This part is probably not noise.
I agree (as I said) with your comments about it being a good idea to
quote a small amount of a prior post in order to establish context.

BUT

>> 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.

you do *seem* (ie it may not be the case) often enough to wade into
conversations in the middle without showing signs of having skimmed
down the prior thread. Doing this is as much netiquette as all the
other things that you point out. ie having some grasp of what has been
said and done beforehand and knowing roughly who the question askers
are and who the problem solvers are makes late entry into a thread
less disruptive.

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

Your point is a reasonable one.
If you were willing to tailor your approach somewhat while making your
point I just may be happier to not feel obliged to wade in over
approach.

> Russell, I think you understand this full well (as you actually do it wel=
l
> yourself),

Often enough. Not always.

> and as usual you have managed to short circuit whatever lesson
> there might have been. =A0I really would like you to stop doing that.

I'd love to feel happy about doing so.
There's usually a reason for me doing it. We can both "win" if we both
bend a little. The alternative seems to be butting hard and bony heads
together incessantly :-).

> People should:
>
> 1 - Trim the fluff out of the post they are replying to. =A0Note
> =A0 =A0that this will at a minimum pretty much always include the
> =A0 =A0footer and such added by the list server.

Agree.

> 2 - Quote enough of the particular point replying to to provide
> =A0 =A0some context.

Usually a good idea.

> 3 - Add the comment following the relvant trimmed and quoted
> =A0 =A0section, with a blank line separating them of course.

Often yes. Sometimes other formats work.
religion happens. Top and bottom posting and which end of an egge to
open is to some extent a matter of preference. I lean towards
preferring bottom posting but not slavishly so.

> 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. =A0This is just common sense and somewh=
at
> courtisey, and should be self-evident to anyone with more than a vestigua=
l
> brain.

largely agree, one I've translated it back into something just
slightly politer:-).

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

And, there's the rub. Or, the whack.
Discerning a... or egregious infactionness is a fine art. Religion happens.
If one can lean on the side of advising rather than whacking, more
mileage may happen. Religion says that opinions differs on that point.

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

We can all learn. Maybe that should be 'all need to learn" :-).
Whacking has its place, but having a larger and more varied toolbox,
and knowing how to use it to advantage is a sign of professionalism,
and may be more effectine in some, (or even many or most)  situations.

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

> I am well aware of people doing this on occasion. =A0I think I've seen mo=
re
> one-shots used as edge to glitch converters than actual timing elements,
> although that doesn't make it less of a kludge. =A0Usually whenever I sta=
rted
> out thinking I needed a edge to glitch converter, I realized that was due=
 to
> not framing the problem correctly and a less kludgy approach was applicab=
le.
>
> A edge to glitch converter is a red flag for bad engineering. =A0That doe=
sn't
> mean it always actually is bad engineering, but something that should be
> looked at carefully at the least.

The XOR analog solution was indeed a "kluge". But, he knew that. He
clearly understood what he was proposing, what it's limitations were
and how it could be done better. His subsequent email proposed a
"proper" digital solution.



 R

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.