| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
server
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: readingislam |
 |
|
| message unavailable |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
McHog60
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: Re: readingislam |
|
|
On May 20, 11:46 am, truth <truth.wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Zone-English-D...
[/quote]
Stop spamming with this crap! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heinz Schmitz
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: readingislam |
|
|
McHog60 wrote:
[quote]http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Zone-English-D...
Stop spamming with this crap!
[/quote]
He certainly will, if you come up with 72 virgins.
Regards,
H. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spehro Pefhany
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:14 pm Post subject: Re: Father/daughter talk... |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:46:03 -0700, the renowned JosephKK
<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:43:25 +0100, Mike V <mike@invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:05:56 -0700, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:51:48 +0100, Mike V <mike@invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:49:24 -0700, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com
wrote:
"Mike V" <mike@invalid> wrote in message
news:33vcd4lpscbqn4fes2p43m7p89pm95edfl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:30:45 -0700, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com
wrote:
Ultimately, political correctness caused it. Clinton>s overzealous
attempt to bring loans to minorities--qualified or not, by way of the
changes he made under the Community Reinvestment Act--demanded that
banks adopt unsound lending practices to meet their statutory lending
quotas. That planted the seed.
Or should we say ACORN?
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306544845091102
Interestingly, ACORN, a group lobbying for these inner city loans, was
represented at that time by ... Mr. Barack Obama.
Small world, isn>t it?
Grins,
James Arthur
Yeah right! A trillion in bad loan debt by defaulting minorities? It>s
all
due to them lousy negras and spics and gooks. That>s what we republicans
say. If the loans were made to white christian folks we wouldn>t have
this
problem, Huh? Only the worst kind of racist bigot (read republican) would
make such an absurd claim that the trillion dollar problem is caused by
loans to minorities, and of course, It>s all Clinton>s fault! Idiot.
Bob, I ain>t American so don>t really care about your parties.
But, the analysis in the link looks OK to an outsider. If it>s wrong
offer a reasoned argument not a rant. To be honest your rant
completely undermines your case.
The analysis looks OK here because it>s the sort of stupid thing Tony
Bliar and Gordon Brown have been doing over here for the last 10
years.
Oh, you mean Tony the Lap Dog, Bush>s little poodle? Tell us about it.
Bob
Please don>t think I have something against Democrats, some of my best
friends are Republicans:)
I ask you, outside of Saudi Arabia and Iran, where could you find a
politician who believes in creationism? Republicans have a religious
fanatic base almost as bad as the Ayatollahs.
To be honest I wish you yanks luck. There is no one a sane man (sorry
person, ethnic or otherwise) can vote for in November.
Bring back Reagan, his coffin could do a better job than the current
bunch.
Bullshit. For real improvement exhume Jefferson or Lincoln. Their
excreta was better than Watergate Reagan.
Jefferson probably.
But Lincoln? How many died in the civil war? More than the rest of the
wars the USA have fought put together.
One google puts the lie to that, search string:
"us war casualty stats"
First non-advertising hit: (Table 1)
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/american%20war%20casualty.htm#t1
[/quote]
I guess if you only count military deaths, and only count them on one
of the two sides, you just *might* end up with a number that>s a
trifle on the low side.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it>s the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
CBFalconer
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:32 am Post subject: Re: IPC-2581 |
|
|
Brad Velander wrote: *** and top-posted - fixed ***
[quote]"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
I have been discussing the advantages of a common CAD format for
all manufacturing data for printed circuit boards. IPC-2581 is
a new standard that is being developed for this.
Does anyone know much about this standard? I know that it has
no current support from the tool vendors. Is this at all likely
to be accepted in the industry? Are any vendors considering
adopting it? Is there any interest from users or manufacturers?
Another IPC boondoggle. They failed at GenCAM and they will fail
again with this attempt. Design by committee just doesn>t work
and the IPC doesn>t realize this. Along with the fact that they
have nothing that industry (CAD design industry) wants and
actually everything that the industry doesn>t want, it ends up
being transferable designs through a backdoor.
