Re: top bar the way I want it

On 1/20/24 13:05, Maureen L Thomas wrote: On 1/20/24 1:46 AM, David Christensen wrote: On 1/19/24 21:53, Maureen L Thomas wrote: I am using Gnome, and I found the stuff I needed to get my desktop the way I wanted it.  I am very happy about it.  Now I just have to put NordVPN to connect with my

Re: top bar the way I want it

The package that held the chanages I wanted was called Extension Manager and Extensions.  That file gave me options for the top bar and the bottom bar.  Hope this helps. On 1/20/24 1:46 AM, David Christensen wrote: On 1/19/24 21:53, Maureen L Thomas wrote: I am using Gnome, and I found the stu

Re: top bar the way I want it

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 12:53:22AM -0500, Maureen L Thomas wrote: > ... and I found the stuff I needed to get my desktop > the way I wanted it.  I am very happy about it. Nice. Thanks for reporting back. > Now I just have to ... with my ... Yeah, right. > Thank you for the help, it is gre

Re: top bar the way I want it

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 9:12 AM Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > And, of course, write notes to yourself for EVERY change like this, so > you can remember how you did it. I actually have a quarterly reminder for myself to review my various systems and take notes on changes. Installed packages, make sure c

Re: top bar the way I want it

On Sat, 20 Jan 2024, at 05:53, Maureen L Thomas wrote: > I am using Gnome, and I found the stuff I needed to get my desktop the > way I wanted it.  It might be sensible to screenshot the setup you like. If you have similar problems in future it would help enormously to be able to show people the

Re: top bar the way I want it

On 1/19/24 21:53, Maureen L Thomas wrote: I am using Gnome, and I found the stuff I needed to get my desktop the way I wanted it.  I am very happy about it.  Now I just have to put NordVPN to connect with my browser.  Thank you for the help, it is greatly appreciated. I am glad it worked out

Re: top bar the way I want it

I am using Gnome, and I found the stuff I needed to get my desktop the way I wanted it.  I am very happy about it.  Now I just have to put NordVPN to connect with my browser.  Thank you for the help, it is greatly appreciated. On 1/19/24 7:17 AM, Joe wrote: On 1/18/24 1:17 AM, Beyond Insult

Re: top bar the way I want it

On 1/18/24 1:17 AM, Beyond Insulted wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 08:40:30PM -0500, Maureen L Thomas wrote: > >> I now have a system that works but I cannot find any > >> utility to fix the top bar the way I want it.  Any hints? > > Try to understand the audience that is being ask

Re: top bar the way I want it

I am sorry for the way I said that.  What I want is the very top bar, before I re-installed it had three topics on the very top left hand that allowed me to click on one of them and get a menu of all the software installed and in order according to the topic.  Like under internet would list all

Re: Top-posting (was Re: how to test disk for bad sector)

On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 09:14:16 -0700 Charlie Gibbs wrote: > If someone can't be bothered to take the time to write a readable > message, I can't be bothered to take the time to decipher it. On the other tentacle, this sort of thing is usually the province of newbies. I think it would help to refer

Re: Top-posting

Charlie Gibbs composed on 2020-08-30 09:14 (UTC-0700): > On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 16:30:01 +0200 Charles Curley wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 14:02:48 + Andy Smith wrote: >>> Between your top posting and the HTML mails, I find it very >>> difficult to read your emails so I mostly haven't bothered

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

I probably shouldn't prolong this thread but... Maybe this cartoon will help: https://blog.toggl.com/save-princess-8-programming-languages/ More seriously, I was recently asked which languages to learn and I wrote up a list of what I thought was important. See below. On 18/10/2019 03:33, Turrito

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Dan Ritter wrote: > deloptes wrote: >> SQL, Python, PERL, C/C++, JAVA. I wonder why I did not see PHP ... but >> well. > > For about a decade, PHP was the province of people who copied > scripts from Matt's Script Archive and didn't know what security > holes they were creating. > > Sometime in

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

deloptes wrote: > SQL, Python, PERL, C/C++, JAVA. I wonder why I did not see PHP ... but well. For about a decade, PHP was the province of people who copied scripts from Matt's Script Archive and didn't know what security holes they were creating. Sometime in the last five years or so, the PHP c

