WISH, view header should work.
Dave Bird
Why, oh why, oh why, oh why, can I not just simply view the header
when I am editing an outgoing message (e.g. to put the message I/D
into a log or record I'm keeping of the debate)... rather than have
to post and go to OutTray in order to get round what appears
to be a designed-in bug (i.e. someone has done extra work to
make the program function less effectively)?
I appreciate that those lines of the window would be non-editable,
but that seems to be what is needed rather than disabling a useful
function non-uniformly between windows.
--
^-^-^-@@-^-;-^ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
(..)__u news:alt.smoking.mooses
John Underwood
(Reference: <8BbNVHFAM3D6Ew$G...@xemu.demon.co.uk>)
>Why, oh why, oh why, oh why, can I not just simply view the header when
>I am editing an outgoing message (e.g. to put the message I/D into a
>log or record I'm keeping of the debate)... rather than have to post
>and go to OutTray in order to get round what appears to be a
>designed-in bug (i.e. someone has done extra work to make the program
>function less effectively)?
Because when you are editing an outgoing message there aren't any
headers other than those you can see at that time. The other headers,
including the message ID are put on when it is posted - and added to at
every stage of its transmission, including the actual time it leaves
your system.
The only way to see the headers is to post the message. If you want to
change anything in the message you are, in effect, creating a new
message which has the same headers as when you create and then edit a
new message.
--
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to jo...@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
Paul Terry
>Why, oh why, oh why, oh why, can I not just simply view the header
>when I am editing an outgoing message (e.g. to put the message I/D
>into a log or record I'm keeping of the debate)...
If you could you would discover that there is no message ID to view.
It is not added until the message is posted.
--
Paul Terry
Dave Bird
>On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 at 04:50:08, Dave Bird wrote:
>>
>>Why, oh why, oh why, oh why, can I not just simply view the header when
>>I am editing an outgoing message (e.g. to put the message I/D into a
>>and go to OutTray in order to get round what appears to be a
>>designed-in bug (i.e. someone has done extra work to make the program
>>function less effectively)?
>
>Because when you are editing an outgoing message there aren't any headers other
>than those you can see at that time. The other headers, including the message ID
>are put on when it is posted - and added to at every stage of its transmission,
>including the actual time it leaves your system.
>The only way to see the headers is to post the message. If you want to change
>anything in the message you are, in effect, creating a new message which has the
>same headers as when you create and then edit a new message.
OK, I can see why there are difficulties in principle doing
what I propose. What I am thinking of is that it would be nice
to pull down a blue vertical divider and see the headers -- yes,
I suppose that means post a preliminary version or at least
create a post-able version so that it has headers.
This may even mean that the body of the message is greyed out
or inaccessible when you are changing things which may change
the header e.g. "Lines:".
I can see it is more difficult than I had thought, and requires
a whole different approach, to merge edit more closely with
(pre-)view finished post in general.
A long way short of this would be if I can see as well as
Subject and To or News, also the References (these help for remail)
plus the Message I/D (this helps for newsgroup logging).
A halfway house would be if "Sign message[x] always[x]" were brought
out of the Header Edit anyway.
Instead of the Subject + Groups or To+ (whoops!) Subject,
it would be nice if that looked a lot more like two real header
lines then you could pull down a box of even more header lines
got from "preview-posting" the article so far, with a few
of them shown to be alterable.
Dave Bird
<pa...@musonix.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <8BbNVHFAM3D6Ew$G...@xemu.demon.co.uk> Dave Bird wrote:
>
>>Why, oh why, oh why, oh why, can I not just simply view the header
>>when I am editing an outgoing message (e.g. to put the message I/D
>>into a log or record I'm keeping of the debate)...
>
>It is not added until the message is posted.
I suggest what is needed is a "post-preview" : the message is
created ready for posting, then there are headers we can view.
Dave Bird
Can anyone explain this? The article is marked (') requested
with a blue clock. When I further do Article|Request on it,
"The article is already available you can read it now"
and the article is launched.
But every time I download, it is requested again. The article
is the root of the thread and my follow-up is cross-posted
three groups. Come to think of it, the misbehaving article
may only be cross-posted two, not including the one where I
am reading it.
Hmm. The behaviour may be what was planned, but it IS
bizarre and hard to find the explanation of. I know this
is not the highest priority, but is there any way to make
it act more explicably and predictably? That is, if it is
only followed-up-to here but may be present in other groups,
then rather than just automatically marking it requested
could you please -- if the request can be satisfied immediately --
satisfy it immediately instead.
Sorry to ramble on; it took a few minutes to figure out
what was happening, why, and how to fix it.
John Underwood
(Reference: <tsAZuRCw...@xemu.demon.co.uk>)
> I suggest what is needed is a "post-preview" : the message is
> created ready for posting, then there are headers we can view.
Which would not be the same as when the message were posted. What use
would that be? Perhaps your request only makes sense in the original
(Latin) meaning of "post" - "post-pre" then shows quite clearly how
contradictory and nonsensical it is.
Dave Bird
<ne...@the-underwoods.org.uk> writes:
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 at 22:18:24, Dave Bird wrote in
>(Reference: <tsAZuRCw...@xemu.demon.co.uk>)
>
>> I suggest what is needed is a "post-preview" : the message is
>> created ready for posting, then there are headers we can view.
>
>Which would not be the same as when the message were posted. What use would that
>be? Perhaps your request only makes sense in the original (Latin) meaning of
>"post" - "post-pre" then shows quite clearly how contradictory and nonsensical
>it is.
No, there is nothing nonsensical about it. "Preview of posted article"
is what I meant. One can get the same thing by an awkward workaround,
posting the article then editing it in the out-tray. (I appreciate
that the "Date" and "Lines" fields may change). I'm merely seeking a
more straightforward command to achieve that same end. I cannot
see anything at all strange about that.
