[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question
From: |
David Kelly |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:05:02 -0500 |
On Sep 20, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Jeff Barlow wrote:
Internet email is gradually degrading due to lame software and
clueless users.
Yes, that is exactly why I wrote. To alert the clueless. Apparently
the clueless cherish their cluelessness, but that was nothing new.
Yes, the "messages are still threaded." Gmail has nothing on anything
here. The point is that the messages are in the *wrong* thread. Its
purely to the advantage of the poster to break a new topic out of an
old thread and start fresh.
Another advantage of proper threading is list archive search. Much
more likely to find useful information when searching an archive
which is properly threaded. Then again list archive searching is
another lost art.
On Sep 20, 2005, at 1:20 PM, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
But in the end, people deploying that kind of laziness will simply cut
theirselves off from people who might be willing to reply: If I kill
an entire thread as I'm not interested in it, and deep in that thread
appears a new question -- ce la vive. I won't be able to answer that
new question as I won't see it at all.
Some find it hard to believe others might tie their shoes
differently. Same applies here as I expect many don't understand how
what Joerg said above could be true. Many of us open this mailbox
with threads collapsed under one entry. "That old tired thread? Kill
it. Next." Your query was deleted unseen because it was filed wrong.
Because you sent it wrong. And I don't really care. However this
needs to be mentioned now and then because sometimes The Clueless Get
A Clue.
I was split about 51/49 as to whether my posting this morning should
continue in this thread or start a new. Decided that it was about
this thread and therefore should stay in it. This way it was threaded
directly to the message I was talking about if anyone cares to go
read the message headers in the thread. And those who were already
tired of this thread would not be bothered.
--
David Kelly N4HHE, address@hidden
========================================================================
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, (continued)
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Wolfgang Wegner, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Julius Luukko, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Marc Wetzel, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Russell Shaw, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, varsha, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Lev Vyskubov, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, David Kelly, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Christopher X. Candreva, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Joerg Wunsch, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Jeff Barlow, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question,
David Kelly <=
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Christopher X. Candreva, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Brian Sidebotham, 2005/09/20
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Ron, 2005/09/20
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Mike Murphree, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Alexandru Csete, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Mike Murphree, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Wolfgang Wegner, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Anton Erasmus, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] OT Generic C question, Nils Springob, 2005/09/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Initilizing complex const arrays : syntax ?, David Kelly, 2005/09/19