D
David Taylor
Not quite. You're now quoting with ": >" compared to ": :" previously.
Not quite. You're now quoting with ": >" compared to ": :" previously.
I
Ivor Jones
: > In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
[snip]
: > | But what is the objection..? I just don't get it.
: > | I've been on Usenet for over 10 years and nobody has
: > | *ever* complained about this before.
: >
: > The fact that you are DOUBLE indenting makes it appear
: > that you have
: > quoted ONLY the quoting of the previous poster. It
: > doesn't matter if
: > the indenting is ": >" or ": :" or even "> >". It is
: > misleading.
I put a space in, not a double indent. I have now modifed the system so it
puts a single : instead of converting the previous quote mark to a : which
it did before. So now you should be getting : > and not : :
Regarding it appearing that I am quoting only the previous poster, I
normally only do that anyway unless the thread dictates otherwise, but I
don't see how it's misleading because I ensure I quote the names of the
previous posters that I'm including, see the top of this message.
Ivor
[snip]
: > | But what is the objection..? I just don't get it.
: > | I've been on Usenet for over 10 years and nobody has
: > | *ever* complained about this before.
: >
: > The fact that you are DOUBLE indenting makes it appear
: > that you have
: > quoted ONLY the quoting of the previous poster. It
: > doesn't matter if
: > the indenting is ": >" or ": :" or even "> >". It is
: > misleading.
I put a space in, not a double indent. I have now modifed the system so it
puts a single : instead of converting the previous quote mark to a : which
it did before. So now you should be getting : > and not : :
Regarding it appearing that I am quoting only the previous poster, I
normally only do that anyway unless the thread dictates otherwise, but I
don't see how it's misleading because I ensure I quote the names of the
previous posters that I'm including, see the top of this message.
Ivor
I
Ivor Jones
[snip]
: > Well, there have been detailed intelligent postings of
: > reasons to comply, and postings of general malignancy,
: > and I have avoided at least 1/2 of all that so far. I
: > see no reason to retract my plonk so far. I wonder how
: > many other plonkers there are out there.
Indeed.
Ivor
: > Well, there have been detailed intelligent postings of
: > reasons to comply, and postings of general malignancy,
: > and I have avoided at least 1/2 of all that so far. I
: > see no reason to retract my plonk so far. I wonder how
: > many other plonkers there are out there.
Indeed.
Ivor
I
Ivor Jones
: > In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
: > |
: > |
: > | : > |
: > | [snip]
: > |
: > | : > Can't say as it caused me any issues here except
: > | : > the fact of ": :" putting it down to the second
: > | : > level of quoting as if you had used "> >"
: > |
: > | Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
: >
: > What was fixed? The same issue still exists. It is
: > NOT an issue of what the character is. It is an issue
: > of DOUBLE indenting.
No, that's a space, not another indent.
If it were double indenting it would be :: or :> or whatever not : : or :
Ivor
: > |
: > |
: > | : > |
: > | [snip]
: > |
: > | : > Can't say as it caused me any issues here except
: > | : > the fact of ": :" putting it down to the second
: > | : > level of quoting as if you had used "> >"
: > |
: > | Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
: >
: > What was fixed? The same issue still exists. It is
: > NOT an issue of what the character is. It is an issue
: > of DOUBLE indenting.
No, that's a space, not another indent.
If it were double indenting it would be :: or :> or whatever not : : or :
Ivor
I
Ivor Jones
: > On 2008-03-09, Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid>
: > wrote:
: >>
: >>
: >> : >>
: >> [snip]
: >>
: >>: > Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the
: >>: > fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of
: >>: > quoting as if you had used "> >"
: >>
: >> Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
: >
: > Not quite. You're now quoting with ": >" compared to
: > ": :" previously.
So what's the problem with that..?
No, don't bother answering, I've had enough of this pointless argument.
You don't like my quote style, tough. Don't read my posts. Simple, problem
solved.
