Call button click event

  • Thread starter Thread starter Young
  • Start date Start date
I did not write this! I wrote "*read and written* using a
fixed point font". You are creating a wrong context by
improperly leaving out parts of the sentence.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. I'm not creating a wrong context at all. You are the one who is
wrong. You were chastising the OP for failing to use a fixed width font in
his message. You said, "a plain-text message read and written using a fixed
point font like Courier New is common practice". But it isn't possible for
the OP to write a "plain text" message using a "fixed point" font, so you
were wrong to chastise him for failing to do so. If the OP sends a "plain
text" message then it is up to YOU (not the OP) to decide what font you wish
to read it in! The OP has no control over that whatsoever. So if you are
chastising him then you are chastising him for your own failure! The OP
could have written a HTML message using a fixed width font (and then it
would appear at your end as fixed width unless you specifically chose not to
display the message that format, which would certainly not be the OP's
fault!). But that is NOT what you said. What you said was WRONG. Why don't
you just admit it and stop wriggling about in your attemp to defend the
indefensible!

Mike
 
Mike said:
No I'm not. I'm not creating a wrong context at all.
Click to expand...

No, you did leave out the desivice parts of the sentence! Therefore you've
created the wrong context. Everybody can read it. I cite you again: "a plain
text message using a fixed point font like Courier New". Everybody can
read that I did not write this.

You were chastising the OP
Click to expand...

Quote my words that indicate "chasting". If you can't then stop you
allegations.
for failing to use a fixed
width font in his message.
Click to expand...

Quote my words that indicate a "failure". If you can't then stop you
allegations.
You said, "a plain-text message read and
written using a fixed point font like Courier New is common
practice". But it isn't possible for the OP to write a "plain text"
message using a "fixed point" font,
Click to expand...

I meanwhile corrected it to "fixed width" font. Apart from this, it wouldn't
be my problem if he wasn't able to do it (however I think he is). I am able
to read and write plain text messages using a fixed width font. I always do
it. Even right at the moment.
so you were wrong to chastise him
for failing to do so.
Click to expand...

Quote my words that indicate a "failure". Quote my words that indicate
"chasting".
If the OP sends a "plain text" message then it
is up to YOU (not the OP) to decide what font you wish to read it in!
Correct.

The OP has no control over that whatsoever. So if you are chastising
him then you are chastising him for your own failure!
Click to expand...

Failure in what? In telling him that plain text messages read and written
using a fixed width font is common practice? If you'd once bother to read
this sentence _thoroughly_ again, you might start to understand what it
really says. I suggest not skipping some words again. Well, let me give
you a hand with analyzing this simple sentence for you:

"a plain-text message read and written using a fixed width font"

Which information do we have here? First, it says it's a plain text message.
Second, it says that a fixed width font has been used (or should be used)
while writing/reading the message (which is usually a display setting in
your newsreader). These are two independent pieces of information. Both
are correct. Nowhere is written that the message contains font information.
YOU were the one that left out a part of the sentence that made it express
something different.

The OP could
have written a HTML message
Click to expand...

The OP's first post contained both, a plain text part and an HTML part. To
keep the OP from getting a wrong display of my little "painting", I gave
him a general hint about what's common practice. Just in advance - because
I'm so attentive.

and stop wriggling about in your
attemp to defend the indefensible!
Click to expand...

You'd better stop citing me wrong and blaming me for a wrong statement of an
incorrectly quoted sentence!


Sorry to everyone else for this superfluous OT discussion, but I'm not
willing to let the well known troll's allegations unanswered. This is my
last statement about it.


Armin
 
Mike said:
No I'm not. I'm not creating a wrong context at all.
Click to expand...

No, you did leave out the desivice parts of the sentence! Therefore you've
created the wrong context. Everybody can read it. I cite you again: "a plain
text message using a fixed point font like Courier New". Everybody can
read that I did not write this.

You were chastising the OP
Click to expand...

Quote my words that indicate "chasting". If you can't then stop you
allegations.
for failing to use a fixed
width font in his message.
Click to expand...

Quote my words that indicate a "failure". If you can't then stop you
allegations.
You said, "a plain-text message read and
written using a fixed point font like Courier New is common
practice". But it isn't possible for the OP to write a "plain text"
message using a "fixed point" font,
Click to expand...

