On Dec 18, 2009, at 7:09 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> It's under 100 lines, of which almost half were cut-and-pasted from
> the existing FAQ 1.22.
Most of which I wrote, and which I probably was not in a particularly good mood
when I wrote it. It definitely needs re-working.
> Anyway, you'
man which can't really be supported might also be a good idea.
Just my 2c as a person who's come on board here in the past couple of
months.
Geoff.
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull"
To:
Cc:
Sent: Friday, 18 December, 2009 3:09 PM
Subject:
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> Stephen, with all due respect for the work you put into your post, I
> think it goes a bit overboard in the other direction. If I can pose a
> question in 6 or 7 lines of text, do I really need to read a couple of
> hundred lines of instruction?
It's under 100 lines
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 14:55 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Somebody-whom-I-don't-want-to-pick-on-in-particular writes:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:00:34PM -0500, (Some) Poor Fellow
> wrote:
> > > Thanks
> >
> > please don't
> > (1) reply to list-posts off-list: send them to th
Somebody-whom-I-don't-want-to-pick-on-in-particular writes:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:00:34PM -0500, (Some) Poor Fellow wrote:
> > Thanks
>
> please don't
> (1) reply to list-posts off-list: send them to the list;
> (2) top-post
Given the recent surge in non-traditional list