[/quote]
Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. I fixed this one. See the following links:
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/> (taming google)
<http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/> (newusers)
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Brad Velander
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am Post subject: Re: IPC-2581 |
|
|
CBFalconer,
Who appointed you to the Usenet etiquette police? Got a problem with it,
take it up with Usenet. You know how far you will get! Gee, I don>t see a
single Usenet source amongst your irrelevant material, why not?
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48E54BE9.5741D965@yahoo.com...
[quote]Brad Velander wrote: *** and top-posted - fixed ***
"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
I have been discussing the advantages of a common CAD format for
all manufacturing data for printed circuit boards. IPC-2581 is
a new standard that is being developed for this.
Does anyone know much about this standard? I know that it has
no current support from the tool vendors. Is this at all likely
to be accepted in the industry? Are any vendors considering
adopting it? Is there any interest from users or manufacturers?
Another IPC boondoggle. They failed at GenCAM and they will fail
again with this attempt. Design by committee just doesn>t work
and the IPC doesn>t realize this. Along with the fact that they
have nothing that industry (CAD design industry) wants and
actually everything that the industry doesn>t want, it ends up
being transferable designs through a backdoor.
Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. I fixed this one. See the following links:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/> (taming google)
http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/> (newusers)
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net
Try the download section.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
rickman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: Re: IPC-2581 |
|
|
It is best to just ignore CB>s postings on this. Just as his posts
have no impact on top posting, asking CBF to stop his posts has no
effect. It is just better to live and let live in the wilderness we
call the Internet.
On Oct 3, 2:25 am, "Brad Velander" <bvel...@SpamThis.com> wrote:
[quote]CBFalconer,
Who appointed you to the Usenet etiquette police? Got a problem with it,
take it up with Usenet. You know how far you will get! Gee, I don>t see a
single Usenet source amongst your irrelevant material, why not?
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48E54BE9.5741D965@yahoo.com...
Brad Velander wrote: *** and top-posted - fixed ***
"rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I have been discussing the advantages of a common CAD format for
all manufacturing data for printed circuit boards. IPC-2581 is
a new standard that is being developed for this.
Does anyone know much about this standard? I know that it has
no current support from the tool vendors. Is this at all likely
to be accepted in the industry? Are any vendors considering
adopting it? Is there any interest from users or manufacturers?
Another IPC boondoggle. They failed at GenCAM and they will fail
again with this attempt. Design by committee just doesn>t work
and the IPC doesn>t realize this. Along with the fact that they
have nothing that industry (CAD design industry) wants and
actually everything that the industry doesn>t want, it ends up
being transferable designs through a backdoor.
Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. I fixed this one. See the following links:
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/> (taming google)
<http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/> (newusers)
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net
Try the download section.
[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
rickman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: Re: IPC-2581 |
|
|
I am aware that an earlier attempt was no successful. But why does
that mean this attempt will automatically fail? Your statement that
"design by committee just doesn>t work" does not seem accurate.
Aren>t most standards done by committees? It is the rare standard
that a single person (or a small design group) produces and then
becomes a standard. Most are deliberate, thought out, significant
efforts by representatives from the major stakeholders. The IPC
standards are no exception in that area. The "committee" is made up
of representatives from many of the largest companies in the field.
If this standard included nothing that the industry wants, then why
are they developing it?
Yes, one of the reasons that the initial attempt failed is that the
spec is inclusive enough that a design can be fully represented and
therefor imported into any layout package as well as other tools.
That is the power of it to the user and of course that is a concern by
the tool vendors. But it is the users who buy the tools the the
vendors create. I wonder how long the tool vendors can hold out if
open source tools pick up the idea and carry it forward.
Rick
On Oct 2, 12:58 am, "Brad Velander" <bvel...@SpamThis.com> wrote:
[quote]Another IPC boondoggle. They failed at GenCAM and they will fail again with
this attempt.
Design by committee just doesn>t work and the IPC doesn>t realize this.
Along with the fact that they have nothing that industry (CAD design
industry) wants and actually everything that the industry doesn>t want, it
ends up being transferable designs through a backdoor.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a5dd6cb-21e2-4acf-b553-c93ea3b1f9d7@y79g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
I have been discussing the advantages of a common CAD format for all
manufacturing data for printed circuit boards. IPC-2581 is a new
standard that is being developed for this.
