On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 12:29:06AM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
In math (or maths, ifs yous plurals yours words), it's *greatest* common
denominator.
ponder
mmm, maths, short for mathematics whereas math is short for maths?
Mathematics is plural like arithmetic is singular?
/ponder
Is 'math'
Chris Bannister wrote:
ponder
mmm, maths, short for mathematics whereas math is short for maths?
Mathematics is plural like arithmetic is singular?
/ponder
Is 'math' used for maths only in America?
I'm in America (USA to be specific), and I avoid math whenever I can.
It's calculators for
Kent West wrote:
I'm in America (USA to be specific), and I avoid math whenever I can.
It's calculators for me, whenever possible. :-)
Is it bad of me that I avoid calculators whenever possible and instead go
for a Python prompt? :D
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:41:02AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Kent West wrote:
I'm in America (USA to be specific), and I avoid math whenever I can.
It's calculators for me, whenever possible. :-)
Is it bad of me that I avoid calculators whenever possible and instead go
for a Python
on Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 09:09:25PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On 6/10/05, Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:46:20PM -0700, Caleb Walker wrote:
Carl Fink wrote:
Just out of curiosity: you do realize that LCD is an insult, right?
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 23:25 -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
--snip--
I program randomly. Err. That's random as opposed to sequentially; not
as in I bang random keys on my keyboard and hope for the best. ;-)
/me envisions an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of
typewriters sitting in
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 08:36:38PM +0100, Peter J Ross wrote:
Tom Waits.
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 06:22:27PM -0500, John Carline wrote:
What a crock of snobbish BS!
snobbish
adj : befitting or characteristic of those who inclined to social
exclusiveness and who
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:26:47AM -0500, Alex Malinovich wrote:
/me envisions an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of
typewriters sitting in a building in Redmond with an M$ logo on the
front... :)
Well, infinite is probably a little on the high side, but...
--
David
On Sunday June 12 2005 10:10 am, Hendrik Boom wrote:
Unlike vi v. emacs or KDE v. Gnome, there's actually an RFC about
this one. It's a dead issue. If you don't conform, people will be
less liekly to reply to you.
Really? an RFC? Which one, and where might I find it?
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:51:51 -0400, you wrote:
%On 6/10/05, John Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
%
% Would you write programs backwards? I would hate to write a
backwards
% compiler to compile your backwards programs.
%
%Doesn't everyone write their programs backwards? Don't you _start_
at the
Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
Joe Potter wrote:
You want to see the context. You want to see the flow of the discussion
--- like we did years ago before you had to cave due to all the suites
who can do no better.
Sorry, but I'm not too slow to remember the substance of 95% of the
Ben wrote:
Well, I find that most C programs nowadays are written backwards :
main() on top and functions below. Having learned C from KR, that's
backwards for me.
But the point is : I put up with it. No whining and no expectations
that everyone will want to follow my preferences.
On Saturday 11 June 2005 03.39, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Friday June 10 2005 2:45 pm, Olle Eriksson wrote:
More importantly, I think it would be difficult to use
bottom-posting with html mail or rtf text or whatever it is called.
Only in inadequate mailers. Mutt, gnus, kmail and likely most
Tom Waits.
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 06:22:27PM -0500, John Carline wrote:
What a crock of snobbish BS!
snobbish
adj : befitting or characteristic of those who inclined to social
exclusiveness and who rebuff the advances of people
considered inferior [syn:
On Saturday June 11 2005 3:21 am, Joe Potter wrote:
Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
Joe Potter wrote:
We are talking about how one should post in this mail-list. We have
a very high volume list, and most have other things to do besides
read the list on a continual basis.
I argue that this
On Saturday June 11 2005 12:07 pm, Olle Eriksson wrote:
On Saturday 11 June 2005 03.39, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Friday June 10 2005 2:45 pm, Olle Eriksson wrote:
More importantly, I think it would be difficult to use
bottom-posting with html mail or rtf text or whatever it is
called.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:51:51 -0400, Patrick Wiseman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would hate to write a backwards compiler to compile your
backwards programs.
I think I do actually write my programs backwards .. from how it
will look to the enduser.
That's top down development vs. bottom up
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:51:18 -0400
John Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I do actually write my programs backwards .. from how it
will look to the enduser.
That's top down development vs. bottom up development.
Using top down development, you never have any working code. Using
Is it really necessary to get so exercised about top- vs bottom-posting?
On 6/10/05, Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 20:10:35 -0400, Patrick Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
Do you see why it's nice to have the context provided immediately? With
a bottom-posted
On 6/9/05, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
idiot. Processing information in reverse order is
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:30:08PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
John Carline wrote:
Personally, I don't care where an individual posts. But, it would make
my reading/following of threads much easier if I didn't have to
scroll down to the bottom of post after post in a long string just to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
idiot. Processing information in
I agree with that point exactly.
