H
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
* "Fergus Cooney said:
ROFLM*O
ROFLM*O
F
Fergus Cooney
Hi Herfried,
|| > || If I were you I would stop creating "buggy" posts.
|| >
|| > If you were me, <why> would you stop creating "buggy" posts?
||
|| Because I would enable other people to read them.
It should be obvious to anybody looking at the quoted text above, even you
Herfried, that there are two participants in the conversation - one using '||'
and the other using '>'.
For the last time. People are not computers. People have extremely
sophisticated pattern handing abilities. They can distinguish a block of
quoted 'something' because of its <difference> from everything else -
regardless, almost, of what it is - so long as there is something that <makes>
it different. In fact - the more different the marker is, the more obvious it
is to people. [Although it helps if it's different within a given style. And
I've explained several times what that style is]
I suggest that the above is not quite as clear as the first version. I say
this <because> the same character is used. The more levels of quoting there
are, the more this would be apparent. It's a convention that reduces
efficiency.
It would seem that current newsreaders are badly programmed. They don't
even <try> to do pattern matching. I have <no sympathy> with this. The
solution is for developers to write better newsreaders, not for everyone to
rigidly stick to a single character.
Someone today used little square boxes to do his quoting. I found it
extremely obvious. Much better, in fact, than the visually airy '>' which may
be a standard, but it's one that is past its time.
People can read and discern patterns. Computers can't*. People are not
computers. People are not programs. People are much, much more than either of
these. Please don't tell me that people have difficulties that I know they
don't. It makes you sound stupid. Fortunately there's plenty of evidence that
you aren't, but you <do> sound as if that photo that I've seen of you was
taken about 30 or 40 years ago. ;-))
The day I get a (truthful) post from someone who says "I couldn't read
your posts because of those vertical lines down the left" - <that's> the day
when I give up using '||' - provided that I believe them. But that's unlikely
on all accounts.
By all means moan about how <newsreaders> have problems. I agree - they
are incredibly stupid in this regard - having not been programmed to recognise
a very simple pattern - and I suggest that the developers should address this
easily handled issue.
This is the important bit.
Your arguments have been sadly based on refutation more than infomation.
There's little if any psychological argument for the '>' convention. It is a
computer thing not a people thing. You haven't even considered a compromise -
it's has to be '>'.
I did offer to change my style of quoting. Three times I asked for your
opinion and you didn't answer. I asked you to send me an image showing me how
it looked to you. You may have sent it but you didn't tell me that it hadn't
got through. Someone else informed me that my email wasn't working. You
didn't. When I found out, I gave you an alternative email address. You didn't
send the image. You tell me that your gnus reader has problems. I went to the
gnus site so that I could install it and check it out. The site is so badly
designed that a visitor <cannot> download and install the software. I asked
for your help several times in different ways. This was just so that I could
check this newsreader problem out for myself. You refused to answer. Your last
response was to tell me that it would take too long to explain. You didn't
even ask me what I wanted to know. The question was simple - which binary do I
download?
I'm sorry, Herfried. It seems that all along you have done very little to
persuade me and, especially, even less to help me help you.
I will not be changing my quoting pattern, unless it's for variety.
Regards,
Fergus
|| > || If I were you I would stop creating "buggy" posts.
|| >
|| > If you were me, <why> would you stop creating "buggy" posts?
||
|| Because I would enable other people to read them.
It should be obvious to anybody looking at the quoted text above, even you
Herfried, that there are two participants in the conversation - one using '||'
and the other using '>'.
For the last time. People are not computers. People have extremely
sophisticated pattern handing abilities. They can distinguish a block of
quoted 'something' because of its <difference> from everything else -
regardless, almost, of what it is - so long as there is something that <makes>
it different. In fact - the more different the marker is, the more obvious it
is to people. [Although it helps if it's different within a given style. And
I've explained several times what that style is]
I suggest that the above is not quite as clear as the first version. I say
this <because> the same character is used. The more levels of quoting there
are, the more this would be apparent. It's a convention that reduces
efficiency.
It would seem that current newsreaders are badly programmed. They don't
even <try> to do pattern matching. I have <no sympathy> with this. The
solution is for developers to write better newsreaders, not for everyone to
rigidly stick to a single character.
Someone today used little square boxes to do his quoting. I found it
extremely obvious. Much better, in fact, than the visually airy '>' which may
be a standard, but it's one that is past its time.