--
Dave Bird, an official ARS HakeMonger ><_'> <_"
(licensed to mung pelagic fish and clams of all kinds upon the Internet)
"If turbot be the food of hate, Lay on MacErrel and, by damn,
Cry HADDOCK and let loose the cods of war!" Wm Skatesfin
Wm ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
> No, there is nothing nonsensical about it. "Preview of posted article"
> is what I meant. One can get the same thing by an awkward workaround,
> posting the article then editing it in the out-tray. (I appreciate
> that the "Date" and "Lines" fields may change). I'm merely seeking a
> more straightforward command to achieve that same end. I cannot
> see anything at all strange about that.
I don't find it an "awkward workaround" to check an outgoing message. I
suggest you up the value of the delay before messages are actually sent.
You can easily over-ride this by using Connect's buttons if you feel you
need to send it sooner. The bit I find strange is wanting to record
details about outgoing messages when TP does this for you (I'll set
aside the delay between writing and sending in this thread).
--
Wm...
address valid for at least 31 days from date of posting
Dave Bird
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:11:29 <JKEwncBh$tE6...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>demon.ip.support.turnpike Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>
>> No, there is nothing nonsensical about it. "Preview of posted article"
>> is what I meant. One can get the same thing by an awkward workaround,
>> posting the article then editing it in the out-tray. (I appreciate
>> that the "Date" and "Lines" fields may change). I'm merely seeking a
>> more straightforward command to achieve that same end. I cannot
>> see anything at all strange about that.
>
>I don't find it an "awkward workaround" to check an outgoing message. I
>suggest you up the value of the delay before messages are actually sent.
It's awkward and unobvious compared to being able to view header
(i.e. preview the header of a mailed version) which is apparently
in the list of available commands but doesn't work.
>You can easily over-ride this by using Connect's buttons if you feel you
>need to send it sooner. The bit I find strange is wanting to record
>details about outgoing messages when TP does this for you
Ah. I've got a file with the tree information on a particular thread
including message I/Ds and brief comment info, the tree cut into
straight-line parts convenient for summarising the argument.
Obviously when I add to the end of a particular line of argument,
I want to log then (not later) what I put on that line.
Can you explain how Turnpike does this for me?
Wm ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
Wm:
>>I don't find it an "awkward workaround" to check an outgoing message. I
>>suggest you up the value of the delay before messages are actually sent.
>
> It's awkward and unobvious compared to being able to view header
> (i.e. preview the header of a mailed version) which is apparently
> in the list of available commands but doesn't work.
So?
>>You can easily over-ride this by using Connect's buttons if you feel you
>>need to send it sooner. The bit I find strange is wanting to record
>>details about outgoing messages when TP does this for you
>
> Ah. I've got a file with the tree information on a particular thread
> including message I/Ds and brief comment info, the tree cut into
> straight-line parts convenient for summarising the argument.
> Obviously when I add to the end of a particular line of argument,
> I want to log then (not later) what I put on that line.
>
> Can you explain how Turnpike does this for me?
Nope. But you have suggested earlier that you know a man who can.
Remember your enquiry regarding anonymous messages? A simple perl
script should do it if you'd bother to learn the language and stop
expecting your mail and news s/w to provide you with those facilities.
>--
Tut, tut, Dave.
Dave Bird
>Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:50:48 <t$PpaiHI0...@xemu.demon.co.uk> Dave Bird Wm:
>>>I don't find it an "awkward workaround" to check an outgoing message. I
>>>suggest you up the value of the delay before messages are actually sent.
>>
>> It's awkward and unobvious compared to being able to view header
>> (i.e. preview the header of a mailed version) which is apparently
>> in the list of available commands but doesn't work.
>
>So?
>
>>>You can easily over-ride this by using Connect's buttons if you feel you
>>>need to send it sooner. The bit I find strange is wanting to record
>>>details about outgoing messages when TP does this for you
>>
>> Ah. I've got a file with the tree information on a particular thread
>> including message I/Ds and brief comment info, the tree cut into
>> straight-line parts convenient for summarising the argument.
>> Obviously when I add to the end of a particular line of argument,
>> I want to log then (not later) what I put on that line.
>>
>> Can you explain how Turnpike does this for me?
>
>Nope. But you have suggested earlier that you know a man who can.
>Remember your enquiry regarding anonymous messages? A simple perl
>script should do it if you'd bother to learn the language and stop
>expecting your mail and news s/w to provide you with those facilities.
To be honest I wouldn't expect it to script every advanced
facility I want; but I do expect it to PROVIDE THE INFORMATION
NEEDED TO DO SO, CONVENIENTLY.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
John Underwood
(Reference: <262$LUCtyd...@xemu.demon.co.uk>)
>To be honest I wouldn't expect it to script every advanced
> facility I want; but I do expect it to PROVIDE THE INFORMATION
> NEEDED TO DO SO, CONVENIENTLY.
>
>
> |~/ |~/
>~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
>P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 |
>P
>O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 |
>O
>O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 |
>O
>L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______|
>L www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391
>F44F
I have taken Tweetypie out of my kill list thinking I might be treating
him unfairly - in that I might miss something useful from him.
Somehow, this particular bit of evidence rather suggests that I might
have got something wrong here.
Do you think we could have a rebuild of the Bird. I wouldn't expect it
to do all the advanced features I think are necessary (like think). But
it would expect it to provide the features we normally expect in a
sensibly built user. Learning how to trim and to avoid absurd and
overlong sigs would be a good start. Until then "Bye Bye Birdie".