I meanwhile corrected it to "fixed width" font. Apart from this, it wouldn't
be my problem if he wasn't able to do it (however I think he is). I am able
to read and write plain text messages using a fixed width font. I always do
it. Even right at the moment.
so you were wrong to chastise him
for failing to do so.
Click to expand...

Quote my words that indicate a "failure". Quote my words that indicate
"chasting".
If the OP sends a "plain text" message then it
is up to YOU (not the OP) to decide what font you wish to read it in!
Correct.

The OP has no control over that whatsoever. So if you are chastising
him then you are chastising him for your own failure!
Click to expand...

Failure in what? In telling him that plain text messages read and written
using a fixed width font is common practice? If you'd once bother to read
this sentence _thoroughly_ again, you might start to understand what it
really says. I suggest not skipping some words again. Well, let me give
you a hand with analyzing this simple sentence for you:

"a plain-text message read and written using a fixed width font"

Which information do we have here? First, it says it's a plain text message.
Second, it says that a fixed width font has been used (or should be used)
while writing/reading the message (which is usually a display setting in
your newsreader). These are two independent pieces of information. Both
are correct. Nowhere is written that the message contains font information.
YOU were the one that left out a part of the sentence that made it express
something different.

The OP could
have written a HTML message
Click to expand...

The OP's first post contained both, a plain text part and an HTML part. To
keep the OP from getting a wrong display of my little "painting", I gave
him a general hint about what's common practice. Just in advance - because
I'm so attentive.

and stop wriggling about in your
attemp to defend the indefensible!
Click to expand...

You'd better stop citing me wrong and blaming me for a wrong statement of an
incorrectly quoted sentence!


Sorry to everyone else for this superfluous OT discussion, but I'm not
willing to let the well known troll's allegations unanswered. This is my
last statement about it.


Armin
 
Armin Zingler said:
"a plain-text message read and written using a fixed width font"

Which information do we have here? First, it says it's a plain text
message. Second, it says that a fixed width font has been used
(or should be used) while writing/reading the message (which is
usually a display setting in your newsreader). These are two
independent pieces of information. Both are correct.
Click to expand...

You seem to be completely missing the point. If it is a plain text message
then it does not matter whether or not the editor used to produce it was
using a fixed width font or not, because the message will be just plain
text. For such a message the author of the message has no control whatsoever
over what kind of font is used by the person who is reading his it. That
choice is entirely up to the person reading it. Therefore your statament "a
plain text message /read and written/ using a fixed width font" is
nonsensical, because for a plain text message it does not matter what font
it was /written/ in.

Also, both yourself and your cohort Cor Ligthert were clearly "ganging up"
on the OP and chastising him for what you both perceived to be his failure
to code properly and his failure to post his messages in accordance with
your own specified set of rules. Perhaps your Germanic behaviour of moving
around in gangs and attacking others who you perceive to be weaker than
yourself has caused me to mistakenly believe that you were also chastising
him failing to draft his message in accordance with your own strict rules,
or perhaps there has been a misunderstanding because of the fact that
English is obviously not the first language of either of you, but either way
I think you both owe the OP an apology.

Mike
 
Armin Zingler said:
"a plain-text message read and written using a fixed width font"

Which information do we have here? First, it says it's a plain text
message. Second, it says that a fixed width font has been used
(or should be used) while writing/reading the message (which is
usually a display setting in your newsreader). These are two
independent pieces of information. Both are correct.
Click to expand...

You seem to be completely missing the point. If it is a plain text message
then it does not matter whether or not the editor used to produce it was
using a fixed width font or not, because the message will be just plain
text. For such a message the author of the message has no control whatsoever
over what kind of font is used by the person who is reading his it. That
choice is entirely up to the person reading it. Therefore your statament "a
plain text message /read and written/ using a fixed width font" is
nonsensical, because for a plain text message it does not matter what font
it was /written/ in.

Also, both yourself and your cohort Cor Ligthert were clearly "ganging up"
on the OP and chastising him for what you both perceived to be his failure
to code properly and his failure to post his messages in accordance with
your own specified set of rules. Perhaps your Germanic behaviour of moving
around in gangs and attacking others who you perceive to be weaker than
yourself has caused me to mistakenly believe that you were also chastising
him failing to draft his message in accordance with your own strict rules,
or perhaps there has been a misunderstanding because of the fact that
English is obviously not the first language of either of you, but either way
I think you both owe the OP an apology.

