Chip with simple program for Toy

[Josepi]

Geeesh. Please don't fuck wit the atural order of your newsreader. It makes
a mess of the thread and confuses the hell out of anybody actually caring
about who posted what. Your bwoser was made to top post with the attachments
at the bottom, keep the headers with the respective text and be easy to use.

Look at the mess you have made of this thread with bottom posting.

The bottom post argument is the favourite troll of the bored and stupid.
This thread is prime example of this.

BTW: Trimming is good but please don't sign your initials over and over.
You're not that important.

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
newsb5vi5dc8u6da53jcsaggvcm2qt2fa6uhg@4ax.com...

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:48 -0800 (PST), Michael B
baughfam@bellsouth.net> wrote:

How long will it be before the Grammar Police get here?

---
They're here already.
---

Do I still have time to report the shoe sales posts as
spam before they get to me?

---
Ah, I see you _do_ consider some types of posts as being objectionable,
so you _should_ be capable of recognizing that many consider top posting
in USENET to be not only objectionable, but extremely bad form.

Why?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=USENET+top-posting&rlz=1W1GFRC_en&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

---

Oh, I see that the guidelines use the word "please". That
means "It would be very nice if you would do this". Okay,
I've been reminded.

---
Since a few of the reasons for bottom posting and trimming were given,
and "please" was used to ask you, politely, to follow the conventions
that most of us have found helpful in eliminating confusion and saving
time, your recalcitrance at posting, using those conventions, is
telling.

Specifically, since you obviously have no intention of being
accommodating and making life a little easier for all of us, you brand
yourself as being a narcissistic little creep who wants Rome to do as he
does.
---

Now, do you perhaps need a lesson on how to killfile me?
Wouldn't be the first, won't be the last.

---
I'm sure.

With an attitude like yours there are likely many more who have filtered
you out of their lives than not; probably the way you prefer it...

JF
JF
JF

 

[Josepi]

Yup, top posting is the favouite troll of the unoriginal ones.

I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not
read by me or most others.

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:e50ti5po0e659s8vkq1450d1alk1pip648@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:38:38 -0800, "The real Edmond H. Wollmann"
EHWollmann@aol.com> wrote:


"Josepi" <JRM@inv.alid.com> wrote in message
news:XirWm.107088$gg6.86188@newsfe25.iad...
The heat disapation is not a big feature of the varnish but
nevertheless, is
there.


Where is John Fools and John Lackin? You fools like to complain about my
English...heehee....Now look at the guy above^ He said: "heat
disapation".



...I've Never heard of it! I heard "Heat Dissipation!" You dipshit were
born here, how can you let an alien beat you huh?

There's some Usenet law to the effect that posts which complain about
spelling or grammar errors always contain errors of their own.

Still true.

Do you know anything about electronics? Tell us.


John

 

[Josepi]

Sure but don't use a capital after a comma punctuation.


"Edmond H. Wollmann" <EHWollmann@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ybudndZDC5qJD63WnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@posted.toastnet...

Ok, then your brain works slow, not slowly. Is that ok grammar according to
your suggestion ?

Walk slow, Don't walk slowly ok?

 

[Fred Abse]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:29:43 -0500, Josepi wrote:

I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not
read by me or most others.

Cite source for "most others"

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:29:43 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM@inv.alid.com> wrote:

Yup, top posting is the favouite troll of the unoriginal ones.

---
So, by top posting, you're admitting that's your favorite method of
trolling _and_ that you're unoriginal?
---

I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not
read by me or most others.

---
"Polls???

"Most others"???

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:28:03 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM@inv.alid.com> wrote:

Geeesh. Please don't fuck wit the atural order of your newsreader. It makes
a mess of the thread and confuses the hell out of anybody actually caring
about who posted what. Your bwoser was made to top post with the attachments
at the bottom, keep the headers with the respective text and be easy to use.

---
My "bwoser"???

Geez, where do these creeps come from?
---

Look at the mess you have made of this thread with bottom posting.

---
Certainly not I, since with the earliest post at the top and the most
recent at the bottom, the chronological order of responses is
maintained and anyone joining the thread at any time merely has to read
from the top down (as we do when we're reading a book, a magazine
article, a newspaper, etc.) to follow the thread.

Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
what you were talking about.