People can read and discern patterns. Computers can't*. People are not
computers. People are not programs. People are much, much more than either of
these. Please don't tell me that people have difficulties that I know they
don't. It makes you sound stupid. Fortunately there's plenty of evidence that
you aren't, but you <do> sound as if that photo that I've seen of you was
taken about 30 or 40 years ago. ;-))
The day I get a (truthful) post from someone who says "I couldn't read
your posts because of those vertical lines down the left" - <that's> the day
when I give up using '||' - provided that I believe them. But that's unlikely
on all accounts.
By all means moan about how <newsreaders> have problems. I agree - they
are incredibly stupid in this regard - having not been programmed to recognise
a very simple pattern - and I suggest that the developers should address this
easily handled issue.
This is the important bit.
Your arguments have been sadly based on refutation more than infomation.
There's little if any psychological argument for the '>' convention. It is a
computer thing not a people thing. You haven't even considered a compromise -
it's has to be '>'.
I did offer to change my style of quoting. Three times I asked for your
opinion and you didn't answer. I asked you to send me an image showing me how
it looked to you. You may have sent it but you didn't tell me that it hadn't
got through. Someone else informed me that my email wasn't working. You
didn't. When I found out, I gave you an alternative email address. You didn't
send the image. You tell me that your gnus reader has problems. I went to the
gnus site so that I could install it and check it out. The site is so badly
designed that a visitor <cannot> download and install the software. I asked
for your help several times in different ways. This was just so that I could
check this newsreader problem out for myself. You refused to answer. Your last
response was to tell me that it would take too long to explain. You didn't
even ask me what I wanted to know. The question was simple - which binary do I
download?
I'm sorry, Herfried. It seems that all along you have done very little to
persuade me and, especially, even less to help me help you.
I will not be changing my quoting pattern, unless it's for variety.
Regards,
Fergus
H
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
* "Fergus Cooney said:
People are not computers so they use a newsreader that is able to
display the quoted text with different colors depending on the user
preferences to make it better readable to the user _reading_ the post.
">" is _logical_ markup that can be transformed to physical markup
depending on the user's preferences. By using non-standard quoting
characters, the post won't fit the reader's needs.
It's _very_ clear, because my newsreader displays your text in dark red
and my text in dark blue.
No, it increases efficiency because it offers the possibility to do
formatting on the reader's side.
That's impossible with your quoting style. It's not possible to detect
the quoting level.
F
Fergus Cooney
Hi Herfried,
|| People are not computers so they use a newsreader that
|| is able to display the quoted text with different colors
No Herfried.. Absolute statements make me think you don't know how to
argue.
<Some> people use such newsreaders. Many people (maybe even most) use what
the Great One has provided (that's OE). This does <not> do colour. Another
great number of people access newsgroups through web sites. These do not do
colour either - unless the posting was in Html in the first place. You moan
about people posting Html as well. OE has no trouble with this nor do the web
sites.
So. <Some> people use these colour coding newsreaders.
How many people are you actually talking about in percentage terms? In the
browser world it's 95%+ for IE, if not higher. How much of the newsreader
market has OE got, versus gnus and other colour coders? How much do the web
sites take up?
|| ">" is _logical_ markup that can be transformed to physical markup
|| depending on the user's preferences
Are you able to agree that this restriction to a single character is a
limitation?
Are you able to agree that a general pattern can be specified and that
newsreaders <could> detect this pattern (but don't at present)?
Can you agree that it would be useful if newsreaders <could> treat my
quoting as 'logical markup'?
|| > I suggest that the above [not shown] is not quite as clear as the
|| > first version. I say this <because> the same character is used.
||
|| It's _very_ clear, because my newsreader displays your text in dark red
|| and my text in dark blue.
Ok, it's clearer <to you> because you have a colour coder. Could you look
at my post in OE's black and white and truthfully say the same? Would <all>
other people agree. If not, how many would and wouldn't? No, I can't give
numbers either, but I know the principles of perception on which my statements
are based and I would expect the majority to agree.
There was a lot of my previous post that you didn't respond to. I'm
wondering whether that was because you reluctantly had to agree and couldn't
bring yourself to say so.
|| > It would seem that current newsreaders are badly programmed.
|| > They don't even <try> to do pattern matching.
||
|| That's impossible with your quoting style. It's not possible to
|| detect the quoting level.