Bye.
Ivor
: > wrote:
: >>
: >>
: >> : >>
: >> [snip]
: >>
: >>: > Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the
: >>: > fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of
: >>: > quoting as if you had used "> >"
: >>
: >> Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
: >
: > Not quite. You're now quoting with ": >" compared to
: > ": :" previously.
So what's the problem with that..?
No, don't bother answering, I've had enough of this pointless argument.
You don't like my quote style, tough. Don't read my posts. Simple, problem
solved.
Bye.
Ivor
D
David Taylor
: > On 2008-03-09, Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid>
: > wrote:
: >>
: >>
: >> : >>
: >> [snip]
: >>
: >>: > Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the
: >>: > fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of
: >>: > quoting as if you had used "> >"
: >>
: >> Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
: >
: > Not quite. You're now quoting with ": >" compared to
: > ": :" previously.
So what's the problem with that..?
No, don't bother answering, I've had enough of this pointless argument.
Quote with ":" if you like. Quote with ">" if you like. But don't
quote with ": >" because that looks like two levels of quoting.
I
Ian Smith
krw said:Yes, you do.
Again, it is not *I* who has a problem.
Can't the two of you continue this by email and stop wasting
everyone else's bandwidth?
regards, Ian
C
CBFalconer
David said:.... snip ...
Quote with ":" if you like. Quote with ">" if you like. But don't
quote with ": >" because that looks like two levels of quoting.
Piggybacking. It is topical here as long as you fail to observe
the standard protocols.
G
Guest
|
|
| | : > In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
|
| [snip]
|
| : > | But what is the objection..? I just don't get it.
| : > | I've been on Usenet for over 10 years and nobody has
| : > | *ever* complained about this before.
| : >
| : > The fact that you are DOUBLE indenting makes it appear
| : > that you have
| : > quoted ONLY the quoting of the previous poster. It
| : > doesn't matter if
| : > the indenting is ": >" or ": :" or even "> >". It is
| : > misleading.
|
| I put a space in, not a double indent. I have now modifed the system so it
| puts a single : instead of converting the previous quote mark to a : which
| it did before. So now you should be getting : > and not : :
There is a ": > " in front of the text I wrote that you quoted. That is
TWO characters of intending. It is NOT converting the previous quote mark
because there was no previous quote mark from me, other than for the text
I quoted which has a "| " in front.
| Regarding it appearing that I am quoting only the previous poster, I
| normally only do that anyway unless the thread dictates otherwise, but I
| don't see how it's misleading because I ensure I quote the names of the
| previous posters that I'm including, see the top of this message.
It is misleading because it appears you are responding to someone else
that responded to me, and that someone else used "> " and then you used
an additional ": ". You should choose BETWEEN ": " and "> ", but not
have both combined.
|
| | : > In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
|
| [snip]
|
| : > | But what is the objection..? I just don't get it.
| : > | I've been on Usenet for over 10 years and nobody has
| : > | *ever* complained about this before.
| : >
| : > The fact that you are DOUBLE indenting makes it appear
| : > that you have
| : > quoted ONLY the quoting of the previous poster. It
| : > doesn't matter if
| : > the indenting is ": >" or ": :" or even "> >". It is
| : > misleading.
|
| I put a space in, not a double indent. I have now modifed the system so it
| puts a single : instead of converting the previous quote mark to a : which
| it did before. So now you should be getting : > and not : :
There is a ": > " in front of the text I wrote that you quoted. That is
TWO characters of intending. It is NOT converting the previous quote mark
because there was no previous quote mark from me, other than for the text
I quoted which has a "| " in front.
| Regarding it appearing that I am quoting only the previous poster, I
| normally only do that anyway unless the thread dictates otherwise, but I
| don't see how it's misleading because I ensure I quote the names of the
| previous posters that I'm including, see the top of this message.