PS: 2 points for anybody that can figure out which point, or even which
poster I'm agreeing with.
(I really did try to stay out of this...)
phil
Mark said:
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I completely agree.
On 6/10/05, Phil Dyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with that point exactly.
PS: 2 points for anybody that can figure out which point, or even which
poster I'm agreeing with.
(I really did try to stay out of this...)
phil
Mark said:
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thursday June 9 2005
I'm an incurable bottom-poster; q.v.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 04:20:11PM +0200, Mark wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
wrote
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 10:32:04AM -0400, Phil Dyer wrote:
I agree with that point exactly.
PS: 2 points for anybody that can figure out which point, or even which
poster I'm agreeing with.
I think the point you agree with is both point.
-- hendrik
P.S. What is the difference between a
On Friday June 10 2005 8:02 am, Hendrik Boom wrote:
It seems this is a problem resolvable by technology. Set the mail
reader to start a message display at the bottom of the message.
Does anyone know a mail reader that does this?
gnus fixes broken quoting for you on reply. Make top posters
Phil Dyer wrote:
I agree with that point exactly.
PS: 2 points for anybody that can figure out which point, or even which
poster I'm agreeing with.
(I really did try to stay out of this...)
phil
I get no points at all as it is not worth trying to figure out what the
point was.
That,
On 6/10/05, Hendrik Boom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* to see the reply first (for those who have just finished reading
the previous message)
It seems this is a problem resolvable by technology. Set the mail
reader to start a message display at the bottom of the message.
This doesn't work
Joe Potter wrote:
That, of course, is the main point you made. I put all this in the lap
of Bill Gates --- the miserable ass. He is never happy unless he is
destroying some standard and replacing it with crap of some kind.
Outlook does it this way not to be contrary, but for an obvious
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:09:26 -0400, Patrick Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
My usual practice, actually, is to edit and interpolate, as if we were
having a conversation.
(Did you mean interleave rather than interpolate?) Yes, that is the way
things should be. Anyone who bottom posts without
On 10/06/05 16:02nbsp;Hendrik Boom wrote:
It seems this is a problem resolvable by technology. Set the mail
reader to start a message display at the bottom of the message.
Does anyone know a mail reader that does this?
The Mozilla folks may well be persuaded to implement this for
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:57:36PM +0100, Adam Hardy wrote:
So, what is the difference between a duck, Hendrik? It better be good. ;)
Adam
One of the joys of age. You can recycle jokes from fifty years ago,
and you find new people to tell them to!
This one has a tradidional answer:
One
On Friday 10 June 2005 12:30 pm, Hubert Chan wrote:
snip
I don't believe I was. I was just trying to give reasons for why I
think that top-posting (in a mailing list context) is not a good thing
to do.
I haven't been keeping track of who said what in which post, so I don't know
if I
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 09:13:05AM -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
People process information differently. Apparently, few find it more
efficient to process it in reverse order. That being so, I'll
continue to bottom post in this forum, if only to accommodate the LCD.
Just out of curiosity:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:17:48 PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
I don't know if anyone has noticed that I don't top post. (Actually, I might
-- if I'm responding with a quick Thank you, I may put it at the top. If a
post solves the problem, I
On Friday 10 June 2005 04:01 pm, Thomas Stivers wrote:
snip
While I can perhaps understand posting a That does the job message for
archival purposes. I really don't understand why anyone would send a
post containing thank you, I agree, 'no, yes, Etc. to a list of
thousands. These one-liners
Carl Fink wrote:
Just out of curiosity: you do realize that LCD is an insult, right?
What is LCD?
--
Caleb Walker
Top Gun Drywall Supply, Inc.
559-276-5161
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:46:20PM -0700, Caleb Walker wrote:
Carl Fink wrote:
Just out of curiosity: you do realize that LCD is an insult, right?
What is LCD?
Least Common Denominator.
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you attempt to fix
Carl Fink wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:46:20PM -0700, Caleb Walker wrote:
Carl Fink wrote:
Just out of curiosity: you do realize that LCD is an insult, right?
What is LCD?
Least Common Denominator.
I thought it was Last Chick Drunk.
--Joe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
Joe Potter wrote:
That, of course, is the main point you made. I put all this in the lap
of Bill Gates --- the miserable ass. He is never happy unless he is
destroying some standard and replacing it with crap of some kind.
Outlook does it this way not to
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 17:17 -0400, Joe Potter wrote:
--snip--
You want to see the context. You want to see the flow of the discussion
--- like we did years ago before you had to cave due to all the suites
who can do no better. Gates is a cancer, and the after life will be warm
in his case if
On Friday 10 June 2005 17.46, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
Joe Potter wrote:
That, of course, is the main point you made. I put all this in the lap
of Bill Gates --- the miserable ass. He is never happy unless he is
destroying some standard and replacing it with crap of some kind.