John Hall
John Underwood <ne...@the-underwoods.org.uk> writes:
>Do you think we could have a rebuild of the Bird. I wouldn't expect it to do all
>the advanced features I think are necessary (like think). But it would expect it
>to provide the features we normally expect in a sensibly built user. Learning
>how to trim and to avoid absurd and overlong sigs would be a good start.
Since he has been using essentially the same sig, with only minor
variations, for something like five years now, I fear there is little
hope.
--
John Hall
"Take the tone of the company you are in."
The Earl of Chesterfield (1694-1773)
Andy
[]
>I have taken Tweetypie out of my kill list thinking I might be treating
>him unfairly - in that I might miss something useful from him.
>
>Somehow, this particular bit of evidence rather suggests that I might
>have got something wrong here.
>
--
Andy
For Austrian philately <URL: http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps/>
For Lupus <URL: http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/lupus/>
For my other interests <URL: http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/>
Dave Bird
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 at 01:34:37, Dave Bird wrote:
>>
>>To be honest I wouldn't expect it to script every advanced
>> facility I want; but I do expect it to PROVIDE THE INFORMATION
>> NEEDED TO DO SO, CONVENIENTLY.
>
>unfairly - in that I might miss something useful from him.
>Somehow, this particular bit of evidence rather suggests that I might have got
>something wrong here.
You have so much wrong with your absurd ultra conservatism
on technical matters that it's hard to know where to start;
but a sense of humour transplant, and surgery to remove
the broomstick from up your ass, might be a beginning.
Now have you anything to say concerning the SUBSTANCE of my
remarks that "it is reasonable T/P cannot script every kind
of extra advanced feature, so long as it conveniently
provides the information to do the externally" ?
If you find them absurd, they are not inherently and obviously
absurd, so you might explain w h y you find them absurd.
Dave Bird
>In article <jQXMt$DA9nF...@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk>, writes:
>>Do you think we could have a rebuild of the Bird. I wouldn't expect it to do
>all
>>the advanced features I think are necessary (like think). But it would expect
>it
>>to provide the features we normally expect in a sensibly built user. Learning
>>how to trim and to avoid absurd and overlong sigs would be a good start.
>
>Since he has been using essentially the same sig, with only minor
>variations, for something like five years now, I fear there is little
>hope.
I have variant signatures if you prefer them. I tend to use only
the 2 four-line ones, or the standard one, on d.i.s.t though.....
_____ | | / /
/ \ \ /
-- -| Duck! | \__ ____ /
\_____/ / \ / \ | Da...@xemu.demon.co.uk
/| / You \ / | \ \
/ |_\called?/__/ / | |_____________/////////
< |____\_______| | |(______________ ()
\ | \ / () | () | | \\\\\\\\\
\| | __|__ | |
_|___/___ \___ | | TWOING !!!
__---- ----__\---\_
/ __ | ______________________
\____-------------______/ \ / \
/ / / / _/ ---| hmm, it theemth |
/ \ / / / | i thlighly |
/ $ / / | mithtook |
/ / / | your meaning there, |
| | / | buthtah !!! |
\______________// \______________________/
\________/
Wm ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
> To be honest I wouldn't expect it to script every advanced
> facility I want; but I do expect it to PROVIDE THE INFORMATION
> NEEDED TO DO SO, CONVENIENTLY.
Surely all you need is a perl script that runs through exported messages
and allows you to add a comment? I can't see why TP should be to blame
if you can't remember what your comment might have been for the minute
or so between sending and exporting. You could keep the comment on the
clipboard I suppose.
>~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
More tuts.
Wm ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
>Don't be too harsh - he only brings it out when under stress.
Unlike a rash, Dave's .sigs under stress seem to be deliberate.
John Underwood
(Reference: <aL3kX4Ap...@xemu.demon.co.uk>)
> I have variant signatures if you prefer them. I tend to use only
> the 2 four-line ones, or the standard one, on d.i.s.t though.....
Oh, what have I done. I apologise profoundly to everyone for this
carelessness.
John Underwood
(Reference: <Y7YkrvAW...@xemu.demon.co.uk>)
>Now have you anything to say concerning the SUBSTANCE of my
> remarks that "it is reasonable T/P cannot script every kind
> of extra advanced feature, so long as it conveniently
> provides the information to do the externally" ?
I was considering the question you originally asked. How can you learn
the headings relating to the posting of a message before you have
actually posted it? This information is not available until you have
posted the message. Nothing can be done to change that.
This is not conservatism, just realism. The fact that Turnpike doesn't
happen to exist in your dream world may be a problem for you, the only
reason it is a problem for the rest of us is because you keep making an
idiot of yourself by suggesting that it should do.
(If I have misunderstood the intention of your original question, by the
way, have another look at it and, if you are capable of objective
judgement, see what your actually rather intentionally said).
Finally, before you start making categoric statements about other
people, find out a few facts. What do you actually know about my
attitudes and achievements in the technological arena? I don't propose
to demonstrate examples to disprove your thesis - show me where, other
than in suggesting that your ideas are
difficult/expensive/distracting/impossible I have shown anything but a
realistic attitude to the development of systems to meet the needs of
the users. You will need to investigate a number of my professional
areas of operation in order to produce a complete study.
While you are at it, perhaps you would like to give an example of one
system you have developed which has worked to the satisfaction of the
users for whom it was designed and which was produced within the
required budget and time scale.
Andy
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote
[]
> I have variant signatures if you prefer them.
Kind of you to ask, but not today, thanks.
John Hall
John Underwood <ne...@the-underwoods.org.uk> writes:
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 at 18:41:45, Dave Bird wrote in
>(Reference: <aL3kX4Ap...@xemu.demon.co.uk>)
>
>> I have variant signatures if you prefer them. I tend to use only
>> the 2 four-line ones, or the standard one, on d.i.s.t though.....
>
>Oh, what have I done. I apologise profoundly to everyone for this
>carelessness.
