Re: [Answered; thanks.] Can this be explained in layman's terms?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: [Answered; thanks.] Can this be explained in layman's terms? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 14, 2017 at 23:24 UTC
I did! (If you have a point to make; try making it.)	[reply]
Re^3: [Answered; thanks.] Can this be explained in layman's terms? by jdporter (Paladin) on Jan 16, 2017 at 15:05 UTC
How about read the document I linked and think carefully about how your post's title falls short.	[reply]
Re^4: [Answered; thanks.] Can this be explained in layman's terms? by Anonymous Monk on Jan 16, 2017 at 20:33 UTC
Wasnt tye who said if you complain the title is inadequate you should specify a suggestion for a better one basically be constructive and you already have power to consider node -- whatever the purpose of your admonishment, if youre going to follow up with %well rtfm link% you shouldn't have bothered with such weak sauce; go complain about spelling	[reply]
Re^5: Can this be explained in layman's terms? (titles) by tye (Sage) on Jan 18, 2017 at 05:12 UTC
Re^5: [Answered; thanks.] Can this be explained in layman's terms? by jdporter (Paladin) on Jan 16, 2017 at 20:39 UTC
Re^6: [Answered; thanks.] Can this be explained in layman's terms? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 18, 2017 at 11:09 UTC
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks