The Sims...my thoughts (apologies if this appears twice, but my server keeps expiring my new posts!)
Josh Hiscock
Sims like lots of light. It raises the room rating. Drapes and blinds would
be almost like strapping them to the rack. Well, not quite, but it would
have a depressive effect upon them.
> 2. Why can't you move the crib? I have a spare room I'd like to
decorate
as a nursery, but that's no good if you can't move the crib! I don't want it
in the middle of the kitchen.
You CAN move it, if I'm not mistaken. If you go into Buy mode, you should be
able to move it wherever you want it.
> 3. Why do the guys sit down to go to the toilet?
Good ol' Number Two, bud. I've seen them stand up as well, but that seems to
happen when the bladder bar is closer to full green. The redder it gets, the
more likely it is that he's gonna make like a lady and squat.
> 4. Why are there no pets? Come on, everyone I know has a dog! I reckon
there should have been a whole other category "Pets". But a simkid wouldn't
be allowed to keep one until they'd learnt all about it first.
Good question. Wish I could answer that.
> 5. Why is there no ambulance option under Services? Don't they get
sick?
They don't...yet. Will Wright insinuated that sickness might be a
possibility via future add-ons. I can't see anything life-threatening
happening since Sims can't die via natural causes, but I could certainly see
the occasional bout with the sniffles or the flu, and perhaps a medicine
cabinet object capable of providing Pepto-Bismol, Sim-style.
>The other thing is, shouldn't there be Band-Aids in the first aid cabinet?
They're awfully clumsy with those knives!
Have you ever seen blood on the floor or cabinet? I haven't...I figure, if
they're not bleeding massively, let 'em tough it out! :-)
> 6. Why no washing machines or driers? No Hoovers or hairdryers.
No washing machines or dryers mainly because the clothes seem to get sent to
some cosmic dry-cleaner while they're in the tub or the shower. This WAS a
bit of an oversight, however. I mean, come on...you can't tell me a
Sim-kid's room wouldn't have dirty clothes all over the place. ;-)
> 7. I wish they'd stop having a tantrum about every bloody thing!!
Keep them happy. Then they won't. :-)
> 8. I wish I could employ a nanny for the baby.
Hmm...a new use for a potential umbrella object here.
Josh
Eep²
> > 1. Why don't the windows have drapes/blinds?
>
> Sims like lots of light. It raises the room rating. Drapes and blinds would
> be almost like strapping them to the rack. Well, not quite, but it would
> have a depressive effect upon them.
The blinds/drapes can automatically open at dawn and shut at dusk. Simple.
> > 5. Why is there no ambulance option under Services? Don't they get
> sick?
>
> They don't...yet. Will Wright insinuated that sickness might be a
> possibility via future add-ons. I can't see anything life-threatening
> happening since Sims can't die via natural causes, but I could certainly see
> the occasional bout with the sniffles or the flu, and perhaps a medicine
> cabinet object capable of providing Pepto-Bismol, Sim-style.
Sims can die from lack of nutrition, which I consider a natural cause.
--
http://tnlc.com/eep/
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping.
Ysabell
1. Why don't the windows have drapes/blinds?
as a nursery, but that's no good if you can't move the crib! I don't want it
in the middle of the kitchen.
there should have been a whole other category "Pets". But a simkid wouldn't
be allowed to keep one until they'd learnt all about it first.
They're awfully clumsy with those knives!
--
Skinner: You're going to France
Bart: So what do you get:
Skinner: An Albanian
Bart: What white with pink eyes? Euuuh.
Krud
>
SNIP....... some of the dumbest suggestions I've ever read.
>I'll add more as I think of them!
Oh boy, I can't wait....... It's a game you twit. Its not supposed to be
like real life.
-Krud
Josh Hiscock
>>Sims like lots of light. It raises the room rating. Drapes and blinds
would
be almost like strapping them to the rack. Well, not quite, but it would
have a depressive effect upon them.
> The blinds/drapes can automatically open at dawn and shut at dusk. Simple.
Depends on the mode you play in too, though. I play in cutaway mode a lot,
so I would never see most of the blinds.
> > > 5. Why is there no ambulance option under Services? Don't they get
sick?
> > They don't...yet. Will Wright insinuated that sickness might be a
possibility via future add-ons. I can't see anything life-threatening
happening since Sims can't die via natural causes, but I could certainly see
the occasional bout with the sniffles or the flu, and perhaps a medicine
cabinet object capable of providing Pepto-Bismol, Sim-style.
> Sims can die from lack of nutrition, which I consider a natural cause.
Yes, but the point is, it's a lack of nutrition enforced on them by some
nutcase at a computer. ;-) It's not like they're starving themselves
deliberately. They're being kept from eating by a Higher Force, and no
medicine is going to help that. Neither would an ambulance, for that matter.
Especially if they can't call it.
Josh
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
"Krud" <au...@home.com> wrote:
>
>Oh boy, I can't wait....... It's a game you twit. Its not supposed to be
>like real life.
>
>-Krud
Careful, Krud. You're getting closer to Istvania. It's been weeks
since I saw a semi-upbeat post from you. I think you've spent too much
time cuddling with our demented hungarian companion. You need serious
detox, stat!
-Quatoria
---
In this unpredictable, oftentimes contentious world,
sometimes you just have to sit back, take a moment to
reflect, and say "Well, I'll be a greased Jesus!"
http://members.tripod.com/~Quatoria/genreblind.html - Genre Blind Radio: Our Music Doesn't Suck
Jason Travis
I agree. You should be able to drape the windows just for cosmetic effect.
It wouldn't really affect the light though. Perhaps really expensive
curtains should affect the room rating.
> 4. Why are there no pets? Come on, everyone I know has a dog! I reckon
> there should have been a whole other category "Pets". But a simkid
wouldn't
> be allowed to keep one until they'd learnt all about it first.
I agree this could be interesting if there were an option to adopt a dog or
cat, or perhaps they could wander in and you could take them in as strays.
Pets shouldn't collide with sims or tables just for room logistics. Dogs
hide under tables, cats can sit up on them unless they're "shood". Options
would be play, walk, feed, groom. Pets create "messes" in the house which
must be cleaned before the room takes a severe drop in rating. They also
can destroy furniture if you don't catch them doing it and "scold" them.
You could buy a doghouse, scratching posts, squeaky toy...and special door
options with pet flaps so they can learn to go outside theirselves. Perhaps
you could even "talk" to them and they could bark and meow. However, now
and then they might disturb your sleep. Pros of having a pet: Fun *really*
goes up when you play with them, social does slightly. Comfort multiplies
when you sit or sleep with them near you. Can you imagine the possibility
when a burglar breaks in? Neighbors could either really like the pet, or it
could growl at certain ones...or run and hide... Of course if you don't
feed the pet, it dies, causing any child and adult who comes in contact with
it to go into depression (remember "bury the dog before timmy gets home?)
> 6. Why no washing machines or driers? No Hoovers or hairdryers.
I like the clothing/washing option if they slowed down the game time a bit.
You should have to purchase clothing which makes you more attractive to
other sims depending on appropriateness. You should have to buy dressers
and armoires or create closet space to keep outfits (capacity varies with
price.) At night, your clothes drop in a pile for messy sims which must be
picked up, or go in a hamper if you've purchased it (another option would be
"put on" if you're just kicking around the house alone). Clicking on a
hamper gives you the "wash" option, which sends the sim out for an hour to
return with clean clothes and costs money, or you must save for a washer and
dryer. Optionally an outdoor clothesline could be an option, so you
wouldn't have to buy both. Washing clothes in your house takes time, but
doesn't require supervision. Clothes can be folded and put back in the
closet, or in a pinch used right out of the dryer. When you click on a
dresser or closet, you are shown what's available and can change into it.
Wearing dirty clothes (which could happen after a day or two) reduces your
hygiene. Out of pajamas? You sleep naked. (depending on the sim, it could
affect comfort...here come the weather variables). I have the pixelation
turned off for nude sims...not because I'm a perv, but just because the
pixellation is annoying, but I think you should be able to walk through your
living room naked...great way to get rid of pesky neighbors. Not a good way
to go to work. Some jobs should require uniforms, some shouldn't--that
would be a factor in choosing it. You should be able to buy as many of your
uniform as you can afford and store.
J.S.
Use your imagination =)
>2. Why can't you move the crib? I have a spare room I'd like to decorate
>as a nursery, but that's no good if you can't move the crib! I don't want
it
>in the middle of the kitchen.
the only way to move something...?
>3. Why do the guys sit down to go to the toilet?
Uhmm.. Tell them to go when the bladder bar isn't just about at full red.
>4. Why are there no pets? Come on, everyone I know has a dog! I reckon
>there should have been a whole other category "Pets". But a simkid wouldn't
>be allowed to keep one until they'd learnt all about it first.
Might be neat but it would be one more thing for me to have to tell them to
do. Unless that useless maid would feed them. What am I paying her for
anyway? To stand for an hour when she runs into one of my sims?
>5. Why is there no ambulance option under Services? Don't they get sick?
>The other thing is, shouldn't there be Band-Aids in the first aid cabinet?
>They're awfully clumsy with those knives!
Hmm. Why bother, they'd be long dead before the ambulance showed up.
>6. Why no washing machines or driers? No Hoovers or hairdryers.
Now I have to make the bed and wash the clothes? Bah.. get the maid to do
it.
>7. I wish they'd stop having a tantrum about every bloody thing!!
This is annoying at times especially after they have had a full nite's
sleep. But usually its just related to low energy.
>8. I wish I could employ a nanny for the baby.
Bah.. why bother. I'd hire the nanny, but before she could arrive the social
services would take the kid away (They must have some sort of sinister baby
selling racket going). Why is it that the kid cries constantly and even
after feeding, playing et. al.. I sometimes can't get the sim to take care
of the kid again..
J.S.
Billy
"Ysabell" <ludmil...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:88qb86$4p3$1@nclient13->
Gary Anderson
>
> "Ysabell" <ludmil...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:88qb86$4p3$1@nclient13->
>
> 3. Why do the guys sit down to go to the toilet?
>
> They put the lid up when they are only going to urinate.
Why wasn't this in the manual?!?!?!
Baron Of Hell
<pytho...@NSrocketmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>8. I wish I could employ a nanny for the baby.
>Bah.. why bother. I'd hire the nanny, but before she could arrive the social
>services would take the kid away (They must have some sort of sinister baby
>selling racket going). Why is it that the kid cries constantly and even
>after feeding, playing et. al.. I sometimes can't get the sim to take care
>of the kid again..
Only female sims can handle the baby, just like real life. =)
I hope maxis fixes this.
Remove HateSpam to email
I think I played Doom one to many
times.
Eep²
Krud wrote:
> Ysabell wrote in message <88qb86$4p3$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>
> SNIP....... some of the dumbest suggestions I've ever read.