Me too.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)
Dave Bird
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Sat, 18 Nov 2000 15:55:46 <D2w9rLAC...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
>demon.ip.support.turnpike Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
>
>>Don't be too harsh - he only brings it out when under stress.
>
>Unlike a rash, Dave's .sigs under stress seem to be deliberate.
You mean, like, when people are annoying and deserve to be
annoyed back?
Dave Bird
<ne...@the-underwoods.org.uk> writes:
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 at 18:41:45, Dave Bird wrote in
>(Reference: <aL3kX4Ap...@xemu.demon.co.uk>)
>
>> I have variant signatures if you prefer them. I tend to use only
>> the 2 four-line ones, or the standard one, on d.i.s.t though.....
>
>Oh, what have I done. I apologise profoundly to everyone for this carelessness.
I could be wrong, but I don't think it was actually you who drew
the above response; in which case you have nothing to apologise for.
--
(o_.' _0) (o< -! _o) {o_ _d) lunchtime at the Bill & Fish
//\c{} /\\ //\ Y U <\\ //D /\\ _O) [fish saloon--all sorts of
V__)_:::_\_U:::V_/_::::^:::::::V_)_\_V_(\)::::::::::::fish sold here]
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/art/ penguins.html
Dave Bird
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 at 18:38:14, Dave Bird wrote:
>>
>>Now have you anything to say concerning the SUBSTANCE of my
>> remarks that "it is reasonable T/P cannot script every kind
>> of extra advanced feature, so long as it conveniently
>> provides the information to do the externally" ?
>
>I was considering the question you originally asked. How can you learn
>the headings relating to the posting of a message before you have
>actually posted it? This information is not available until you have
>posted the message. Nothing can be done to change that.
Obviously one of us misunderstands the situation here.
The message as finally bundled up and sent (in a file or
whatever) consists of two sections, headers and content.
=================================================================
The CONTENT is what I am looking at now at least that
much of it as has been finalised so far, presumably as
the String lines[] part of some editable window object.
There is also, elsewhere, information corresponding to the HEADERS.
That is information as to the subject, the newsgroups, the standard
organisation field, and so forth. This might be in a disparate
collection of variables. It might be a bunch of String lines[]
one of which is "Newsgroups: ....", one is "Subject: ....",
and so forth.
=================================================================
Now as far as I can see there is nothing written in tablets
of stone about when it changes from one to the other. A programmer
might say "it is convenient for me to write out the block of text
with those initial headers in before embarking on the content, and
make any amendments as we go along." He might say "I will assemble
that text when there is a specific need for it." He might say "I
have decided for efficiency not to assemble that information until
the message is actually sent." There is not "the only one possible
right answer", in the way that 2+2==4 is right and 2+2==5 is wrong;
though there may of course be a choice recommended as most efficient...
Still it is a CHOICE the designer is free to make.
Thus there is really no difference between:
(a) I have just launched on an empty message, I would like
to know what the headers are so far;
(b) I am halfway though the message, I would like
to know what the headers are so far;
(c) I have finished the message and have it ready to send, I would like
to know what the headers are so far.
If you post the message into the out-tray, at that point T/P has
c h o s e n to assemble a particular block of headers so far
and you can view the message including its headers.
All I am proposing is that, if someone thinks they would like to
view the headers so far during editing, a preview of the posted
object is created and he looks at that with the headers displayed.
In other words, that the above menu command calls functions
equivalent to posting the article and viewing the posted copy.
To get back to making changed, he would have to uncheck this view
option, of course [and that would call functions equivalent to
re-editing the posted article].
>
>This is not conservatism, just realism.
You say that my proposed solution is not merely undesirable
or ugly but that I have actually, out of ignorance how things work,
proposed an operation which is impossible to carry out. I explained
how, as best I know, it could be carried out. So which of us is right:
is my suggestion actually impossible to implement, or not? Is it even
very, very, very time consuming to implement so no reasonable developer
would ever choose to incorporate it? Or is it simply a matter of
taste and choice for the TP people as to "do I want to spend a week
making this minor improvement or leave things as they are".
[moved]
>I don't propose
>to demonstrate examples to disprove your thesis -
I wish you would for the above, as I cannot see why it should be
impossible. If you are fed up of trying to educate the ineducable
and there is a book or FAQ which, if I read it, would show me why
what I propose physically cannot be carried out, then point me
to that instead. It is after all not your fault if I don't know
something about e.g. databases which ought to tell me it is impossible.
>(If I have misunderstood the intention of your original question, by the
>way, have another look at it and, if you are capable of objective
>judgement, see what your actually rather intentionally said).
That is a mildly interesting historical point: if my question
was misunderstood, no doubt because not clearly expressed, well,
I have now explained my intentions more accurately.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Finally, before you start making categoric statements about other
>people, find out a few facts. What do you actually know about my
>attitudes and achievements in the technological arena?
Of your attitudes I only know I reckoned what I was here to
be extreme and exasperating conservatism. You are obviously
very intelligent; but why would that exclude extreme conservatism?
Of your actual skills and achievements I know nothing, although I
assume they might be considerable and never said otherwise; but
why would that exclude extreme conservatism either?
>show me where, other
>than in suggesting that your ideas are
>difficult/expensive/distracting/impossible
>I have shown anything but a
>realistic attitude to the development of systems
Do I really want to spend Sunday afternoon doing this? suffice
it to say that on several occasions I reckoned that you unreasonably
found things to be acceptable which were in need of fixing,
difficult which were relatively easy to do, not an improvement
where many people would reckon them to be an improvement, and so forth.
Bearing in mind that this *is* only a discussion medium,
and the owners of the product exercise reasonable discretion in
the final choice of what they would or would not take up.
Andy
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote
a coherent explanation of what he wants.