It is misleading because it appears you are responding to someone else
that responded to me, and that someone else used "> " and then you used
an additional ": ". You should choose BETWEEN ": " and "> ", but not
have both combined.
C
CBFalconer
David said:.... snip ...
Quote with ":" if you like. Quote with ">" if you like. But don't
quote with ": >" because that looks like two levels of quoting.
Piggybacking. It is topical here as long as you fail to observe
the standard protocols.
G
Guest
|
|
| | : > In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
| : > |
| : > |
| : > | | : > |
| : > | [snip]
| : > |
| : > | : > Can't say as it caused me any issues here except
| : > | : > the fact of ": :" putting it down to the second
| : > | : > level of quoting as if you had used "> >"
| : > |
| : > | Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
| : >
| : > What was fixed? The same issue still exists. It is
| : > NOT an issue of what the character is. It is an issue
| : > of DOUBLE indenting.
|
| No, that's a space, not another indent.
Who put the "> " on the text I wrote?
Who put the ": " on that?
You put them both. Maybe that was because your client put "> " first and
then you added ": " by some other means. But it is still TWO and it is
misleading.
| If it were double indenting it would be :: or :> or whatever not : : or :
| >
It is ": > " (colon space right-angle-bracket space) and that is TWO indents.
|
| | : > In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
| : > |
| : > |
| : > | | : > |
| : > | [snip]
| : > |
| : > | : > Can't say as it caused me any issues here except
| : > | : > the fact of ": :" putting it down to the second
| : > | : > level of quoting as if you had used "> >"
| : > |
| : > | Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
| : >
| : > What was fixed? The same issue still exists. It is
| : > NOT an issue of what the character is. It is an issue
| : > of DOUBLE indenting.
|
| No, that's a space, not another indent.
Who put the "> " on the text I wrote?
Who put the ": " on that?
You put them both. Maybe that was because your client put "> " first and
then you added ": " by some other means. But it is still TWO and it is
misleading.
| If it were double indenting it would be :: or :> or whatever not : : or :
| >
It is ": > " (colon space right-angle-bracket space) and that is TWO indents.
G
Guest
|
|
| | : > On 2008-03-09, Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid>
| : > wrote:
| : >>
| : >>
| : >> | : >>
| : >> [snip]
| : >>
| : >>: > Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the
| : >>: > fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of
| : >>: > quoting as if you had used "> >"
| : >>
| : >> Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
| : >
| : > Not quite. You're now quoting with ": >" compared to
| : > ": :" previously.
|
| So what's the problem with that..?
The problem is it looks like the text you are quoting was quoted by
someone else before you.
| No, don't bother answering, I've had enough of this pointless argument.
Why are you trying to say you not doing that which you are doing?
| You don't like my quote style, tough. Don't read my posts. Simple, problem
| solved.
That would be a simple solution. I bet some already have.
What I am trying to do is get you to realize what it is you are doing.
So far, your explanations DO NOT MATCH UP WITH what you actually ARE DOING.
Maybe it is because you just don't see it for some reason. I don't know
what the reason is. But I'm to keep on you until you at least understand
that you are putting on TWO layers of indenting (first "> " and then after
that ": " to the left of it).
|
| | : > On 2008-03-09, Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid>
| : > wrote:
| : >>
| : >>
| : >> | : >>
| : >> [snip]
| : >>
| : >>: > Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the
| : >>: > fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of
| : >>: > quoting as if you had used "> >"
| : >>
| : >> Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
| : >
| : > Not quite. You're now quoting with ": >" compared to
| : > ": :" previously.
|
| So what's the problem with that..?
The problem is it looks like the text you are quoting was quoted by
someone else before you.
| No, don't bother answering, I've had enough of this pointless argument.
Why are you trying to say you not doing that which you are doing?
| You don't like my quote style, tough. Don't read my posts. Simple, problem
| solved.
That would be a simple solution. I bet some already have.
What I am trying to do is get you to realize what it is you are doing.
So far, your explanations DO NOT MATCH UP WITH what you actually ARE DOING.
Maybe it is because you just don't see it for some reason. I don't know
what the reason is. But I'm to keep on you until you at least understand
that you are putting on TWO layers of indenting (first "> " and then after
that ": " to the left of it).
J
JosephKK
: > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:43:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
[snip]
: >>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't
: >>cope.
: >>
: >>Ivor
: >
: > That depends on how non-standard you are. Just because
: > some newsreaders can cope does not make it standard or
: > right. Your stuff don't bother me none. News clients
: > that produce non-quotable posts do bother me, it makes
: > trying to reply worthless.
Which makes it the *software's* problem, not mine. If your software can't
do what you want it to, get software that can.
Ivor
I am not having any problem with your posts, Keith's, or Floyd's.
A few irregular posters are producing posts that Agent does not seem
to quote properly.
J
JosephKK
I think the only real issue is that ":" could appear naturally in a "plain
text" email as it is a standard punctuation mark, ">" is far less likely
though I suppose ": :" is unlikely too.
IIRC the RFC specifies that the quote marking character be in the
first column. The rest of the line is then simple quoted unless the
quoting level causes a word wrap. No big deal for me either way.
G
Guest
| On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:06:17 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
|
|>
|>|>: > In article <63ishuF282s6lU1@mid.individual.net>,
|>
|>: >> Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is
|>: >> written in plain text, by the way. If you can't cope
|>: >> with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII text,
|>: >> tough.
|>: >
|>: > I think the only real issue is that ":" could appear
|>: > naturally in a "plain text" email as it is a standard
|>: > punctuation mark, ">" is far less likely though I
|>: > suppose ": :" is unlikely too.
|>
|>But what is the objection..? I just don't get it. I've been on Usenet for
|>over 10 years and nobody has *ever* complained about this before.
|>
|>Ivor
|
| I went poking through the RFC's including 3977, 2980, and 1036. None
| of them specified a quoting character for Usenet. Can anyone find one
| that does?
I have never seen one. That would suggest any character is allowed. The
first indenting I ever saw was with ">" either with or without a space.
The space isn't required, either. It seems most use a space following the
character they use, so it could be considered customary. But without the
space there isn't any misleading indications; it's just a tad bit harder
to read, but not much (and others may find it the other way around). What
is a problem is when someone indents the text in such a way that it looks
like it was indented then indented again. It looks like such a poster is
quoting someone who quoted someone else when in fact they are just merely
quoting someone. It doesn't matter what character they are choosing.
|
|>
|>|>: > In article <63ishuF282s6lU1@mid.individual.net>,
|>
|>: >> Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is
|>: >> written in plain text, by the way. If you can't cope
|>: >> with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII text,
|>: >> tough.
|>: >
|>: > I think the only real issue is that ":" could appear
|>: > naturally in a "plain text" email as it is a standard
|>: > punctuation mark, ">" is far less likely though I
|>: > suppose ": :" is unlikely too.
|>
|>But what is the objection..? I just don't get it. I've been on Usenet for
|>over 10 years and nobody has *ever* complained about this before.
|>
|>Ivor
|
| I went poking through the RFC's including 3977, 2980, and 1036. None
| of them specified a quoting character for Usenet. Can anyone find one
| that does?
I have never seen one. That would suggest any character is allowed. The
first indenting I ever saw was with ">" either with or without a space.
The space isn't required, either. It seems most use a space following the
character they use, so it could be considered customary. But without the
space there isn't any misleading indications; it's just a tad bit harder
to read, but not much (and others may find it the other way around). What
is a problem is when someone indents the text in such a way that it looks
like it was indented then indented again. It looks like such a poster is
quoting someone who quoted someone else when in fact they are just merely
quoting someone. It doesn't matter what character they are choosing.
C
CBFalconer
I have never seen one. That would suggest any character is
allowed. The first indenting I ever saw was with ">" either
with or without a space. The space isn't required, either. It
seems most use a space following the character they use, so it
could be considered customary. But without the space there isn't
any misleading indications; it's just a tad bit harder to read,
but not much (and others may find it the other way around). What
is a problem is when someone indents the text in such a way that
it looks like it was indented then indented again. It looks like
such a poster is quoting someone who quoted someone else when in
fact they are just merely quoting someone. It doesn't matter
what character they are choosing.
The following is a quote from 'son of RFC1036'.
"The order of arrival of news articles at a particular host
depends somewhat on transmission paths, and occasionally
articles are lost for various reasons. When responding to a
previous article, posters SHOULD not assume that all readers
understand the exact context. It is common to quote some of
the previous article to establish context. This SHOULD be
done by prefacing each quoted line (even if it is empty)
with the character ">". This will result in multiple levels
of ">" when quoted context itself contains quoted context."
I
Ivor Jones
message
[snip]
: > Can't the two of you continue this by email and stop
: > wasting everyone else's bandwidth?
: >
: > regards, Ian
Well putting my pedant's hat on, you don't *have* to read it..!
But in any case I am saying no more, I'm as tired of the argument as you
are.
Ivor
[snip]
: > Can't the two of you continue this by email and stop
: > wasting everyone else's bandwidth?
: >
: > regards, Ian
Well putting my pedant's hat on, you don't *have* to read it..!
But in any case I am saying no more, I'm as tired of the argument as you
are.
Ivor
I
Ivor Jones
[snip]
: There is a ": > " in front of the text I wrote that you
: quoted. That is TWO characters of intending. It is NOT
: converting the previous quote mark because there was no
: previous quote mark from me, other than for the text
: I quoted which has a "| " in front.
Ah, *finally* I see it. I am using OE with the QuoteFix addon and both
were inserting quotemarks, OE was inserting a > and Quotefix the : so yes
there were two quotemarks.
Hope this is ok now, many apologies to all for my obtuseness.
Ivor
: There is a ": > " in front of the text I wrote that you
: quoted. That is TWO characters of intending. It is NOT
: converting the previous quote mark because there was no
: previous quote mark from me, other than for the text
: I quoted which has a "| " in front.
Ah, *finally* I see it. I am using OE with the QuoteFix addon and both
were inserting quotemarks, OE was inserting a > and Quotefix the : so yes
there were two quotemarks.
Hope this is ok now, many apologies to all for my obtuseness.
Ivor
I
Ivor Jones
[snip]
: Quote with ":" if you like. Quote with ">" if you like.
: But don't quote with ": >" because that looks like two
: levels of quoting.
I've finally figured out what was wrong. I'm using OE with the Quotefix
addon, both were adding quotemarks, I'd changed the one in Quotefix but
forgot that OE itself inserted another one as well.
It should be ok now, apologies for my obtuseness..!
Ivor
: Quote with ":" if you like. Quote with ">" if you like.
: But don't quote with ": >" because that looks like two
: levels of quoting.
I've finally figured out what was wrong. I'm using OE with the Quotefix
addon, both were adding quotemarks, I'd changed the one in Quotefix but
forgot that OE itself inserted another one as well.
It should be ok now, apologies for my obtuseness..!
Ivor
J
JosephKK
: > In article <63ishuF282s6lU1@mid.individual.net>,
: >> Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is
: >> written in plain text, by the way. If you can't cope
: >> with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII text,
: >> tough.
: >
: > I think the only real issue is that ":" could appear
: > naturally in a "plain text" email as it is a standard
: > punctuation mark, ">" is far less likely though I
: > suppose ": :" is unlikely too.
But what is the objection..? I just don't get it. I've been on Usenet for
over 10 years and nobody has *ever* complained about this before.
Ivor
A mere 10 years. I have been on Usenet since 1983. That is 25 years.
It was 1978 when i got clued in to its existence. Shortly after i got
my first email account.