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

John Hasler wrote: > Joe writes: > > Spend an hour or two with the job advertisements (which is what the OP > > needs to do) to see the enormous range of what employers *think* they > > want, and this is what the young ladies in HR will definitely require > > of an applicant. > > Especially amusi

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Sat, 2019-10-19 at 09:46 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > deloptes writes: > > SQL comes everywhere handy... > > SQL is certainly handy, but I don't consider it a programming language > (likewise HTML). About 20 years ago I wrote and tested a match-merge update program with (as I remember) the then

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On 2019-10-19 08:11, Thomas Schmitt wrote: Have a nice day :) cheers mick -- Key ID4BFEBB31

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Saturday 19 October 2019 08:38:15 John Hasler wrote: > Joe quotes: > > "If you think you need to use floating point, you don't fully > > understand your application." > > Right. There isn't anything you can't do with bignum. > > I wrote software for control systems using cpus such as the RCA 1

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:34:06 +0200 deloptes wrote: > Joe wrote: > > > And it's not so much fundamental languages as the buzzwords, the > > frameworks, 'agile' programming, AJAX, and things like proprietary > > CMS (C for both content and customer) systems. Nobody ever asks for > > basic programm

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Thomas D Dial writes: > FORTRAN is somewhat similar, but has a smaller, more stable, and mors > specialized application space and often, I think, is maintained by the > successors of the program users who wrote it originally. A good deal > of it may, by now, have been replaced by C, C++, Python, or

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Sat, 2019-10-19 at 09:48 +0200, deloptes wrote: > James H. H. Lampert wrote: > > > The OP wanted this treated as a survey, and so . . . > > > > Many dialects and derivatives of BASIC, including (but not limited > > to) > > IBM VS-BASIC (ran on 370 and compatible mainframes), TRS-80 Level 1, >

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

deloptes writes: > SQL comes everywhere handy... SQL is certainly handy, but I don't consider it a programming language (likewise HTML). If you *do* consider HTML a programming language the crawling horrors that most Web sites send out make the worst BASIC spaghetti balls look like something out

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On 10/19/2019 08:26 AM, deloptes wrote: [SNIP] SQL comes everywhere handy, because you have to store the data somewhere - but still there is difference between Oracle, MySQL/MariaDB or sqlite. Each one has its advantages and disadvantages - and SQL for the one is likely not compatible with SQL fo

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Joe wrote: > And it's not so much fundamental languages as the buzzwords, the > frameworks, 'agile' programming, AJAX, and things like proprietary CMS > (C for both content and customer) systems. Nobody ever asks for basic > programming skills. You are sooo right, but one must understand the lang

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Joe wrote: > Seriously? BASIC worse than Hollerith strings? It was 45 years ago, but > I still remember... Indeed - I have the feeling here only people from the home for the elderly (Seniorenheim) are posting - BASIC, COBOL, PASCAL ... OMG Though I must admit there were some good posts around -

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Joe quotes: > "If you think you need to use floating point, you don't fully > understand your application." Right. There isn't anything you can't do with bignum. I wrote software for control systems using cpus such as the RCA 1802. You can do a lot more with 8 bit integers than seems possible at

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Joe writes: > Spend an hour or two with the job advertisements (which is what the OP > needs to do) to see the enormous range of what employers *think* they > want, and this is what the young ladies in HR will definitely require > of an applicant. Especially amusing are the ads that demand five ye

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Hi, Joe wrote: > "If you think you need to use floating point, you don't fully > understand your application." +0.9 Have a nice day :) Thomas

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 11:09:06 +0200 "Thomas Schmitt" wrote: > Hi, > > John Hasler wrote: > > > FORTRAN on 1620s and 370s, > > Joe wrote: > > Seriously? BASIC worse than Hollerith strings? > > 212H Of course you don't do string processing in FORTRAN. It's for > problems which you can solve b

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Hi, John Hasler wrote: > > FORTRAN on 1620s and 370s, Joe wrote: > Seriously? BASIC worse than Hollerith strings? 212H Of course you don't do string processing in FORTRAN. It's for problems which you can solve by representing everything as homogeneous coordinates and then computing the result by

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 17:34:57 -0500 John Hasler wrote: > I guess some people who started with BASIC do eventually recover. > And then you say: > FORTRAN on 1620s and 370s, Seriously? BASIC worse than Hollerith strings? It was 45 years ago, but I still remember... -- Joe