For what little it's worth, I do not want this feature. I don't mind if
Dave does, or even if he gets it, but I would prefer the limited
resources of TP to be devoted to other items first.
It's probably too late for TP6, but what about a non-binding-on-TP vote
on the items on their wish list, assuming that to be all of the
unprovided items WISHed for which are technically possible even if
commercially unattractive. Personally, I'd put an enhanced address book
fairly near the top.
Wm ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike John Hall <news_...@jhall.co.uk>
DaveB:
>>> I have variant signatures if you prefer them. I tend to use only
>>> the 2 four-line ones, or the standard one, on d.i.s.t though.....
JohnU:
>>Oh, what have I done. I apologise profoundly to everyone for this
>>carelessness.
>
>Me too.
It looks like JohnU's fault to me as it was in response to a message
from him that this thread's round of Dave's .sig silliness started.
JohnU is clearly a very naughty man because he wrote a posting that
caused Dave to choose a .sig without a valid sep. Obviously Dave was
unable to prevent that happening.
Wm ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
> Now have you anything to say concerning the SUBSTANCE of my
> remarks that "it is reasonable T/P cannot script every kind
> of extra advanced feature, so long as it conveniently
> provides the information to do the externally" ?
I thought I had addressed how to deal with this externally.
Wm ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
Wm:
>>Unlike a rash, Dave's .sigs under stress seem to be deliberate.
>
> You mean, like, when people are annoying and deserve to be
> annoyed back?
"deserve to be annoyed back" is an interesting turn of phrase.
Have you come out of the closet and admitted that you deliberately
change your .sig in order to annoy?
I suppose at the time of writing you think it will *only* annoy the
person that you are responding to. I would have thought you'd been
around long enough to know that wasn't the case.
Dave Bird
>In article <Sm928uEN...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird wrote:
>>[......]
>a coherent explanation of what he wants.
Andy, I had explained it very thoroughly by Tuesday (Was it only
five days ago? It seems so much... longer, somehow :-< ) :
In article<JKEwncBh$tE6...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird writes:
:In<eTCz9qAQ...@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk>, John Underwood writes:
::On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 at 22:18:24, Dave Bird wrote in:
:::
:::I suggest what is needed is a "post-preview" : the message is
:::created ready for posting, then there are headers we can view.
::
:: Which would not be the same as when the message were posted. What
:: use would that be? [.....]
:
:No, there is nothing nonsensical about it. "Preview of posted article"
:is what I meant. One can get the same thing by an awkward workaround,
:posting the article then editing it in the out-tray. (I appreciate
:that the "Date" and "Lines" fields may change). I'm merely seeking
:a more straightforward command to achieve that same end. I cannot
:see anything at all strange about that.
To put even more simply, IMO what we need is a checkbox on the subject
bar that slings us back and forth between edit versus preview.
If you ask to view-headers in edit, you get slung across into preview
with show-headers on. To be absolutely pedantic it might be called
"PREview headers" in that window.
Andy again:
>
>For what little it's worth, I do not want this feature. I don't mind if
>Dave does, or even if he gets it, but I would prefer the limited
>resources of TP to be devoted to other items first.
Well, fair enough, each to his own.
>It's probably too late for TP6, but what about a non-binding-on-TP vote
>on the items on their wish list, assuming that to be all of the
>unprovided items WISHed for which are technically possible even if
>commercially unattractive.
I think there would be too much of an underwood-vote that was just
against everything and perhaps does not represent the average user.
>Personally, I'd put an enhanced address book
>fairly near the top.
Me too. More important than previewing headers (more work though).
Dave Bird
>Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:41:32 <jEqaEXDc...@xemu.demon.co.uk> Dave Bird
>>Wm:
>>>
>>>Unlike a rash, Dave's .sigs under stress seem to be deliberate.
>>
>> annoyed back?
>
>"deserve to be annoyed back" is an interesting turn of phrase.
>Have you come out of the closet and admitted that you deliberately
>change your .sig in order to annoy?
Come out of the closet? come, come now.
For practical reasons I keep this as part of my usenet-usenet,
as it were, rather than programming-usenet or mailinglist-usenet.
With me so far??
But whenever I come into "British Usenet" I get this feeling,
you know. Everything's very cold. People creep round SLOWLY,
with cobwebs on their dinner jackets. Fog swirls in the corners.
It's like what Jarry said about the academician's funeral where
he couldn't tell which one was the corpse. If you have too much
red blood in your veins than a strange butler-like figure lurches
up to you and says "excuse me SIR, but your page format is wrong".
Zombies lurch up out of their graves and come up to you and tug
at your clothes muttering page-format wrong, page-format wrong,
in a way that suggests they do not understand the meaning of words.
Even the ones you thought were alive, their eyes light up green
and they start muttering it too. (I have to grab my right arm
and pull it back as it keeps insistently twitching to reach the
mouse and add demon.local to the subject line).
So, erm, yes.... I sort of shuffle round quietly, don't do
anything to arouse the local maniac, clove of garlic in each
pocket and change the sig to something within 4 lines like
a nice harmless little moose.
If I haven't got the time or inclination to creep round and defer to
mad customs, then I leave the standard sig on. This might well just
because I need to do something in haste & have to time to mess around.
Then, obviously, an eight-line duck with an eight-line descender
conveys something too. In the case of fun-loving people "let's
have a bit of crazy fun". In the case of humourless and mindless
pedantry, "up your nose with a rubber hose chum, I have had a
bellyful of this and I'm not creeping any more." It's like
in 'Being John Malkovitch' where everyone goes round bent double:
there comes a time when one says "if you are not prepared to be
reasonable or even responsive, then I will cease doing pointless
contortions to humour you." And it's kind of liberating to stand
up to your full height, rather than pretend to be a fellow-pigmy
just to fit in. Who knows, perhaps you could stand up straight too?
