Carl Fûrstenberg wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:40:52 +0100, robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
cr wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:57, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:24:10 -0500 Rodney Richison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...
I run a list for techs/consultants. (ChannelVar.com) They are
Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
Who are you trying to fool? Your site is a pathetic bare bones sample,
probably not even paid for yet as evidenced by the little, "default
theme sample" tag in the lower left corner of /every page/. There is
/no/ content yet you expect people on this list to listen to you a
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:40:52 +0100, robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> cr wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:57, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:24:10 -0500 Rodney Richison
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...
> I run a list for techs/consultants. (ChannelVar.com) They are a VERY
> q
cr wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:57, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:24:10 -0500
Rodney Richison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
I run a list for techs/consultants. (ChannelVar.com)
They are a VERY qualified bunch of guys. (Admittedly not linux users
On Wednesday October 6 at 02:30pm
Mark Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it just me, or did you just install a fresh copy of Apache?
> Totally no site anymore?
Thats what it looks like, but the server-signature is
Apache/1.3.31 Server at www.channelvar.com Port 80
and the folder is apache2-de
Rodney Richison wrote:
I run a list for techs/consultants. (ChannelVar.com)
They are a VERY qualified bunch of guys. (Admittedly not linux users
though) :)
The preferred method is top posting.
The preferred format is to allow html.
Is it just me, or did you just install a fresh copy of Apache
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:57, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:24:10 -0500
> Rodney Richison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > I run a list for techs/consultants. (ChannelVar.com)
> > They are a VERY qualified bunch of guys. (Admittedly not linux users
> > though) :)
> > The pre
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:24:10 -0500
Rodney Richison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I run a list for techs/consultants. (ChannelVar.com)
> They are a VERY qualified bunch of guys. (Admittedly not linux users
> though) :)
> The preferred method is top posting.
> The preferred format is to allow
Bob Underwood wrote:
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 02:32 pm, calvin wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 08:24:10AM -0500, Rodney Richison wrote:
Top posting leads to a big mess. Every non-technical person does it
and it ends up with them saying "let's use a forum or something"
because they can't fo
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 02:32 pm, calvin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 08:24:10AM -0500, Rodney Richison wrote:
> >>Top posting leads to a big mess. Every non-technical person does it
> >>and it ends up with them saying "let's use a forum or something"
> >>because they can't follow the thread
On (05/10/04 12:52), Nate Duehr wrote:
> Rodney Richison wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>Top posting leads to a big mess. Every non-technical person does it
> >>and it ends up with them saying "let's use a forum or something"
> >>because they can't follow the thread any longer. Surprise surprise, a
> >>forum
Rodney Richison wrote:
Top posting leads to a big mess. Every non-technical person does it
and it ends up with them saying "let's use a forum or something"
because they can't follow the thread any longer. Surprise surprise, a
forum works with bottom posting and everybody seems to find that
normal.
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 08:24:10AM -0500, Rodney Richison wrote:
>
>
>>Top posting leads to a big mess. Every non-technical person does it
>>and it ends up with them saying "let's use a forum or something"
>>because they can't follow the thread any longer. Surprise surprise, a
>>forum works with bo
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:05:22PM +0100, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> pace the whole GMail issue - I use it for mailing lists, for pretty
> much the same reasons to do with wastage. I simply cannot afford the
> bandwidth to download much of the crud which populates mailing-lists -
> Google Inc. can.
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:24:10 -0500, Rodney Richison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> I run a list for techs/consultants. (ChannelVar.com)
> They are a VERY qualified bunch of guys. (Admittedly not linux users
> though) :)
> The preferred method is top posting.
> The preferred format is to allow h
Incoming from Rodney Richison:
>
> >Top posting leads to a big mess. Every non-technical person does it
> >and it ends up with them saying "let's use a forum or something"
> >because they can't follow the thread any longer. Surprise surprise, a
> >forum works with bottom posting and everybody seem
Top posting leads to a big mess. Every non-technical person does it
and it ends up with them saying "let's use a forum or something"
because they can't follow the thread any longer. Surprise surprise, a
forum works with bottom posting and everybody seems to find that
normal.