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 22:50:29 +0100 Brian wrote: > > > Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want > > Nobody has answered the question yet. > Because there isn't an answer. Spend an hour or two with the job advertisements (which is what the OP needs to do) to see the enormous

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Brian wrote: > You, and everybody else, may as well have skipped the whole post and > saved the List from wasting bandwidth. I ask you > > > This is just a quick survey. > > Really? > > > I am considering being a programmer > > Wowee. > > > Turritopsis Dohrnii > > Jellyfish. Hard to gras

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

James H. H. Lampert wrote: > The OP wanted this treated as a survey, and so . . . > > Many dialects and derivatives of BASIC, including (but not limited to) > IBM VS-BASIC (ran on 370 and compatible mainframes), TRS-80 Level 1, > Level 2, and Mod I Disk BASIC, GWBASIC, and the various QBASICs > (

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > Never did much Perl, but I think anything (well, not sure about obfuscated > C) is more readable than APL. I am not sure if it makes sense to compare a modern car engine with one constructed 150y ago.

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Hi, i wrote: > > The overall design paradigm is object oriented but without fancy stuff > > like overloading or inheritance. Encapsulation and aggregation must > > suffice. mick crane wrote: > This is interesting topic for me but don't know what these words > "overloading or inheritance. Encapsul

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On 18/10/2019 15:33, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: This is just a quick survey. May I know what programming languages do you know? I am considering being a programmer or developer. How long will it take for me to master a programming language like C++, Java, and Python? Mastery is a hi

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Friday, October 18, 2019 06:33:19 PM Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > Perl is a whole lot more readable than APL. Never did much Perl, but I think anything (well, not sure about obfuscated C) is more readable than APL.

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

The OP wanted this treated as a survey, and so . . . Many dialects and derivatives of BASIC, including (but not limited to) IBM VS-BASIC (ran on 370 and compatible mainframes), TRS-80 Level 1, Level 2, and Mod I Disk BASIC, GWBASIC, and the various QBASICs (QuickBASIC and QBX). (I took one loo

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, at 23:34, John Hasler wrote: > I guess some people who started with BASIC do eventually recover. It's not all that bad. At my first place of employment, we ran WATERLOO BASIC (from the University of Waterloo) for students to learn how to program. This was on an IBM mainfra

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Thomas writes: > The only right way is to work down from a BASIC on ROM, which is said > to have in part been coded by William Henry Gates III himself, to a > self-made assembler, and then back to Rocky Mountain BASIC on HP > desktops. Finally you move to a Unix workstation (16 MHz and 4 MB of > R

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

This discussion is spammed across a whole bunch of linux dstro mail lists. On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, at 19:56, ghe wrote: > Pascal teaches you to think good thoughts. It's was a wonderful language > to learn back in the late 1970s. Yes, or Algol... > Perl's mantra is "There's more than one way to do

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Fri 18 Oct 2019 at 23:22:37 (+0200), Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Doug McGarrett wrote: > > [...] and I learned to use BASIC. > > And ? Any recognizable damage left ? :o) > > > (This was in the days when we had > > an acoustic modem and a Teletype machine, and the mainframe was > > 1500 miles away!

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Fri 18 Oct 2019 at 13:26:03 -0400, Doug McGarrett wrote: > > > On 10/18/2019 09:31 AM, Dan Ritter wrote: > > Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: > > > Subject: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want > > > > > > This is just a quick survey. May I know what programming langu

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On 2019-10-18 22:22, Thomas Schmitt wrote: But with a text editor i write a description in form of C structures and function stubs, which i fill by remarks to roughly describe what to have or to do where and when. Already during this design stage i use as much compilable C code as possible to de

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Hi, Doug McGarrett wrote: > [...] and I learned to use BASIC. And ? Any recognizable damage left ? :o) > (This was in the days when we had > an acoustic modem and a Teletype machine, and the mainframe was > 1500 miles away!) I had a color tv and a VIC-20 on the couch table. > Later, I learne

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:26:03 -0400 Doug McGarrett wrote: > On 10/18/2019 09:31 AM, Dan Ritter wrote: > > Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: > >> Subject: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want > >> > >> This is just a quick survey. May I know what programming languages > >>

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On 10/18/19 11:44 AM, hdv@gmail wrote: > On 18/10/2019 19.26, Doug McGarrett wrote: > > ... > >> I'm not sure if any Pascal compilers are still available, but >> Turbo was the most popular back when. Until the last version >> came out, and it was too complicated for its own good. > > Forgive me