I mean, I'm not sure who round here really is 3ft tall and couldn't
if the others stopped deferring to convention.
Wm ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>In article<zfjHdcBj...@something.unique.fq48tiy>, Wm ... writes:
>>Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:41:32 <jEqaEXDc...@xemu.demon.co.uk> Dave Bird
>>>Wm:
>>>>
>>>
>>> annoyed back?
>>
>>"deserve to be annoyed back" is an interesting turn of phrase.
>>Have you come out of the closet and admitted that you deliberately
>>change your .sig in order to annoy?
>
>
> Come out of the closet? come, come now.
Why not? You've pretended for some years that your .sigs were not
deliberate.
> For practical reasons I keep this as part of my usenet-usenet,
> as it were, rather than programming-usenet or mailinglist-usenet.
> With me so far??
Nope. The paragraph above makes no sense to me.
[snip dull creative writing]
>change the sig to something within 4 lines like
> a nice harmless little moose.
No. All you need to do is *not* change it once it is working.
> If I haven't got the time or inclination to creep round and defer to
> mad customs, then I leave the standard sig on. This might well just
> because I need to do something in haste & have to time to mess around.
The bit I'm missing is why you deliberately change your .sig in order to
annoy in this ng.
>And it's kind of liberating to stand
> up to your full height, rather than pretend to be a fellow-pigmy
> just to fit in. Who knows, perhaps you could stand up straight too?
> I mean, I'm not sure who round here really is 3ft tall and couldn't
> if the others stopped deferring to convention.
I'd like to think I manage a degree of independence here.
That sometimes involves long and involved arguments, it sometimes
involves admitting I am wrong, somehow I don't think changing my .sig is
going to save me from saying that I'm wrong and I certainly haven't
thought so far that it would save me from saying that I was wrong.
Are you recommending .sig changes as a course of action for people that
might have their pet ideas quashed?
Andy
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote in response to Andy's closing comment of
>>Personally, I'd put an enhanced address book
>>fairly near the top.
>
> Me too. More important than previewing headers (more work though).
>
I've never tasted smoked moose..
Andy
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote
[]
> But whenever I come into "British Usenet" I get this feeling,
> you know. Everything's very cold. People creep round SLOWLY,
> with cobwebs on their dinner jackets. Fog swirls in the corners.
> It's like what Jarry said about the academician's funeral where
> he couldn't tell which one was the corpse. If you have too much
> red blood in your veins than a strange butler-like figure lurches
> up to you and says "excuse me SIR, but your page format is wrong".
> Zombies lurch up out of their graves and come up to you and tug
> at your clothes muttering page-format wrong, page-format wrong,
> in a way that suggests they do not understand the meaning of words.
> Even the ones you thought were alive, their eyes light up green
> and they start muttering it too. (I have to grab my right arm
> and pull it back as it keeps insistently twitching to reach the
> mouse and add demon.local to the subject line).
>
Glad I wasn't eating baked beans while reading..
Dave Bird
>Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:40:20 <3xnPZUAk...@xemu.demon.co.uk>e Dave Bird
>>In article<zfjHdcBj...@something.unique.fq48tiy>, Wm ... writes:
>>>Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:41:32 <jEqaEXDc...@xemu.demon.co.uk> Dave Bird
>>>>Wm:
>>>>>
>>>>>Unlike a rash, Dave's .sigs under stress seem to be deliberate.
>>>>
>>>> You mean, like, when people are annoying and deserve to be
>>>> annoyed back?
>>>
>>>"deserve to be annoyed back" is an interesting turn of phrase.
>>>Have you come out of the closet and admitted that you deliberately
>>>change your .sig in order to annoy?
>>
>> Come out of the closet? come, come now.
>
>Why not? You've pretended for some years that your .sigs were not
>deliberate.
Well, as below. I know they annoy the local maniacs for no
good reason, so I bend myself double to avoid trouble most times; I
stop doing so if people are rude or just through impatience.
>
>> For practical reasons I keep this as part of my usenet-usenet,
>> as it were, rather than programming-usenet or mailinglist-usenet.
>> With me so far??
>
>Nope. The paragraph above makes no sense to me.
"For various practical reasons it is in the same news-stand
as general discussion, rather than programming languages."
>>change the sig to something within 4 lines like
>> a nice harmless little moose.
>
>No. All you need to do is *not* change it once it is working.
OK. I will NOT change it, I will use standard i.e. the drowned dog.
>
>> If I haven't got the time or inclination to creep round and defer to
>> mad customs, then I leave the standard sig on. This might well just
>> because I need to do something in haste & have to time to mess around.
>
>The bit I'm missing is why you deliberately change your .sig in order to
>annoy in this ng.
No, no. I deliberately behave in a very modest and restrained way,
altering my normal pattern, to satisfy maniacal demands. For various
reasons (impatience, or rudeness received) I may not always do so.
If severely provoked, I will twit people who are behaving extremely
badly using the things they have told me they irrationally dislike,
by increasing rather than decreasing the sig.
Restore the whole main point of the article:
:: But whenever I come into "British Usenet" I get this feeling,
:: you know. Everything's very cold. People creep round SLOWLY,
:: with cobwebs on their dinner jackets. Fog swirls in the corners.
:: It's like what Jarry said about the academician's funeral where
:: he couldn't tell which one was the corpse. If you have too much
:: red blood in your veins than a strange butler-like figure lurches
:: up to you and says "excuse me SIR, but your page format is wrong".
:: Zombies lurch up out of their graves and come up to you and tug
:: at your clothes muttering page-format wrong, page-format wrong,
:: in a way that suggests they do not understand the meaning of words.