Hmm, there must be something wrong - we <do> agree on something.. ;-)
I wonder how much danger there is of you at least partially say yes to any
of the questions above. ;-))
Regards,
Fergus
|| People are not computers so they use a newsreader that
|| is able to display the quoted text with different colors
No Herfried.. Absolute statements make me think you don't know how to
argue.
<Some> people use such newsreaders. Many people (maybe even most) use what
the Great One has provided (that's OE). This does <not> do colour. Another
great number of people access newsgroups through web sites. These do not do
colour either - unless the posting was in Html in the first place. You moan
about people posting Html as well. OE has no trouble with this nor do the web
sites.
So. <Some> people use these colour coding newsreaders.
How many people are you actually talking about in percentage terms? In the
browser world it's 95%+ for IE, if not higher. How much of the newsreader
market has OE got, versus gnus and other colour coders? How much do the web
sites take up?
|| ">" is _logical_ markup that can be transformed to physical markup
|| depending on the user's preferences
Are you able to agree that this restriction to a single character is a
limitation?
Are you able to agree that a general pattern can be specified and that
newsreaders <could> detect this pattern (but don't at present)?
Can you agree that it would be useful if newsreaders <could> treat my
quoting as 'logical markup'?
|| > I suggest that the above [not shown] is not quite as clear as the
|| > first version. I say this <because> the same character is used.
||
|| It's _very_ clear, because my newsreader displays your text in dark red
|| and my text in dark blue.
Ok, it's clearer <to you> because you have a colour coder. Could you look
at my post in OE's black and white and truthfully say the same? Would <all>
other people agree. If not, how many would and wouldn't? No, I can't give
numbers either, but I know the principles of perception on which my statements
are based and I would expect the majority to agree.
There was a lot of my previous post that you didn't respond to. I'm
wondering whether that was because you reluctantly had to agree and couldn't
bring yourself to say so.
|| > It would seem that current newsreaders are badly programmed.
|| > They don't even <try> to do pattern matching.
||
|| That's impossible with your quoting style. It's not possible to
|| detect the quoting level.
Hmm, there must be something wrong - we <do> agree on something.. ;-)
I wonder how much danger there is of you at least partially say yes to any
of the questions above. ;-))
Regards,
Fergus
C
Cor
Hi Herfried and Fergus,
In past people have made code sets for this,
It started with EBC Extended Binary Coded
Then we got ASCI
I lost the track on EBC and de extended version.
But in ASCI we got the 8 bit so versions which did not exist but where code
sets all different because of the cultures they where used in.
Now we have the 16 bit unicode.
Somewhere there has to be the error.
You both know enough for it to do it without my advices in that but both
know the answers now I think?
Cor
In past people have made code sets for this,
It started with EBC Extended Binary Coded
Then we got ASCI
I lost the track on EBC and de extended version.
But in ASCI we got the 8 bit so versions which did not exist but where code
sets all different because of the cultures they where used in.
Now we have the 16 bit unicode.
Somewhere there has to be the error.
You both know enough for it to do it without my advices in that but both
know the answers now I think?
Cor
H
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
* "Fergus Cooney said:
No. It's not a restriction. It makes everything easier.
That doesn't make any sense. There is one character (">") that is used
to specify the quoting level.
It would be useful but most won't be able to do that. How should a
newsreader know if "||" adds one or two levels?
I didn't respond because I know you wouldn't have understood it. You
currently don't even understand _why_ ">" is preferred.
M
Michael Kremser
*Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]* tippselte am *22.10.2003 22:08* MESZ:
Even the quoting from Fergus looks terrible IMO, it's still readable.
Best regards,
Micheal
Even the quoting from Fergus looks terrible IMO, it's still readable.
Best regards,
Micheal
M
Michael Kremser
*Fergus Cooney* tippselte am *23.10.2003 03:36* MESZ:
That's wrong. OE doesn't even have an average market share of 50%, it's
much lower. The most-used newsreaders are slrn, gnus, tin and so on.
However, your usage of "[TAB]||" for quoting is a violation against
good, approved rules and confuses news readers.
Best regards,
Michael
That's wrong. OE doesn't even have an average market share of 50%, it's
much lower. The most-used newsreaders are slrn, gnus, tin and so on.
However, your usage of "[TAB]||" for quoting is a violation against
good, approved rules and confuses news readers.