Mike
 
Armin,

Your original comment about the OP plain/text, fixed-font, confused me
too. But then I realized you were probably viewing in HTML mode.

The OP had mixed MIME message - plain/text and HTML content type.

The reader, based on your settings, will use only one part to display.

If you have HTML mode, then text/html MIME part will be displayed.
If you have TEXT mode, then text/plain MIME part will be displayed.

I use to use to use OE6 too long ago and you don't have the option to
use one mode over the other per folder. (I don't think ThunderBird
doesn't) Thunderbird has 3 view modes:

Original HTML
Simple HTML (no images, javascript)
Plain Text

So when you made that comment, you probably had OE6 set for HTML
viewing which is really dangerous in the open message forums.

BTW, I agree with you. For Technical Programming message forums, fixed
pitch fonts should be used to help with code formatting, otherwise you
have zagged alignment. And no way should a poster use HTML only. It
will appear as a blank message for readers that have HTML disabled.

Many forum software will filter HTML to avoid the issues of security.
The MS NNTP News servers does no HTML mime part filtering.

Hope this info creates world peace. :-)

--
 
Armin,

Your original comment about the OP plain/text, fixed-font, confused me
too. But then I realized you were probably viewing in HTML mode.

The OP had mixed MIME message - plain/text and HTML content type.

The reader, based on your settings, will use only one part to display.

If you have HTML mode, then text/html MIME part will be displayed.
If you have TEXT mode, then text/plain MIME part will be displayed.

I use to use to use OE6 too long ago and you don't have the option to
use one mode over the other per folder. (I don't think ThunderBird
doesn't) Thunderbird has 3 view modes:

Original HTML
Simple HTML (no images, javascript)
Plain Text

So when you made that comment, you probably had OE6 set for HTML
viewing which is really dangerous in the open message forums.

BTW, I agree with you. For Technical Programming message forums, fixed
pitch fonts should be used to help with code formatting, otherwise you
have zagged alignment. And no way should a poster use HTML only. It
will appear as a blank message for readers that have HTML disabled.

Many forum software will filter HTML to avoid the issues of security.
The MS NNTP News servers does no HTML mime part filtering.

Hope this info creates world peace. :-)

--
 
Armin said:
Mike Williams wrote:

The OP's first post contained both, a plain text part and an HTML part. To
keep the OP from getting a wrong display of my little "painting", I gave
him a general hint about what's common practice. Just in advance - because
I'm so attentive.
Click to expand...

Didn't see this comment before. I see your point. Right. Never mind
my previous post. :-)

It will probably help to note such things when drawing a diagram:

Note: The following diagram should be viewed on plain text or
a fixed pitch font. So to better see it, change the Message
View mode in your reader to plain text.

But as Michael W pointed out, the reader might have plain text setup
to use Microsoft Ariel by default. I changed mine to Courier New
simply because I too like to draw text graphics and outlines. :-)

--
 
Armin said:
Mike Williams wrote:

The OP's first post contained both, a plain text part and an HTML part. To
keep the OP from getting a wrong display of my little "painting", I gave
him a general hint about what's common practice. Just in advance - because
I'm so attentive.
Click to expand...

Didn't see this comment before. I see your point. Right. Never mind
my previous post. :-)

It will probably help to note such things when drawing a diagram:

Note: The following diagram should be viewed on plain text or
a fixed pitch font. So to better see it, change the Message
View mode in your reader to plain text.

But as Michael W pointed out, the reader might have plain text setup
to use Microsoft Ariel by default. I changed mine to Courier New
simply because I too like to draw text graphics and outlines. :-)

--
 
Mike Williams said:
You seem to be completely missing the point. If it is a plain text message
then it does not matter whether or not the editor used to produce it was
using a fixed width font or not, because the message will be just plain
text.
Click to expand...

It does matter. If the text is attempting to portray a diagram (as was the
subject post of this subthread) then the font used to prepare the message
will determine the characters and character spacing that the writer will use
to ensure that the diagram conveys the message they wanted to convey. The
font used is a critical component in the process of using multiple lines of
text to draw a diagram, and in making that diagram intelligible.
For such a message the author of the message has no control whatsoever
over what kind of font is used by the person who is reading his it.
Click to expand...