:: Even the ones you thought were alive, their eyes light up green
:: and they start muttering it too. (I have to grab my right arm
:: and pull it back as it keeps insistently twitching to reach the
:: mouse and add demon.local to the newsgroups line).
>>And it's kind of liberating to stand
>> up to your full height, rather than pretend to be a fellow-pigmy
>> just to fit in. Who knows, perhaps you could stand up straight too?
>> I mean, I'm not sure who round here really is 3ft tall and couldn't
>> if the others stopped deferring to convention.
>
>I'd like to think I manage a degree of independence here.
>
>That sometimes involves long and involved arguments, it sometimes
>involves admitting I am wrong
Well, yes. But not to completely fuckwitted format fetishes. At
most I placate the demented ones by not doing what they have told
my they have an irrational dislike for.
>Are you recommending .sig changes as a course of action for people that
>might have their pet ideas quashed?
Mmm, not to that; I never mind losing to someone who addresses
my factual points and shows why they are impractical, which sometimes
happens and is acknowledged when it does. But if someone
is silly or dismissive without addressing substance, then it might
be a useful tit-for-tat. I have plenty of spare sigs you can use.
Michael J Davis
>--
> (o_.' _0) (o< -! _o) {o_ _d) lunchtime at the Bill &
>Fish
> //\c{} /\\ //\ Y U <\\ //D /\\ _O) [fish saloon--all sorts of
> V__)_:::_\_U:::V_/_::::^:::::::V_)_\_V_(\)::::::::::::fish sold here]
> http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/art/ penguins.html
Dave, you may wish to note that that wraps on my TP set up. So it isn't
as pretty as you would wish! :(
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Preserve wildlife - pickle an egg! [ducks] <><
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dave Bird
<an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <3xnPZUAk...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird
><da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote
>[]
>> you know. Everything's very cold. People creep round SLOWLY,
>> with cobwebs on their dinner jackets. Fog swirls in the corners.
>> It's like what Jarry said about the academician's funeral where
>> he couldn't tell which one was the corpse. If you have too much
>> red blood in your veins than a strange butler-like figure lurches
>> up to you and says "excuse me SIR, but your page format is wrong".
>> Zombies lurch up out of their graves and come up to you and tug
>> at your clothes muttering page-format wrong, page-format wrong,
>> in a way that suggests they do not understand the meaning of words.
>> Even the ones you thought were alive, their eyes light up green
>> and they start muttering it too. (I have to grab my right arm
>> and pull it back as it keeps insistently twitching to reach the
>
>
><splutter cough cackle>
>Glad I wasn't eating baked beans while reading..
You wouldn't last long on alt.religion.scientology:
"patrons are advised not to consume canned soft drinks while reading
this newsgroup, in case they snort it all out over the screen and
need to replace their keyboard."
John G Harris
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>
>Why, oh why, oh why, oh why, can I not just simply view the header
>when I am editing an outgoing message (e.g. to put the message I/D
>into a log or record I'm keeping of the debate)... rather than have
>to post and go to OutTray in order to get round what appears
>to be a designed-in bug (i.e. someone has done extra work to
>make the program function less effectively)?
<snip>
I too have a wish. I wish that the message IDs include a field that lets
us know the precise order in which messages were finally put into the
Out tray on their way to the addressee(s).
This wish neatly cancels Dave's wish. It has the same priority. Now we
can go back to doing something more useful, such as wondering how a Help
system can go bananas.
John
(imagine big sig here)
--
John Harris
mailto:jo...@jgharris.demon.co.uk
Dave Bird
<news$@trustsof.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>>--
>> (o_.' _0) (o< -! _o) {o_ _d) lunchtime at the Bill &
>>Fish
>> //\c{} /\\ //\ Y U <\\ //D /\\ _O) [fish saloon--all sorts of
>> V__)_:::_\_U:::V_/_::::^:::::::V_)_\_V_(\)::::::::::::fish sold here]
>> http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/art/ penguins.html
>
>Dave, you may wish to note that that wraps on my TP set up. So it isn't
>as pretty as you would wish! :(
You may have set it shorter than normal, but I have trimmed the line
length back a bit on this sig anyway.
Paul Terry
wrote:
>Dave, you may wish to note that that wraps on my TP set up. So it isn't
>as pretty as you would wish! :(
You should see what his sigs look like in Garamond No.4 !
--
Paul Terry
Wm ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
> You wouldn't last long on alt.religion.scientology:
>"patrons are advised not to consume canned soft drinks while reading
> this newsgroup, in case they snort it all out over the screen and
> need to replace their keyboard."
It is a while since I used a screen and keyboard that were attached to
each other (modern portables aside).
Michael J Davis
>Sat, 18 Nov 2000 15:55:46 <D2w9rLAC...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
>demon.ip.support.turnpike Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
>
>>Don't be too harsh - he only brings it out when under stress.
>
>Unlike a rash, Dave's .sigs under stress seem to be deliberate.
Healthier, though, than cigs under stress?
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For this is what the Lord has said to me, <><
| "Go and post a Watchman and let him report what he sees." Isa 21:6 <><
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Andy
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote
>Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:55:08 <$gtd9CBM...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>demon.ip.support.turnpike Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>
>> You wouldn't last long on alt.religion.scientology:
>>"patrons are advised not to consume canned soft drinks while reading
>> this newsgroup, in case they snort it all out over the screen and
>> need to replace their keyboard."
>
>It is a while since I used a screen and keyboard that were attached to
>each other (modern portables aside).
H'mm.. telepathy?
Dave Bird
>In article<zfjHdcBj...@something.unique.fq48tiy>, Wm ... writes:
>>Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:41:32 <jEqaEXDc...@xemu.demon.co.uk> Dave Bird
>>>Wm:
>>>>
>>>
>>> annoyed back?