Best regards,
Michael
M
Michael Kremser
*Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]* tippselte am *23.10.2003 09:41* MESZ:
Let's say it's a rule, and the reasons for rules are to make life
easier. And some rules must be applied by a person, no matter whether
you like it or not. For example, I don't like the rule that in usenet
you must not use HTML postings, but it's a rule and therefore I must
accept it, aslong I want to use the usenet. So, Fergus _shall_ IMO
accept the rule that ">" is the default quoting sign and not "||" which
is confusing, as you stated, because the quoting level is not logical
comprehensible.
Best regards,
Michael
Let's say it's a rule, and the reasons for rules are to make life
easier. And some rules must be applied by a person, no matter whether
you like it or not. For example, I don't like the rule that in usenet
you must not use HTML postings, but it's a rule and therefore I must
accept it, aslong I want to use the usenet. So, Fergus _shall_ IMO
accept the rule that ">" is the default quoting sign and not "||" which
is confusing, as you stated, because the quoting level is not logical
comprehensible.
Best regards,
Michael
F
Fergus Cooney
Hi Michael,
And the voting for looks is
Two against, one for.
And the voting for readability is
Two for, one against.
The sample size is still too low, but three is better than two.
Anyone else? ;-)
Regards,
Fergus
ps. Show me see the style of your code - then I can see whether to value your
opinion, lol! ;-)
pps Joke. I don't need to see it.
And the voting for looks is
Two against, one for.
And the voting for readability is
Two for, one against.
The sample size is still too low, but three is better than two.
Anyone else? ;-)
Regards,
Fergus
ps. Show me see the style of your code - then I can see whether to value your
opinion, lol! ;-)
pps Joke. I don't need to see it.
F
Fergus Cooney
Hi Michael,
|| > Many people (maybe even most) use what
|| > the Great One has provided (that's OE).
||
|| That's wrong.
I was venturing a qualified opinion. I didn't state a fact.
|| OE doesn't even have an average market share of 50%, it's much lower.
|| The most-used newsreaders are slrn, gnus, tin and so on.
Thank you. Where did you get this number from? I would have looked it up
if I had known where to go.
Regards,
Fergus
|| > Many people (maybe even most) use what
|| > the Great One has provided (that's OE).
||
|| That's wrong.
I was venturing a qualified opinion. I didn't state a fact.
|| OE doesn't even have an average market share of 50%, it's much lower.
|| The most-used newsreaders are slrn, gnus, tin and so on.
Thank you. Where did you get this number from? I would have looked it up
if I had known where to go.
Regards,
Fergus
F
Fergus Cooney
Hi Michael,
|| And some rules must be applied by a person, no matter
|| whether you like it or not
Absolute language, such as 'must' is often inappropriate. Because it's not
correct, it has a tendency to weaken an argument. Using 'really ought to' or
some phrase that is as strong as you can make it - without being an
imperative - makes your opinion more palatable.
Noite that is <is> only an opinion. The only laws and rules that <must> be
applied are the physical ones where you <cannot> do anything different -
natural laws.
<All> man-made laws and rules may be broken by anybody - that is the
choice of free will. Of course, those responsible for upholding these rules
and laws may then respond in some punitive manner. This is to <encourage>
people (in general) to keep to the rules - it still cannot <force> them to.
Fortunately, this '>' convention isn't upheld by any body of people who
will do unpleasant things to me.
If you use Html, who is going to stop you using usenet? Is there someone
on the lookout with powers to bar you ?
|| Fergus _shall_ IMO accept
Absolute language again. Fergus shall not.
|| the rule that ">" is
follow the convention (not rule)
|| the default quoting sign.
even though it is <recommended>
|| and not "||" which is confusing ..because the
|| quoting level is not logical comprehensible.
See my thoughts about the low level of intelligence in newsreaders.
Regards,
Fergus
|| And some rules must be applied by a person, no matter
|| whether you like it or not
Absolute language, such as 'must' is often inappropriate. Because it's not
correct, it has a tendency to weaken an argument. Using 'really ought to' or
some phrase that is as strong as you can make it - without being an
imperative - makes your opinion more palatable.
Noite that is <is> only an opinion. The only laws and rules that <must> be
applied are the physical ones where you <cannot> do anything different -
natural laws.
<All> man-made laws and rules may be broken by anybody - that is the
choice of free will. Of course, those responsible for upholding these rules
and laws may then respond in some punitive manner. This is to <encourage>
people (in general) to keep to the rules - it still cannot <force> them to.