>
> >I'll add more as I think of them!
>
> Oh boy, I can't wait....... It's a game you twit. Its not supposed to be
> like real life.
--
Eep²
> > > > 5. Why is there no ambulance option under Services? Don't they get sick?
>
> > > They don't...yet. Will Wright insinuated that sickness might be a
> possibility via future add-ons. I can't see anything life-threatening
> happening since Sims can't die via natural causes, but I could certainly see
> the occasional bout with the sniffles or the flu, and perhaps a medicine
> cabinet object capable of providing Pepto-Bismol, Sim-style.
>
> > Sims can die from lack of nutrition, which I consider a natural cause.
>
> Yes, but the point is, it's a lack of nutrition enforced on them by some
> nutcase at a computer. ;-) It's not like they're starving themselves
> deliberately. They're being kept from eating by a Higher Force, and no
> medicine is going to help that. Neither would an ambulance, for that matter.
> Especially if they can't call it.
If there is no fridge or phone available, sims will starve to death without deliberately starving themselves. That's a natural cause. The player doesn't have to do anything either; the person/family can be created and added to a lot/house and they will die of starvation if left alone. Period.
Josh Hiscock
>>> 3. Why do the guys sit down to go to the toilet?
>> They put the lid up when they are only going to urinate.
> Why wasn't this in the manual?!?!?!
Do you really want to read about urinary habits in the manual? ;-)
Josh
Josh Hiscock
without deliberately starving themselves. That's a natural cause. The player
doesn't have to do anything either; the person/family can be created and
added to a lot/house and they will die of starvation if left alone. Period.
I've said it once. I'll say it again: Lack of nutrition forced upon them by
some nutcase at a computer. If you'd like it in French, I'll say it that way
too, but it doesn't change the fundamental truth of it. Either through
action or inaction, It is the "nutcases at a computer" that are the causes
of their "deaths".
Josh
J.S.
Baron Of Hell wrote in message <38b1c0f9...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:39:11 -0800, "J.S."
><pytho...@NSrocketmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>>8. I wish I could employ a nanny for the baby.
>>Bah.. why bother. I'd hire the nanny, but before she could arrive the
social
>>services would take the kid away (They must have some sort of sinister
baby
>>selling racket going). Why is it that the kid cries constantly and even
>>after feeding, playing et. al.. I sometimes can't get the sim to take care
>>of the kid again..
>
>Only female sims can handle the baby, just like real life. =)
>I hope maxis fixes this.
Actually, not true. I've had my guy (presumably the father but this whole
magic smoke thing and then poof baby appears makes me question that idea)
sim feed and play with the baby, even had mortimer over once and he picked
the kid up when it was crying as did a female neighbor. I think the one time
that I couldnt get them (my sims chars) to pick the kid up was some strange
bug/ freak occurance. Although those social workers are waay to quick on
the draw IMO.
J.S.
Eep²
Not if the sims have free will. :) If Maxis truly programmed thier free will better, homeless sims would go around the neighborhood bumming food off people, for example.
Geoff Black
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
> If The Sims wasn't supposed to be like real life, it would not have ANY
>realistic elements at ALL in it, but it does. Hence, your point is moot.
> The Sims is VERY realistic in most aspects. Period.
>
<snip>
Um, I guess unperiod. It is not realistic, but it does a good job of taking
real life and modeling certain parts it in a way that makes the game a bit
enjoyable to those who don't mind the micromanagement that it takes to
progress. The designers had to make decisions that certainly are not very
realistic in other places. The time scale is wacky, at best. As in other
Sim creations this can be explained by the obvious - if the simulation was
truly real time real life would definitely interfere. How many of us had
one of those wonderful three day babies in real life? How about the
instantaneous new job (without having to even leave home)? How about the
stellar one day promotions? Man, I really wish real life worked like that.
Realistic, no. A decent simulation of parts of the whole, yes. IMO.
Today, I convinced Bella to marry me. My game wife and child didn't seem to
mind. Bella sleeps in the master bedroom with me and my wife. I told my
real life wife about it (you know - after 15 years of marriage, I should
know better). She's now pissed at me - in real life. The game's VERY
realistic in most aspects? Not in this guy's life. Time to go convince my
wife that I didn't have a choice. If I loose, ol' Bella better watch out,
I've got a feeling there will have to be an accident to keep the peace in
the Black household. Wish me luck. :-)
Geoffrey
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
>
> > If The Sims wasn't supposed to be like real life, it would not have ANY
> >realistic elements at ALL in it, but it does. Hence, your point is moot.
> > The Sims is VERY realistic in most aspects. Period.
>
> Um, I guess unperiod. It is not realistic, but it does a good job of taking
> real life and modeling certain parts it in a way that makes the game a bit
> enjoyable to those who don't mind the micromanagement that it takes to
> progress. The designers had to make decisions that certainly are not very
> realistic in other places. The time scale is wacky, at best. As in other
> Sim creations this can be explained by the obvious - if the simulation was
> truly real time real life would definitely interfere. How many of us had
> one of those wonderful three day babies in real life? How about the
> instantaneous new job (without having to even leave home)? How about the
> stellar one day promotions? Man, I really wish real life worked like that.
> Realistic, no. A decent simulation of parts of the whole, yes. IMO.
Realism is relative. Compared to most games, The Sims is VERY realistic and probably closest to how most of the people who play it actually live. Sure it's not PERFECTLY realistic, but what game is? Not many compared to The Sims, which is arguably the most realistic game ever created. Period.
> Today, I convinced Bella to marry me. My game wife and child didn't seem to
> mind. Bella sleeps in the master bedroom with me and my wife. I told my
> real life wife about it (you know - after 15 years of marriage, I should
> know better). She's now pissed at me - in real life. The game's VERY
> realistic in most aspects? Not in this guy's life. Time to go convince my
> wife that I didn't have a choice. If I loose, ol' Bella better watch out,
> I've got a feeling there will have to be an accident to keep the peace in
> the Black household. Wish me luck. :-)
Might want to inform your wife it's just a game. Refer to a shrink if necessary.
Josh Hiscock
will better, homeless sims would go around the neighborhood bumming food off
people, for example.
Now THAT I'd like to see. Panhandlers on the street corners. <g> Hippies in
Sim Francisco playing bizarre instruments for money. Heyyy...a new career
track idea!
Josh
John DeLaGarza
probably closest to how most of the people who play it actually live. Sure
it's not PERFECTLY realistic, but what game is? Not many compared to The
Sims, which is arguably the most realistic game ever created. Period.
I would have to say the sims is the best in this area, just because no one
else has come out with a Sim house/people type game. I think its fun and
nifty, and I'm quasi addicted (I dont play it all the time and go days
without playing it, but when I do play it I play for a half hour or more).
Also I see it more of a stepping stone, for future games to expand on, till
one day we have a nearly life like virtual reality, matrix type thing.
John DeLaGarza
Krud
Eep² wrote in message <38B1C585...@tnlc.com>...
>If The Sims wasn't supposed to be like real life, it woul
What?
-Krud
Krud
>
>Today, I convinced Bella to marry me. My game wife and child didn't seem
to
>mind. Bella sleeps in the master bedroom with me and my wife. I told my
>real life wife about it (you know - after 15 years of marriage, I should
>know better). She's now pissed at me - in real life
Now that's funny! You were hoping she would like the idea, weren't you?
Come on, admit it..... :)
-Krud
Joel Mack
<snip>
> Today, I convinced Bella to marry me. My game wife and child didn't seem to
> mind. Bella sleeps in the master bedroom with me and my wife. I told my
> real life wife about it (you know - after 15 years of marriage, I should
> know better). She's now pissed at me - in real life. The game's VERY
> realistic in most aspects? Not in this guy's life. Time to go convince my
> wife that I didn't have a choice. If I loose, ol' Bella better watch out,
> I've got a feeling there will have to be an accident to keep the peace in
> the Black household. Wish me luck. :-)
Interesting. At one point, my bachelor had gotten six neighborhood women
to fall in love with him (Chris & Melissa Roomies (don't these girls
compare notes?), Bella Goth, Betty Newbie, Ruby Ann Hatfield, and the
Snooty Patooty woman). I mentioned it to my wife, and although she called
me a "loser" (and hey, maybe she's right... :) ) she was otherwise
amused...
Harriet
Geoff Black wrote in message ...
>
>Today, I convinced Bella to marry me. My game wife and child didn't seem
to
>mind. Bella sleeps in the master bedroom with me and my wife. I told my
>real life wife about it (you know - after 15 years of marriage, I should
>know better). She's now pissed at me - in real life. The game's VERY
>realistic in most aspects? Not in this guy's life. Time to go convince my
>wife that I didn't have a choice. If I loose, ol' Bella better watch out,
>I've got a feeling there will have to be an accident to keep the peace in
>the Black household. Wish me luck. :-)
Ehehehe. I made an apartment complex that looks exactly just like the one
me and my boyfriend live in, and picked a couple that bears a striking
resemblance to the both of us. Then I stuck the female in front of the
computer, and called the male over, so he was looking over her shoulder at
the screen. Then I called my boyfriend over in real life, and he came over
to see what I as doing and looked over my shoulder at my computer screen.
My boyfriend made a small, unhappy sound and walked back into the bedroom.
Maybe it looked too much like I was setting up a computerized voodoo
dollhouse? (The Sim boyfriend walked back into the bedroom too.)
Geoff Black
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:38B23A95...@tnlc.com...
> Geoff Black wrote:
>
> > Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > If The Sims wasn't supposed to be like real life, it would not have
ANY
moot.
> > > The Sims is VERY realistic in most aspects. Period.
> >
> > Um, I guess unperiod. It is not realistic, but it does a good job of
taking
> > real life and modeling certain parts it in a way that makes the game a
bit
> > enjoyable to those who don't mind the micromanagement that it takes to
> > progress. The designers had to make decisions that certainly are not
very
> > realistic in other places. The time scale is wacky, at best. As in
other
> > Sim creations this can be explained by the obvious - if the simulation
was
> > truly real time real life would definitely interfere. How many of us
had
> > one of those wonderful three day babies in real life? How about the
> > instantaneous new job (without having to even leave home)? How about
the
> > stellar one day promotions? Man, I really wish real life worked like
that.
> > Realistic, no. A decent simulation of parts of the whole, yes. IMO.
>
>and probably closest to how most of the people who play it actually live.
Sure
>it's not PERFECTLY realistic, but what game is? Not many compared to The>
>Sims, which is arguably the most realistic game ever created. Period.
Wrap your lines, please. It makes quoting you a pain.
As far as the realism goes, I tend to believe that perceptions of realism
are realative. Reality is not. Realism is not about about graphics
modeling that makes the game look realistic (which I would agree The Sims
does well). Nor is it about creating pseudo realistic interactions.
