I love this logic.

[John Corliss]

http://why.openoffice.org/

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc (who uses sock puppets)
for instance. No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware,
demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited
software, trialware, viruses or warez for me, please.

 

[John Jay Smith]

And here is the
You can enjoy the test drive and keep the car in reality too.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc (who uses sock puppets)
for instance. No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware,
demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited
software, trialware, viruses or warez for me, please.

[/QUOTE]

Yup, Corliss' sig is still broken.

 

[Lassie]

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc (who uses sock puppets)
for instance. No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware,
demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited
software, trialware, viruses or warez for me, please.

Yup, Corliss' sig is still broken.[/QUOTE]

Nope. It was fine before OE mangled it.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

Nope. It was fine before OE mangled it.

Nope, it was as broken as ever.

 

[KeithS]

Nope, it was as broken as ever.

This topic is becoming sooooooo interesting, again.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

To reply directly, replace the first at with the second one

Do you have permission from the owners of net.com to use their domain,
or are you just abusing it without such permission?

 

[KeithS]

Do you have permission from the owners of net.com to use their domain,
or are you just abusing it without such permission?

I'm just abusing it without such permission, now why don't you get on
with something useful?

 

[John Corliss]

Nope. It was fine before OE mangled it.

Looks to me like a line break mysteriously and conveniently appeared
after "puppets)" somehow. Even if it hadn't though, according to this page:

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

my signature file WAS too big (over four lines). Maybe this new version
will make Andy happy (if such a thing is possible.) I know *I* like the
new version better. Seems much clearer regarding both trolls and software.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

Maybe this new version will make Andy happy (if such a thing is
possible.) I know *I* like the new version better. Seems much clearer
regarding both trolls and software.

Well, after many months and numerous denials...


...your sig is still broken.

It's also still a dishonest pile of ordure, but that's no surprise,
coming from you.

 

[HVS]

On 06 Jul 2006, Andy Mabbett wrote

Well, after many months and numerous denials...
..your sig is still broken.

I don't have a dog in this race, but his sig's not broken in the
version of XNews I'm using -- it behaves exactly as a sig is
supposed to.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Well, after many months and numerous denials...


..your sig is still broken.

After many months and numerous refusals to say what you think wrong
with it, you continue to make that erroneous claim.

Your ellipsis is pretty badly broken, though.

 

[Al Klein]

Well, after many months and numerous denials...


..your sig is still broken.

It wasn't when he posted it - it is in your quote. I'd look to your
news reader for the bug.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On 06 Jul 2006, Andy Mabbett wrote

I don't have a dog in this race, but his sig's not broken in the
version of XNews I'm using -- it behaves exactly as a sig is
supposed to.

The only person who imagines it is broken is Andy. Why he repeatedly
wants to make a fool of himself by pretending something is broken when
it isn't is anyone's guess. I suppose he just feels terribly insecure
and craves attention.

 

[John Corliss]

Andy Mabbett wrote

Wasn't that so much as that I simply didn't really care.

I don't have a dog in this race, but his sig's not broken in the
version of XNews I'm using -- it behaves exactly as a sig is
supposed to.

HVS,
And according to your quote, Andy is saying that a standard line is
60 characters long. I and most other people believe it to be 72
characters and I've read that even up to 79 characters is considered
acceptable. Using that guideline, my sig is only three lines long (not
including the delimiter.) Even if you do include the two dashes, it's
four lines long and that's within guidelines.

 

[John Corliss]

Hello, Andy Mabbett !


Hmm...while it is a tad lengthy it seems okay to me. I'm no RFC
expert but I have my newsreader set to not display sigs and I
never see it unless it is quoted by somebody else.
Funny thing is that Mr. Bohan's sig(s) appears to be broken, but
I enjoy his little 'bon mots' so I'm glad it is.
Yours, Raincoater

I've changed the sig as you'll see below. It's now shorter and more to
the point. 80)>

 

[Andy Mabbett]

And according to your quote, Andy is saying that a standard line is
60 characters long.

Where do you imagine that either I or anyone else is saying anything
that ridiculous?

You have neither the wit nor credibility to put words in my mouth; so
please desist from trying to do so.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

I've changed the sig as you'll see below. It's now shorter and more to
the point.

and still broken and dishonest.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

I'd look to your news reader for the bug.

Perhaps you would.

You'd be looking in the wrong place, though.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

And according to your quote, Andy is saying that a standard line is
60 characters long.

He's not saying that. He just says over and over that your sig is
broken.