Re: REQ:Which Linux Flavor?
From: Peter T. Breuer (ptb_at_lab.it.uc3m.es)
Date: 02/17/05
- Next message: Mark L. Cooper: "Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?"
- Previous message: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: REQ:Which Linux Flavor?"
- In reply to: Dan: "Re: REQ:Which Linux Flavor?"
- Next in thread: Dan C: "Re: REQ:Which Linux Flavor?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:04:14 +0100
Dan <dan@dontspammecauseidontlikit.com> wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2005 03:45:43 GMT, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:57:26 -0600, Dan C <youmustbejoking@invalid.lan> wrote:
> > Why is it unfortunate that people believe in posting in a logical
> > manner?
>
> I don't see any logic in having to scroll down through a post that
> I've already seen in order to get to the reply.
You don't have to. People edit their posts so yu don't have to, and if
they don't, you get to scold them.
> Many people have this idea that it's against the rules to top post, so
> they bottom post. To me, nothing is more irritating than double
> clicking on a reply, and having to scroll down through everything that
There's plenty more irritating, but then that's a strawman argument
since nobody suggest they should do that. They should not.
> To me it makes sense to interleave the reply in with the original
Of course it does, and that's what everyone (except the topo posters!)
advocates.
So what is your non-post about? Is it a witty satire? If so, could you
please mar it as such with
[SATIRE]
in the subject line.
Thanks.
Peter
- Next message: Mark L. Cooper: "Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?"
- Previous message: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: REQ:Which Linux Flavor?"
- In reply to: Dan: "Re: REQ:Which Linux Flavor?"
- Next in thread: Dan C: "Re: REQ:Which Linux Flavor?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