Realism is about, well reality. The social interactions in this game are
not realistic. But they are more fun than reality. I want to have my kid in
the game study - he studies. I want her to play, she plays. Time for bed -
to bed he goes. This is not realistic (I know - I've been on both sides of
this parenting thing.) Just one set of interactions that says this is not
the reality I experience (even through my perceptions) every day of my real
life.
There are plenty of fairly realistic simulations out on the market. Some
(NASCAR 3, for example) are pretty dang realistic, given the limitations of
the computer. NASCAR is even in real "real-time." The whole flight sim
genre is built on reality. Some of the less graphics/arcade-driven sports
sims are pretty realistic and get slammed for somtimes minor variations off
of reality as indicated by statistics. The Sims is not very close when
compared to some of these. I would agree that it is the most realistic
"life simulator" out there. I do this since it is the only one of which I
am aware. It is fun for me too, which in the end game is what is most
important to this gamer. I have enough of realistic real life in my, well,
real life.
>
> > Today, I convinced Bella to marry me. My game wife and child didn't
seem to
> > mind. Bella sleeps in the master bedroom with me and my wife. I told
my
> > real life wife about it (you know - after 15 years of marriage, I should
> > know better). She's now pissed at me - in real life. The game's VERY
> > realistic in most aspects? Not in this guy's life. Time to go convince
my
> > wife that I didn't have a choice. If I loose, ol' Bella better watch
out,
> > I've got a feeling there will have to be an accident to keep the peace
in
> > the Black household. Wish me luck. :-)
>
> Might want to inform your wife it's just a game. Refer to a shrink if
necessary.
> --
Thanks for the helpful suggestions . I can't help but wonder if some of the
humor I was trying for here missed. If we were going to go to a shrink, it
would probably not be about this. Now if anyone has suggestions on how to
get a 13 year old going on 25 to do her homework, clean her room, go to bed
when she should, and most importantly to avoid the daily power struggle with
mom, I'd be way open to suggestions. Unfortunately clicking on her, the
bed, etc. just doesn't seem to work.
Geoffrey
Geoff Black
Krud <au...@home.com> wrote in message
news:L4vs4.16070$_p1.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> Geoff Black wrote in message ...
> >
> to
> >mind. Bella sleeps in the master bedroom with me and my wife. I told my
> >real life wife about it (you know - after 15 years of marriage, I should
>
> Now that's funny! You were hoping she would like the idea, weren't you?
> Come on, admit it..... :)
>
her to like the idea. Nor once she didn't like the idea, did I want her to
locate a sufficiently cute twenty something friend. Nor did I want said
wife to invite said friend over for some realistic (or at least my
perception of realistic) social interaction. Never crossed my mind.
Honest.
Geoffrey
Geoff Black
Harriet <nononono> wrote in message
news:88v3vv$s2c$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Geoff Black wrote in message ...
> >
>
> >Today, I convinced Bella to marry me. My game wife and child didn't seem
> to
> >mind. Bella sleeps in the master bedroom with me and my wife. I told my
> >real life wife about it (you know - after 15 years of marriage, I should
> >realistic in most aspects? Not in this guy's life. Time to go convince
my
> >wife that I didn't have a choice. If I loose, ol' Bella better watch
out,
> >I've got a feeling there will have to be an accident to keep the peace in
> >the Black household. Wish me luck. :-)
>
>
>
one
> me and my boyfriend live in, and picked a couple that bears a striking
> resemblance to the both of us. Then I stuck the female in front of the
> computer, and called the male over, so he was looking over her shoulder at
> the screen. Then I called my boyfriend over in real life, and he came
over
> to see what I as doing and looked over my shoulder at my computer screen.
>
> My boyfriend made a small, unhappy sound and walked back into the bedroom.
> Maybe it looked too much like I was setting up a computerized voodoo
> dollhouse? (The Sim boyfriend walked back into the bedroom too.)
>
Geoffrey
Eep²
What part of "relative realism" don't you understand? You continue to prove my point with each post you make! Sheesh...I wish people would actually THINK before replying...
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:38B23A95...@tnlc.com...
> > Geoff Black wrote:
> >
> > > Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > If The Sims wasn't supposed to be like real life, it would not have ANY
> > > >realistic elements at ALL in it, but it does. Hence, your point is moot.
> > > > The Sims is VERY realistic in most aspects. Period.
> > >
> > > Um, I guess unperiod. It is not realistic, but it does a good job of taking
> > > real life and modeling certain parts it in a way that makes the game a bit
> > > enjoyable to those who don't mind the micromanagement that it takes to
> > > progress. The designers had to make decisions that certainly are not very
> > > realistic in other places. The time scale is wacky, at best. As in other
> > > Sim creations this can be explained by the obvious - if the simulation was
> > > truly real time real life would definitely interfere. How many of us had
> > > one of those wonderful three day babies in real life? How about the
> > > instantaneous new job (without having to even leave home)? How about the
> > > stellar one day promotions? Man, I really wish real life worked like that.
> > > Realistic, no. A decent simulation of parts of the whole, yes. IMO.
> >
> > Realism is relative. Compared to most games, The Sims is VERY realistic
> >and probably closest to how most of the people who play it actually live. Sure
> >it's not PERFECTLY realistic, but what game is? Not many compared to The>
> >Sims, which is arguably the most realistic game ever created. Period.
>
> Wrap your lines, please. It makes quoting you a pain.
Wrap the lines yourself relative to your screen's width. Might help to read my sig and organization header, too. Make it easier for people and they STILL bitch...just can't seem to teach people how to be efficient. <shrug> Perhaps I should write a dissertation (or something) on the efficiency of unforced line lengths.
> As far as the realism goes, I tend to believe that perceptions of realism
> are realative. Reality is not.
Without getting overtly philosophical (and spawning threads that can easily last weeks), I will stick with relative reality (which includes relative perception).
> Realism is not about about graphics
> modeling that makes the game look realistic (which I would agree The Sims
> does well). Nor is it about creating pseudo realistic interactions.
> Realism is about, well reality. The social interactions in this game are
> not realistic. But they are more fun than reality. I want to have my kid in
> the game study - he studies. I want her to play, she plays. Time for bed -
> to bed he goes. This is not realistic (I know - I've been on both sides of
> this parenting thing.) Just one set of interactions that says this is not
> the reality I experience (even through my perceptions) every day of my real
> life.
>
> There are plenty of fairly realistic simulations out on the market. Some
> (NASCAR 3, for example) are pretty dang realistic, given the limitations of
> the computer. NASCAR is even in real "real-time." The whole flight sim
> genre is built on reality. Some of the less graphics/arcade-driven sports
> sims are pretty realistic and get slammed for somtimes minor variations off
> of reality as indicated by statistics. The Sims is not very close when
> compared to some of these. I would agree that it is the most realistic
> "life simulator" out there. I do this since it is the only one of which I
> am aware. It is fun for me too, which in the end game is what is most
> important to this gamer. I have enough of realistic real life in my, well,
> real life.
Hence, relative realism. Thank you for proving my point.
> > > Today, I convinced Bella to marry me. My game wife and child didn't seem to
> > > mind. Bella sleeps in the master bedroom with me and my wife. I told my
> > > real life wife about it (you know - after 15 years of marriage, I should
> > > know better). She's now pissed at me - in real life. The game's VERY
> > > realistic in most aspects? Not in this guy's life. Time to go convince my
> > > wife that I didn't have a choice. If I loose, ol' Bella better watch out,
> > > I've got a feeling there will have to be an accident to keep the peace in
> > > the Black household. Wish me luck. :-)
> >
> > Might want to inform your wife it's just a game. Refer to a shrink if necessary.
>
> Thanks for the helpful suggestions . I can't help but wonder if some of the
> humor I was trying for here missed. If we were going to go to a shrink, it
> would probably not be about this. Now if anyone has suggestions on how to
> get a 13 year old going on 25 to do her homework, clean her room, go to bed
> when she should, and most importantly to avoid the daily power struggle with
> mom, I'd be way open to suggestions. Unfortunately clicking on her, the
> bed, etc. just doesn't seem to work.
Unfortunately there's a slight difference: you are not in control of your daughter or your wife, while in The Sims you can be in control of the whole family (and neighborhood to an extent).
Eep²
> Krud <au...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:L4vs4.16070$_p1.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> > Geoff Black wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >Today, I convinced Bella to marry me. My game wife and child didn't seem to
> > >mind. Bella sleeps in the master bedroom with me and my wife. I told my
> > >real life wife about it (you know - after 15 years of marriage, I should
> > >know better). She's now pissed at me - in real life
> >
> > Now that's funny! You were hoping she would like the idea, weren't you?
> > Come on, admit it..... :)
> >
> Don't give me that - I know what is best for me. Of course I didn't want
> her to like the idea. Nor once she didn't like the idea, did I want her to
> locate a sufficiently cute twenty something friend. Nor did I want said
> wife to invite said friend over for some realistic (or at least my
> perception of realistic) social interaction. Never crossed my mind.
> Honest.
The shrink will see you and your wife now...
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
"Geoff Black" <gbl...@nwrain.nospam.com> wrote:
>As far as the realism goes, I tend to believe that perceptions of realism
>are realative. Reality is not.
Fnord. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.
How real do you feel? Fnord.
-Quatoria
---
In this unpredictable, oftentimes contentious world,
sometimes you just have to sit back, take a moment to
reflect, and say "Well, I'll be a greased Jesus!"
http://members.tripod.com/~Quatoria/genreblind.html - Genre Blind Radio: Our Music Doesn't Suck
Geoff Black
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
>
> Wrap the lines yourself relative to your screen's width. Might help
> to read my sig and organization header, too.
Seems I made a bit of a friend here. Last try. It is not about display, it
is about quoting your text in a way that others can tell that it is your
quoted text.
>Make it easier for people and they STILL bitch...
Easier to read, maybe. Much harder to quote.
>just can't seem to teach people how to be efficient. <shrug> Perhaps I
should write a dissertation (or something) on the efficiency of unforced
line lengths.
>
A bit of convenience for everyone. But of course if you can't be
inconvenienced to actually follow the convention, I 'pose that I'll just
have to live with it or not as the case may be.
Geoffrey
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
>
> > Wrap the lines yourself relative to your screen's width. Might help
> > to read my sig and organization header, too.
>
> Seems I made a bit of a friend here. Last try. It is not about display, it
> is about quoting your text in a way that others can tell that it is your
> quoted text.
>
> >Make it easier for people and they STILL bitch...
>
> Easier to read, maybe. Much harder to quote.
Sufficient to quote; simply leave a blank quoted line after the quoted text. <shrug> Like you did here:
> >just can't seem to teach people how to be efficient. <shrug> Perhaps I
> should write a dissertation (or something) on the efficiency of unforced
> line lengths.