Does anyone know much about this standard? I know that it has no
current support from the tool vendors. Is this at all likely to be
accepted in the industry? Are any vendors considering adopting it?
Is there any interest from users or manufacturers?[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mike V
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: Re: Father/daughter talk... |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:46:03 -0700, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:43:25 +0100, Mike V <mike@invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:05:56 -0700, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:51:48 +0100, Mike V <mike@invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:49:24 -0700, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com
wrote:
"Mike V" <mike@invalid> wrote in message
news:33vcd4lpscbqn4fes2p43m7p89pm95edfl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:30:45 -0700, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com
wrote:
Ultimately, political correctness caused it. Clinton>s overzealous
attempt to bring loans to minorities--qualified or not, by way of the
changes he made under the Community Reinvestment Act--demanded that
banks adopt unsound lending practices to meet their statutory lending
quotas. That planted the seed.
Or should we say ACORN?
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306544845091102
Interestingly, ACORN, a group lobbying for these inner city loans, was
represented at that time by ... Mr. Barack Obama.
Small world, isn>t it?
Grins,
James Arthur
Yeah right! A trillion in bad loan debt by defaulting minorities? It>s
all
due to them lousy negras and spics and gooks. That>s what we republicans
say. If the loans were made to white christian folks we wouldn>t have
this
problem, Huh? Only the worst kind of racist bigot (read republican) would
make such an absurd claim that the trillion dollar problem is caused by
loans to minorities, and of course, It>s all Clinton>s fault! Idiot.
Bob, I ain>t American so don>t really care about your parties.
But, the analysis in the link looks OK to an outsider. If it>s wrong
offer a reasoned argument not a rant. To be honest your rant
completely undermines your case.
The analysis looks OK here because it>s the sort of stupid thing Tony
Bliar and Gordon Brown have been doing over here for the last 10
years.
Oh, you mean Tony the Lap Dog, Bush>s little poodle? Tell us about it.
Bob
Please don>t think I have something against Democrats, some of my best
friends are Republicans:)
I ask you, outside of Saudi Arabia and Iran, where could you find a
politician who believes in creationism? Republicans have a religious
fanatic base almost as bad as the Ayatollahs.
To be honest I wish you yanks luck. There is no one a sane man (sorry
person, ethnic or otherwise) can vote for in November.
Bring back Reagan, his coffin could do a better job than the current
bunch.
Bullshit. For real improvement exhume Jefferson or Lincoln. Their
excreta was better than Watergate Reagan.
Jefferson probably.
But Lincoln? How many died in the civil war? More than the rest of the
wars the USA have fought put together.
One google puts the lie to that, search string:
"us war casualty stats"
First non-advertising hit: (Table 1)
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/american%20war%20casualty.htm#t1
[/quote]
The table states that the deaths is unionists only. Lincoln insisted
the Confederates were also part of the USA so you need to include both
sides.
Try:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm
http://www.civil-war.net/searchstates.asp?searchstates=Total |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Brad Velander
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: Re: IPC-2581 |
|
|
Rick,
I hear your points but how many successful companies or products are
created by committees? Let alone committees that meet only several times per
year. There is a reason for saying s like a camel is a horse designed by
committee. Yes committees can write the standards but what the IPC is trying
here goes beyond the standard just as GenCAM did.
It really doesn>t matter what the customer wants, we (a majority of CAD
designers) have wanted portability for decades now, nobody has written it
into their code yet. I have seen it presented to the tool vendors so many
times. And the tool vendors simply ignore it, they write a new import wizard
to assist in converting your files to their software but these days I even
see less and less export netlist formats from the schematic tools. Reducing
or eliminating even working with a best of Schematic tool and a best PCB
tool. The CAD tool vendors just won>t implement it because they see it as a
quick escape route for customers they otherwise view as having a significant
impediment to changing tools when they might desire.