Fortunately, this '>' convention isn't upheld by any body of people who
will do unpleasant things to me.
If you use Html, who is going to stop you using usenet? Is there someone
on the lookout with powers to bar you ?
|| Fergus _shall_ IMO accept
Absolute language again. Fergus shall not.
|| the rule that ">" is
follow the convention (not rule)
|| the default quoting sign.
even though it is <recommended>
|| and not "||" which is confusing ..because the
|| quoting level is not logical comprehensible.
See my thoughts about the low level of intelligence in newsreaders.
Regards,
Fergus
C
Cor
Fergus,
Please don't blaim us that we make faults in writing English.
You know how angry (false) I can become about that.
Just take what we want to say. You are inteligent enough for that.
The meaning in Dutch and I supose German too for the equivalent for the
English "Shall" is "Will" if it is in the second and third person. In my
Country strange is, that "must" can in the the western part mean "can do"
and in the other parts always "have to do". I can tell you that I have had a
lot of problems with that.
When Herfried say something like "must" or "have to" then he probably
commands you to do that. With "shall" it would not have to be that
So if Herfried, writes "Shall" it has not to be, that he ment that in the
English way, maybe just the different of meaning between 2 almost the same
German words.
Like you maybe remember my argument and argumenting.
Cor
Please don't blaim us that we make faults in writing English.
You know how angry (false) I can become about that.
Just take what we want to say. You are inteligent enough for that.
The meaning in Dutch and I supose German too for the equivalent for the
English "Shall" is "Will" if it is in the second and third person. In my
Country strange is, that "must" can in the the western part mean "can do"
and in the other parts always "have to do". I can tell you that I have had a
lot of problems with that.
When Herfried say something like "must" or "have to" then he probably
commands you to do that. With "shall" it would not have to be that
So if Herfried, writes "Shall" it has not to be, that he ment that in the
English way, maybe just the different of meaning between 2 almost the same
German words.
Like you maybe remember my argument and argumenting.
Cor
F
Fergus Cooney
Hi Herfried,
I'd recommend reading this whole post through before you start answering
any of the points raised.
|| > Are you able to agree that this restriction to a
|| > single character is a limitation?
||
|| No. It's not a restriction. It makes everything easier.
I didn't ask about 'easy'. And it's <easy within a context> not just
'easy'.
You are proposing as a <fact> that '>' is the string that must be used.
You are saying that out of all possible strings in the Universe, <only one> is
to be used for quoting in this context.
If that's not a 'restriction' and 'limitation', then please tell me what
these words mean.
I gave you a sentence which you could not disagree with because I gave you
a definition. Lol. You disagreed with a definition.
============================================
|| > Are you able to agree that a general pattern can be specified and
|| > that newsreaders <could> detect this pattern (but don't at present)?
||
|| That doesn't make any sense. There is one character (">") that is used
|| to specify the quoting level.
I didn't ask whether '>' was a character that is used in quoting.
PhatTesco
Are you having difficulty with the English in this sentence?
I gave you a sentence which you could not disagree with. You chose to 'not
understand' it. :-(
============================================
|| > Can you agree that it would be useful if newsreaders <could>
|| > treat my quoting as 'logical markup'?
||
|| It would be useful but most won't be able to do that.
I didn't ask anything about whether newsreaders <can> do it. We know that
they can't. However...
[Falls over] An agreement!
============================================
|| How should a newsreader know if "||" adds one or two levels?
There'e a clue in the fact that it is actually ' || ' and not just
'||'. In other words the general pattern is (as mentioned before, and again
before that - did you read it, were you paying attention?)
Quote ::= [White space]+ QuotChar | QuotString [White space]+
This is the 'general pattern' that was mentioned in the question above
that you 'didn't understand'. I hope this is clear here, and that it sheds
some light on the meaning of that question. In fact I'll risk asking it again.
Are you able to agree that a general pattern can be specified and
that newsreaders <could> detect this pattern (but don't at present)?
============================================
|| > There was a lot of my previous post that you didn't respond to.
|| > I'm wondering whether that was because you reluctantly had to
|| > agree and couldn't bring yourself to say so.
||
|| I didn't respond because I know you wouldn't have understood it.
|| You currently don't even understand _why_ ">" is preferred.