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, Doug McGarrett wrote: > Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:26:03 > From: Doug McGarrett > To: Dan Ritter , > Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming > Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want > Resent-D

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On 18/10/2019 19.26, Doug McGarrett wrote: ... > I'm not sure if any Pascal compilers are still available, but > Turbo was the most popular back when. Until the last version > came out, and it was too complicated for its own good. Forgive me for barging in, but I just had to answer that. Sure t

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

On 10/18/2019 09:31 AM, Dan Ritter wrote: Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: Subject: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want This is just a quick survey. May I know what programming languages do you know? I am considering being a programmer or developer. How long will it

Re: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want

Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: > Subject: Top 7 Programming Languages That Employers Really Want > > This is just a quick survey. May I know what programming languages do > you know? I am considering being a programmer or developer. > How long will it take for me to master a programming l

Re: top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?)

On Saturday, September 09, 2017 10:53:29 PM Nick Boyce wrote: > AFAIK the 'Web Content' process was introduced by Mozilla when Firefox > switched to a multi-process model for the browser binary - you may have > seen people moaning about it: Mozilla calls it 'electrolysis/e10s' and it > delivers suc

Re: top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?)

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 07:39:58 -0400 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, September 08, 2017 07:59:40 PM David Wright wrote: > > On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 17:39:39 (-0400), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, September 08, 2017 05:13:31 PM David Wright wrote: > > > > Meanwhile, I have firefox op

Re: top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?)

On Friday, September 08, 2017 07:59:40 PM David Wright wrote: > On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 17:39:39 (-0400), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, September 08, 2017 05:13:31 PM David Wright wrote: > > > Meanwhile, I have firefox open on the results of a google search. > > > That's currently reading

Re: top that shows "Web Content" (was Re: Recommended editor for novice programmers?)

On Fri 08 Sep 2017 at 17:39:39 (-0400), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, September 08, 2017 05:13:31 PM David Wright wrote: > > Meanwhile, I have firefox open on the results of a google search. > > That's currently reading > > firefox-esr 31% + Web Content 28% > > Hmm, do you have a version

Re: Google & other web mail (was Re: top posting)

David Guntner wrote: > GMail & Yahoo Mail both support encrypted POP3 & IMAP [...] I don't > have to look at their ads since I'm not using their web interface [...] How long do you think it's going to be before they start inserting ads into the message body then? (And/or offering a "premium" serv

Re: top posting

Kelly, On a related note, something is wrong with your MUA and quoting. Here's a section of the quoting from your last message, with an additional layer of quoting applied, and trimmed to 20 characters (to avoid further wrapping issues): > > > I'm just curious > > so upset about top p > > > mind

Re: top posting

http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/d-community-offtopic/2013-November/000303.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1385024914.686.78.camel@archli

Re: top posting

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:08:41 +1100 David wrote: > On 21 November 2013 10:31, Brad Alexander wrote: > > > > I'm just curious why so many people get so upset about top posting. > > When you're curious about anything, use a search engine, like I used > to find this for you: > > https://en.wikip

Google & other web mail (was Re: top posting)

Brad Alexander grabbed a keyboard and wrote: > > Actually, I can see the point of posting inline, however, leave it to > google and other mail apps to go and ruin it. In the gmail web interface, > when you reply to an email or even a thread, you get the text entry box, > with the message you are r

Re: top posting

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:59 PM, David Guntner wrote: > Brad Alexander grabbed a keyboard and wrote: > > I'm just curious why so many people get so upset about top posting. To my > > mind, as threads get longer, those keeping up with the thread would not > > want to scroll through messages that t

Re: top posting

On 11/20/2013 06:31 PM, Brad Alexander wrote: > I'm just curious why so many people get so upset about top posting. To > my mind, as threads get longer, those keeping up with the thread would > not want to scroll through messages that they have already read. I know > that I don't. If they are comme

Re: top posting

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Patrick Wiseman wrote: > > The usual objection to top posting is that it destroys the logical > flow of the conversation (and no doubt someone will post a > conversation in reverse order to illustrate the point). ​ >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Brad Alexand

Re: top posting

On 21 November 2013 10:31, Brad Alexander wrote: > > I'm just curious why so many people get so upset about top posting. When you're curious about anything, use a search engine, like I used to find this for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style Especially if the thing you are curio