Maybe I have just become too much of a pessimist as the years go by but
I prefer to look at it as realism since my experience shows me this is the
way it is. I am also an IPC member, just so that you know I am not just
ditzing them for some unfounded reason. They are a good organization but
sometimes they reach too far and are looking through rose colored glasses.
Maybe the members of this standard committee just refuse to acknowledge the
vendors hardened stance against portability and keep hoping. I feel they
would be best served to concentrate their efforts on working with Valor on
ODB++ to improve it>s facilities and commonality across the industry. And
with the other vendors to have them more fully and correctly implement ODB++
within their tools, then you could work on an ODB++ import tool with those
vendors as though it was a path for them to obtain new customers through
providing that import capability to prospective customers. Same horse just
dyed a different color.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b34c52ee-4095-4735-a748-4b8dd1dfc551@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I am aware that an earlier attempt was no successful. But why does
that mean this attempt will automatically fail? Your statement that
"design by committee just doesn>t work" does not seem accurate.
Aren>t most standards done by committees? It is the rare standard
that a single person (or a small design group) produces and then
becomes a standard. Most are deliberate, thought out, significant
efforts by representatives from the major stakeholders. The IPC
standards are no exception in that area. The "committee" is made up
of representatives from many of the largest companies in the field.
If this standard included nothing that the industry wants, then why
are they developing it?
Yes, one of the reasons that the initial attempt failed is that the
spec is inclusive enough that a design can be fully represented and
therefor imported into any layout package as well as other tools.
That is the power of it to the user and of course that is a concern by
the tool vendors. But it is the users who buy the tools the the
vendors create. I wonder how long the tool vendors can hold out if
open source tools pick up the idea and carry it forward.
Rick |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Wim Lewis
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:10 am Post subject: Re: IPC-2581 |
|
|
In article <kViFk.21739$YN3.8542@newsfe08.iad>,
Brad Velander <bveland@SpamThis.com> wrote:
[quote]Who appointed you to the Usenet etiquette police? Got a problem with it,
take it up with Usenet. You know how far you will get! Gee, I don>t see a
single Usenet source amongst your irrelevant material, why not?
[/quote]
I>m not sure if you>re being facetious or if you just don>t have any
clue about Usenet. At any rate, you>re free to continue top-posting,
but it makes you look obnoxious, and makes your posts harder to read.
--
Wim Lewis <wiml@hhhh.org>, Seattle, WA, USA. PGP keyID 27F772C1
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history." -Hegel |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Brad Velander
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:36 am Post subject: Re: IPC-2581 |
|
|
Wim
Sorry if you have really have some difficulty reading text posted at the
top of a message. What happens if there is no quoted message? Do you still
have problems? Sorry that this message must obviously pose a problem for you
also. Idiot!
Obnoxious is the minority that pretends there are these rules and codes
of conduct restricting the free flow of information without culturally and
educationally restrictive artificial boundaries. As for Usenet, it is those
that keep posting these artficial silly rules and conduct and bullying
others (sometimes culturally unfamiliar or just plain not well educated ro
familiar with Usenet) that don>t understand Usenet. Usenet is for the free
and open exchange of ideas and discussion, not for a bunch of silly
self-appointed dweebs to inflict their artificial rules and conduct upon
other by bullying people into conforming to their artificial standards.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
CBFalconer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: Re: IPC-2581 |
|
|
Brad Velander wrote:
[quote]
.... snip ...
Obnoxious is the minority that pretends there are these rules and
codes of conduct restricting the free flow of information without
culturally and educationally restrictive artificial boundaries. As
for Usenet, it is those that keep posting these artficial silly
rules and conduct and bullying others (sometimes culturally
unfamiliar or just plain not well educated ro familiar with Usenet)
that don>t understand Usenet. Usenet is for the free and open
exchange of ideas and discussion, not for a bunch of silly self-
appointed dweebs to inflict their artificial rules and conduct upon
other by bullying people into conforming to their artificial
standards.
