 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / April 2007question
Why Outer Class not Defined private or Protected? >Why Outer Class not Defined private or Protected? Why not do your own homework? (Warning: That may actually require you to read at least some of the course materials!)  SignatureAndrew Thompson http://www.athompson.info/andrew/ >> Why Outer Class not Defined private or Protected? > > Why not do your own homework? > (Warning: That may actually require you to read > at least some of the course materials!) Internet etiquette specifies message signatures to be no longer than 3 lines. Please refrain from posting messages with signatures longer than 3 lines so they doesn't waste my 6Mbps bandwidth. >>> Why Outer Class not Defined private or Protected? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lines. Please refrain from posting messages with signatures longer than > 3 lines so they doesn't waste my 6Mbps bandwidth. Excuse my naive question, but do these 3 more lines with (max) 80 signs (=240 bytes!) really make a difference? >>>> Why Outer Class not Defined private or Protected? >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Excuse my naive question, but do these 3 more lines with (max) 80 signs > (=240 bytes!) really make a difference? It's not the bandwidth usage that is the problem. For some people, they have a 6+ line sig and their message may be 2 lines long. It just doesn't make sense to have a signature longer than your message. With all the complaining Andrew does concerning people's grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. you would think he would fix his own signature before complaining about someone else. ... >Internet etiquette specifies message signatures to be no longer than 3 >lines. .. A good 'rule of thumb' when replying to usenet posts is to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. <http://www.physci.org/rfc/rfc1855.html#2_1_1> Can you find (link to) an RFC That suggests differently? SignatureAndrew Thompson http://www.athompson.info/andrew/ > A good 'rule of thumb' when replying to usenet posts > is to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. > <http://www.physci.org/rfc/rfc1855.html#2_1_1> RFC 1855 3.1.1 item 6 >> A good 'rule of thumb' when replying to usenet posts >> is to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. >> <http://www.physci.org/rfc/rfc1855.html#2_1_1> >> > RFC 1855 3.1.1 item 6 Good one Jeff. :) (Andrew Thompson wrote - re length of sig.) >> A good 'rule of thumb' when replying to usenet posts >> is to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. >> <http://www.physci.org/rfc/rfc1855.html#2_1_1> > >RFC 1855 3.1.1 item 6 <http://www.physci.org/rfc/rfc1855.html#3_1_1> Are you referring to this point? "Messages and articles should be brief and to the point. Don't wander off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages solely to point out other people's errors in typing or spelling. These, more than any other behavior, mark you as an immature beginner." What does that have to do with sigs.? SignatureAndrew Thompson http://www.athompson.info/andrew/ Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.