Hum from phone wires running next to mains?

[JosephKK]

: > In article <[email protected]>,

: >> Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is
: >> written in plain text, by the way. If you can't cope
: >> with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII text,
: >> tough.
: >
: > I think the only real issue is that ":" could appear
: > naturally in a "plain text" email as it is a standard
: > punctuation mark, ">" is far less likely though I
: > suppose ": :" is unlikely too.

But what is the objection..? I just don't get it. I've been on Usenet for
over 10 years and nobody has *ever* complained about this before.

Ivor

I went poking through the RFC's including 3977, 2980, and 1036. None
of them specified a quoting character for Usenet. Can anyone find one
that does?

 

[JosephKK]

: > In article <[email protected]>,
: > (e-mail address removed) says...

[snip]

: >> Which makes it the *software's* problem, not mine. If
: >> your software can't do what you want it to, get
: >> software that can.
: >
: > This is only true if your intention is to write for
: > yourself. In that case, why bother the rest of us?

Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is written in plain text,
by the way. If you can't cope with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII
text, tough.

This post typifies your attitude toward you reader. The question
is, why do *you* bother writing if you have no interest in your
reader?

How about a little support besides your attitude.

 

[JosephKK]

[snip]

: > Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the
: > fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of
: > quoting as if you had used "> >"

Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)

Ivor

Thank you.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

A mere 10 years. I have been on Usenet since 1983. That is 25 years.
It was 1978 when i got clued in to its existence. Shortly after i got
my first email account.

You've got some real explaining to do! How'd you know about the
existence of Usenet in 1978, when the guys who came up with it
didn't do so until late in 1979? Hmmmmm....

 

[kony]

I am not having any problem with your posts, Keith's, or Floyd's.

A few irregular posters are producing posts that Agent does not seem
to quote properly.

Who? Agent quotes the irregular characters fine for me,
even using a (now quite) dated version but that doesn't mean
we can chuck the standards which allow the most versatile
use by _everyone_ . Remember that we're entering a new era
of mobile devices that many not run WinTel platforms, may
have limited processing, display, storage, etc. Standards
are about compatiblity, not about "it's up to the other guy
to work around what I'm doing that's nonstandard".

 

[Paul Herber]

[snip]

: There is a ": > " in front of the text I wrote that you
: quoted. That is TWO characters of intending. It is NOT
: converting the previous quote mark because there was no
: previous quote mark from me, other than for the text
: I quoted which has a "| " in front.

Ah, *finally* I see it. I am using OE with the QuoteFix addon and both
were inserting quotemarks, OE was inserting a > and Quotefix the : so yes
there were two quotemarks.

Hope this is ok now, many apologies to all for my obtuseness.

Well done, Madge.

 

[Guest]

|
| |
| [snip]
|
| : There is a ": > " in front of the text I wrote that you
| : quoted. That is TWO characters of intending. It is NOT
| : converting the previous quote mark because there was no
| : previous quote mark from me, other than for the text
| : I quoted which has a "| " in front.
|
| Ah, *finally* I see it. I am using OE with the QuoteFix addon and both
| were inserting quotemarks, OE was inserting a > and Quotefix the : so yes
| there were two quotemarks.
|
| Hope this is ok now, many apologies to all for my obtuseness.

Yes, it is OK now. Apology accepted.

 

[krw]

: > In article <[email protected]>,
: > (e-mail address removed) says...

[snip]

: >> Which makes it the *software's* problem, not mine. If
: >> your software can't do what you want it to, get
: >> software that can.
: >
: > This is only true if your intention is to write for
: > yourself. In that case, why bother the rest of us?

Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is written in plain text,
by the way. If you can't cope with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII
text, tough.

This post typifies your attitude toward you reader. The question
is, why do *you* bother writing if you have no interest in your
reader?

How about a little support besides your attitude.

???

 

[Ivor Jones]

: David Taylor wrote:
: >
: ... snip ...
: >
: >> So what's the problem with that..? No, don't bother
: >> answering, I've had enough of this pointless argument.
: >
: > Quote with ":" if you like. Quote with ">" if you like.
: > But don't quote with ": >" because that looks like two
: > levels of quoting.
:
: Piggybacking. It is topical here as long as you fail to
: observe the standard protocols.

Where may I view these "standard protocols" please..?

Ivor

 

[Guest]

|
|
| | : David Taylor wrote:
| : >
| : ... snip ...
| : >
| : >> So what's the problem with that..? No, don't bother
| : >> answering, I've had enough of this pointless argument.
| : >
| : > Quote with ":" if you like. Quote with ">" if you like.
| : > But don't quote with ": >" because that looks like two
| : > levels of quoting.
| :
| : Piggybacking. It is topical here as long as you fail to
| : observe the standard protocols.
|
| Where may I view these "standard protocols" please..?

In other posts in these same newsgroups.

 

[Ivor Jones]

: In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones

[snip]

: |
: | Where may I view these "standard protocols" please..?
:
: In other posts in these same newsgroups.