> >
>
> A bit of convenience for everyone. But of course if you can't be
> inconvenienced to actually follow the convention, I 'pose that I'll just
> have to live with it or not as the case may be.
Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off at some antiquated ASCII-based newsreader's (can we say DOS and UNIX? ugh!) outdated design. It's time to go GUI, ASCII rejects-who-refuse-to-evolve-with-the-rest-of-newsreader-development. I'll never go back.
Geoff Black
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:38B37C14...@tnlc.com...
> Geoff Black wrote:
>
> > Harriet <nononono> wrote in message
> > news:88v3vv$s2c$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >Today, I convinced Bella to marry me. My game wife and child didn't
seem to
> > > >mind. Bella sleeps in the master bedroom with me and my wife. I
told my
> > > >real life wife about it (you know - after 15 years of marriage, I
should
VERY
> > > >realistic in most aspects? Not in this guy's life. Time to go
convince my
> > > >wife that I didn't have a choice. If I loose, ol' Bella better watch
out,
> > > >I've got a feeling there will have to be an accident to keep the
peace in
> > > >the Black household. Wish me luck. :-)
> > >
the one
> > > me and my boyfriend live in, and picked a couple that bears a striking
> > > resemblance to the both of us. Then I stuck the female in front of
the
> > > computer, and called the male over, so he was looking over her
shoulder at
> > > the screen. Then I called my boyfriend over in real life, and he
came over
> > > to see what I as doing and looked over my shoulder at my computer
screen.
> > >
> > > My boyfriend made a small, unhappy sound and walked back into the
bedroom.
> > > Maybe it looked too much like I was setting up a computerized voodoo
> > > dollhouse? (The Sim boyfriend walked back into the bedroom too.)
> >
> > Okay, maybe it is a bit realistic. :-)
>
> What part of "relative realism" don't you understand?
Not much. What part of humor don't you understand? Course it could be that
I just suck at humor. Or maybe people might take this all a bit too
seriously.
>You continue to prove my point with each post you make!
Glad I could help.
>Sheesh...I wish people would actually THINK before replying...
Ah, the beauty of Usenet.
Geoffrey
Eep²
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:38:03 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >> A bit of convenience for everyone. But of course if you can't be
> >> inconvenienced to actually follow the convention, I 'pose that I'll just
> >> have to live with it or not as the case may be.
> >
> >Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off at some antiquated ASCII-based newsreader's (can we say DOS and UNIX? ugh!) outdated design. It's time to go GUI, ASCII rejects-who-refuse-to-evolve-with-the-rest-of-newsreader-development. I'll never go back.
>
> Sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. I am using Free
> Agent, not DOS or Unix based, with a GUI, and your text is bloody
> inconvenient to try to read. I set up Agent with 3 windows and I
> can't read what you typed without having to bloody well scroll across
> the page.
>
> So who is being backwards?
You are. Ever heard of wordwrap? No? Try linewrap. Don't act so helpless, please; you're looking like a complete newsreader and word processor/text editor newbie.
--
http://tnlc.com/eep/
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. Duh!
Eep²
> In the swirling mists of history, on Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:38:03 -0800,
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off at some antiquated ASCII-based newsreader's (can we say DOS and
> >UNIX? ugh!) outdated design. It's time to go GUI, ASCII rejects-who-refuse-to-evolve-with-the-rest-of-newsreader-development. I'll never go back.
>
> I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with your childish desire to
> thumb your nose at netiquette and other users. No, no, no. You're
> right. It's *everyone else* that's wrong.
<yawn> Nope, that ain't it. My organization field (for those inept folk who just can't seem to be able to read it) explains it sufficiently enough:
To use screen width efficiently & reduce quoted text breakup: enable line/word wrap (if text isn't wrapping), increase line lengths (forced line feeds) or disable them, & use variable-width fonts. Please quote ALL text in reply & no HTML background colors.
Attempt to think outside your narrow-minded, miniscule, microscopic, subatomic box, please. Evolve to the next level already. People are waiting...
Eep²
> > You are. Ever heard of wordwrap? No? Try linewrap. Don't act so
> > helpless, please; you're
> > looking like a complete newsreader and word processor/text editor
> > newbie.
>
> I'm going to do something stupid here: get involved in someone else's
> flame war. While I can read your post easily enough because my reader
> wraps your long lines, it becomes confusing when only the first line
> of your paragraphs get quoted by someone else.
>
> The correct response to the realization that not everyone else's
> newsreader works like your's does is to make the effort to write your
> messages in such a way that they can be easily read by as many people
> as possible, not to critize their choice of software.
My messages can be read sufficiently enough. If people can't follow simple sentence structure to see how a quoted line flows that's not my problem. People can also leave a quoted blank line after each non-quoted line/paragraph, too.
Perhaps newsreader programmers will learn to code quoted lines more efficiently and intuitively instead of simply rehashing what other newsreader programmers have been rehashing from still others. It's time to evolve already, sports. Until then it is a MINOR inconvenience compared to being able to efficiently use screen width and vertical screen scroll (horizontal screen scroll is left to those oblivious to enabling line/word wrap, however).
Welcome to the next level. You have the power. Evolve or become obsolete.
Nexus
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
(snip)
>> A bit of convenience for everyone. But of course if you can't be
>> inconvenienced to actually follow the convention, I 'pose that I'll just
>> have to live with it or not as the case may be.
>
>Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off at some antiquated ASCII-based newsreader's (can we say DOS and UNIX? ugh!) outdated design. It's time to go GUI, ASCII rejects-who-refuse-to-evolve-with-the-rest-of-newsreader-development. I'll never go back.
Sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. I am using Free
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off at some antiquated ASCII-based newsreader's (can we say DOS and
>UNIX? ugh!) outdated design. It's time to go GUI, ASCII rejects-who-refuse-to-evolve-with-the-rest-of-newsreader-development. I'll never go back.
I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with your childish desire to
thumb your nose at netiquette and other users. No, no, no. You're
right. It's *everyone else* that's wrong.
--
Quatoria
Everything I've ever told you is a lie. I just lied to you, and I'm lying to you now.
Josef Drexler
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:38:03 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
> <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >> A bit of convenience for everyone. But of course if you can't be
> >> inconvenienced to actually follow the convention, I 'pose that I'll just
> >> have to live with it or not as the case may be.
> >
back.
>
> Agent, not DOS or Unix based, with a GUI, and your text is bloody
> inconvenient to try to read. I set up Agent with 3 windows and I
> can't read what you typed without having to bloody well scroll across
> the page.
>
> So who is being backwards?
He is of course, but don't bother to argue. I've seen these arguments
before, there's no stopping a holy crusade against the evil evil 75
character line lengths. Even if his post is readable, it will break once
somebody replies to it, the lines will be all over the place (like
above), with no proper quote characters. And suggesting to use a bigger
font so that 75 chars fill the page isn't going to help either.
Just ignore him, or maybe use a killfile (which I've done too). If
nobody reads his words of wisdom maybe he'll get a clue that he's the
only who has a problem (as opposed to every single one of the rest).
(Heh, when trying to send Gravity warned me about the long lines :)
--
Josef Drexler | http://publish.uwo.ca/~jdrexler/
---------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Please help Conserve Gravity | To email me, please change the country
Walk with a light step. | code to .ca - Death to Spammers!
Zan Thrax
Hash: SHA1
> You are. Ever heard of wordwrap? No? Try linewrap. Don't act so
> helpless, please; you're
> looking like a complete newsreader and word processor/text editor
> newbie.
I'm going to do something stupid here: get involved in someone else's
flame war. While I can read your post easily enough because my reader
wraps your long lines, it becomes confusing when only the first line
of your paragraphs get quoted by someone else.
The correct response to the realization that not everyone else's
newsreader works like your's does is to make the effort to write your
messages in such a way that they can be easily read by as many people
as possible, not to critize their choice of software.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOLTG0YJ4l4dy7OgYEQKpWQCg5+62BDvvYvQQjM5VunJJ7cvreCYAn1qH
SqCmtFVHSB6PwTjLdrc2AfTM
=jb/r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zan Thrax
Hash: SHA1
I'm curious as to what reader your using.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOLTTxoJ4l4dy7OgYEQIP7ACfda/Pu2wRUcnCPakZYua8BFYpMjAAnR5s
2JdZ3xBV3qgnkPdf4+RXmcFo
=JPp5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Simon Juncal
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I'm curious as to what reader your using.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I)
(netscape)
--
Simon co List Admin Capi...@his.com
Aka Alhazred
http://capitals.washington.dc.us/
http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/
Simon Juncal
> My messages can be
<plonked!>
> Perhaps newsreader programmers will learn to code quoted lines
<snip wrapped drivel>
Yes perhaps coders
will in fact one
day do only that
which you deem
correct. Until
then I guess
everyone else
can just get by,
filtering you.
BTW; how do you
like my 20
character forced
return... I'm
betting it just
burns you up LOL.
Simon Juncal
> You are. Ever heard of wordwrap? No? Try linewrap. Don't act so helpless, please; you're looking like a complete newsreader and word processor/text editor newbie.
Except the standard everyone else has, for good (and long standing)
reason's. The net is composed of millions of systems, and a vast
variety of standards. You're not only alone in your wacky line
wraping/variable font religious crusade, you're making yourself
look rather mentally unbalanced and utterly obtuse; by accusing
_others_ of being usenet newbies.
Now if you'll remove your hands from your ears and stop crying
"LAAALALALAAA!" (there that's much better isn't it?) you might want
to go read some usenet FAQ's...
Zan Thrax
Hash: SHA1
Actually Simon, I was asking the troll. But thanks for sharing ;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOLTwDYJ4l4dy7OgYEQKUOACeKl4s4Rnpb0O/0GjuAPY0uVV+mocAoOoz
L4ZgmHsds6SJwGSHtYMl+b5Z
=VWTq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Eep²
> Eep² wrote:
> > You are. Ever heard of wordwrap? No? Try linewrap. Don't act so helpless, please; you're looking like a complete newsreader and word processor/text editor newbie.
>
> Except the standard everyone else has, for good (and long standing)
> reason's. The net is composed of millions of systems, and a vast
> variety of standards.
Standards change; it's time for this primitive standard to evolve to more intelligent, intuitive design.
> You're not only alone in your wacky line
> wraping/variable font religious crusade, you're making yourself
> look rather mentally unbalanced and utterly obtuse; by accusing
> _others_ of being usenet newbies.
I know of at least one other person who has come to my defense of screen-width line lengths. I only acuse the utterly stupid dumbshit twits who can't figure out how to turn on line/word wrap. Duh.
> Now if you'll remove your hands from your ears and stop crying
> "LAAALALALAAA!" (there that's much better isn't it?) you might want
> to go read some usenet FAQ's...