So far I haven't seen any evidence justifying your position.
---

The bottom post argument is the favourite troll of the bored and stupid.
This thread is prime example of this.

---
On the contrary, clearly over 99% of us bottom post (and inline post
when it's appropriate) because it makes sense, while I think the
remaining 1% top post in order to get attention or just because you're
troublemakers with a "You can't tell me what to do" attitude.
---

BTW: Trimming is good but please don't sign your initials over and over.
You're not that important.

---
If that were true, then you should follow your own advice and stop
posting altogether.

JF

 

[Michael B]

Your position, at the bottom, assumes that your responses
will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past
all your other trolldom utterances.
I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something
relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not
particularly surprised.
Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily
ignored.

On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
what you were talking about.

 

[Josepi]

I must say I do like the way the browsers were designed to top post. I hate
scrolling to the bottom and then reading backwards to find the top of their
statements.

Just look at a thread where epople haven't trimmed and the big inserted
lexical levels are hard to pick out and the outside lexical levels are
useless as nobody can count that many right carets to figure out who said
it. The result? People read the previous posts to know who said what,
confusion results in fights from people disagreeing with the wrong people
and just general mass confusion of information, especially with the browsers
meant to download binary files, mainly.

Look at this beautiful format. This is the way every browser I have seen so
far is designed to work. It is always a favourite troll post of the lazy
trolls when losing an argument. "Your format is wrong" makes a good
distraction from the real issue.

Now read very closely in the attached reference posts I may have interlaced
a comment, somewhere...LOL


"Michael B" <baughfam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:61e9f5bc-7024-4deb-bdd5-2ac4c079d56b@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Your position, at the bottom, assumes that your responses
will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past
all your other trolldom utterances.
I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something
relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not
particularly surprised.
Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily
ignored.

On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>wrote:
Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
what you were talking about.

 

[Fred Abse]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:11:59 -0500, Josepi wrote:


<A lot of crap snipped>

Aside from your use of the word "browser". (Microsoft Outlook Express
isn't a browser, it's a mail client / rudimentary news client). there are
no quotation marks (&gt against the quoted part of your posting.

That, combined with top posting, makes it almost unintelligible.

Learn to bottom post and quote properly or stay the hell out of
sci.electronics.* groups.

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)

 

[daestrom]

John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:04:31 -0800, "Edmond H. Wollmann"
EHWollmann@aol.com&gt; wrote:

"m II" &lt;C@in.the.hat&gt; wrote in message news:4b2dcce2@news.x-privat.org...
John Fields wrote:

Should be 'words', actually.

Prepositions are not your strong point, are they John?
mike


Nop! He's good at copy and past some funky formulas off his Electronic workbench!...heeheee....

---
"Nop", I suspect, describes your life.

JF

As in the common mnemonic for 'No Operation' when dealing with assembly
language?

daestrom

 

[daestrom]

Josepi wrote:

Geeesh. Please don't fuck wit the atural order of your newsreader. It makes
a mess of the thread and confuses the hell out of anybody actually caring
about who posted what. Your bwoser was made to top post with the attachments
at the bottom, keep the headers with the respective text and be easy to use.

Look at the mess you have made of this thread with bottom posting.

The bottom post argument is the favourite troll of the bored and stupid.
This thread is prime example of this.

BTW: Trimming is good but please don't sign your initials over and over.
You're not that important.

Actually, by reading this thread with a 'news-reader' such as what I'm
using, John's posts and headers make nice, chronological sense. Each
one seems to be in direct reply to the message it is linked to.

Perhaps if you weren't using a bwoser [sic] it would look better for
you. By using a web-based news reader, you're at the mercy of how that
web server reads the headers and such. Most likely it is your web-based
news service that has mad a mess of things.

daestrom

 

[daestrom]

Josepi wrote:

Yup, top posting is the favouite troll of the unoriginal ones.

I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not
read by me or most others.

How arrogant of you to presume to speak for 'most others'.

You certainly don't speak for me.

daestrom

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:43:42 -0800 (PST), Michael B
&lt;baughfam@bellsouth.net&gt; wrote:

On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:

Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
what you were talking about.

Your position, at the bottom, assumes that your responses
will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past
all your other trolldom utterances.
I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something
relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not
particularly surprised.

---
While the original topic was coil winding, this part of the thread has
gone off-topic and diverged to the point where what's being discussed is
the efficacy of bottom and in-line posting VS top posting.