[/quote]
Obviously you consider a polite request to observe the behaviour
standards specified for Usenet as 'obnoxious', even when the
request is accompanied with references and justification. It is
hard to understand such people.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
rickman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: Re: IPC-2581 |
|
|
On Oct 4, 12:53 am, "Brad Velander" <bvel...@SpamThis.com> wrote:
[quote]Rick,
I hear your points but how many successful companies or products are
created by committees? Let alone committees that meet only several times per
year. There is a reason for saying s like a camel is a horse designed by
committee. Yes committees can write the standards but what the IPC is trying
here goes beyond the standard just as GenCAM did.
[/quote]
IPC is not trying to create a "product" or a company. They are
creating a standard for the exchange of manufacturing information. It
is that simple. You have also ignored my statement that the standard
committee is staffed by representatives from the various CAD
companies. Why would the CAD companies create a standard that they
themselves don>t want? I don>t see where the standard effort is
inherently a bad thing just because it is done by a committee.
[quote] It really doesn>t matter what the customer wants, we (a majority of CAD
designers) have wanted portability for decades now, nobody has written it
into their code yet. I have seen it presented to the tool vendors so many
times. And the tool vendors simply ignore it, they write a new import wizard
to assist in converting your files to their software but these days I even
see less and less export netlist formats from the schematic tools. Reducing
or eliminating even working with a best of Schematic tool and a best PCB
tool. The CAD tool vendors just won>t implement it because they see it as a
quick escape route for customers they otherwise view as having a significant
impediment to changing tools when they might desire.
[/quote]
Of course no one has written portability into their tools. That would
allow customers to change to the tools of their competitors and done
nothing to allow them to change to *their* tools. But if the playing
field is level by most vendors working with this standard, then there
will be a significant advantage to adding it, customer satisfaction.
If most vendors support it, then the ones who don>t will not win as
many new customers. Yes, that will take a bootstrap of some sort.
But the real advantage for users and fabricators is the utility of the
standard. If used correctly, it will allow your entire design to be
represented in one file instead of the many files required now. That
can be enough of an advantage for customers to demand the interface.
[quote] Maybe I have just become too much of a pessimist as the years go by but
I prefer to look at it as realism since my experience shows me this is the
way it is. I am also an IPC member, just so that you know I am not just
ditzing them for some unfounded reason. They are a good organization but
sometimes they reach too far and are looking through rose colored glasses..
Maybe the members of this standard committee just refuse to acknowledge the
vendors hardened stance against portability and keep hoping. I feel they
would be best served to concentrate their efforts on working with Valor on
ODB++ to improve it>s facilities and commonality across the industry. And
with the other vendors to have them more fully and correctly implement ODB++
within their tools, then you could work on an ODB++ import tool with those
vendors as though it was a path for them to obtain new customers through
providing that import capability to prospective customers. Same horse just
dyed a different color.
[/quote]
I think it is a very long row to hoe because of the resistance of CAD
tool vendors and the reluctance of the contract manufacturing houses
to learn a new standard. I also think it will be a painful transition
as the standard will be interpreted/implemented differently by the
different vendors. But given the current state of communication of
manufacturing data (e.g. using a "readme" file) I expect this change
is long overdue.
The transition will not be done by the small vendors like us (or
should I say me?). It will only take a few of the large customers
saying that want the new standard and it will be accepted by the
vendors.
Rick
PS, I don>t agree with the idea that posting style should be
mandated. But it is certainly not worth arguing about. Just ignore
things like that. Like they said in "Chinatown", "Forget about it
Jack, it>s just the Internet". |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
rickman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: Re: IPC-2581 |
|
|
On Oct 6, 4:21 pm, "IB" <i...@ib.com> wrote:
[quote]Gosh, this top posting is much easier to read, don>t have to keep using the
blasted scroll bar to see the response.
[/quote]
The response the bottom posting advocates will give you is that a
reply should be properly trimmed to only include the relevant portions
of a quote. Notice that the quoted text in your reply was not even
relevant to your reply and could have been snipped entirely except for
the fact that you would quoting it as an example of top posting. But
either way we had to scroll down to read it.
Bottom posting is not bad, but failure to properly trim the quotes is
a real PITA. There are a couple of mailing lists where the primary
participants do little or no trimming and a very, very long message
results with quotes six deep and single sentence replies.
Rick |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
