Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[Lostgallifreyan]

Hmm, sorry, the dismissal came from someone else, so I shouldn't be
berating you for that. Even so, it's not appropriate to make claims for
such universality. If you don't like it, say so, but don't try to claim for
a universe! Most of it has ideas of its own.

 

[FrediFizzx]

---
Quite frankly, your "Quite frankly" seems designed to cast you in
the role of an authority on top posting, while your bottom post
shows that you accede to the wisdom of the masses. Good move.

Secondly, it's not a question of not being able to "handle" it, it's
more a question about why a top poster considers his response to an
earlier question important enough to try to juggle time so that his
response will seem to be placed before the question.

It's not a question at all. If someone replies to me with a top post, I
will reply to them with a top post. If someone replies to me with a
bottom post, I will reply to them with a bottom post. The ultimate
netiquette. There is really no logic to either form. Threading a reply
is a different case which the logic is to reply after the other poster's
reply. Unless there is just a short overall comment then it would be
just as logical to top post it.

FD

 

[Poxy]

Without taking sides on any other issues, IMO the old rule not to top
post is out of date! It is much more appropriate in today's
environment to top post.

Ahh. You're one of those people who call being considerate and respectful of
prevailing customs "political correctness" yes?

 

[Arfa Daily]

It's not a question at all. If someone replies to me with a top post, I
will reply to them with a top post. If someone replies to me with a
bottom post, I will reply to them with a bottom post. The ultimate
netiquette. There is really no logic to either form. Threading a reply
is a different case which the logic is to reply after the other poster's
reply. Unless there is just a short overall comment then it would be just
as logical to top post it.

FD

Never-the-less, the convention is one to one e-mail, reply on the top. One
to many Usenet, reply to the bottom, and the protocol that has always been
used on sci.electronics.repair, which is where this thread originated before
it was cross posted to all of the others. If "Sally" and you and the others
who are commenting on posting protocol, come from one of the other groups
which are now carrying it, and you have different accepted practices on
yours, that's fine, but - no offense intended - please don't criticise the
way it's done here.

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Arfa

 

[Meat Plow]

I have to strongly disagree. I think top poasting is rude,
inconsiderate and completely inappropriate where Usenet is concerned
be it past or present. Please don't top poast.

 

[Meat Plow]

I disagree. You should never top poast regardless of the orientation of
the poast you are replying to. Best to bottom poast to all replies.

 

[a t e c 7 7]

I have to strongly disagree. I think top poasting is rude,
inconsiderate and completely inappropriate where Usenet is concerned
be it past or present. Please don't top poast.

poast ?
you realise you are wasting your time ?

 

[FrediFizzx]

Never-the-less, the convention is one to one e-mail, reply on the top.
One to many Usenet, reply to the bottom, and the protocol that has
always been used on sci.electronics.repair, which is where this thread
originated before it was cross posted to all of the others. If "Sally"
and you and the others who are commenting on posting protocol, come
from one of the other groups which are now carrying it, and you have
different accepted practices on yours, that's fine, but - no offense
intended - please don't criticise the way it's done here.

Sorry, there is no convention really. People are free to top or bottom
post if they wish on unmoderated groups or email.

Now, do you think it really makes sense to have to scroll down for such
a short reply? And I really didn't see that I was criticizing anything.
I just stated that I don't really care which way someone posts. It is
always fairly easy to figure out. I just figure there is no reason to
be a tight-ass about it. My work here is done.

FD

 

[Mr.T]

Universal dislike for something counts as more than just "what is
readily available at an affordable price." Sorry.

IF we were talking *universal* dislike then I might agree.

I don't think it's irrational to expect humans to be put off by
sources of articial light whose color temp is not what they evolved
with.

No *proof* though that artificial light MUST be different from natural
light.
Only the preferences of many accustomed to it being so.

Defense mechanisms typically work that way, matter of fact.

I'm interested to know what's the "defence mechanism" that benefits from low
color temperatures?

Anyway, this has to be one of the longest threads in usenet history
(probably not, actually).

A hell of a long way from it actually.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

Without taking sides on any other issues, IMO the old rule not to top post
is out of date! It is much more appropriate in today's environment to top
post.

And far more reasonable to do what you prefer and accept that others have
the same choice.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

---
One has nothing to do with the other, "Sally",
True.

and by top posting you brand yourself as an intellectual midget
whose grousing about fowl language is for the birds.

Abusive language without intellectual substance brands the poster as an even
bigger moron than those who incessantly complain about top posters.

MrT.

 

[a t e c 7 7]

Abusive language without intellectual substance brands the poster as an even
bigger moron than those who incessantly complain about top posters.

MrT.

Hear hear

 

[Mr.T]

At least that which doesn't settle in your lungs I guess. Current research
shows micro particulates as being very hazardous.

Thanks

Since he provided no epidemiological studies to show the long term *proven*
effects of any of them on the human body, what exactly are you thanking him
for?
I'll keep an open mind while awaiting some FACTS.

MrT.

 

[Adam Russell]

Ive noticed that some people use top posting as a tactic, when they have
lost the argument. They either achieve a change of subject to something
they might have a better chance of 'winning' or else the thread totally
derails to a discussion of the merits of top/bottom posting.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Anyway, this has to be one of the longest threads in usenet history
(probably not, actually).

It has to hit over 10,000 posts to even be in the running.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Mr.T]

It has to hit over 10,000 posts to even be in the running.

Yes, he must be a "newby" I think.

MrT.

 

[Jasen Betts]

There have been publications about the energy usage to make ethanol. You
should research this out before making comments!

seing as you're posting this to aus.electronics I think you should
know that Australian fuel additive ethanol is made from sugar refinery
waste, not from food crops.


Bye.
Jasen

 

[Sally]

Fair point. But the poster was so incensed about top posting that it did
call for a reply. Amusing about your assessment!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Yes, he must be a "newby" I think.

MrT.

Just wait till he stumbles into a thread like that big one on
news.sci.electronics.design . There were still over 6,000 messages on
the server from the 10,000 or more. It took my news reader software
three hours to mark that thread as read, because of all the cross
posts. I was about ready to kill the program when it finally finished.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Sally]

True Mr T! And as for the implication earlier that this subject doesn't
warrant any discussion, note the length of the thread!

signed
intellectual moron