RussellMc wrote:
> On threads like this, assuming your
> email-reader is capable of displaying the thread as a contiguous
> sequence, it's often quite useful [tm] to read all that has been said
> to date before adding one's gems of wisdom.

All this noise is distracting from the original point I was trying to make,
which is you should quote enough of what you are replying to to provide som=
e
context.

Russell, I think you understand this full well (as you actually do it well
yourself), and as usual you have managed to short circuit whatever lesson
there might have been.  I really would like you to stop doing that.

People should:

1 - Trim the fluff out of the post they are replying to.  Note
    that this will at a minimum pretty much always include the
    footer and such added by the list server.

2 - Quote enough of the particular point replying to to provide
    some context.

3 - Add the comment following the relvant trimmed and quoted
    section, with a blank line separating them of course.

The overall philosophy is that a single person spends perhaps a few extra
seconds writing a post, which then saves 2000 people much more time and
trouble and confusion reading it.  This is just common sense and somewhat
courtisey, and should be self-evident to anyone with more than a vestigual
brain.

The more agregious infractions deserved to be whacked and commented on, and
*not* apologized for, particularly by a list admin.

The point remains, Peter needs to learn how to do this right, whether you
explain what he meant or not.


> His "kluge" is excessively
> time honoured fwiw (not too much ;-)

I am well aware of people doing this on occasion.  I think I've seen more
one-shots used as edge to glitch converters than actual timing elements,
although that doesn't make it less of a kludge.  Usually whenever I started
out thinking I needed a edge to glitch converter, I realized that was due t=
o
not framing the problem correctly and a less kludgy approach was applicable=
..

A edge to glitch converter is a red flag for bad engineering.  That doesn't
mean it always actually is bad engineering, but something that should be
looked at carefully at the least.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.