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: Josepi on 23 Dec 2009 16:15 Good thing it was easy to follow for you. If you have no logical arguments left try insulting everybody. "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:cbm4j5lbu33a2rr3kbj66lg3blsctnj2me(a)4ax.com... 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? Troll, huh? 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. 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. --- 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: Josepi on 23 Dec 2009 16:16 Get a browser that supports threading like the majority of us. Your bottom posting troll was a good distraction for entertainment purposes only. "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:i2i4j5586m4djuorlvso1cgvoqolv57rlf(a)4ax.com... On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:43:42 -0800 (PST), Michael B <baughfam(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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. >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. --- While the original topic was coil winding, this part of the thread has gone off-topic and diverged to the point where what's being discussed is the efficacy of bottom and in-line posting VS top posting. Consequently, since my comments address top, in-line, and bottom posting they are relevant. --- >Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily >ignored. --- Isn't comfort and lack of confusion in communications what we should all strive for? I've relocated your post so that it follows my earlier one in order that you might see how much more natural the flow is, chronologically, using bottom posting. Just think (if you can) how much easier someone coming across this post for the first time would find it to understand, reading it from the top down instead of having to jump about trying to stitch together seemingly unrelated pieces of quiltwork. JF JF JF
From: Josepi on 23 Dec 2009 16:21 Now you consider yourself "most". Learning to troll, are we? "daestrom" <daestrom(a)twcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:hgtcnc12ug9(a)news5.newsguy.com... How arrogant of you to presume to speak for 'most others'. You certainly don't speak for me. daestrom Josepi wrote: Yup, top posting is the favouite troll of the unoriginal ones. I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not read by me or most others.
From: krw on 23 Dec 2009 18:13 On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:21:25 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM(a)inv.alid.com> wrote: >Now you consider yourself "most". Show us the numbers or admit your lie. >Learning to troll, are we? Do you *always* refer to yourself in the plural? >"daestrom" <daestrom(a)twcny.rr.com> wrote in message >news:hgtcnc12ug9(a)news5.newsguy.com... >How arrogant of you to presume to speak for 'most others'. > >You certainly don't speak for me. > >daestrom > > > >Josepi wrote: >Yup, top posting is the favouite troll of the unoriginal ones. > >I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not >read by me or most others. > > >
From: Michael A. Terrell on 23 Dec 2009 18:53
krw wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:21:25 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM(a)inv.alid.com> wrote: > > >Now you consider yourself "most". > > Show us the numbers or admit your lie. > > >Learning to troll, are we? > > Do you *always* refer to yourself in the plural? Morons usually do. :( -- Offworld checks no longer accepted! |