-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:07:42AM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 12 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Neal P. Murphy a écrit :
> > You have to print the file in reverse bit order for that to work. :)
>
[...]
> And of course, this is for PCM. For MP3, re
Le duodi 12 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Neal P. Murphy a écrit :
> You have to print the file in reverse bit order for that to work. :)
Nitpick: in reverse SAMPLE order. If you play the file in reverse bit order,
you will get the low-order bits white noise with maximum volume, making it
complete garbage.
Hi.
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 21:42:40 -0500
"Neal P. Murphy" wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:34:58 +1300
> Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:47:00PM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> > > Le 02/12/2015 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
> > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:34:58 +1300
Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:47:00PM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> > Le 02/12/2015 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
> > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> > >> I often counter that by passing my would-be repl
On Wednesday 02 December 2015 04:21:04 Stuart Longland wrote:
> On 01/12/15 11:56, John Hasler wrote:
> > Bob Bernstein writes:
> >> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
> >> of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
> >> lack of a bette
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:47:00PM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 02/12/2015 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> >> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> >> top-post it that way.
> >>
> >> Then they se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:41:44AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> >
> > I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> > top-post it that way.
> >
> > Then they
On 12/02/2015 03:03 PM, John Hasler wrote:
Chris Bannister writes:
What is 'tac'?
DESCRIPTION
Write each FILE to standard output, last line first.
That's the beauty of UNIX. They have thought of everything you could
ever possibly need, including backwards printing. :/ Ric
--
My fa
On 12/02/2015 12:19 PM, Bob Bernstein wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Mart van de Wege wrote:
If the only time you see interleaved comments is in 'fisked' pieces,
then I could understand not feeling comfortable when someone does that
in an email reply.
Yes, point well taken.
I suppose we can st
Chris Bannister writes:
What is 'tac'?
DESCRIPTION
Write each FILE to standard output, last line first.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
Le 02/12/2015 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
>> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
>> top-post it that way.
>>
>> Then they see it from my perspective.
> What is 'tac'?
>
TAC(1)
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
>
> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> top-post it that way.
>
> Then they see it from my perspective.
What is 'tac'?
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Mart van de Wege wrote:
It may be that inline replies are associated with the practice
of 'fisking' [...]
Yes. I stumbled into that mental association some time around
3:30am ET, at which ungodly hour thoughts of fisking seem to
rise of their own accord.
[...] which in
Bob Bernstein writes:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
>>> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
>>> annoying."
>
>> What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean, how on
>> earth could it possibly be patronising?
>
> I haven't asked him yet, in th
On 01/12/15 11:56, John Hasler wrote:
> Bob Bernstein writes:
>> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
>> of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
>> lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status
>> of a "net cla
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, anxious...@gmail.com wrote:
If I bottom posted at work, no-one would ever discover my
replies. I occasionally interleave if a point by point
response seems sensible, or if the joke only works that way
Word dat.
--
Bob Bernstein
On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 16:40:05 UTC, Bob Bernstein wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> >> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
> >> annoying."
>
> > What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean,
> > how on earth could it possibly be
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Chris Bannister wrote:
"Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
annoying."
What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean,
how on earth could it possibly be patronising?
I haven't asked him yet, in the interest of not muddying still
waters
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Tuesday 01 December 2015 08:54:27 Mart van de Wege wrote:
Why not do your correspondents the courtesy of replying in
the style *they* want?
That's fine, so long as you are not required to reply. And so
long as you don't want the discussion to remai
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 08:31:29PM -0500, Bob Bernstein wrote:
>
> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
> annoying."
What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean, how on
earth could it possibly be patronising?
I'm guessing your nephew isn't subscribed to any
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:27:02PM -0500, Neal P. Murphy wrote:
> I'll top-post here because I am replying to the entire message (quoted below).
Sorry to be picky, but there was nothing in the text to which you
directly replied to.
I think personal correspondence is completely different to posti
On Tuesday 01 December 2015 08:54:27 Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Bob Bernstein writes:
> > "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
> > annoying."
> >
> > I have acquired over the years a habit of carefully quoting and
> > replying to those quoted snippets. But it rubs some in my fa
Bob Bernstein writes:
> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
> annoying."
>
> I have acquired over the years a habit of carefully quoting and
> replying to those quoted snippets. But it rubs some in my family the
> wrong way. They don't see it as part and parcel of effective
Le decadi 10 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Bob Bernstein a écrit :
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware of a
> spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for lack of a
> better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status of a "net
> classic?" S
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015, Stephen Powell wrote:
How about this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ?
That may be a great place for me to start.
After skimming it my sense was the author was bending over
backwards to be "fair," i.e. inflating the supposed virtues of
top and bottom po
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Neal P. Murphy
wrote:
> When you reply to and critique an essay, you would likely reply in top-post
> form and leave the essay at the bottom so that readers, whom you may safely
> assume have already read it, may conveniently reference it.
I don't think you can
I'll top-post here because I am replying to the entire message (quoted below).
Whether you top-post, in-post or bottom-post depends on the nature of that to
which you reply.
When you reply to and critique an essay, you would likely reply in top-post
form and leave the essay at the bottom so tha
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:31:29 -0500 (EST), Bob Bernstein wrote:
> ...
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone
> aware of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective
> quoting," (for lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps
> has achieved the status of a "n
Bob Bernstein writes:
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
> of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
> lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status
> of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt the
I have a roughly forty year old nephew who uses email as a
vehicle for political and philosophical discussion. His father
is named Dave Bernstein, but not the same Dave Bernstein who
teaches law at George Mason and recently came out with a book,
_Lawless_, which looks at the current prez's penc
30 matches
Mail list logo