Over the years, a tradition has grown in the world of newsgroups. A
convention formed out of the mists and became partially (some would say
completely) solid. The convention is to use the character '>' when quoting
text from previous posts to which the current poster is responding. The choice
of '>' was almost arbitrary - it just seemed that more and more people came to
use it. Or maybe it was that the writers of the newsreaders at the time made
that momentous decision. Whichever way it was, '>' has become ubiquitous.
Developers of newsreaders, being aware of this 'standard', added
functionality to their newsreaders which could take advantage of this
<tendancy>. Some had the splendid idea of determining who was speaking, and
who was quoting the speaker and responding, and who was responding, in turn,
to that, etc.
With the identities separated, the opportunity was there to <use> that
knowledge. One idea involved colouring the text of the different speakers.
This had the effect of clarifying the to-and-fro within a conversation, and
was of <tremendous utility>.
Other developers had the idea of doing word counts on the text of each
speaker. Others analysed the use of syntax and semantics in the text.
Unfortunately, such use of identity separation was not applauded with anything
like the acclaim that their developers hoped for.
One snag with this wonderful idea was that newsreader developers were too
lazy, or too unimaginative, or too arrogant to consider that people may not
want to use the '>' character. Some may want to use '|', some may want little
boxy graphics. some may even go as far as using <two> (shock horror!!)
characters, such as '||'.
The newsreader developers failed to take this human tendancy for diversity
and imagination into account (these were the standard software developer types
with their heads up their ..) and so they didn't code for a <general pattern>,
they coded for a <single character>.
Thus, when some strange people <did> use non-'standard' quoting strings
(strings that <do>, however, conform to an easily discernible quoting
pattern), the rigidly programmed newsreader software failed to 'understand'
it.
And this was the cause of much strife between these strange,
individualistc non-standard quoters and those with the wonderful (but stupid)
newsreaders that used '>' (and <only> '>') to do identity separation.
============================================
|| You currently don't even understand _why_ ">" is preferred.
Are you sure about that? The above was written to expound <your> arguments
and coloured (no pun) with my outlook (no pun). I could, if I had wanted,
written it as if I fervently believed in the viewpoint that it puts forward.
What did I miss, though, surely it must be more than just colouring?
============================================
Herfried, it is a large part of my <life> learning to understand people.
It is of <great> importance to me. Giving full attention to someone else's
thoughts takes practice and a desire to want to do it. I've burned with that
desire. I've done that practice. It is part of the reaon why I am able to
answer some of the almost gibberish queries we get. Questions which other
responders clearly don't understand.
Please don't confuse determination to put forward a viewpoint with lack of
understanding.
============================================
Now - here's the challenge:
Do you understand <my> point of view?
Could you put <my> argument forward?
Regards,
Fergus
I'd recommend reading this whole post through before you start answering
any of the points raised.
|| > Are you able to agree that this restriction to a
|| > single character is a limitation?
||
|| No. It's not a restriction. It makes everything easier.
I didn't ask about 'easy'. And it's <easy within a context> not just
'easy'.
You are proposing as a <fact> that '>' is the string that must be used.
You are saying that out of all possible strings in the Universe, <only one> is
to be used for quoting in this context.
If that's not a 'restriction' and 'limitation', then please tell me what
these words mean.
I gave you a sentence which you could not disagree with because I gave you
a definition. Lol. You disagreed with a definition.
============================================
|| > Are you able to agree that a general pattern can be specified and
|| > that newsreaders <could> detect this pattern (but don't at present)?
||
|| That doesn't make any sense. There is one character (">") that is used
|| to specify the quoting level.
I didn't ask whether '>' was a character that is used in quoting.
PhatTesco
Are you having difficulty with the English in this sentence?
I gave you a sentence which you could not disagree with. You chose to 'not
understand' it. :-(
============================================
|| > Can you agree that it would be useful if newsreaders <could>
|| > treat my quoting as 'logical markup'?
||
|| It would be useful but most won't be able to do that.
I didn't ask anything about whether newsreaders <can> do it. We know that
they can't. However...
[Falls over] An agreement!
============================================
|| How should a newsreader know if "||" adds one or two levels?
There'e a clue in the fact that it is actually ' || ' and not just
'||'. In other words the general pattern is (as mentioned before, and again
before that - did you read it, were you paying attention?)
Quote ::= [White space]+ QuotChar | QuotString [White space]+
This is the 'general pattern' that was mentioned in the question above
that you 'didn't understand'. I hope this is clear here, and that it sheds
some light on the meaning of that question. In fact I'll risk asking it again.