Re: top posting

Kelly, according to the rules of posting on this mailing list, you should've posted that empty comment at the bottom ;) On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Kelly Clowers wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Patrick Wiseman wrote: > >> The usual objection to top posting is that it destroys the

Re: top posting

Brad Alexander grabbed a keyboard and wrote: > I'm just curious why so many people get so upset about top posting. To my > mind, as threads get longer, those keeping up with the thread would not > want to scroll through messages that they have already read. I know that I > don't. If they are commen

Re: top posting

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Patrick Wiseman wrote: > The usual objection to top posting is that it destroys the logical > flow of the conversation (and no doubt someone will post a > conversation in reverse order to illustrate the point). But I agree > with you, and for years read my email i

Re: top posting

The usual objection to top posting is that it destroys the logical flow of the conversation (and no doubt someone will post a conversation in reverse order to illustrate the point). But I agree with you, and for years read my email in reverse chronological order precisely so that I could save time

Re: Top and bottom posting - again!! was: Re: package for dropbox

Lisi Reisz grabbed a keyboard and wrote: > On Sunday 30 December 2012 19:49:14 Dick Thomas wrote: >> okay will bottom post, (like it matters) > > Yes, it does. Top posting makes the thread really difficult, if not > impossible, to follow. Yup, that was the point I was trying to make. >> when g

Re: TOP {LEFT,RIGHT} HALF BRACKETs; was Re (2): Box-drawing characters.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:07:20 +, Camaleón wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:44:23 -0800, peasthope wrote: (...) >> This system has the characters but >> peter@dalton:~$ fc-list | grep Suppl >> peter@dalton:~$ fc-list | grep Punct >> peter@dalton:~$ >> is no help. Perusing the whole output of

Re: TOP {LEFT,RIGHT} HALF BRACKETs; was Re (2): Box-drawing characters.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:44:23 -0800, peasthope wrote: > From: Camaleon > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:02:19 + (UTC) >> What kind of symbols do you wnat to render? > > I had referred to box-drawing characters. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-drawing_character Mmm... okay, so I was in the righ

Re: top, www-data and other using LDAP?

Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote: > ¿Anyone? > I'm not using ldap right now, but I think you are missing the system users in your ldap. there was/is a setting to tell ldap from which user id it should count, or better you say pam/nss to use ldap only with ids above a give one. It's always a matter o

Re: top, www-data and other using LDAP?

¿Anyone? -- Thanks, Jordi Espasa Clofent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: mutt tip (was ... Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting)

2009/3/28 Chris Jones > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 05:48:10AM EDT, Chris Bannister wrote: > > I was asking one of the top-posting advocates to elaborate on "archaic > mail readers" .. written in the 1980s .. I believe he wrote.. > > I would assume he is not using one himself .. but then who knows..

Re: mutt tip (was ... Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting)

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 05:48:10AM EDT, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:08:35PM -0400, Chris Jones wrote: > > What mailer are you referring to? I use mutt and it threads messages > > reliably, flagging malformed mails that it adds to a thread when it > You can see what mailer

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 05:48:26AM EDT, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:11:38PM -0400, Chris Jones wrote: > > Now then.. I have two bottom posters .. and one top poster.. > > OK. > > > What do I do? > > Snip out the irrelevant bits. Do you use vim as your editor? If so you >

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:30:15PM +, Bob Cox wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 01:06:11 +1300, Chris Bannister > (mockingb...@earthlight.co.nz) wrote: > > [...] > > It was mentioned that inline posting and deleting unnecessary text is a > > better method, but that was shrugged off as being t

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:11:38PM -0400, Chris Jones wrote: > Now then.. I have two bottom posters .. and one top poster.. OK. > What do I do? Snip out the irrelevant bits. Do you use vim as your editor? If so you can put a number before the 'dd' command: 40dd will delete 40 lines. -- Chris.

mutt tip (was ... Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting)

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:08:35PM -0400, Chris Jones wrote: > What mailer are you referring to? I use mutt and it threads messages > reliably, flagging malformed mails that it adds to a thread when it You can see what mailer he is using if you put in your .muttrc: - # What headers are displa

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:43:28AM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Chris Bannister wrote: > >> Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. > > Then, of course, it follows that not posting at all is ideal. I *should* have said: Without triming bottom pos

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:04:54PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Chris Bannister wrote: > > Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. > > No. You obviously should middle post as I have done here: find the median > line and insert your comments is the center of it, splitting

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Barclay, Daniel > wrote: > > Christofer C. Bell wrote: > > > Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > Mail 2: A: Top-posting. > > Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Tue,24.Mar.09, 13:30:15, Bob Cox wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 01:06:11 +1300, Chris Bannister > (mockingb...@earthlight.co.nz) wrote: > > [...] > > It was mentioned that inline posting and deleting unnecessary text is a > > better method, but that was shrugged off as being too confusing.

