John Machin wrote: > Indeed yourself.
What does the above mean ? > Have you ever considered reading posts in > chronological order, or reading all posts in a thread? I do no think people read posts in chronological order; it simply doesn't make sense. I also don't think many do read threads completely, but only until the issue is clear or boredom kicks in. Your nice "double whammy" post was enough to clarify what happened to the OP, I just wanted to make a bit more explicit what you meant; my poor english also made me understand that you were just "suspecting" such an error, so I verified and posted the result. That your "suspect" was a sarcastic remark could be clear only when reading the timewise "former" reply that however happened to be lower in the thread tree in my newsreader; fact that pushed it into the "not worth reading" area. > It might help > you avoid writing posts with non-zero information content. Why should I *avoid* writing posts with *non-zero* information content ? Double whammy on negation or still my poor english kicking in ? :-) Suppose you didn't post the double whammy message, and suppose someone else made it seven minutes later than your other post. I suppose that in this case the message would be a zero content noise (and not the precious pearl of wisdom it is because it comes from you). > Cheers, > John Andrea -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
