form border style question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colin McGuire
  • Start date Start date
* "Fergus Cooney said:
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. ;-))
Click to expand...

I will say "EOT" soon because the discussion doesn't make sense. Some
people don't want to learn.
 
* "Fergus Cooney said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

It's possible to tell your ISP to disable your account if your posts are
violating the netikette or general rules of the group.
 
* "Fergus Cooney said:
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.
Click to expand...

Notice that there are other groups available for discussion of language topics.
 
* Michael Kremser said:
Even the quoting from Fergus looks terrible IMO, it's still readable.
Click to expand...

ACK, but it will be displayed with some "side-effects" in a couple of
newsreaders.
 
Hi Herfried,

Why go to the pub when I can have a beer and a discussion with a friend by
the fire at home?

Regards,
Fergus
 
Hi Herfried,

Are you seriously suggesting that an ISP will bar someone for posting
Html?

BTW, where does it state this 'Do not post in Html' rule for this
newsgroup?

Regards,
Fergus
 
Too lazy before. What's going to be your excuse this time?

Hi Herfried,

I'd recommend reading this whole post through before you start answering
any of the points raised.

No. It's not a restriction. It makes everything easier.
Click to expand...

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.

============================================
That doesn't make any sense. There is one character (">") that is used
to specify the quoting level.
Click to expand...

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. :-(

============================================
It would be useful but most won't be able to do that.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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)?


============================================
I didn't respond because I know you wouldn't have understood it.
You currently don't even understand _why_ ">" is preferred.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Hi Herfried,
You are saying that out of all possible strings in the Universe, <only one> is
to be used for quoting in this context.
Click to expand...

No. In HTML you cannot write something like this instead of using the
HTML tags:

\\\
HTML: 
...
///
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Where does Html come into it? We are
talking about quoting in responses to posts.

Puzzled,
Fergus
 
Herfreid shriebed
In a discussion like this we need _facts_.
Click to expand...

Then it's a shame that you keep coming out with opinions dressed up as
statements.
I don't have a reference where you can find this statistics, but over
the whole usenet it will be true...
Click to expand...

And I'm supposed to accept that as fact? And what about for this newsgroup, I
wonder.
 
* "Fergus Cooney said:
You are saying that out of all possible strings in the Universe, <only one> is
to be used for quoting in this context.
Click to expand...

No. In HTML you cannot write something like this instead of using the
HTML tags:

\\\
HTML: 
...
///
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Where does Html come into it? We are
talking about quoting in responses to posts.
Click to expand...

The fact is that the code above is no valid HTML. Yor posts use invalid
quotes for most newsreaders.

There are certain rules and it makes sense to stick to them.

Temporarily revoking the *PLONK* because you used the proper quoting character again.
 
* "Fergus Cooney said:
Are you seriously suggesting that an ISP will bar someone for posting
Html?

BTW, where does it state this 'Do not post in Html' rule for this
newsgroup?
Click to expand...

The web interface posts text-only messages. It's the preferred way.
Next time someone starts to post in PDF format, RTF format or even
Winword format.
 
* "Fergus Cooney said:
And I'm supposed to accept that as fact? And what about for this newsgroup, I
wonder.
Click to expand...

As mentioned in my other posts, in this groups most people are using OE
or the web interface. In OE you can find out which newsreader somebody
uses by selecting the properties of the post ('X-Newsreader').
 
Hi Herfried,

It's the preferred way.

You keep saying things like this.

Please, please, pretty please, tell me <where> it says all these things.

Regards,
Fergus.

ps. I'd prefer WinWord Html format - clean and concise.
 
Hi Herfried,

So in this newsgroup most of the people, having OE or the web, will not
have colour coding and cannot therefore suffer its loss. How then, is their
<newsreader> disadvantaged by my quoting style?

gnus uses the User-Agent field.

Regards,
Fergus
 
Hi Herfried,

You would appear not to have been reading my posts attentively. I've
agreed with you <all along> that my quoting is not recognised by stupid
newsreaders. It's disappointed me that you haven't seen this and acknowledged
that there <is> a fault in these programs.

Regards,
Fergus
 
Back
Top