Are you able to agree that a general pattern can be specified and
that newsreaders <could> detect this pattern (but don't at present)?
============================================
|| > There was a lot of my previous post that you didn't respond to.
|| > I'm wondering whether that was because you reluctantly had to
|| > agree and couldn't bring yourself to say so.
||
|| I didn't respond because I know you wouldn't have understood it.
|| You currently don't even understand _why_ ">" is preferred.
Over the years, a tradition has grown in the world of newsgroups. A
convention formed out of the mists and became partially (some would say
completely) solid. The convention is to use the character '>' when quoting
text from previous posts to which the current poster is responding. The choice
of '>' was almost arbitrary - it just seemed that more and more people came to
use it. Or maybe it was that the writers of the newsreaders at the time made
that momentous decision. Whichever way it was, '>' has become ubiquitous.
Developers of newsreaders, being aware of this 'standard', added
functionality to their newsreaders which could take advantage of this
<tendancy>. Some had the splendid idea of determining who was speaking, and
who was quoting the speaker and responding, and who was responding, in turn,
to that, etc.
With the identities separated, the opportunity was there to <use> that
knowledge. One idea involved colouring the text of the different speakers.
This had the effect of clarifying the to-and-fro within a conversation, and
was of <tremendous utility>.
Other developers had the idea of doing word counts on the text of each
speaker. Others analysed the use of syntax and semantics in the text.
Unfortunately, such use of identity separation was not applauded with anything
like the acclaim that their developers hoped for.
One snag with this wonderful idea was that newsreader developers were too
lazy, or too unimaginative, or too arrogant to consider that people may not
want to use the '>' character. Some may want to use '|', some may want little
boxy graphics. some may even go as far as using <two> (shock horror!!)
characters, such as '||'.
The newsreader developers failed to take this human tendancy for diversity
and imagination into account (these were the standard software developer types
with their heads up their ..) and so they didn't code for a <general pattern>,
they coded for a <single character>.
Thus, when some strange people <did> use non-'standard' quoting strings
(strings that <do>, however, conform to an easily discernible quoting
pattern), the rigidly programmed newsreader software failed to 'understand'
it.
And this was the cause of much strife between these strange,
individualistc non-standard quoters and those with the wonderful (but stupid)
newsreaders that used '>' (and <only> '>') to do identity separation.
============================================
|| You currently don't even understand _why_ ">" is preferred.
Are you sure about that? The above was written to expound <your> arguments
and coloured (no pun) with my outlook (no pun). I could, if I had wanted,
written it as if I fervently believed in the viewpoint that it puts forward.
What did I miss, though, surely it must be more than just colouring?
============================================
Herfried, it is a large part of my <life> learning to understand people.
It is of <great> importance to me. Giving full attention to someone else's
thoughts takes practice and a desire to want to do it. I've burned with that
desire. I've done that practice. It is part of the reaon why I am able to
answer some of the almost gibberish queries we get. Questions which other
responders clearly don't understand.
Please don't confuse determination to put forward a viewpoint with lack of
understanding.
============================================
Now - here's the challenge:
Do you understand <my> point of view?
Could you put <my> argument forward?
Regards,
Fergus
C
Cor
Hi Fergus,
Don't take so much time in this, you're right. If it was a problem, the one
who designed the program had let you have the posibillity to use it. (It
could be if it was an obscure company)
Sorry that it looks in commanding tone, but that is not the meaning.
Just be happy and go on with the fun stuff on the way you was used to do.
)
Cor
Don't take so much time in this, you're right. If it was a problem, the one
who designed the program had let you have the posibillity to use it. (It
could be if it was an obscure company)
Sorry that it looks in commanding tone, but that is not the meaning.
Just be happy and go on with the fun stuff on the way you was used to do.
)Cor
F
Fergus Cooney
Hi Cor,
I'm not blaming anybody for faulty English. I'm talking about faulty
<logic>. The use of absolute language when arguing <reduces> the strength of
the argument, despite it being so strong in its meaning.
Here's an example
"Nobody can understand a single word of what you are saying"
That's clearly rubbish, isn't it. Let's focus on the 'nobody' and say it's
a lie. Let's look at the part 'a single word' and dispute that too. And that's
enough excuse to dismiss the whole sentence.
"Some people have difficulty understanding what you say on occasion."
Now <that's> a true statement. By being <weaker> in its language, it's
actually <stronger> in a discussion. There are no absolutes to focus on. You
can't dispute 'some' unless you have certain knowledge that there are none.
