excuse to justify top posting, a format that was adopted as the default for email, where it works since the (generally) two people involved in the exchange know what went before. In USENET that's not true, and a reader coming across a thread for the first time wouldn't know what went before and would then, logically, go to the top of the post and start reading from there in order to traverse the correct chronological sequence of posts _if_ the earlier posts were located at the top of the stack. Just like picking up a book you had never read before, would you expect chapter 10 to be at the beginning and chapter 1 at the end? --- >Just look at a thread where epople haven't trimmed and the big inserted >lexical levels are hard to pick out and the outside lexical levels are >useless as nobody can count that many right carets to figure out who said >it. The result? People read the previous posts to know who said what, >confusion results in fights from people disagreeing with the wrong people >and just general mass confusion of information, especially with the browsers >meant to download binary files, mainly. --- Troll, huh? --- >Look at this beautiful format. This is the way every browser I have seen so >far is designed to work. It is always a favourite troll post of the lazy >trolls when losing an argument. "Your format is wrong" makes a good >distraction from the real issue. --- 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. --- >Now read very closely in the attached reference posts I may have interlaced >a comment, somewhere...LOL --- You make my point and laugh at any inconvenience I may experience in trying to search for your maliciously placed nonsense. Just what I would expect of an immature, self-centered, top-poster. --- >"Michael B" <baughfam(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message >news:61e9f5bc-7024-4deb-bdd5-2ac4c079d56b(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >Your position, at the bottom, assumes that your responses >will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past >all your other trolldom utterances. > I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something >relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not >particularly surprised. >Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily >ignored. > > On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com>wrote: >Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to >say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go >thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine >what you were talking about. --- Ugh... If you consider that formatting to be beautiful, then I suggest you consider this to be beautiful, as well: http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/Enlargement.cfm?ID=38 JF
From: John Fields on 23 Dec 2009 13:00 On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:12:53 -0500, daestrom <daestrom(a)twcny.rr.com> wrote: >John Fields wrote: >> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:04:31 -0800, "Edmond H. Wollmann" >> <EHWollmann(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>> "m II" <C(a)in.the.hat> wrote in message news:4b2dcce2(a)news.x-privat.org... >>> John Fields wrote: >>> >>>> Should be 'words', actually. >>> >>>> Prepositions are not your strong point, are they John? >>>> mike >>> >>> >>> Nop! He's good at copy and past some funky formulas off his Electronic workbench!...heeheee.... >> >> --- >> "Nop", I suspect, describes your life. >> >> JF > > >As in the common mnemonic for 'No Operation' when dealing with assembly >language? --- Precisely! :-) JF
From: Josepi on 23 Dec 2009 16:09
Let's see...that was an "02" in 6800, a "20" in 6809 and in 68000 hmmmmmm... assemblers got cheaper. Always use one before a CLI. 808x I wouldn't want to see the code for that POS. Not assembler friendly. LOL "daestrom" <daestrom(a)twcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:hgtc1o02tdn(a)news5.newsguy.com... As in the common mnemonic for 'No Operation' when dealing with assembly language? daestrom John Fields wrote: "Nop", I suspect, describes your life. JF JF JF On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:04:31 -0800, "Edmond H. Wollmann" Nop! He's good at copy and past some funky formulas off his Electronic workbench!...heeheee.... |