AVR-Chat

So, is it also discourteous to post 50 or 60 lines of code asking the 
list members to look through it for the errors rather than running it 
through the (free) simulator?

How about off topic discussions from which others also gain information 
for future reference?

How about...

It seems we're expending an awful lot of time, disk space, and bandwidth 
over something as nit picky as whether to top or bottom post responses 
to a message.  Let's just get back to writing code and designing 
circuits...for those of us with nothing better to do than work.


REB



David Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 09:16:56AM +0000, np np wrote:
>   
>> I prefer top posting as it saves me scrolling down past numerous  
>> previous messages.
>>     
>
> 1 line of new content for 68 lines of quoted bulk. You sure are saving  
> *yourself* a lot of time. "68dd" trimmed the non-Yahoo! bulk in vim  
> under mutt.
>
> As Graham says, its not really an issue if top-posters bothered to  
> trim. In my opinion most don't trim because they don't read what they  
> are re-sending. As np np says, he can't be bothered to scroll to the  
> end of a message, apparently not even his own.
>
> np np, I don't bother to scroll to the end of a message. If I open the  
> message at all if it doesn't get to interesting new content within my  
> window size then its deleted. Top posting is wrong. Bottom posting is  
> also wrong. If new content doesn't start quickly then the poster  
> failed the courtesy requirement by failing to trim. If its top-posted  
> its very unlikely I will reply no matter I might have the solution or  
> something else useful, once again for failing the courtesy  
> requirement, by speaking out of order.
>
> On other lists I've seen text messages routinely bloat to over 250k  
> bytes of untrimmed bulk when top-posters-without-trim run unthrottled.  
> Bloats even faster when "rich text" is allowed.
>
> Bandwidth and disk space is cheap these days, but all that bulk  
> renders searching list archives practically useless.
>
>   


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]