Consequently, since my comments address top, in-line, and bottom posting
they are relevant.
---

Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily
ignored.

---
Isn't comfort and lack of confusion in communications what we should all
strive for?

I've relocated your post so that it follows my earlier one in order that
you might see how much more natural the flow is, chronologically, using
bottom posting.

Just think (if you can) how much easier someone coming across this post
for the first time would find it to understand, reading it from the top
down instead of having to jump about trying to stitch together seemingly
unrelated pieces of quiltwork.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:11:59 -0500, "Josepi" &lt;JRM@inv.alid.com&gt; wrote:

I must say I do like the way the browsers were designed to top post. I hate
scrolling to the bottom and then reading backwards to find the top of their
statements.

---
Browsers aren't designed to top post, but simpletons who can't be
bothered (or don't know how) to locate the cursor properly before they
start typing use that as an excuse to justify top posting, a format that
was adopted as the default for email, where it works since the
(generally) two people involved in the exchange know what went before.

In USENET that's not true, and a reader coming across a thread for the
first time wouldn't know what went before and would then, logically, go
to the top of the post and start reading from there in order to traverse
the correct chronological sequence of posts _if_ the earlier posts were
located at the top of the stack.

Just like picking up a book you had never read before, would you expect
chapter 10 to be at the beginning and chapter 1 at the end?
---

Just look at a thread where epople haven't trimmed and the big inserted
lexical levels are hard to pick out and the outside lexical levels are
useless as nobody can count that many right carets to figure out who said
it. The result? People read the previous posts to know who said what,
confusion results in fights from people disagreeing with the wrong people
and just general mass confusion of information, especially with the browsers
meant to download binary files, mainly.

---
Troll, huh?
---

Look at this beautiful format. This is the way every browser I have seen so
far is designed to work. It is always a favourite troll post of the lazy
trolls when losing an argument. "Your format is wrong" makes a good
distraction from the real issue.

---
My position and that of probably &gt;&gt;99% of USENET is that bottom and
in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than
top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to
your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own
petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.
---

Now read very closely in the attached reference posts I may have interlaced
a comment, somewhere...LOL

---
You make my point and laugh at any inconvenience I may experience in
trying to search for your maliciously placed nonsense.

Just what I would expect of an immature, self-centered, top-poster.
---

"Michael B" &lt;baughfam@bellsouth.net&gt; wrote in message
news:61e9f5bc-7024-4deb-bdd5-2ac4c079d56b@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Your position, at the bottom, assumes that your responses
will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past
all your other trolldom utterances.
I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something
relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not
particularly surprised.
Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily
ignored.

On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com&gt;wrote:
Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
what you were talking about.

---
Ugh...

If you consider that formatting to be beautiful, then I suggest you
consider this to be beautiful, as well:

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/Enlargement.cfm?ID=38

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:12:53 -0500, daestrom &lt;daestrom@twcny.rr.com&gt;
wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:04:31 -0800, "Edmond H. Wollmann"
EHWollmann@aol.com&gt; wrote:

"m II" &lt;C@in.the.hat&gt; wrote in message news:4b2dcce2@news.x-privat.org...
John Fields wrote:

Should be 'words', actually.

Prepositions are not your strong point, are they John?
mike


Nop! He's good at copy and past some funky formulas off his Electronic workbench!...heeheee....

---
"Nop", I suspect, describes your life.

JF


As in the common mnemonic for 'No Operation' when dealing with assembly
language?

---
Precisely!

JF

 

[Josepi]

Let's see...that was an "02" in 6800, a "20" in 6809 and in 68000 hmmmmmm...
assemblers got cheaper. Always use one before a CLI.

808x I wouldn't want to see the code for that POS. Not assembler friendly.

LOL


"daestrom" &lt;daestrom@twcny.rr.com&gt; wrote in message
news:hgtc1o02tdn@news5.newsguy.com...
As in the common mnemonic for 'No Operation' when dealing with assembly
language?

daestrom



John Fields wrote:
"Nop", I suspect, describes your life.

JF JF JF



On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:04:31 -0800, "Edmond H. Wollmann"
Nop! He's good at copy and past some funky formulas off his Electronic
workbench!...heeheee....

 

[Josepi]

Real scientists can adapt and excel with even your input, Mr Abuse.


