> -Original Message-
> From: tedd [mailto:tedd.sperl...@gmail.com]
>
> You didn't used to be so difficult, what changed?
(look I'm bottom posting!)
I wasn't trying to be difficult! Honest!
Yousif hijacked my thread to tell me to bottom post. I did the right thing
IMHO, and split to
> -Original Message-
> From: tedd [mailto:tedd.sperl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 9:23 AM
> To: Daevid Vincent; php-general@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP] Top vs. Bottom Posting.
>
> At 6:34 PM -0700 3/24/10, Daevid Vincent wrote:
> -snip-
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:22:31PM -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 6:34 PM -0700 3/24/10, Daevid Vincent wrote:
> -snip-
>
> You didn't used to be so difficult, what changed?
Oh no, he gets testy from time to time.
Paul
--
Paul M. Foster
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubs
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 13:40, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 22:45, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
>> Bottom posting helps in users who are not participating in the thread from
>> the start and would like to do so.
>
> As has been discussed time and time again, there are many
> pre
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 22:45, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> Bottom posting helps in users who are not participating in the thread from
> the start and would like to do so.
Particularly for uniformity for archival purposes.
As has been discussed time and time again, there are many
prefere
At 6:34 PM -0700 3/24/10, Daevid Vincent wrote:
-snip-
You didn't used to be so difficult, what changed?
For me it's preferable to select windmills that are in my best
interest to tilt. Otherwise, what's the point?
Cheers,
tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http:
On Mar 25, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Floyd Resler wrote:
>> Absolutely top posting is the most efficient way of doing it! If I need to
>> see what the thread is all about, I have no problems starting from the
>> bottom and working my way up. It would be nice if everyone adopted
Floyd Resler wrote:
Absolutely top posting is the most efficient way of doing it! If I need to
see what the thread is all about, I have no problems starting from the bottom
and working my way up. It would be nice if everyone adopted top posting,
though. Trying to read threads where posting
Absolutely top posting is the most efficient way of doing it! If I need to
see what the thread is all about, I have no problems starting from the bottom
and working my way up. It would be nice if everyone adopted top posting,
though. Trying to read threads where postings are at the top and b
[snip]
...like any good bottom poster should
[/snip]
RTFA's, it has been discussed ad nauseum. Let's get back to PHP.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 08:28 +0200, Rene Veerman wrote:
>
> This list isn't just for programmers. It's for professionals and
> beginners alike. Surely it makes sense to make the list as accessible as
> possible for people?
I am somewhat still a beginner and signed up on this list about 5 days a
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 08:28 +0200, Rene Veerman wrote:
> proper nettiquette is to put replies beneath the quotes you're
> replying to, and deleting the rest.
>
> ultimately this 'rule' of bottomposting is laziness of the ones who
> like that style of quoting.
> they want everyone to conform to t
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Rene Veerman wrote:
> +1 for top-posting..
*sigh*. you're joking, right? you're seriously telling me that
there are people who are still sufficiently ignorant and childish that
they're still fighting this top- versus bottom-posting war?
the war is over. the consensus
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 07:28, Rene Veerman wrote:
> +1 for top-posting..
>
> proper nettiquette is to put replies beneath the quotes you're
> replying to, and deleting the rest.
So why are you not doing it?
> ultimately this 'rule' of bottomposting is laziness of the ones who
> like that style
Robert Cummings wrote:
Rene Veerman wrote:
+1 for top-posting..
-1 to compensate .
proper nettiquette is to put replies beneath the quotes you're
replying to, and deleting the rest.
ultimately this 'rule' of bottomposting is laziness of the ones who
like that style of quoting.
they want
Rene Veerman wrote:
+1 for top-posting..
proper nettiquette is to put replies beneath the quotes you're
replying to, and deleting the rest.
ultimately this 'rule' of bottomposting is laziness of the ones who
like that style of quoting.
they want everyone to conform to their favorite method, so
+1 for top-posting..
proper nettiquette is to put replies beneath the quotes you're
replying to, and deleting the rest.
ultimately this 'rule' of bottomposting is laziness of the ones who
like that style of quoting.
they want everyone to conform to their favorite method, so they can
read more eff
On 03/25/2010 07:04 AM, Daevid Vincent wrote:
...and where's the stupid little netiquette link about hijacking another
thread? ;-)
oh, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DonDiego/Thread_hijacking
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php#threading
That bottom posting crap is so
I'm sorry, but I've never had problem reading backwards in time through
information. One merely understands that a piece of information is
dependent on the next. Seriously, hasn't anyone else ever read history
starting with now and then working their way backwards? It's just
reverse chronologic
but no book I know of in English reads like that
unless you prefer to read bottom to top
which makes it very difficult to read afterwards
because all the comments on the thread appear out of order
Top posting doesn't make sense
Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
20 matches
Mail list logo