And you might want to go fuck off and get out of your little box. :) Drive through, champ!
L.J. Wischik
>Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap
>to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off
Never. Any more than 12 words per line is harder to read and bad design.
This isn't some 'relative' thing. It is an objective truth about page
layout, known by printers and publishers and writers for centuries, and
backed up by empirical tests. Anything that encourages longer lines
(*you*) is wrong, and bad, and unhelpful.
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
Marko Poutiainen
: Standards change; it's time for this primitive standard to evolve to more
: intelligent, intuitive design.
No shit? I read the news with SSH from my uni account using tin. Are you
saying I shouldn't read them from there?
Yeah, I know your type. You want the web filled with multimedia stuff
since you have a 3GB line. No need to believe in people like Jacob Nielsen.
: I know of at least one other person who has come to my defense of
: screen-width line lengths. I only acuse the utterly stupid dumbshit twits
: who can't figure out how to turn on line/word wrap. Duh.
Gasp! Another clueless.
--
Marko Poutiainen | These are my principles.
m...@paju.oulu.fi | If you don't like them, I have others.
http://www.toffeeweb.org | -Groucho Marx
Krud
>Eep² wrote:
>> You are. Ever heard of wordwrap? No? Try linewrap. Don't act so
helpless, please; you're looking like a complete newsreader and word
processor/text editor newbie.
>
>Except the standard everyone else has, for good (and long standing)
>reason's. The net is composed of millions of systems, and a vast
>wraping/variable font religious crusade, you're making yourself
>look rather mentally unbalanced and utterly obtuse; by accusing
>_others_ of being usenet newbies.
Here he comes to save the daaaay! Captain Bandwidth is on the waaaaay!
Remember boys and girls - Captain Bandwidth says, DON'T WASTE THE
BANDWIDTH. Now lets all give the official Captain Bandwidth fan club
cheer - Captain Bandwidth, he's our man! If he can't do it, who gives a
flying fuck! (or something like that).
-Krud
Krud
>
>You are. Ever heard of wordwrap? No? Try linewrap. Don't act so helpless,
please; you're looking like a complete newsreader and word processor/text
editor newbie.
You'll never get your Captain Bandwidth Super-Hero Achievement Badge with
THAT attitude.
-Krud
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>You are. Ever heard of wordwrap? No? Try linewrap. Don't act so helpless, please; you're looking like a complete newsreader and word processor/text editor newbie.
Whereas you just look like a prick. I use wordwrap, so I have no
problem reading your posts (though there's rarely any reason to do
so). I think just about everyone realizes that you post in the manner
you do because it makes you feel superior to the rest of us "unevolved
dinosaurs", despite the fact that all you've accomplished is making
yourself a very minor annoyance to everyone who reads your drivel.
Frankly, you're no different then the people who post in html. Both
obnoxious, difficult to quote, and usually containing nothing of
substance.
Michael K. Neylon
Eep² (e...@tnlc.com) wrote:
>Nexus wrote:
>> So who is being backwards?
>
>please; you're looking like a complete newsreader and word processor/text
>editor newbie.
USENet is a text based medium. Try reading the USENET faqs in news.answers,
and understand that netiquette for USENET says that posts should be hard
wrapped at less that 80 characters, and using only ASCII plain text
fonts. (Same with email as well). I should know as I've been using it for
at least 12 years now.
--
Dr. Michael K. Neylon, PhD ChE |
University of Michigan | "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your
mne...@engin.umich.edu | mind on again."
http://pinky.wtower.com/mneylon | The Brain
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Standards change; it's time for this primitive standard to evolve to more intelligent, intuitive design.
And, of course, what's intuitive is one long, endless line, stretching
off into the infinite distance, requiring newsreaders to wrap it
because you are unable to deduce how to use the "enter" key.
Michael Hayden
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap
> to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off at
> some antiquated ASCII-based newsreader's (can we say DOS and UNIX? ugh!)
> outdated design. It's time to go GUI, ASCII
> rejects-who-refuse-to-evolve-with-the-rest-of-newsreader-development.
> I'll never go back. >
*plonk*
Joel Mack
and read your posts... *plonk*
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> some twit wrote:
>> In the swirling mists of history, on Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:38:03 -0800,
>> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off at some antiquated ASCII-based newsreader's (can we say DOS and
>> >UNIX? ugh!) outdated design. It's time to go GUI, ASCII rejects-who-refuse-to-evolve-with-the-rest-of-newsreader-development. I'll never go back.
>>
>> I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with your childish desire to
>> thumb your nose at netiquette and other users. No, no, no. You're
>> right. It's *everyone else* that's wrong.
> <yawn> Nope, that ain't it. My organization field (for those inept folk who just can't seem to be able to read it) explains it sufficiently enough:
> To use screen width efficiently & reduce quoted text breakup: enable line/word wrap (if text isn't wrapping), increase line lengths (forced line feeds) or disable them, & use variable-width fonts. Please quote ALL text in reply & no HTML background colors.
> Attempt to think outside your narrow-minded, miniscule, microscopic, subatomic box, please. Evolve to the next level already. People are waiting...
> --
Brian Trosko
: In article <38B4A79B...@tnlc.com>,
: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
: > Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap
: > to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off at
: > some antiquated ASCII-based newsreader's (can we say DOS and UNIX? ugh!)
: > outdated design. It's time to go GUI, ASCII
: > rejects-who-refuse-to-evolve-with-the-rest-of-newsreader-development.
: > I'll never go back. >
: *plonk*
Which really just about says it all. Presumably, one goes through the
effort of posting to Usenet in order to have other people read one's
posts.
Why on earth would someone post in a method guaranteed to piss off hordes
of potential readers? Because he enjoys the hollow, echoing sound of his
address being dumped into killfiles across the land?
Less than 80 lines. If you don't like it, fine. Don't like it. But
comply with it. Failure to comply doesn't make a big statement about
"evolution" or the technological advancement from ASCII-based to GUI-based
software, or anything like that. The simple fact is that there is
*nothing* you could possibly say that is so interesting or important that
it justifies my wasting a single iota of my time in order to decipher it.
As evidenced by the above *plonk*, a lot of other folks feel the same way.
So if you really want ultra-long lines, feel free to use them. Just
understand that noone will ever read your posts. In due time, you'll be
able to save yourself that 20 bucks a month for an internet connection,
and just sit around writing notes to yourself.
Go ahead and use rot-13 if it makes you feel more advanced.
Mountain Kodiak
>My messages can be read sufficiently enough. If people can't follow simple sentence structure to see how a quoted line flows that's not my problem. People can also leave a
But, doesn't it bother you that half the people you're talking to
don't read past the first wrap of your paragraphs? It'd be like
having a conversation with someone that loses interest in what you're
saying after your first few words and walks away...
Just seems a little anti-productive...
--mK
Nexus
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Nexus wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:38:03 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
>> <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> A bit of convenience for everyone. But of course if you can't be
>> >> inconvenienced to actually follow the convention, I 'pose that I'll just
>> >> have to live with it or not as the case may be.
>> >
>> >Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off at some antiquated ASCII-based newsreader's (can we say DOS and UNIX? ugh!) outdated design. It's time to go GUI, ASCII rejects-who-refuse-to-evolve-with-the-rest-of-newsreader-development. I'll never go back.
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. I am using Free
>> Agent, not DOS or Unix based, with a GUI, and your text is bloody
>> inconvenient to try to read. I set up Agent with 3 windows and I
>> can't read what you typed without having to bloody well scroll across
>> the page.
>>
>> So who is being backwards?
>
>You are. Ever heard of wordwrap? No? Try linewrap. Don't act so helpless, please; you're looking like a complete newsreader and word processor/text editor newbie.
>
>--
Sorry, reading your drivel is not worth having to do an extra two or
three mouse clicks.
But don't worry, I won't be reading any more of your posts, which is
the funny thing. By being so obtuse what you post becomes irrelevant
because no one is going to read it.
Take about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, LOL!
Eep²
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap
> >to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off
>
> Never. Any more than 12 words per line is harder to read and bad design.
> This isn't some 'relative' thing. It is an objective truth about page
> layout, known by printers and publishers and writers for centuries, and
> backed up by empirical tests. Anything that encourages longer lines
> (*you*) is wrong, and bad, and unhelpful.
Then you can always resize your GUI newsreader's window to however narrow you want. Plus, well-programmed newsreaders will allow incoming messages to be arbitrarily wrapped to whatever line length you like--simple. This gives control to the receiver AND sender vs the sender only. Better living through better-programmed software.
Oh and no more than 12 words per line is most indeedly deedly relative. What's 12 if not relative to other numbers? :) What's a line if not relative to other shapes? :D It's ALL relative. Period.
I can read "long" lines just fine...why aren't essays, white papers, etc, etc, etc arbitrarily chopped to thin widths, then, eh? I've never had a teacher tell me to make my essays in column format!
Oh and wrong, bad, and unhelpful are also relative. I think longer line encouragement is right, good, and VERY helpful. :) Wee...
Eep²
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Eep? <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> : Standards change; it's time for this primitive standard to evolve to more
> : intelligent, intuitive design.
>
> No shit? I read the news with SSH from my uni account using tin. Are you
> saying I shouldn't read them from there?
You can read from wherever you like, but if tin can't handle long line-length messages well enough to allow them to wrap at whatever your screen columns are set at, it's not a very well-programmed newsreader. It's that simple. :)
> Yeah, I know your type. You want the web filled with multimedia stuff
> since you have a 3GB line. No need to believe in people like Jacob Nielsen.
Actually I only have 28.8k. I KNOW about saving bandwidth and being efficient. Hell, I even use Proxomitron (http://proxomitron.tripod.com/) to kill ads and reformat HTML on-the-fly because I want to be more efficient.
I KNOW where all this silly line length formatting originated from but it's time to get out of the old ASCII-style era and into the ever-increasing GUI era. Let go of that old obsolete geekware! I used to BBS so I KNOW what it's like to use ASCII/ANSI-based software--they bite compared to higher-resolution, variable-width GUI programs! I hardly even telnet anymore since I can do most of what I need through a snazzy GUI FTP client.
Eep²
> In the swirling mists of history, on Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:55:32 -0800,
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >You are. Ever heard of wordwrap? No? Try linewrap. Don't act so helpless, please; you're looking like a complete newsreader and word processor/text editor newbie.
>
> Whereas you just look like a prick. I use wordwrap, so I have no
> problem reading your posts (though there's rarely any reason to do
> so). I think just about everyone realizes that you post in the manner
> you do because it makes you feel superior to the rest of us "unevolved
> dinosaurs", despite the fact that all you've accomplished is making
> yourself a very minor annoyance to everyone who reads your drivel.
> Frankly, you're no different then the people who post in html. Both
> obnoxious, difficult to quote, and usually containing nothing of
> substance.