"Fred Abse" &lt;excretatauris@invalid.invalid&gt; wrote in message
newsan.2009.12.23.09.23.36.772092@invalid.invalid...

<a lot of crap nobody else wanted to see could be snipped also but the flow
would have been lost, similar to bottom posting>

Aside from your use of the word "browser". (Microsoft Outlook Express
isn't a browser, it's a mail client / rudimentary news client). there are
no quotation marks (&gt against the quoted part of your posting.

That, combined with top posting, makes it almost unintelligible.

Learn to bottom post and quote properly or stay the hell out of
sci.electronics.* groups.

 

[Josepi]

Good thing it was easy to follow for you.
If you have no logical arguments left try insulting everybody.


"John Fields" &lt;jfields@austininstruments.com&gt; wrote in message
news:cbm4j5lbu33a2rr3kbj66lg3blsctnj2me@4ax.com...
Browsers aren't designed to top post, but simpletons who can't be
bothered (or don't know how) to locate the cursor properly before they
start typing use that as an excuse to justify top posting, a format that
was adopted as the default for email, where it works since the
(generally) two people involved in the exchange know what went before.

In USENET that's not true, and a reader coming across a thread for the
first time wouldn't know what went before and would then, logically, go
to the top of the post and start reading from there in order to traverse
the correct chronological sequence of posts _if_ the earlier posts were
located at the top of the stack.

Just like picking up a book you had never read before, would you expect
chapter 10 to be at the beginning and chapter 1 at the end?

Troll, huh?

My position and that of probably &gt;&gt;99% of USENET is that bottom and
in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than
top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to
your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own
petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.

You make my point and laugh at any inconvenience I may experience in
trying to search for your maliciously placed nonsense.

Just what I would expect of an immature, self-centered, top-poster.
---

Ugh...

If you consider that formatting to be beautiful, then I suggest you
consider this to be beautiful, as well:

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/Enlargement.cfm?ID=38

JF

 

[Josepi]

Get a browser that supports threading like the majority of us.
Your bottom posting troll was a good distraction for entertainment purposes
only.


"John Fields" &lt;jfields@austininstruments.com&gt; wrote in message
news:i2i4j5586m4djuorlvso1cgvoqolv57rlf@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:43:42 -0800 (PST), Michael B
&lt;baughfam@bellsouth.net&gt; wrote:

On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:

Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
what you were talking about.

Your position, at the bottom, assumes that your responses
will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past
all your other trolldom utterances.
I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something
relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not
particularly surprised.

---
While the original topic was coil winding, this part of the thread has
gone off-topic and diverged to the point where what's being discussed is
the efficacy of bottom and in-line posting VS top posting.

Consequently, since my comments address top, in-line, and bottom posting
they are relevant.
---

Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily
ignored.

---
Isn't comfort and lack of confusion in communications what we should all
strive for?

I've relocated your post so that it follows my earlier one in order that
you might see how much more natural the flow is, chronologically, using
bottom posting.

Just think (if you can) how much easier someone coming across this post
for the first time would find it to understand, reading it from the top
down instead of having to jump about trying to stitch together seemingly
unrelated pieces of quiltwork.

JF JF JF

 

[Josepi]

I'll stick with the crowd and the logical method following the flavour of
the three browsers I have experienced.


"daestrom" &lt;daestrom@twcny.rr.com&gt; wrote in message
news:hgtcii02ug9@news5.newsguy.com...
Actually, by reading this thread with a 'news-reader' such as what I'm
using, John's posts and headers make nice, chronological sense. Each
one seems to be in direct reply to the message it is linked to.

Perhaps if you weren't using a bwoser [sic] it would look better for
you. By using a web-based news reader, you're at the mercy of how that
web server reads the headers and such. Most likely it is your web-based
news service that has mad a mess of things.

daestrom


Josepi wrote:
Geeesh. Please don't fuck wit the atural order of your newsreader. It makes
a mess of the thread and confuses the hell out of anybody actually caring
about who posted what. Your bwoser was made to top post with the attachments
at the bottom, keep the headers with the respective text and be easy to use.

Look at the mess you have made of this thread with bottom posting.

The bottom post argument is the favourite troll of the bored and stupid.
This thread is prime example of this.

BTW: Trimming is good but please don't sign your initials over and over.
You're not that important.