Outlook does
I think that one of my personal strengths is my ability to objectively
listen to both sides of an argument. But as much as I try, I can't
understand bottom posters.
How are you reading lists? I use an email client (thunderbird). When I
read a thread, I start at the beginning. Sometimes
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:45:43PM +0200, Olle Eriksson wrote:
More importantly, I think it would be difficult to use bottom-posting with
html mail or rtf text or whatever it is called. And while plain text is
better in most situations, I have to admit there are situations where
formatted
On 6/10/05, Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:46:20PM -0700, Caleb Walker wrote:
Carl Fink wrote:
Just out of curiosity: you do realize that LCD is an insult, right?
What is LCD?
Least Common Denominator.
_Lowest_ Common Denominator where I grew up,
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:09:25 -0400, Patrick Wiseman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I also code a good bit, and appreciate the need to do that
in an orderly (essentially vertical) way
Programmers know that sequence is the first of three fundamental
elements of programming.
I'm still a bit
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:56:04 -0400, Michael Z Daryabeygi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
[...]
No one leaves the entire thread intact as one reply follows another.
So I think the argument of context is bogus.
Long threads with multiple branches (like this one). You reach the end
of one branch, and
On Friday June 10 2005 8:46 am, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
Joe Potter wrote:
That, of course, is the main point you made. I put all this in the
lap of Bill Gates --- the miserable ass. He is never happy unless
he is destroying some standard and replacing it with crap of some
kind.
Outlook
On Friday June 10 2005 2:45 pm, Olle Eriksson wrote:
More importantly, I think it would be difficult to use
bottom-posting with html mail or rtf text or whatever it is called.
Only in inadequate mailers. Mutt, gnus, kmail and likely most other
mailers get it right. If your mailer can't
Learn to format your posts properly. Paragraphs start with an empty
line and should be written in conversational order like in normal
written English. See standard RFC1855.
On Friday June 10 2005 2:56 pm, Michael Z Daryabeygi wrote:
I think that one of my personal strengths is my ability to
On 6/10/05, John Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you write programs backwards? I would hate to write a backwards
compiler to compile your backwards programs.
Doesn't everyone write their programs backwards? Don't you _start_ at the end?
I guess it depends on what you mean by backwards,
On 6/10/05, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Learn to format your posts properly. Paragraphs start with an empty
line and should be written in conversational order like in normal
written English. See standard RFC1855.
Standard, huh? It's called Netiquette _Guidelines_. And I quote:
Joe Potter wrote:
You want to see the context. You want to see the flow of the discussion
--- like we did years ago before you had to cave due to all the suites
who can do no better.
Sorry, but I'm not too slow to remember the substance of 95% of the
conversations I have with my
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:51:51 -0400, Patrick Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 6/10/05, John Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you write programs backwards? I would hate to write a
backwards compiler to compile your backwards programs.
Doesn't everyone write their programs backwards?
What a crock of snobbish BS!
snobbish
adj : befitting or characteristic of those who inclined to social
exclusiveness and who rebuff the advances of people
considered inferior [syn: {clannish}, {cliquish},
{clubby}, {snobby}]
Personally, I don't care
I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
idiot. Processing information in reverse order is much more
efficient. Unfortunately, lots of people just don't process
information that way.
I know
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 08:10:35PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I know bottom-posting is the preferred protocol here, and so I usually
respect it (this exception is just to make a point). But just try the
other way (in a forum where it's accepted), and I think you might find
you like it ...
John Carline wrote:
Personally, I don't care where an individual posts. But, it would make
my reading/following of threads much easier if I didn't have to
scroll down to the bottom of post after post in a long string just to
read the one line added to the 200 I've already read.
And that's
Top posting considered harmful.
http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
On Thursday June 9 2005 4:22 pm, John Carline wrote:
But, it would make my reading/following of threads much easier if I
didn't have to scroll down to the bottom of post after post in a
long string just to read the one line added
(I haven't quoted anything here because this isn't a response to what
Carl wrote, just here because it's the end of the thread at this point
in time)
I must say, this thread has to be one of the most well structured and
easy to read in my whole experience of reading a public mailing list. If
On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
idiot. Processing information in reverse order is much more
efficient
Do you drive in reverse on the
On Thursday 09 June 2005 10:35 pm, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me)
wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant
idiot. Processing information in reverse
On Jun 09 2005, John Carline wrote:
But, it would make my reading/following of threads much easier if I
didn't have to scroll down to the bottom of post after post in a long
string just to read the one line added to the 200 I've already read.
The point is: if somebody makes you scroll down
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 20:10:35 -0400, Patrick Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I completely agree. ...
Hmm. What do you agree with? Are you agreeing that top posting sucks,
or that top posting is good? Well to figure that out, I would need to
either scroll down to look at the post that you're
65 matches
Mail list logo