Gee, you really should work on that low self-esteem of yours... You give me WAY too much power..so easily, too! ;P <chuckle> Silly knave...<flick>...away.
Eep²
> Preivously, on 'comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic',
> Eep² (e...@tnlc.com) wrote:
> >Nexus wrote:
> >> So who is being backwards?
> >
> >You are. Ever heard of wordwrap? No? Try linewrap. Don't act so helpless,
> >please; you're looking like a complete newsreader and word processor/text
> >editor newbie.
>
> USENet is a text based medium. Try reading the USENET faqs in news.answers,
> and understand that netiquette for USENET says that posts should be hard
> wrapped at less that 80 characters, and using only ASCII plain text
> fonts. (Same with email as well). I should know as I've been using it for
> at least 12 years now.
Sorry, "doc", but Usenet is evolving beyond simply ASCII. Keep up or become obsolete. It's that simple. Or go to your so-called Internet 2 and remain in your ASCII-obsessed obsoletion.
Eep²
> In the swirling mists of history, on Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:02:41 -0800,
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >Standards change; it's time for this primitive standard to evolve to more intelligent, intuitive design.
>
> And, of course, what's intuitive is one long, endless line, stretching
> off into the infinite distance, requiring newsreaders to wrap it
> because you are unable to deduce how to use the "enter" key.
I use the Enter key just fine, actually; it's my newsreader that doesn't force linefeeds after a short (relative to most screen widths) line length. Get over it, chummer. Learn to think outside your subatomic box.
Gregor
Longer lines make it virtually impossible to do any type of speed
reading. If you start a trend with this crap, I will personally shoot
you in the kneecaps.
Eep²
> Michael Hayden <mha...@tsoft.com> writes:
> : In article <38B4A79B...@tnlc.com>,
> : =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> : > Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap
> : > to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off at
> : > some antiquated ASCII-based newsreader's (can we say DOS and UNIX? ugh!)
> : > outdated design. It's time to go GUI, ASCII
> : > rejects-who-refuse-to-evolve-with-the-rest-of-newsreader-development.
> : > I'll never go back. >
>
> : *plonk*
>
> Which really just about says it all. Presumably, one goes through the
> effort of posting to Usenet in order to have other people read one's
> posts.
>
> Why on earth would someone post in a method guaranteed to piss off hordes
> of potential readers? Because he enjoys the hollow, echoing sound of his
> address being dumped into killfiles across the land?
>
> Less than 80 lines. If you don't like it, fine. Don't like it. But
> comply with it. Failure to comply doesn't make a big statement about
> "evolution" or the technological advancement from ASCII-based to GUI-based
> software, or anything like that. The simple fact is that there is
> *nothing* you could possibly say that is so interesting or important that
> it justifies my wasting a single iota of my time in order to decipher it.
> As evidenced by the above *plonk*, a lot of other folks feel the same way.
>
> So if you really want ultra-long lines, feel free to use them. Just
> understand that noone will ever read your posts. In due time, you'll be
> able to save yourself that 20 bucks a month for an internet connection,
> and just sit around writing notes to yourself.
>
> Go ahead and use rot-13 if it makes you feel more advanced.
Looks like I need to make a web page that addresses all these tired, old, rehashed issues. I've been doing this for YEARS (like since '97) and it's a good way to weed out twits like you who can't expand beyond their own narrow-minded mentality. <shrug> When YOU filter ME it saves ME from having to filter YOU. Thanks! You don't realize how easily manipulated you are. :D Drive through, sport!
Eep²
Then people see my sig (since they don't always see my organization header which explains this whole linewrapping thing to more depth) and realize "Golly-gee-jo-Jimney-Crickets! Perhaps I should wrap mah lines sos Is cans reads dis ting! Ahyuk! <slap knee...and miss>". <roll eyes>
Eep²
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:06:59 -0800, Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >"L.J. Wischik" wrote:
> >
> >> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >> >Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap
> >> >to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off
> >>
> >> Never. Any more than 12 words per line is harder to read and bad design.
> >> This isn't some 'relative' thing. It is an objective truth about page
> >> layout, known by printers and publishers and writers for centuries, and
> >> backed up by empirical tests. Anything that encourages longer lines
> >> (*you*) is wrong, and bad, and unhelpful.
> >
> >Then you can always resize your GUI newsreader's window to however narrow you want. Plus, well-programmed newsreaders will allow incoming messages to be arbitrarily wrapped to whatever line length you like--simple. This gives control to the receiver AND sender vs the sender only. Better living through better-programmed software.
> >
> >Oh and no more than 12 words per line is most indeedly deedly relative. What's 12 if not relative to other numbers? :) What's a line if not relative to other shapes? :D It's ALL relative. Period.
> >
> >I can read "long" lines just fine...why aren't essays, white papers, etc, etc, etc arbitrarily chopped to thin widths, then, eh? I've never had a teacher tell me to make my essays in column format!
> >
> >Oh and wrong, bad, and unhelpful are also relative. I think longer line encouragement is right, good, and VERY helpful. :) Wee...
>
> Longer lines make it virtually impossible to do any type of speed
> reading. If you start a trend with this crap, I will personally shoot
> you in the kneecaps.
Um, speed/time and distance are relative. Doesn't matter if your eyes are flying horizontally or vertically, you can speedread in more than one dimension, silly cow. :)
Gregor
>Gregor wrote:
*snip*
>> Longer lines make it virtually impossible to do any type of speed
>> reading. If you start a trend with this crap, I will personally shoot
>> you in the kneecaps.
>
>Um, speed/time and distance are relative. Doesn't matter if your eyes are flying horizontally or vertically, you can speedread in more than one dimension, silly cow. :)
It does matter actually. Classic speed reading takes in entire
sentences all at once. Yours are far too long for this procedure.
The eyes don't have to "fly" at all, it's a comfortable way to read
many times faster.
ajtanwar
<btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Oooh! You've been doing this since *1997*? Wow, imagine
that. *You've*
>been annoying countless folks with your self-important twaddle
for almost
>*3 whole years*?
Can I get an amen from the congregation? :-)
AMEN!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Geoff Black
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:38B4A79B...@tnlc.com...
> Geoff Black wrote:
>
> > Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > Wrap the lines yourself relative to your screen's width. Might help
> > > to read my sig and organization header, too.
> >
> > Seems I made a bit of a friend here. Last try. It is not about
display, it
> > is about quoting your text in a way that others can tell that it is your
> > quoted text.
> >
> > >Make it easier for people and they STILL bitch...
> >
> > Easier to read, maybe. Much harder to quote.
>
> Sufficient to quote; simply leave a blank quoted line after the quoted
text. <shrug> Like you did here:
>
> > >just can't seem to teach people how to be efficient. <shrug> Perhaps I
> > should write a dissertation (or something) on the efficiency of unforced
> > line lengths.
> > >
> >
> > A bit of convenience for everyone. But of course if you can't be
> > inconvenienced to actually follow the convention, I 'pose that I'll just
> > have to live with it or not as the case may be.
>
antiquated ASCII-based newsreader's (can we say DOS and UNIX? ugh!) outdated
design. It's time to go GUI, ASCII
rejects-who-refuse-to-evolve-with-the-rest-of-newsreader-development. I'll
never go back.
>
Bye.
Geoffrey
Eep²
Gregor wrote:
--
Eep²
With that stated, welcome to my filter. :)
Brian Trosko wrote:
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> writes:
>
> [More than 40 lines of extraneous text, snipped.]
>
> : > Go ahead and use rot-13 if it makes you feel more advanced.
>
> : Looks like I need to make a web page that addresses all these tired, old, rehashed issues. I've been doing this for YEARS (like since '97)
>
> Oooh! You've been doing this since *1997*? Wow, imagine that. *You've*
> been annoying countless folks with your self-important twaddle for almost
> *3 whole years*?
>
> Listen up, wankstain, and listen good. The internet as a whole and Usenet
> in particular function by consensus. There are documents that specify
> message formats for Usenet. These documents specify ASCII. Not HTML.
> Not MIME-encoded crap. And not the infinite-line length spittle that
> constantly drools from your slackened and gaping oral orifice. These
> rules were drawn up by people who know a hell of a lot more about
> computers that you will ever know, even if someone ever manages to cram an
> entire VT100 terminal right up your little brown pucker.
>
> Since 1997. What's even more of a laugh then the fact that you actually
> used that number to demonstrate your longevity is the fact that you
> seriously expected it to impress anyone. I first connected to the net on
> a friggin' C-64 with a blazing 300bps modem. And no, that's not intended
> to impress anyone, let alone the folks I know who interfaced by
> sneakernet. It's just a little fact to demonstrate that your experience
> and longevity are about as hard to come by as a sprack-stained seat at a
> porno theater. Some people *lurk* for longer than you've been around, you
> shitheeled punk.
>
> You want USENET to be non-standard, non-ASCII, and cluttered by overly
> long lines? Fine. You write up the new set of protocols and RFCs, and
> persuade people to use them. Until then, your severely retarded ravings
> have all the import and weight of a stale bean fart in a hurricane.
>
> And that's what really bugs you. It's that nobody gives a flying fuck at
> a rolling inner tube what you think, or what you have to say. So you want
> yourself to get noticed. So you do insipid, annoying things like neglect
> line length limitations, and ignore the fact that you could have trimmed
> over 40 lines of text from your followup without impacting the content of
> your post one single bit. You want to be important, but you can't, so
> you'll settle for being *different* in an ignorant, annoying, asshole sort
> of way.
>
> *Bzzt*. We still don't care about what you think or what you have to say.
> 3L!T3 D00DZ like yourself are, essentially, the scum that grows on the
> inside of the cybertoilet.
>
> So you write all the web pages you think you need to write to explain why
> your views are correct. And I'll just bet that your HTML is full of
> atrocious markup, buggy java, and 15 different frames, with <font> and
> <color> tags abounding all over the place, a complete lack of <alt> tags,
> and will break browsers from Lynx to Opera.
>
> And just like your Usenet posts, nobody will *still* care what you have to
> say, 'cause nobody'll take the time to read it.
Eep²
"Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind..." wrote:
> In the swirling mists of history, on Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:22:55 -0800,
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >I use the Enter key just fine, actually; it's my newsreader that doesn't force linefeeds after a short (relative to most screen widths) line length. Get over it, chummer. Learn to think outside your subatomic box.
>
> It doesn't? Wow. You should really get with it and find a more
> sophisticated newsreader, so the rest of us aren't inconvenienced by
> your obnoxious posting style. Get with it, man!
Nexus
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Gregor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:06:59 -0800, Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"L.J. Wischik" wrote:
>> >
>> >> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>> >> >Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap
>> >> >to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off
>> >>
>> >> Never. Any more than 12 words per line is harder to read and bad design.