That's convention, which isn't the same thing. But you knew that.

Ivor

 

[Guest]

| | : In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
|
| [snip]
|
| : |
| : | Where may I view these "standard protocols" please..?
| :
| : In other posts in these same newsgroups.
|
| That's convention, which isn't the same thing. But you knew that.

What kind of _standard_ are you looking for? Specific rules about what
you can indent with? In such a case, I think convention is what applies.
Protocols are for specific communications mechanisms, like NNTP for article
transfer. And those have escapement mechanisms for just about anything you
might put in the content body.

 

[Ivor Jones]

: In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
:
: | : | Where may I view these "standard protocols"
: | : | please..?
: | :
: | : In other posts in these same newsgroups.
: |
: | That's convention, which isn't the same thing. But you
: | knew that.
:
: What kind of _standard_ are you looking for? Specific
: rules about what you can indent with?

Yes, if you want me to abide by them.

: In such a case, I think convention
: is what applies.

But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand that I follow your
conventions.

: Protocols are for specific
: communications mechanisms, like NNTP for article
: transfer. And those have escapement mechanisms for just
: about anything you might put in the content body.

My eyes are my escapement mechanism. I can read just about anything that
is put into a plain text message (that doesn't mean that I can
*understand* it though..!)

Ivor

 

[Paul Herber]

: In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
:
: | : | Where may I view these "standard protocols"
: | : | please..?
: | :
: | : In other posts in these same newsgroups.
: |
: | That's convention, which isn't the same thing. But you
: | knew that.
:
: What kind of _standard_ are you looking for? Specific
: rules about what you can indent with?

Yes, if you want me to abide by them.

: In such a case, I think convention
: is what applies.

But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand that I follow your
conventions.

Ivor. Dr Drivel and Weatherlawyer are looking for a soulmate, do you
want to join them?

 

[Guest]

|
|
| | : In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
| :
| : | : | Where may I view these "standard protocols"
| : | : | please..?
| : | :
| : | : In other posts in these same newsgroups.
| : |
| : | That's convention, which isn't the same thing. But you
| : | knew that.
| :
| : What kind of _standard_ are you looking for? Specific
| : rules about what you can indent with?
|
| Yes, if you want me to abide by them.

I asked for you to indent with a single character of your choice. That is
the common practice. You've addressed the issue that was resulting in a
double indent. What more is needed? I'm OK with you using ":" to indent.
That even helps identify things better, that you are using a different
character.


| : In such a case, I think convention
| : is what applies.
|
| But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand that I follow your
| conventions.

Correct, I have no such authority, aside from (eventually) choosing to
bypass your posts.


| : Protocols are for specific
| : communications mechanisms, like NNTP for article
| : transfer. And those have escapement mechanisms for just
| : about anything you might put in the content body.
|
| My eyes are my escapement mechanism. I can read just about anything that
| is put into a plain text message (that doesn't mean that I can
| *understand* it though..!)

I go for a little more than just reading and understanding ... I'd like for
it to be easy and not take too much time to read and understand. As it now
stands, I have no problem with how you are indenting.

 

[kony]

: In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones

[snip]

: |
: | Where may I view these "standard protocols" please..?
:
: In other posts in these same newsgroups.

That's convention, which isn't the same thing. But you knew that.

Ivor

Convention and standard, it's a fine line you're trying to
draw mainly for an argumentative state to support a position
that is obviously not agreeable to others and obviously not
what was intended for usenet by your own observations.

 

[kony]

: In such a case, I think convention
: is what applies.

But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand that I follow your
conventions.

So you're going to act like a 5 year old child thinking "you
can't make me!"?

Grow up and accept when you've done something wrong. It
doesn't take a genius to see why one character and only one
should be used to denote a quote line.

 

[Ivor Jones]

: On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:27:11 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
:
:
: >: In such a case, I think convention
: >: is what applies.
: >
: >But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand
: >that I follow your conventions.
: >
:
: So you're going to act like a 5 year old child thinking
: "you can't make me!"?

Not at all. I am merely stating fact, you are free to interpret it as you
wish.
:
: Grow up and accept when you've done something wrong. It
: doesn't take a genius to see why one character and only
: one should be used to denote a quote line.

In an unregulated environment such as Usenet, I can't do anything wrong as
there are no rules.

Ivor

 

[Ivor Jones]

[snip]

: Convention and standard, it's a fine line you're trying to
: draw mainly for an argumentative state to support a
: position that is obviously not agreeable to others and
: obviously not what was intended for usenet by your own
: observations.

So explain to me just why, in 10+ years, this is the first time a
"complaint" has arisen. It's been "agreeable to others" until now, what
has suddenly happened..?

Ivor

 

[Sjouke Burry]

: In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
:
: | : | Where may I view these "standard protocols"
: | : | please..?
: | :
: | : In other posts in these same newsgroups. cut
But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand that I follow your
conventions.

Trolling and obnoxious behavior is something only yo can stop.
Meanwhile others are free to call you a social crossposting misfit.