Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof..

From	Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.programming
Subject	Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof..
Date	2018-03-22 18:13 +0000
Organization	Fix this later
Message-ID	<p90rom$23s$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <5ab169f1$0$5152$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl> <d2912820-7e1e-4399-96f1-8e4efdc515a0@googlegroups.com> <5ab172c3$0$5163$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl> <p8tj5c$uic$1@dont-email.me> <b95e4d50-b323-4813-878d-71b356895099@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 22/03/18 15:19, Chad wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 5:28:31 AM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> What bugs me most is the absurd creation of new "Read again, I correct"
>> threads to post the same thing again and again with nothing but a
>> negligible spelling correction.
> 
> Well, I don't mean to defend this spammer, but I have the same issues when reply from smartphone. This is because the keyboard layout on a standard smartphone, well, kind of sucks. As a result, I tend to make some typos.

The time to correct typing errors is before publication. After 
publication, a correction only makes sense if it replaces the existing 
publication (e.g. a fix on a Web site). If it becomes a near-duplicate 
of an existing message (as on Usenet or in SMS messages), that's nearly 
always a pointless waste of time for the reader, because the reader has 
probably already worked out what we meant when he or she read the first 
incarnation of the message.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. computer45 <computer45@cyber.com> - 2018-03-20 00:00 -0400
  I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 11:28 -0700
    Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2018-03-20 18:42 +0000
      Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2018-03-20 20:00 +0000
      Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-03-21 13:22 +0100
    Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2018-03-20 20:02 +0000
      Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 13:23 -0700
    Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2018-03-20 21:07 +0100
      Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 13:25 -0700
        Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2018-03-20 21:44 +0100
          Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-03-21 13:28 +0100
            Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 08:19 -0700
              Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2018-03-22 18:13 +0000

csiph-web