>> >> This isn't some 'relative' thing. It is an objective truth about page
>> >> layout, known by printers and publishers and writers for centuries, and
>> >> backed up by empirical tests. Anything that encourages longer lines
>> >> (*you*) is wrong, and bad, and unhelpful.
>> >
>> >Then you can always resize your GUI newsreader's window to however narrow you want. Plus, well-programmed newsreaders will allow incoming messages to be arbitrarily wrapped to whatever line length you like--simple. This gives control to the receiver AND sender vs the sender only. Better living through better-programmed software.
>> >
>> >Oh and no more than 12 words per line is most indeedly deedly relative. What's 12 if not relative to other numbers? :) What's a line if not relative to other shapes? :D It's ALL relative. Period.
>> >
>> >I can read "long" lines just fine...why aren't essays, white papers, etc, etc, etc arbitrarily chopped to thin widths, then, eh? I've never had a teacher tell me to make my essays in column format!
>> >
>> >Oh and wrong, bad, and unhelpful are also relative. I think longer line encouragement is right, good, and VERY helpful. :) Wee...
>>
>> Longer lines make it virtually impossible to do any type of speed
>> reading. If you start a trend with this crap, I will personally shoot
>> you in the kneecaps.
>
>Um, speed/time and distance are relative. Doesn't matter if your eyes are flying horizontally or vertically, you can speedread in more than one dimension, silly cow. :)
>
Silly cow yourself - you don't know how speedreading works. Your eyes
don't fly along a line of words but take them in as groups. It is
much easier to take in a sentence spread along two shorter lines, than
spread along one line. Your eyes find it much easier to focus on a
block of words than a line of words.
Brian Trosko
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>I use the Enter key just fine, actually; it's my newsreader that doesn't force linefeeds after a short (relative to most screen widths) line length. Get over it, chummer. Learn to think outside your subatomic box.
It doesn't? Wow. You should really get with it and find a more
sophisticated newsreader, so the rest of us aren't inconvenienced by
your obnoxious posting style. Get with it, man!
--
RickSchneider
years now, and never had any urge to get involved in a flamewar
til now.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:02:41 -0800, Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Simon Juncal wrote:
>
>> Eep² wrote:
>> > You are. Ever heard of wordwrap? No? Try linewrap. Don't act so helpless, please; you're looking like a complete newsreader and word processor/text editor newbie.
>>
>> Except the standard everyone else has, for good (and long standing)
>> reason's. The net is composed of millions of systems, and a vast
>> variety of standards.
>
>Standards change; it's time for this primitive standard to evolve to more intelligent, intuitive design.
Who decides what standards should change, and when? Is it you? If so
we need to talk, there are a lot more important standards to change
than the length of a line on a usenet post. Also, who decides what is
more intelligent and intuitive?
>> You're not only alone in your wacky line
>> wraping/variable font religious crusade, you're making yourself
>> look rather mentally unbalanced and utterly obtuse; by accusing
>> _others_ of being usenet newbies.
>
>I know of at least one other person who has come to my defense of screen-width line lengths. I only acuse the utterly stupid dumbshit twits who can't figure out how to turn on line/word wrap. Duh.
So there are 2 of you. Anybody else? Let's have a show of hands. To
be completely honest, I really haven't seen much public support for
your cause. If there is anybody else out there who agrees with long
lines, please come forward and help me understand why this is good.
(SNIP)
People don't want your version of efficiency. I understand that
you don't care, and you think everyone is a primitive twit hiding
from progress. But lines stretching off into the distance is not
efficient, and for many of us it's simply broken. People like nice
truncated lines, laid out in easy to read blocks. It's easier on the
eyes and easier to comprehend. 80 characters per line, with
clearly defined paragraphs. That's why we have the current
standard, if people wanted otherwise, this evolution you speak
of would have already happened.
So why do you bother with this crusade when it clearly bugs
the snot out of the entire usenet population minus you and
one other unknown supporter? My own guess is that it began
as a "cool" way of being different or "superior" to the masses
around you. But when confronted with so much opposition it
became a crusade. You can't back down, because then we'd
all be right and you'd be wrong. Can't lose face, instead blame
everyone else and insist that they need to reconfigure their
own newsreader because of a single poster's style.
But in the end people will just ignore you. Until the next time
somebody speaks up and suggests that you make your
posts easier to read, then you say "Here we go again" and
the cycle starts over.
Just think, I bet this entire post would have fit on one page
if I didn't stop at 70 characters per line!
Krud
>
> It does matter actually. Classic speed reading takes in entire
>sentences all at once. Yours are far too long for this procedure.
>The eyes don't have to "fly" at all, it's a comfortable way to read
>many times faster.
That's true. That's wat I lerned at the Evelyn Wud Sped Reding Corse.
-Krud
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Ah, Twitoria, it seems my filter has not caught up to your old posts yet. Rest assured your new ones will be filtered indeed. Now then, to still your anxiousness as to my newsreader configuration (seems to be the hot topic of the week), it is set to wrap lines at the highest setting (99999 characters). Attempt to extrapolate that next time so I do not have to be bothered to make you look like more of a fool than you already are, eh? Thanks. Toodles...
Blah blah blah BLAH, blah blah BLAH, blah blah blah. Anyone else get
the impression that you're watching somebody stand in a corner and
talk to himself when you read his posts?
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
"Geoff Black" <gbl...@nwrain.nospam.com> wrote:
>Being a jerk is relative. You appear to be a relatively big one.
Relatively speaking, of course.
Doctor Tongue
Enough already! This horrible caricature coupled with your previous use of
the words "shiznit" and "toodles" leave me no choice. Your rhetoric is as
empty as your "cause."
P.S. When you graduate from stupid school, make sure to change your ISP so I
can see how you're progressing. Good luck!
bur...@cf.ac.uk
<e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Brian Trosko wrote:
>
>> Michael Hayden <mha...@tsoft.com> writes:
>> : In article <38B4A79B...@tnlc.com>,
>> : =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>
>> : > Convenience is relative. I think it's more convenient to have lines wrap
>> : > to the FULL window width instead of being arbitrarily chopped off at
>> : > some antiquated ASCII-based newsreader's (can we say DOS and UNIX? ugh!)
>> : > outdated design. It's time to go GUI, ASCII
>> : > rejects-who-refuse-to-evolve-with-the-rest-of-newsreader-development.
>> : > I'll never go back. >
>>
>> : *plonk*
>>
>> Which really just about says it all. Presumably, one goes through the
>> effort of posting to Usenet in order to have other people read one's
>> posts.
>>
>> Why on earth would someone post in a method guaranteed to piss off hordes
>> of potential readers? Because he enjoys the hollow, echoing sound of his
>> address being dumped into killfiles across the land?
>>
>> Less than 80 lines. If you don't like it, fine. Don't like it. But
>> comply with it. Failure to comply doesn't make a big statement about
>> "evolution" or the technological advancement from ASCII-based to GUI-based
>> software, or anything like that. The simple fact is that there is
>> *nothing* you could possibly say that is so interesting or important that
>> it justifies my wasting a single iota of my time in order to decipher it.
>> As evidenced by the above *plonk*, a lot of other folks feel the same way.
>>
>> So if you really want ultra-long lines, feel free to use them. Just
>> understand that noone will ever read your posts. In due time, you'll be
>> able to save yourself that 20 bucks a month for an internet connection,
>> and just sit around writing notes to yourself.
>>
>> Go ahead and use rot-13 if it makes you feel more advanced.
>
>Looks like I need to make a web page that addresses all these tired, old, rehashed issues. I've been doing this
>for YEARS (like since '97)
Even entering into discussion with this person is below me. But it
made me cough when he said he's been doing it for years - like since
1997. That's years? Jees, I must be one OLD man then.
I have no other interest in this discussion as the person is obviously
intellectually inferior to the majority of us, and I don't generally
correspond with monkies.
sbd
Mountain Kodiak
>Gregor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:06:59 -0800, Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Longer lines make it virtually impossible to do any type of speed
>> reading. If you start a trend with this crap, I will personally shoot
>> you in the kneecaps.
>
>Um, speed/time and distance are relative. Doesn't matter if your eyes are flying horizontally or vertically, you can speedread in more than one dimension, silly cow. :)
Thank you for the smiley, I thought you were seriously arguing this
point for a second. Reading in general is severely hampered as the
text formatting becomes very wide. This is because your eyes have
more trouble determining the correct line to "start over from" after
finishing a previous line.
--mK
Wishing *I* could "speedread in more than one dimension"
noman
ri...@ziplink.net (RickSchneider) wrote:
>>> Eep² wrote:
>>
>>I know of at least one other person who has come to my defense
>>of screen-width line lengths. I only acuse the utterly stupid
>>dumbshit twits who can't figure out how to turn on line/word
>>wrap. Duh.
>
>So there are 2 of you. Anybody else? Let's have a show of hands.
>support for your cause. If there is anybody else out there who
>agrees with long lines, please come forward and help me
>understand why this is good.
I don't think you understand what eep's saying. And that goes
for half of the people arguing with him. Maybe it's because
they can't read his posts properly :)
Here's the bottom-line,
* The issue is NOT longer lines
* The issue is window-width lines, and yes I do think it's a
great idea. If the text on *your* side wraps around the window
size *you* choose, there won't be any horizontal scroll bars.
* eep's point that ASCII newsreaders should evolve to handle
long lines and *especially* the replies (quotes) to such auto
formatted lines, is perfectly valid and logical IMO. It can
be done very easily and transparently, even with ASCII based
newsreaders.
I don't like Captain Bandwith's manner of arguing, but that's
a different matter altogether.
--
Noman
Josef Drexler
> In article <38b608af...@news2.ziplink.net>, ri...@ziplink.net
> (RickSchneider) wrote:
>>So there are 2 of you. Anybody else? Let's have a show of hands. Tobe
>>completely honest, I really haven't seen much public support for your
>>cause. If there is anybody else out there who agrees with long lines,
>>please come forward and help me understand why this is good.
>
> I don't think you understand what eep's saying. And that goes for half of
> the people arguing with him. Maybe it's because they can't read his posts
> properly :)
>
> Here's the bottom-line,
>
> * The issue is NOT longer lines
> * The issue is window-width lines, and yes I do think it's a great idea.
> If the text on *your* side wraps around the window size *you* choose,
> there won't be any horizontal scroll bars.
> * eep's point that ASCII newsreaders should evolve to handle long lines
> and *especially* the replies (quotes) to such auto formatted lines, is
> perfectly valid and logical IMO. It can be done very easily and
> transparently, even with ASCII based newsreaders.
>
> I don't like Captain Bandwith's manner of arguing, but that's a different
> matter altogether.
And you know what, I agree with you that it would be better that way. It's
generally better to compose documents from paragraphs and not from lines.
But, the point is that right now, this breaks far too many newsreaders.
If you want this to happen, you can't just go ahead and do it yourself,
as is shown by the comments towards Eep.
You have to actively support change, maybe by founding a group of coders,
maybe by contacting the companies making commercial newsreaders, and most
certainly by discussing it in the appropriate news.* group. Note that I
said discussing, and not just complaining.
If he just goes ahead, and completely ignores the complaints about problems
he's causing countless other people, it just makes him a twit. He doesn't
want to solve the problem, he wants the world to solve it for him instead.
And anyway, if everybody keeps to the 80 char limit, you can set your font
size such that the lines fill your window and never have a problem again.
Or you can set it to 40 chars per line if you like and get two lines from
each original one. You might even be able to get a newsreader which
automatically de-wraps quoted lines (like mine does - see your quotes and
compare with what they looked like before) so that they again fill your
window no matter what preferences the other participants have - provided
that followups conform to the standard again and are properly wrapped.
And I must say this, if his real goal is to piss off as many people as
possible, he may well succeed by what he's doing. If his goal is to
improve usenet and newsreaders, trying to force it down other people's
throats is not the way to go.
Fortunately that is not a problem, because I've yet to see a positive
contribution from him, so that filtering him is a good compromise. If
there ever is something worth seeing, I'm sure it'll get replies which
makes it visible again.
--
Josef Drexler | http://publish.uwo.ca/~jdrexler/
---------------------------------+----------------------------------------
Please help Conserve Gravity | To email me, please change the country
Don't do push ups | code to .ca - Death to Spammers!
ajtanwar
per line is that when quoting, the ">" characters that denote
the quoted text no longer appear correctly on other people's
readers when replying. Apparently, this does not phase Eep,
since he doesn't know the rules of quoting either.
Doug Jacobs
> I'm curious as to what reader your using.
Netscape's, of course. It's about the only one that still insists on
being this broken. Most people that use it have figured out how to fix
Netscape's ignorance of the RFCs. This guy, on the other hand, seems to
revel in broken software.
Joel Mack
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
noman <no_m_an...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>* The issue is NOT longer lines
>* The issue is window-width lines, and yes I do think it's a
>great idea. If the text on *your* side wraps around the window
>size *you* choose, there won't be any horizontal scroll bars.
>* eep's point that ASCII newsreaders should evolve to handle
>long lines and *especially* the replies (quotes) to such auto
>formatted lines, is perfectly valid and logical IMO. It can
>be done very easily and transparently, even with ASCII based
>newsreaders.
I think everyone is aware of what his argument is. We're also aware
that window length lines are obnoxious and harder to read then the
standard format. Especially on large monitors. Maybe if you've got a
14 incher, it's no problem, but if you've got a 21 inch or larger
monitor, believe me, at 1240x760, screen length lines are a pain in
the ass.
People dislike him because, aside from his microscopically short fuse
and snide egotism, he disregards convention and the convenience of the
people trying to read his lines for an inane and pathetic crusade,
accomplishing nothing but records for swiftest entry into killfiles.
Gregor
>Well, gee then, Gregor-sport, you simply don't have to read my posts then do ya? Uh nope! Drive through, putzboy! Go speedreadfreak someone else's posts!
What? You don't speed read? Man, think outside the
one...word...at......a........time box!!! You just can't evolve.
Get over it. You're filtered. I've been on the net since 1907.
>
>Gregor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:36:09 -0800, Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Gregor wrote:
>> >> Longer lines make it virtually impossible to do any type of speed
>> >> reading. If you start a trend with this crap, I will personally shoot
>> >> you in the kneecaps.
>> >
>> >Um, speed/time and distance are relative. Doesn't matter if your eyes are flying horizontally or vertically, you can speedread in more than one dimension, silly cow. :)
>>
noman
Quat...@bellsouth.net (Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er,
Nevermind...) wrote:
>In the swirling mists of history, on Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:49:16
-0800,
>noman <no_m_an...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>* The issue is NOT longer lines
>>* The issue is window-width lines, and yes I do think it's a
>>great idea. If the text on *your* side wraps around the window
>>size *you* choose, there won't be any horizontal scroll bars.
>>* eep's point that ASCII newsreaders should evolve to handle
>>long lines and *especially* the replies (quotes) to such auto
>>formatted lines, is perfectly valid and logical IMO. It can
>>be done very easily and transparently, even with ASCII based
>>newsreaders.
>
>
>I think everyone is aware of what his argument is. We're also
>aware that window length lines are obnoxious and harder to
>read then the standard format. Especially on large monitors.
>Maybe if you've got a 14 incher, it's no problem, but if you've
>got a 21 inch or larger monitor, believe me, at 1240x760,
>screen length lines are a pain in the ass.
It's window-length we are talking about, not
monitor's screen length.
The idea is that the newsreaders should wrap the lines around
the text frame window. No matter what's the length
of Captain Bandwith's text lines, you'd see it the way
you want it.
It's a perfectly fine idea. The general obnoxiousness of
Captain Bandwidth's posts, I ignore.
--
Noman
PS: My apologies, that I had to quote the entire post.
Eep²
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:36:09 -0800, Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> >Gregor wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:06:59 -0800, Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Longer lines make it virtually impossible to do any type of speed
> >> reading. If you start a trend with this crap, I will personally shoot
> >> you in the kneecaps.
> >
> >Um, speed/time and distance are relative. Doesn't matter if your eyes are flying horizontally or vertically, you can speedread in more than one dimension, silly cow. :)
>
> Thank you for the smiley, I thought you were seriously arguing this
> point for a second.
The smiley doesn't cancel out the argument, silly cow. :) I was simply making fun of Gregor's speedreading definition as being limited to just one dimension. Humans don't have to be so limited.
> Reading in general is severely hampered as the
> text formatting becomes very wide. This is because your eyes have
> more trouble determining the correct line to "start over from" after
> finishing a previous line.
Whose eyes? Mine? Nope. Yours? I guess so. Everyone elses? I doubt it. Don't generalize my and everyone else's poor eyesight with that of your own, please.
Eep²
> In article <38b608af...@news2.ziplink.net>,
> ri...@ziplink.net (RickSchneider) wrote:
> >>> Eep˛ wrote:
> >>
> >>I know of at least one other person who has come to my defense
> >>of screen-width line lengths. I only acuse the utterly stupid
> >>dumbshit twits who can't figure out how to turn on line/word
> >>wrap. Duh.
> >
> >So there are 2 of you. Anybody else? Let's have a show of hands.
> >Tobe completely honest, I really haven't seen much public
> >support for your cause. If there is anybody else out there who
> >agrees with long lines, please come forward and help me
> >understand why this is good.
>
> I don't think you understand what eep's saying. And that goes
> for half of the people arguing with him. Maybe it's because
> they can't read his posts properly :)
>
> Here's the bottom-line,
>
> * The issue is NOT longer lines
> * The issue is window-width lines, and yes I do think it's a
> great idea. If the text on *your* side wraps around the window
> size *you* choose, there won't be any horizontal scroll bars.
> * eep's point that ASCII newsreaders should evolve to handle
> long lines and *especially* the replies (quotes) to such auto
> formatted lines, is perfectly valid and logical IMO. It can
> be done very easily and transparently, even with ASCII based
> newsreaders.
>
> I don't like Captain Bandwith's manner of arguing, but that's
> a different matter altogether.
Thanks for the support! Sheesh...tough crowd...
Eep²
> And Lo! It was upon the 25 Feb 2000 that noman said unto the world:
The only reason I defend my actions as much as I do is because people have been challenging them ever since I started this whole linewrapping thing. If you people would simply LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE about your inadequate handlings of your newsreaders (by not doing something so simple as enabling line/word wrap), I wouldn't have to make such a big deal about this, making some of you attempt to psychoanalyze my behaviour just because I stick up for what I think is the better way which goes against the so-called status quo. WELL GET OVER IT, PEEPS! I should've just did what I said I'd do from then on and simply not reply to posts about this issue, and let people hang on their own incompetence. Oh well...try to be cordial and give people a chance to understand why one does something and they jump all over you. Pathetic...
Eep²
ajtanwar wrote:
> The problem with the reader determining the number of characters
> per line is that when quoting, the ">" characters that denote
> the quoted text no longer appear correctly on other people's
> readers when replying. Apparently, this does not phase Eep,
> since he doesn't know the rules of quoting either.
--
Eep²
Doug Jacobs wrote:
--
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
noman <no_m_an...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <JAy3OJZ3x0fjT7...@4ax.com>,
>Quat...@bellsouth.net (Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er,
>Nevermind...) wrote:
>>In the swirling mists of history, on Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:49:16
>-0800,
>>noman <no_m_an...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>* The issue is NOT longer lines
>>>* The issue is window-width lines, and yes I do think it's a
>>>great idea. If the text on *your* side wraps around the window
>>>size *you* choose, there won't be any horizontal scroll bars.
>>>* eep's point that ASCII newsreaders should evolve to handle
>>>long lines and *especially* the replies (quotes) to such auto
>>>formatted lines, is perfectly valid and logical IMO. It can
>>>be done very easily and transparently, even with ASCII based
>>>newsreaders.
>>
>>
>>I think everyone is aware of what his argument is. We're also
>>aware that window length lines are obnoxious and harder to
>>read then the standard format. Especially on large monitors.
>>Maybe if you've got a 14 incher, it's no problem, but if you've
>>got a 21 inch or larger monitor, believe me, at 1240x760,
>>screen length lines are a pain in the ass.
>
>It's window-length we are talking about, not
>monitor's screen length.
Please don't nitpick. Obviously the lines are not going to extend
outside the window of your newsreader if you don't have it maximized,
or if you have, for whatever reason, got your message browsing window
less then maximized.
>It's a perfectly fine idea. The general obnoxiousness of
>Captain Bandwidth's posts, I ignore.
It seems utterly pointless to me. Be that as it may, I don't give two
fucks about the IDEA. What I find obnoxious and inane is crEep's
decision to implement it by attempting to shove his endless lines down
our throats and insulting everyone who attempts to dissuade him from
his mind-bogglingly insignificant crusade.
Simon Juncal
>
> Zan Thrax <ZanT...@home.moc> wrote:
>
> > I'm curious as to what reader your using.
>
> Netscape's, of course. It's about the only one that still insists on
> being this broken. Most people that use it have figured out how to fix
> Netscape's ignorance of the RFCs. This guy, on the other hand, seems to
> revel in broken software.
Actually netscape provides a line length marker (adjustable), a
decent spell checker, and decent filtering (especially for mail)
As well as the ability to turn off any features that would annoy
people. It just appears that the line length preacher has chosen
not to in his crusade to be plonked and flamed by as many people
as possible.
Personally I use NS's reader out of habit, due to familiarity
with it's email.
--
Simon co List Admin Capi...@his.com
Aka Alhazred
http://capitals.washington.dc.us/
http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/