1. Home
  2. Hobby Electronics Basics
  3. A question about coil winding
  4. Page 3

A question about coil winding

--- Browsers aren't designed to top post, but simpletons who can't be bothered (or don't know how) to locate the cursor properly before they start typing use that as an excuse to justify top posting, a format that was adopted as the default for email, where it works since the (generally) two people involved in the exchange know what went before.

In USENET that's not true, and a reader coming across a thread for the first time wouldn't know what went before and would then, logically, go to the top of the post and start reading from there in order to traverse the correct chronological sequence of posts _if_ the earlier posts were located at the top of the stack.

Just like picking up a book you had never read before, would you expect chapter 10 to be at the beginning and chapter 1 at the end?

---

--- Troll, huh?

---

--- My position and that of probably >>99% of USENET is that bottom and in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.

---

--- You make my point and laugh at any inconvenience I may experience in trying to search for your maliciously placed nonsense.

Just what I would expect of an immature, self-centered, top-poster.

---

--- Ugh...

If you consider that formatting to be beautiful, then I suggest you consider this to be beautiful, as well:

formatting link

JF

Reply to
John Fields
Loading thread data ...

Real scientists can adapt and excel with even your input, Mr Abuse.

Aside from your use of the word "browser". (Microsoft Outlook Express isn't a browser, it's a mail client / rudimentary news client). there are no quotation marks (>) against the quoted part of your posting.

That, combined with top posting, makes it almost unintelligible.

Learn to bottom post and quote properly or stay the hell out of sci.electronics.* groups.

Reply to
Josepi

Good thing it was easy to follow for you. If you have no logical arguments left try insulting everybody.

In USENET that's not true, and a reader coming across a thread for the first time wouldn't know what went before and would then, logically, go to the top of the post and start reading from there in order to traverse the correct chronological sequence of posts _if_ the earlier posts were located at the top of the stack.

Just like picking up a book you had never read before, would you expect chapter 10 to be at the beginning and chapter 1 at the end?

Troll, huh?

My position and that of probably >>99% of USENET is that bottom and in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.

You make my point and laugh at any inconvenience I may experience in trying to search for your maliciously placed nonsense.

Just what I would expect of an immature, self-centered, top-poster.

--
Ugh...

If you consider that formatting to be beautiful, then I suggest you
consider this to be beautiful, as well:

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/Enlargement.cfm?ID=38

JF
Reply to
Josepi

Get a browser that supports threading like the majority of us. Your bottom posting troll was a good distraction for entertainment purposes only.

--
While the original topic was coil winding, this part of the thread has
gone off-topic and diverged to the point where what's being discussed is
the efficacy of bottom and in-line posting VS top posting.

Consequently, since my comments address top, in-line, and bottom posting
they are relevant.
Reply to
Josepi

I'll stick with the crowd and the logical method following the flavour of the three browsers I have experienced.

Perhaps if you weren't using a bwoser [sic] it would look better for you. By using a web-based news reader, you're at the mercy of how that web server reads the headers and such. Most likely it is your web-based news service that has mad a mess of things.

daestrom

Josepi wrote: Geeesh. Please don't f*ck wit the atural order of your newsreader. It makes a mess of the thread and confuses the hell out of anybody actually caring about who posted what. Your bwoser was made to top post with the attachments at the bottom, keep the headers with the respective text and be easy to use.

Look at the mess you have made of this thread with bottom posting.

The bottom post argument is the favourite troll of the bored and stupid. This thread is prime example of this.

BTW: Trimming is good but please don't sign your initials over and over. You're not that important.

Reply to
Josepi

Now you consider yourself "most".

Learning to troll, are we?

You certainly don't speak for me.

daestrom

Josepi wrote: Yup, top posting is the favouite troll of the unoriginal ones.

I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not read by me or most others.

Reply to
Josepi

Show us the numbers or admit your lie.

Do you *always* refer to yourself in the plural?

Reply to
krw

Morons usually do. :(

--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell 

--
Following an asshole's trail isn't difficult, all one has to do is
follow the scent of shit.
Reply to
John Fields

ate

eir

d
e

sers

so

ced

.
Reply to
Michael B

But nobody can see who said what as the headers are all separated from their respective text bodies.

Wot a mess. Just look at it It appears John says he likes top posting and that would be a co-operative thing. From previous posts it appears he gets insulting with everybody in his frustration to make a valid point. This is common for bottom posters.

Reply to
Josepi 

--
Get a proper newsreader and a non-combative attitude and it'll all
become clear to you.
Reply to
John Fields 

--
You're a waste of time and air.

JF
Reply to
John Fields

Bet you can read this.

--
Get a proper newsreader and a non-combative attitude and it'll all
become clear to you.
Reply to
Josepi

Get with the programme.

You're a waste of time and air.

JF

JF

JF

Reply to
Josepi

--- First you plonk me and then you write to me?

Seems like you like to dish it out but you can't take it, huh, you miserable little coward.

JF

Reply to
John Fields 

--
Geez...

As usual, when you try to give one of the mentally deficient
Google-groupers a hand by clueing them in to USENET etiquette they fight
tooth and nail to remain clueless and self-absorbed.

JF
Reply to
John Fields

it appears that you are talking to yourself.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

Reply to
Jasen Betts

John Fields Inscribed thus:

They ain't worth wasting time over.

Merry Christmas John.

--
Best Regards:
                     Baron.
Reply to
Baron

Not just talking, I think ;-)

-- "Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it." (Stephen Leacock)

Reply to
Fred Abse

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.