Re: [SLE] Thread Hijacking Protocol
- From: "david rankin" <drankin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:29:48 -0500
Hey, List,
I am new and I have problem with Zen. It no work. Can U help plz?? Most software always work. Why not this?? If you have answer, plz write...
(I love this list....... have a good weekend...)
--
David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
--
----- Original Message ----- From: "jdow" <jdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <suse-linux-e@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [SLE] Thread Hijacking Protocol
It's singularly amazing how much spare time these anal retentive types
are about simple email that is easy enough for a human of average
intelligence to figure out, read, and deal with.
The only "right way" to format email involves making a simple effort
not to obfuscate.
If course, it's more fun to demand machine perfect email formatting
and waste time bitching about it like a bunch of crotchety old men
babbling about their lumbago because they have nothing else to do.
Meanwhile they're wasting more time on perfect formatting than they
save if the email is perfectly formatted.
{^_-} Joanne
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Bourn" <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
me too!
(couldn't resist)
B-)
On Friday 11 August 2006 10:54 am, Michael Wolf wrote:On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:43:39 +0200, Philipp Thomas <pth@xxxxxxx> wrote:specific
> * Orn E. Hansen (orn_hansen@xxxxxxxxxxx) [20060810 23:18]:
>
> > Top post is "ok" in cases, where you aren't answering to anything
>
> IMNSHO, top posting is *never* OK, like reading a book back to front is
> in most cases nonsense.
It's not ok very often, but never say never. :)
When somebody "me too!"s - and there are good reasons to do that,
sometimes - there's really no harm in the response being on top. In
fact, I think it's better put it on top than to pedantically follow
the post-at-the-bottom rule without understanding why and when it's
worth following.
It's true that top posting can be pretty inconvenient to people who
use archaic mailers [0], but I'd argue that those archaic mailers are
pretty inconvenient anyway.
On the other hand, mails with lines of more than 80 characters (except
when they include literal output) have no excuse. :)
[0] The official definition of an archaic mailer, that I'm making up
as I write this, is one that doesn't thread mails.
--
Je suis en train d'être dans un train.
--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@xxxxxxxx
--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@xxxxxxxx
--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@xxxxxxxx
--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@xxxxxxxx
- References:
- [SLE] Thread Hijacking Protocol
- From: Mike Dewhirst
- Re: [SLE] Thread Hijacking Protocol
- From: Philipp Thomas
- Re: [SLE] Thread Hijacking Protocol
- From: Michael Wolf
- Re: [SLE] Thread Hijacking Protocol
- From: Brad Bourn
- Re: [SLE] Thread Hijacking Protocol
- From: jdow
- [SLE] Thread Hijacking Protocol
- Prev by Date: Re: [SLE] Net install of SUSE 10.1 on Toshiba Satellite M-30
- Next by Date: Re: [SLE] Net install of SUSE 10.1 on Toshiba Satellite M-30
- Previous by thread: Re: [SLE] Thread Hijacking Protocol
- Next by thread: Re: [SLE] Thread Hijacking Protocol
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading