Homebrew PCBs

Actually........ there are long established rules for quoting, pre- 
dating the BBS and Internet days.

It's like those rules about not driving through flashing red traffic  
lights in my country. We have a lot of people that never heard of the  
concept when they were younger, and thus we now have a lot of people  
in my town that simply don't follow that old rule either.

;^)

So, here is a link to those nearly forgotten quidelines.......

http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html

Allow me to quote a couple of those.......

******************
[from] 3.0 One-to-Many Communication (Mailing Lists, NetNews)

If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you  
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just  
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure  
readers understand when they start to read your response. Since  
NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings  
from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a  
message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone.  
But do not include the entire original!

If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make  
your responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send  
messages to the list or the group. If you are debating a point on  
which the group might have some interest, you may summarize for them  
later.

******************

They sure aren't laws. But they sure seem to be good ideas to know  
and follow.

Best to ya'
Mike Bauers
Milwaukee Wi, USA


On Feb 4, 2007, at 10:48 AM, AnaLog Services, Inc. wrote:

> You are certainly a rude lil cuss!  Top posting is not uncommon,  
> and there
> are those who prefer it.  It is simply a matter of taste, and there  
> is no
> "law" on the issue notwitstanding the protestations of the net  
> nannies out
> there.
>
> Those of us with slow dialup connections find looking at posts in the
> archives to be a very painful experience.  So if one were inclined to
> complain, one might point out that you did not include enough  
> information in
> your post to understand what you were talking about.  That is fine  
> in a
> private email, but this is a reflector mailing list, and some fool  
> like
> myself is going to be puzzled.
>
> I am still puzzled.  Why the "f stop" series for step exposure  
> times?  Take
> a look at any adjustable camera.  The aperature follows the  
> convention you
> state, but the shutter speed is a simple progression with each step  
> doubling
> the last.  One f stop change is equivalent to the doubling or  
> halfing of the
> shutter speed.  Simple physics here.  If you are doing a step test to
> determine proper / optimum exposure, then there is no reason to use  
> the f
> stop series as your exposure multiplier.  If you are up to  
> something else,
> then...nevermind.
>
> Syd H. Levine
> AnaLog Services, Inc.
> Phone:  (270) 276-5671
> Telefax:  (270) 276-5588
> E-mail:  analog@...
> Web URL:  www.logwell.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Len Warner
> To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 7:39 AM
> Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Photo exposure
>
>
> At 8:23 am ((PST)) Sat Feb 3, 2007, AnaLog Services, Inc. wrote:
>> I may be wrong, but that looks like the aperture series. Time  
>> should be a
>> simple series of multiples of some base time like 30 seconds, one  
>> minute,
>> etc. No?
>
> The post is accurate as it stands: I've explained it all in the  
> thread:
> Lez was accepting my previous advice which I then augmented.
>
> Lez didn't choose to quote all the relevant part of my post and
> I didn't choose to _reinsert_ more than was required to reply.
>
> If it's not in your old email, it's in the archive. I'm not going  
> to repeat
> it for a top-poster who trashes threads instead of following them. ;-)
>
> Regards, LenW