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 23 Dec 2009 21:47 In this post, John acknowledges that top posting is more logical and effective, apologizes for the distraction, admits that he is a troll, and wishes he could get out of his mother's basement and get a job. On Dec 23, 12:56 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:11:59 -0500, "Josepi" <J...(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" <baugh...(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_Pho... > > JF
From: Josepi on 23 Dec 2009 22:30 But nobody can see who said what as the headers are all separated from their respective text bodies. Wot a mess. Just look at it <attached below> It appears John says he likes top posting and that would be a co-operative thing. From previous posts it appears he gets insulting with everybody in his frustration to make a valid point. This is common for bottom posters. "Michael B" <baughfam(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:2c828404-7c96-4377-96f2-d53a81814302(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... In this post, John acknowledges that top posting is more logical and effective, apologizes for the distraction, admits that he is a troll, and wishes he could get out of his mother's basement and get a job. On Dec 23, 12:56 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:11:59 -0500, "Josepi" <J...(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" <baugh...(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_Pho... > > JF
From: John Fields on 24 Dec 2009 10:10 On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:30:10 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM(a)inv.alid.com> wrote: >But nobody can see who said what as the headers are all separated from their >respective text bodies. --- Get a proper newsreader and a non-combative attitude and it'll all become clear to you. --- >Wot a mess. Just look at it <attached below> It appears John says he likes >top posting and that would be a co-operative thing. From previous posts it >appears he gets insulting with everybody in his frustration to make a valid >point. This is common for bottom posters. --- You parrot Michael B's nonsensical post, which is, at best wishful thinking, and therefore show yourself up as being unable to defend your own untenable position. The insults are there just for deserved emphasis and are aimed squarely at top posters like you, since you seem to understand little else. JF
From: John Fields on 24 Dec 2009 10:18 On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:47:32 -0800 (PST), Michael B <baughfam(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >In this post, John acknowledges that top posting is more >logical and effective, apologizes for the distraction, admits >that he is a troll, and wishes he could get out of his mother's >basement and get a job. --- You're a waste of time and air. JF
From: Josepi on 24 Dec 2009 10:33
<PLONK> Bet you can read this. "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:kg07j5h0417k3h8p17r216hs52obfanktk(a)4ax.com... On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:30:10 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM(a)inv.alid.com> wrote: >But nobody can see who said what as the headers are all separated from >their >respective text bodies. --- Get a proper newsreader and a non-combative attitude and it'll all become clear to you. --- >Wot a mess. Just look at it <attached below> It appears John says he likes >top posting and that would be a co-operative thing. From previous posts it >appears he gets insulting with everybody in his frustration to make a valid >point. This is common for bottom posters. --- You parrot Michael B's nonsensical post, which is, at best wishful thinking, and therefore show yourself up as being unable to defend your own untenable position. The insults are there just for deserved emphasis and are aimed squarely at top posters like you, since you seem to understand little else. JF |