In article <fb************@brenda.flash-gordon.me.uk>,
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 01:07:08 GMT
"Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
It would be nice if compilers / libraries gave users the option to
install source code (and thus, objs, libs, etc.) to a location of
<snip>
Please stop discussing your implementation on comp.lang.c and
comp.lang.c++, these groups are here to discuss the languages, not the
particulars of your implementation.
He is talking about stuff having to do with his "C" drive.
It seems reasonable to me that a newsgroup named something like
"something.c" might be helpful to him.
"Malcolm" <ma*****@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cm**********@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>
Please don't top post. Your reply belongs under the text you are
replying to which should be suitable snipped.
</opinion-about-the-endless-top-posting-debate>
I am an old line, old line, Usenetter and, in theory, I agree with the
basic idea of how-to-post - you will note that I always post that way. But
here's the thing - I'm smart enough to do it correctly. It is an
unfortunate, sad, but alas true fact of life that most people today (coming
from Microsoft/Google or AOL/WebTV or worse) aren't smart enough to do it
correctly. In particular, if you use Outlook Express (as most people do
today), it (OE) so badly screws up the quoting structure of most posts that
it is impossible to navigate (using the usual tools/conventions found in
normal [classical Unix] newsreaders). I've found that with the typical
bottom-posted but screwed up by OE post (*), I just go to the bottom of the
post anyway, so it might as well have been top-posted.
Yes, I am aware that by doing so, I run the risk of missing any
"included/interleaved" new material. Sad, but necessary.
(*) Which often consists of pages and pages of quoted text followed by
2 or 3 lines of new material, at the bottom.