>>
>>"deserve to be annoyed back" is an interesting turn of phrase.
(OFF TOPIC) Undelivered Mail.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As you may know, I capable of being quite sarcastic with people
if I decide they are acting DELIBERATELY unhelpful or uncomprehending
in order to be unpleasant to me. The story so far: I was getting a
lot of undeserved grief for not receiving a parcel which got returned
to the sorting office instead of left with security. I thought
the sorting office closed at noon. It was already 11:30. Shit!
But, fetching the card and some other documents I see it is 12:30
and I just have time."
Anyway, I rang 'em up. "PID xxplacexx"
"You're open to 12:30, yes?" "yep"
"And these will do for identity?" "yep"
"Tell me, people who deliver mail, they have to read
do they know the address yes?" "erm -- yes."
"So they could read the notice on this door saying 'deliveries,
if nobody answers, should be left with security on the ground floor'"
"erm, is there a notice on your door?"
"Oh yes. Half inch lettering. Gone over in light-fast marker.
I'm very proud of that notice."
"well, we don't like leaving things elsewhere."
"And I don't like a twenty minute walk over to the sorting office."
No answer.
"I'll see you before 12:30 then."
So, quick march over to the sorting office, arriving 12:15
while the gates are still open and slightly out of breath.
Then up two floors to the enquiries window. A guy in grey
overalls has been ringing at the door for some time. I
rattle the latch of the serving hatch, he says it does not
open from outside. Anyway the PID opens up and I see the guy's
postal inspector's peaked cap, he holds out an envelope to her
and says "look what the idiots have done now... can I just
shut this door behind me?" (so I can't tab-hang what they did).
I continue to ring the serving-hatch bell from time to time.
A chubby charge-hand type person opens up. "Parcel delivery
<my address>" I said curtly. I stuck my shoulders through
and looked round. As you can imagine at 12:15 it was not
exactly full of people rushing round sorting stuff into racks,
or even of returning drivers: everyone had buggered off home
unless they had end-of-shift paperwork or queries to handle.
One three-minute pop song, which was increasingly my unfavourite,
had just ended on their radio and the DJ started yapping. I got the
feeling they might be keeping me waiting for the hell of it because I
was pushy. Now I am a larger-than-life person with a big voice on the
net and off, as Richard will testify. So I turned my sonorous bass
voice up to tone-40 and gave 'em a couple of choruses of:
Postman Pat, Postman Pat,
Postman Pat ran over his cat
with a ruddy great Splat
early in the morning,
giving it no warning,
Now he's never seen a cat as flat as that. [1]
Still nothing for another minute. Finally the rather flustered charge
hand turned up and said "we can't locate the item. It may be on
a delivery van now" (attempting delivery while I'm nagged
into going through this circus). "We'll put it on the van tomorrow"
and, without any prompting from me, "we will make sure it's left
with security and not brought back." "Oh, OK then."
And I walk off whistling:
da Dah dat
Dah dat dat dahda dat-da-dat dah Dah-dadah Dat
da Dah dat
Dah dat dat DAHda dat-da-dat dah Dah-dadah Dat
da Dah dat
We may be eunuch postmen but, we've still got our sacks
da Dah dat..... [2]
[1] a genuine schoolboy parody by a genuine schoolboy
[2] The Cheese Shop Present: the Butter Factor (radio4)
Dave Bird
Sorry, guys, but I believe the normal default for everyone
is a ten point typewriter font and a screen at most 80
characters wide but margined back to about 72 for citing etc.
With variable pitch "80 chars wide" is largely meaningless.
In addition the convention for ascii art is that "in order to
share the same font-spacing, it is mandatory that everyone who
wants to make or view it has the same, minimal, font-spacing i.e.
monospaced."
Dave Bird
>Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:55:08 <$gtd9CBM...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>demon.ip.support.turnpike Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>
>> You wouldn't last long on alt.religion.scientology:
>>"patrons are advised not to consume canned soft drinks while reading
>> this newsgroup, in case they snort it all out over the screen and
>> need to replace their keyboard."
>
>It is a while since I used a screen and keyboard that were attached to
>each other (modern portables aside).
My screen is in front of my face, and my keyboard down between
them (next to my hands), each separately linked to the computer.
If I spurted coca cola out of my mouth and nose, it would go all over
both of them: first forwards onto the screen then, through gravity,
downwards onto the keyboard.
John Underwood
(Reference: <OryhPtDz...@xemu.demon.co.uk>)
>it is mandatory that everyone who
> wants to make or view it
But I don't want to view it.
--
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to jo...@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
Wm ...
demon.ip.support.turnpike Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
Wm:
>>It is a while since I used a screen and keyboard that were attached to
>>each other (modern portables aside).
>
>H'mm.. telepathy?
No, it looks like there are cables connecting the bits and pieces. Are
you perhaps running TP on a Mac?
Andy
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote
[]
>
> In addition the convention for ascii art is that "in order to
> share the same font-spacing, it is mandatory that everyone who
> wants to make or view it has the same, minimal, font-spacing i.e.
> monospaced."
>
Dave Bird
>On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 at 18:55:47, Dave Bird wrote:
>
>>it is mandatory that everyone who
>> wants to make or view it
>
>But I don't want to view it.
Then you won't mind that your choice of font
means you cannot view it properly.
In article<C3vtbYAz...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>, Andy writes:
>In article <OryhPtDz...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird wrote
>[]
>>
>> In addition the convention for ascii art is that "in order to
>> share the same font-spacing, it is mandatory that everyone who
>> wants to make or view it has the same, minimal, font-spacing i.e.
>> monospaced."
>>
>I oppose the creation of demon.ip.support.turnpike.asciiart
OK, this discussion (as being appropriate
only to that newsgroup) is therefore closed.