Correct. This is why it is so important to prepare it using a font that the
reader of the message is likely to use, or can be advised to use, in order
that the reader will see the diagram displayed correctly.
That choice is entirely up to the person reading it.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's why it is important to provide some advice to the person
reading it as to what font was used to prepare the message. Or, in a more
general situation, to provide advice as to what font it is generally used by
people posting in newsgroups when preparing diagrams using multiple lines of
text, as in the relevant post. Following that advice gives the reader the
best chance that the diagram will display correctly.
Therefore your statament "a plain text message /read and written/ using a
fixed width font" is nonsensical, because for a plain text message it does
not matter what font it was /written/ in.
Click to expand...

No. For the reasons set out above the font the message was written in is
critical to the correct display of the diagram by the recipient.
Also, both yourself and your cohort Cor Ligthert were clearly "ganging up"
on the OP and chastising him for what you both perceived to be his failure
to code properly and his failure to post his messages in accordance with
your own specified set of rules. Perhaps your Germanic behaviour of moving
around in gangs and attacking others who you perceive to be weaker than
yourself has caused me to mistakenly believe that you were also chastising
him failing to draft his message in accordance with your own strict rules,
or perhaps there has been a misunderstanding because of the fact that
English is obviously not the first language of either of you, but either
way I think you both owe the OP an apology.
Click to expand...

No. You should read the thread from the beginning. No-one is ganging up on
OP. Advising OP of what common practice is does not amount to a
chastisement. The information about what is common practice is correct. It
was provided in the context of being important to a correct interpretation
of the diagram that was included in the post. If OP had not been aware that
the diagram was prepared using a fixed-width font, the OP may not have read
the diagram correctly and may have wondered what the odd squggles were
trying to demonstrate. The advice to read the message using a plain text
display in a fixed width font was relevant to ensuring that the reader of
the message understood the contents. Therefore it is not a chastisement,
and there is no ganging up.
 
Mike Williams said:
You seem to be completely missing the point. If it is a plain text message
then it does not matter whether or not the editor used to produce it was
using a fixed width font or not, because the message will be just plain
text.
Click to expand...

It does matter. If the text is attempting to portray a diagram (as was the
subject post of this subthread) then the font used to prepare the message
will determine the characters and character spacing that the writer will use
to ensure that the diagram conveys the message they wanted to convey. The
font used is a critical component in the process of using multiple lines of
text to draw a diagram, and in making that diagram intelligible.
For such a message the author of the message has no control whatsoever
over what kind of font is used by the person who is reading his it.
Click to expand...

Correct. This is why it is so important to prepare it using a font that the
reader of the message is likely to use, or can be advised to use, in order
that the reader will see the diagram displayed correctly.
That choice is entirely up to the person reading it.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's why it is important to provide some advice to the person
reading it as to what font was used to prepare the message. Or, in a more
general situation, to provide advice as to what font it is generally used by
people posting in newsgroups when preparing diagrams using multiple lines of
text, as in the relevant post. Following that advice gives the reader the
best chance that the diagram will display correctly.
Therefore your statament "a plain text message /read and written/ using a
fixed width font" is nonsensical, because for a plain text message it does
not matter what font it was /written/ in.
Click to expand...

No. For the reasons set out above the font the message was written in is
critical to the correct display of the diagram by the recipient.
Also, both yourself and your cohort Cor Ligthert were clearly "ganging up"
on the OP and chastising him for what you both perceived to be his failure
to code properly and his failure to post his messages in accordance with
your own specified set of rules. Perhaps your Germanic behaviour of moving
around in gangs and attacking others who you perceive to be weaker than
yourself has caused me to mistakenly believe that you were also chastising
him failing to draft his message in accordance with your own strict rules,
or perhaps there has been a misunderstanding because of the fact that
English is obviously not the first language of either of you, but either
way I think you both owe the OP an apology.
Click to expand...

No. You should read the thread from the beginning. No-one is ganging up on
OP. Advising OP of what common practice is does not amount to a
chastisement. The information about what is common practice is correct. It
was provided in the context of being important to a correct interpretation
of the diagram that was included in the post. If OP had not been aware that
the diagram was prepared using a fixed-width font, the OP may not have read
the diagram correctly and may have wondered what the odd squggles were
trying to demonstrate. The advice to read the message using a plain text
display in a fixed width font was relevant to ensuring that the reader of
the message understood the contents. Therefore it is not a chastisement,
and there is no ganging up.
 
Back
Top