And, of course, in human matters that is rare.
Both of the above sentences talk about difficulty with language. One risks
failing outright to get its meaning across. The other is difficult to ignore.
Regards,
Fergus
ps. Finally, just to make certain. I used that example, because your post
talks about language and that's where my mind <is> when seeking an example.
It's not intended to be taken as being judgemental of your language, even if,
lol, that second sentence applies. ;-))
I'm not blaming anybody for faulty English. I'm talking about faulty
<logic>. The use of absolute language when arguing <reduces> the strength of
the argument, despite it being so strong in its meaning.
Here's an example
"Nobody can understand a single word of what you are saying"
That's clearly rubbish, isn't it. Let's focus on the 'nobody' and say it's
a lie. Let's look at the part 'a single word' and dispute that too. And that's
enough excuse to dismiss the whole sentence.
"Some people have difficulty understanding what you say on occasion."
Now <that's> a true statement. By being <weaker> in its language, it's
actually <stronger> in a discussion. There are no absolutes to focus on. You
can't dispute 'some' unless you have certain knowledge that there are none.
And, of course, in human matters that is rare.
Both of the above sentences talk about difficulty with language. One risks
failing outright to get its meaning across. The other is difficult to ignore.
Regards,
Fergus
ps. Finally, just to make certain. I used that example, because your post
talks about language and that's where my mind <is> when seeking an example.
It's not intended to be taken as being judgemental of your language, even if,
lol, that second sentence applies. ;-))
F
Fergus Cooney
Hi Cor,
Ooh, you're on dangerous ground, here. Can't you see that you're standing
between two bulls** with their heads lowered? ROFL.
|| Don't take so much time in this.
|| Just be happy and go on with the fun stuff on
|| the way you was used to do.
||)
Not long to go. We are now engaged in the fine art of arguing. The content
is partly irrelevant. Any moment one of us is going to say EOT, but I'm not
sure who - Herfried likes to have the last word on most matters. ;-))
[There's a real argument, :-((, with someone else. That, I fear, is not a
diversion as this one is.]
|| Sorry that it looks in commanding tone,
And just who the hell do you think you are talking to me that way!!..
[rants and raves for several minutes.]
|| but that is not the meaning.
Cor, you are too much of a gentleman. I would have to try hard to take
offense at your words. I've seen your picture (at least I hope it was you!!) -
I imagine that twinkle and that smile when I read your posts. ;-))
Regards,
Fergus.
** Bulls, or just a couple of guys talking bullocks.- take your pick, Lol.
Ooh, you're on dangerous ground, here. Can't you see that you're standing
between two bulls** with their heads lowered? ROFL.
|| Don't take so much time in this.
|| Just be happy and go on with the fun stuff on
|| the way you was used to do.
||
)Not long to go. We are now engaged in the fine art of arguing. The content
is partly irrelevant. Any moment one of us is going to say EOT, but I'm not
sure who - Herfried likes to have the last word on most matters. ;-))
[There's a real argument, :-((, with someone else. That, I fear, is not a
diversion as this one is.]
|| Sorry that it looks in commanding tone,
And just who the hell do you think you are talking to me that way!!..
[rants and raves for several minutes.]
|| but that is not the meaning.
Cor, you are too much of a gentleman. I would have to try hard to take
offense at your words. I've seen your picture (at least I hope it was you!!) -
I imagine that twinkle and that smile when I read your posts. ;-))
Regards,
Fergus.
** Bulls, or just a couple of guys talking bullocks.- take your pick, Lol.
H
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
* Michael Kremser said:
ACK, but that's wrong for Microsoft public groups.
One of the rare cases in which I agree 200% with you...
H
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
* "Fergus Cooney said:
In a discussion like this we need _facts_.
I don't have a reference where you can find this statistics, but over
the whole usenet it will be true...
H
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
* "Fergus Cooney said:
I read the whole posts but I was too lazy to restore all invalid quotes
by hand.
[Quote removed: See previous post]
The context of posts is the newsreader application.
You are not forced to use it, but it's the preferred way. I remember I
already told you that.
No. In HTML you cannot write something like this instead of using the
HTML tags:
\\\
HTML:
...It's invalid and browsers will have problems to display it.
It's a convention that makes reading the posts easier.
[Rest of the post removed because you don't understand the sense of
logical markup.]