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 01:06:11 +1300, Chris Bannister (mockingb...@earthlight.co.nz) wrote: [...] > It was mentioned that inline posting and deleting unnecessary text is a > better method, but that was shrugged off as being too confusing. :o > So in that situation I was happier[2] seeing a sil

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On 2009-03-24 07:06, Chris Bannister wrote: On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40:14AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote: Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. The only person who can say that with a straight face is one who has spent to

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40:14AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote: >> Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. > > The only person who can say that with a straight face is one who has > spent too much time using Windows. Or who re

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 06:32:04AM EDT, Jesus Arocho wrote: > Not all cultures have the same idea of manners. Another example, all > cultures > have the similar ideas about stealing, but not so about art. Somethings just > have to be, others we can pick. > > On Sunday 22 March 2009 13:18:44 R

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:16:12PM EDT, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > In <143f0f6c0903230837k4d6bc8a5r55fe985e82993...@mail.gmail.com>, Christofer > C. Bell wrote: [..] > Thank goodness my threaded mail reader never shows 4 messages at once. > (Alright, alright, it *can* but it doesn't do so

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:37:21AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Barclay, Daniel wrote: > > > Christofer C. Bell wrote: > > > > Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > > Mail 2: A: Top-posting. > > > Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:57:09AM EDT, Barclay, Daniel wrote: > Chris Jones wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:51:31PM EDT, Florian Kulzer wrote: > > > > [..] > > > >> I need to see the relevant context quoted (properly trimmed as the > >> discussion progresses, of course), especially if a th

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

In <143f0f6c0903230837k4d6bc8a5r55fe985e82993...@mail.gmail.com>, Christofer C. Bell wrote: >What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > >> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? >Top-posting. > >>> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? >> Top-posting. >Why is top-posting such a bad thin

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Barclay, Daniel wrote: > Christofer C. Bell wrote: > > Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > Mail 2: A: Top-posting. > > Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > > Mail 4: A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally rea

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Chris Jones wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:51:31PM EDT, Florian Kulzer wrote: > > [..] > >> I need to see the relevant context quoted (properly trimmed as the >> discussion progresses, of course), especially if a thread has run for >> a while. > > Most "business" mail runs something like t

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson > wrote: > > On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote: ... > > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Sunday 22 March 2009 23:07:29 Dave Patterson wrote: >* Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [2009-03-22 20:34:50 -0500]: >> That's hyperbole, at the very least. The original Pentium was released on >> March 22, 1993. 3 1/2" disks had been available for a while. While the >> first GB disk wouldn't be seen u

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

Not all cultures have the same idea of manners. Another example, all cultures have the similar ideas about stealing, but not so about art. Somethings just have to be, others we can pick. On Sunday 22 March 2009 13:18:44 Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2009-03-22 12:27, Jesus Arocho wrote: > > Hee, Hee

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

* Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [2009-03-22 20:34:50 -0500]: > That's hyperbole, at the very least. The original Pentium was released on > March 22, 1993. 3 1/2" disks had been available for a while. While the > first GB disk wouldn't be seen until 1995, 100MB drives were available. Not in '87.

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On Mar 22, 2009, at 10:20 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 2009-03-22 19:52, Dave Patterson wrote: * Ron Johnson [2009-03-22 16:06:06 -0500]: Except that Our arguments are Right, and Theirs are Eeeevil. Here we go. I can imagine the hearings now: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a top poster

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

* Ron Johnson [2009-03-22 21:20:30 -0500]: > You must have missed the Editor Wars... > > "Why do we have to hide from the police, Daddy?" > "Because we use vi, son. They use emacs." > > "Escape Meta Alt Control Shift" > > "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping" > > "EMACS Makes Any Computer S

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >