morphing

  • Thread starter Thread starter J. Farbarns
  • Start date Start date
J. Farbarns wrote in said:
Hello,
Click to expand...
i need a free morphing program. Can you help me please ?
tia, JF
Click to expand...

WinMorph
http://www.debugmode.com/winmorph/

HTH

}:O)

[snipped useless, broken AVG sig]

The AVG sig serves NO purpose whatsoever, and does not comply with the
'dash-dash-space' delimiter so that it gets automatically snipped by
compliant news readers.

http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/outerspace/netnews/son-of-1036.html#4.3.2

Please open AVG and disable the sig completely. AVG can NOT certify
anything of the sort, and if your system is clean, the signature is
redundant anyway.

Right click the AVG icon / E-mail scanner tab;
Uncheck 'Certify Outgoing Messages'; and
Apply / OK.

Thanks.
 
DC said:
J. Farbarns wrote in

WinMorph
http://www.debugmode.com/winmorph/
Click to expand...

[snipped useless, broken sig reprimand]
The AVG sig serves NO purpose whatsoever, and does not comply with the
'dash-dash-space' delimiter so that it gets automatically snipped by
compliant news readers.
Click to expand...

An AVG signature does serve a useful purpose.
http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/outerspace/netnews/son-of-103
6.html#4.3.2

Quote-
"4.3.2. Body Conventions
Although body lines can in principle be very long (see
section 4.6 for some discussion of length limits), posters
SHOULD restrict body line lengths to circa 70-75 characters.
On systems where text is conventionally stored with EOLs
only at paragraph breaks and other "hard return" points,
with software breaking lines as appropriate for display or
manipulation, posting agents SHOULD insert EOLs as necessary
so that posted articles comply with this restriction.


NOTE: News originated in environments where line breaks in
plain text files were supplied by the user, not the
software. Be this good or bad, much reading-agent and
posting-agent software assumes that news articles follow
this convention, so it is often inconvenient to read or
respond to articles which violate it. The "70-75" number
comes from the widespread use of display devices which are
80 columns wide, and the desire to leave a bit of margin for
quoting etc. (see below).
Reading agents confronted with body lines much longer than
the available output-device width SHOULD break lines as
appropriate. Posters are warned that such breaks may not
occur exactly where the poster intends.


NOTE: "As appropriate" would typically include breaking
lines when supplying the text of an article to be quoted in
a reply or followup, something that line-breaking reading
agents often neglect to do now.
Although styles vary widely, for plain text it is usual to
use no left margin, leave the right edge ragged, use a
single empty line to separate paragraphs, and employ normal
natural-language usage on matters such as upper/lowercase.
(In particular, articles SHOULD not be written entirely in
uppercase. In environments where posters have access only to
uppercase, posting agents SHOULD translate it to lowercase.)


NOTE: Most people find substantial bodies of text entirely
in uppercase relatively hard to read, while all-lowercase
text merely looks slightly odd. The common association of
uppercase with strong emphasis adds to this.
Tone of voice does not carry well in written text, and
misunderstandings are common when sarcasm, parody, or
exaggeration for humorous effect is attempted without
explicit warning. It has become conventional to use the
sequence ":-)", which (on most output devices) resembles a
rotated "smiley face" symbol, as a marker for text not meant
to be taken literally, especially when humor is intended.
This practice aids communication and averts unintended
ill-will; posters are urged to use it. A variety of
analogous sequences are used with less-standardized meanings
[Sanderson].

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.


NOTE: It may seem superfluous to put a prefix on empty
lines, but it simplifies implementation of functions such as
"skip all quoted text" in reading agents.
Readability is enhanced if quoted text and new text are
separated by an empty line.

Posters SHOULD edit quoted context to trim it down to the
minimum necessary. However, posting agents SHOULD not
attempt to enforce this by imposing overly-simplistic rules
like "no more than 50% of the lines should be quotes".


NOTE: While encouraging trimming is desirable, the 50% rule
imposed by some old posting agents is both inadequate and
counterproductive. Posters do not respond to it by being
more selective about quoting; they respond by padding short
responses, or by using different quoting styles to defeat
automatic analysis. The former adds unnecessary noise and
volume, while the latter also defeats more useful forms of
automatic analysis that reading agents might wish to do.

NOTE: At the very least, if a minimum-unquoted quota is
being set, article bodies shorter than (say) 20 lines, or
perhaps articles which exceed the quota by only a few lines,
should be exempt. This avoids the ridiculous situation of
complaining about a 5-line response to a 6-line quote.

NOTE: A more subtle posting-agent rule, suggested for
experimental use, is to reject articles that appear to
contain quoted signatures (see below). This is almost
certainly the result of a careless poster not bothering to
trim down quoted context. Also, if a posting agent or
followup agent presents an article template to the poster
for editing, it really should take note of whether the
poster actually made any changes, and refrain from posting
an unmodified template.
Some followup agents supply "attribution" lines for quoted
context, indicating where it first appeared and under whose
name. When multiple levels of quoting are present and quoted
context is edited for brevity, "inner" attribution lines are
not always retained. The editing process is also somewhat
error-prone. Reading agents (and readers) are warned not to
assume that attributions are accurate.


UNRESOLVED ISSUE: Should a standard format for attribution
lines be defined? There is already considerable diversity...
but automatic news analysis would be substantially aided by
a standard convention.
Early difficulties in inferring return addresses from
article headers led to "signatures": short closing texts,
automatically added to the end of articles by posting
agents, identifying the poster and giving his network
addresses etc. If a poster or posting agent does append a
signature to an article, the signature SHOULD be preceded
with a delimiter line containing (only) two hyphens (ASCII
45) followed by one blank (ASCII 32). Posting agents SHOULD
limit the length of signatures, since verbose excess
bordering on abuse is common if no restraint is imposed; 4
lines is a common limit.


NOTE: While signatures are arguably a blemish, they are a
well-understood convention, and conveying the same
information in headers exposes it to mangling and makes it
rather less conspicuous. A standard delimiter line makes it
possible for reading agents to handle signatures specially
if desired. (This is unfortunately hampered by extensive
misunderstanding of, and misuse of, the delimiter.)

NOTE: The choice of delimiter is somewhat unfortunate, since
it relies on preservation of trailing white space, but it is
too wellestablished to change. There is work underway to
define a more sophisticated signature scheme as part of
MIME, and this will presumably supersede the current
convention in due time.

NOTE: Four 75-column lines of signature text is 300
characters, which is ample to convey name and mail-address
information in all but the most bizarre situations."

This was necessary for you to understand this simple
question... "i need a free morphing program. Can you help me
please ?" You're on a Crusade; we all know how well those
turn out don't we?
Please open AVG and disable the sig completely. AVG can NOT certify
anything of the sort, and if your system is clean, the signature is
redundant anyway.
Click to expand...

Don't waste time trying to conform to an extremist's view on
"how things ought to be".
 
Back
Top