I run a list for te
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:33:12 +, John Summerfield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patrick Wiseman wrote:
>
> >>Have those posting their invites acutally READ
> >>http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/index.en.html#ads ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Cheap shot. I'm not pushing gmail, but the people who are offer
Patrick Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
[...]
> (I'm bottom-posting only because this list - uniquely, in my
> experience - insists on it. You really should try reading your email
> in reverse chronological order. It works.)
Top posting may work. But I t
Patrick Wiseman wrote:
Have those posting their invites acutally READ
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/index.en.html#ads ?
Cheap shot. I'm not pushing gmail, but the people who are offering
gmail invites do not remotely fall within that policy.
Whether gmail sends them itself, it's still
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:19:43 +0200
Wim De Smet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:57:41 +1000, Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 10:37:11PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman said
> > > (I'm bottom-posting only because this list - uniquely, in my
> > > ex
Hi,
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:57:41 +1000, Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 10:37:11PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman said
> > (I'm bottom-posting only because this list - uniquely, in my
> > experience - insists on it. You really should try reading your email
> > in reverse chro
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 10:37:11PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman said
> (I'm bottom-posting only because this list - uniquely, in my
> experience - insists on it. You really should try reading your email
> in reverse chronological order. It works.)
Every single technical list (far too many) I'm on is *
"Andrew A. Raines" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Nothing but quoted text.]
Sigh. I've put this off long enough.
(defun aar-dont-send-yet-stupid ()
"Dang, C-c C-c is easy to hit."
(interactive)
(message "Type M-x message-send-and-exit..."))
(define-key message-mode-map "\C-c\
Patrick Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:43:37 +0200, Alexander Schmehl
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * matt okeson-harlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040912 21:42]:
>> > for those bashing on google... have you actually READ the faq's re
>> > privacy and security?
>>
>> Hav
On 13-09-2004, at 23h 14'49", Patrick Wiseman wrote about "Re: [Way OT] Re: GMAIL
Invites..!"
> Even relatively undisciplined correspondents don't make that kind of
> mess. And my _top_ posting might just clarify for anyone who's
> joining this way-OT-aside
I wouldn't mind top posters so much if they would trim the quoted
portion of the reply. Top posting makes it easier to forget and include
the entire message, which in most cases is unnecessary.
--
-johann koenig
Now Playing: At the Driv-in - Catacomb : Plea For Peace - Take Action
(Vol. 1)
Today
On Monday September 13 at 10:37pm
Patrick Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mail-Followup-To: is better than Reply-To: for mailing lists, see
http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html
> Cheap shot. I'm not pushing gmail, but the people who are offering
> gmail invites do not remotely fall within that
Even relatively undisciplined correspondents don't make that kind of
mess. And my _top_ posting might just clarify for anyone who's
joining this way-OT-aside what we're discussing. _Insisting_ on
bottom posting is, in my view, silly. We should trust each other to
be clear. But it's this list's
Kent West wrote:
Kent West wrote:
Patrick Wiseman wrote:
(I'm bottom-posting only because this list - uniquely, in my
experience - insists on it. You really should try reading your email
in reverse chronological order. It works.)
Not in my experience. As a third-party reader, where do you star
Kent West wrote:
Patrick Wiseman wrote:
(I'm bottom-posting only because this list - uniquely, in my
experience - insists on it. You really should try reading your email
in reverse chronological order. It works.)
Not in my experience. As a third-party reader, where do you start in
the followi
Patrick Wiseman wrote:
(I'm bottom-posting only because this list - uniquely, in my
experience - insists on it. You really should try reading your email
in reverse chronological order. It works.)
Not in my experience. As a third-party reader, where do you start in the
following dialog, and wh
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:43:37 +0200, Alexander Schmehl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * matt okeson-harlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040912 21:42]:
> > for those bashing on google... have you actually READ the faq's re
> > privacy and security?
>
> Have those posting their invites acutally READ
> http://w
33 matches
Mail list logo
