I love this logic.

[POKO]

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

and over and over and over and who the **** really cares escept this
dimwit,

 

[Al Klein]

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

It was originally 80 characters minus whatever you left for quoting.
Most of us set to 72. And all this is for a monotype font on an 80
character display - it has nothing to do with Windows or X.

and I've read that even up to 79 characters is considered acceptable.

If there's only 1 level of quoting.

Using that guideline, my sig is only three lines long

Number of lines is number of lines - it has nothing to do with how
many characters are on the lines.

Your longest line is 70 characters and you have 3 lines of sig, so
your sig is within guidelines.

Even if you do include the two dashes

That's the tear - it's not part of the sig.

I think the original "complaint" was lack of a space at the end of the
tear - which you had (a space, not lack thereof), and the complainer's
client evidently dropped.

 

[Al Klein]

In message <[email protected]>, John Corliss

and still broken and dishonest.

Andy, blaming John for what your client is doing is the dishonest
thing here. John's sig is correct.

 

[Al Klein]

Perhaps you would.

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

I bow before your superior wisdom, oh, dweller of usenet these many
decades and writer of internet client software.

How do you fit through a doorway, Andy?

 

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

Andy, blaming John for what your client is doing is the dishonest
thing here.

His client (Turnpike) isn't the source of any problems with sigs,
unless he has intentionally misconfigured it. The often alleged but
ever unspecified brokenness is entirely between Mabbett's ears.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

I think the original "complaint" was lack of a space at the end of the
tear - which you had (a space, not lack thereof), and the complainer's
client evidently dropped.

You think wrong, then.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

Andy, blaming John for what your client is doing is the dishonest thing
here.

Were I doing so, it would be. I'm not.

 

[John Corliss]

It was originally 80 characters minus whatever you left for quoting.
Most of us set to 72.

I'm using Thunderbird 1.5.0.4. Under:

Tools/Options/Composition/General

I've always had the setting under "Wrap plain text messages" set to 72.
Unless I'm missing something, this is where that setting is located. If
there's a problem with how my messages come out when viewed and it's the
fault of TB, there's nothing I can really do about it except post a bug
report.

And all this is for a monotype font on an 80
character display - it has nothing to do with Windows or X.


If there's only 1 level of quoting.

Right. I should have been more clear that the max limit included carats
and spaces. But if somebody wants to quote my signature file (which is
usually not supposed to be done) then the fault would lie with that person.

Number of lines is number of lines - it has nothing to do with how
many characters are on the lines.

In the case of my sig file, line length determines how many lines the
sig file is because the second line wraps.

Your longest line is 70 characters and you have 3 lines of sig, so
your sig is within guidelines.


That's the tear - it's not part of the sig.

Yes, but I was giving Andy the benefit of the doubt. 80)>

 

[Al Klein]

Were I doing so, it would be. I'm not.

Since John's posts have no problem, either your reader is breaking
them or you are. There's not much else left. Since your client isn't
the problem (you'd know how it's configured better than I would), I
take that as a confession of wrong-doing.

 

[Al Klein]

You think wrong, then.

Since there's nothing else "wrong" with your copies of John's posts,
you're admitting that you're just complaining about nothing. I guess
that clears that up.

 

[Al Klein]

I'm using Thunderbird 1.5.0.4. Under:

Tools/Options/Composition/General

I've always had the setting under "Wrap plain text messages" set to 72.
Unless I'm missing something, this is where that setting is located. If
there's a problem with how my messages come out when viewed and it's the
fault of TB, there's nothing I can really do about it except post a bug
report.

Not a problem, just not an issue in Windows. It's a holdover from
*nix 80 character screen days.

Right. I should have been more clear that the max limit included carats
and spaces. But if somebody wants to quote my signature file (which is
usually not supposed to be done) then the fault would lie with that person.

Well ... again, it's not usually an issue in Windows, since most
Windows clients wrap on number of pixels, not number of characters,
and "W" takes a lot more pixels than "i".

In the case of my sig file, line length determines how many lines the
sig file is because the second line wraps.

Not in my reader - unless you have only 2 lines and I'm seeing wrap on
my end. (I haven't looked at the raw data yet.)

Yes, but I was giving Andy the benefit of the doubt. 80)>

I don't think he wants it - I think he wants something to complain
about.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

Since there's nothing else "wrong" with your copies of John's posts,
you're admitting that you're just complaining about nothing.

Liar.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

I don't think he wants it

I don't need it.

I think he wants something to complain about.

That's you *not* thinking, again.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

Since John's posts have no problem, either your reader is breaking them
or you are. There's not much else left. Since your client isn't the
problem (you'd know how it's configured better than I would), I take
that as a confession of wrong-doing.

You seem to be delusional.

 

[Steve H]

Since John's posts have no problem, either your reader is breaking
them or you are. There's not much else left. Since your client isn't
the problem (you'd know how it's configured better than I would), I
take that as a confession of wrong-doing.

Why do people persist in pandering to Mabbett's affectations? It
should be patently obvious with very little research just what the
odious cretin's agenda is.

If you prefer a more technical example of his ineptitude I refer you
to the following post in which he gave the readers of another
newsgroup the benefit of his 'wisdom' by advising them as to the best
method of blocking another troll.
Unfortunately he advised the readers to block on the poster's nntp
abuse address, which would have blocked all posters who used that
particular service provider.

Message ID: [email protected]

Worse still, such advice came some time after he'd participated in a
thread regarding the collection of killfile instructions.

Regards,

 

[John Fitzsimons]

You seem to be delusional.

Typo ? As you complain about a non existent problem you should have
said "I" instead of "You".

Though many would say that for people that complain about non existent
problems, like yourself, "seem to be" is also incorrect.

 

[Al Klein]

In message <[email protected]>, Al Klein

Liar.

All I said, Andy, is that if there are two possibilities (which is all
there are in this case) and you claim it isn't one, it must be the
other. Even a 5 year old could see that.

 

[Al Klein]

I don't need it.


That's you *not* thinking, again.

Andy, you aren't capable of telling the difference between me thinking
and me not thinking. You'd have to know what thought looks like to be
able to do that.

 

[Al Klein]

You seem to be delusional.

John's posts have no sig problem, so what am I delusional about?

 

[Al Klein]

<snip>

Why do people persist in pandering to Mabbett's affectations?

Why do people care which masochist I beat on? Andy seems to love
being the beatee.

It should be patently obvious with very little research just what the
odious cretin's agenda is.

If you prefer a more technical example of his ineptitude

Didn't need one. But he beats the same, whether he's ept or not.