Top posting is allowed on here. This isn't a newsgroup and we don't limit how a person decides to reply.
Whether someone censors their blog comments or not is not relevant to this group. That's a personal situation between the blog owner and the commenter and doesn't have a place on JSMentors. Asen has said as much and I agree. The follow-up post was fine since it actually focused on the technical concerns the OP had. Rey... On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:39 PM, RobG <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On May 23, 10:08 pm, Rey Bango <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually, it does Rob. > > > All this top-posting. Presumably that is in replying to: > > > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:53 AM, RobG <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > > > There is nothing in the JSMentors Google Groups profile that links to > > > the page with those rules, perhaps that is an oversight? > > > > > <URL:http://jsmentors.com/> > > > To which the response was: > > > On the JSMentors homepage, we clearly outline what's > > acceptable topics for discussion: > > > > http://jsmentors.com/ > > Now where did I see that link before... > > > > > We had this on the Google Group's welcome page but unfortunately Google > > removed that welcome page for all Google Groups. > > So saying "There is nothing in the JSMentors Google Groups profile > that links to the page with those rules" is correct, and replying with > "Actually, it does" is not. A reply placed *below* trimmed quotes of > what was being replied to would have made that obvious. > > It would have been a reasonable alternative to post a link to the > rules when the poster quoted them. > > > > So the bottom line is that discussions need to remain technical. > Garrett's > > original post was not technical and was a personal opinion piece which is > > not relevant to this group. > > There were no insults, the language was quite cordial. The post seemed > quite factual and technically related: the OP posted technical > responses on a blog that may be read by people who also visit here. > Those responses were (apparently) removed without explanation. > > That is worth noting here just as it's worth noting that a published > work contains errors that have not been corrected, or where > corrections have been suggested to the author or publisher but not > included in subsequent editions. > > It would have been better if the actual issues had been posted in the > OP, but that was done in a following post. > > > -- > Rob > > -- > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
