form border style question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colin McGuire
  • Start date Start date
Herfried,

You are being surrealistic.

Please start talking sense again, I much prefer you that way.

Unless, of course, you are intentionally talking gibberish to illustrate
your point. In which case it's more effective to <state the point first> and
<then> use the gibberish. That way your 'lesson' is more likely to be
understood.

Regards,
Fergus
 
* "Fergus Cooney said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a fault of some newsreaders, but it makes sense to use
standard quoting characters. I think you didn't want to hear that. If
all newsreaders were perfect, there would be fewer problems with your
posts.
 
* "Fergus Cooney said:
Unless, of course, you are intentionally talking gibberish to illustrate
your point. In which case it's more effective to <state the point first> and
<then> use the gibberish. That way your 'lesson' is more likely to be
understood.
Click to expand...

I already stated my point in >100 posts.
 
* "Fergus Cooney said:
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?
Click to expand...

Their newsreader won't have problems except that the quoted text (I mean
your posts quoted by somebody) will look horrible. Just a thought...
 
* "Fergus Cooney said:
It's the preferred way.
Click to expand...

It's the preferred way because it will enable the largest number of
readers to "enjoy" your posts. That's the point.
 
Herfried whinged
I already stated my point in >100 posts.

So now you resort to stating irrelevancies and nonsensicalities??
 
Hi Herfried,
Their newsreader won't have problems except that the quoted text (I mean
your posts quoted by somebody) will look horrible. Just a thought...
Click to expand...

It will look horrible to you, Herfried to <you>!!

Speak for yourself. If you claim to speak for others have something to
back it up with.

Regards,
Fergus
 
Hi Herfried,

|| it makes sense to use standard quoting characters.

Yes. There is sense in using them.
There is also sense in my way. A different sense.


|| I think you didn't want to hear that.

I've understood it right from the start.

Your arguments are based on a computing tradition and programming that
relies on that tradition. Programming that didn't anticipate any variation or
generality. Newsreaders that rely on a narrowly defined standard - the good
old '>'.

I may be wrong but the only usefulness apparent so far is this colour
coding. This is, as you say, in the minority in these newsgroups due to OE and
the web interfaces. Therefore it seems as if you are asking me to cater to the
needs of the few, not the many.

I just can't give your viewpoint the importance that you do.

My arguments are based on my understanding of perception, and the use of
space and visual distinctiveness in aiding that perception. You can get one
view of these things from psychology books and another from books on graphic
design and web design.

Although it may be unfamiliar to someone who has learnt to discern the
teeming hordes of '>'s that abound, it seems obvious to me that spacing and
vertical bars are clearer in demarcating text. That's why I use indentation,
have short paragraphs and use double spacing between paragraphs when the topic
changes. So too, I will almost always split a sentence over three lines if it
contains code.

My aim is that there can be no mistaking the boundaries that I put in my
posts - no matter how 'uncomfortable' it might be to look at. And the degree
of that discomfort is <very debatable>.

In one way or another you've always refused to comment when I've shown you
examples. This is a shame as I've never known whether you understand my
viewpoint and are just playing the fool, or whether you actually do understand
it, but simply dispute its value.

Regards,
Fergus
 
* "Fergus Cooney said:
Yes. There is sense in using them.
There is also sense in my way. A different sense.
ACK.


I've understood it right from the start.
Click to expand...

I was not sure about that and I don't understand why you don't stick to
the rules. Maybe you want to stand out, to be "better" than others. I
don't know.
Your arguments are based on a computing tradition and programming that
relies on that tradition. Programming that didn't anticipate any variation or
generality. Newsreaders that rely on a narrowly defined standard - the good
old '>'.
Click to expand...

Standardization does make sense!!!
I may be wrong but the only usefulness apparent so far is this colour
coding.
Click to expand...

No, it's necessary to detect the quoting level.
My arguments are based on my understanding of perception, and the use of
space and visual distinctiveness in aiding that perception. You can
get one
Click to expand...

As student of media informatics I know a lot about perception too, but
in this case it IMO doesn't make any sense. Logical markup is more
important than "nice looking" posts.
In one way or another you've always refused to comment when I've shown you
examples. This is a shame as I've never known whether you understand my
viewpoint and are just playing the fool, or whether you actually do understand
it, but simply dispute its value.
Click to expand...

I understand your viewpoint, but IMO it doesn't make sense in newsgroups.
 
* "Fergus Cooney said:
I already stated my point in >100 posts.

So now you resort to stating irrelevancies and nonsensicalities??
Click to expand...

I don't want to write down my points any more because I have written
them in hundreds of posts. IMO a further discussion of this topic
doesn't make sense.
 
LOL

*PLONK*

Looks like you agree with Road Warrior there Herfried, that's exaclty what
he's talking about!!
 
You can't speak for the majority unless you have some knowledge - information
about, or from, this majority. What knowledge do you posses that pertains
here?
 
* "Fergus Cooney said:
LOL

*PLONK*

Looks like you agree with Road Warrior there Herfried, that's exaclty what
he's talking about!!
Click to expand...

;-)

Really interesting that "plonk" has a 2nd connotation in Great
Britain... I will stop using it because it may be misunderstood.
 
Back
Top