line length (was Re: patch0.exe)
Eep²
Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per line (cpl) screws up when quoted 2 or more times. 72cpl is bunk and I will continue to post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none at all, preferably) until everyone sees why it's better for everyone.
This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line length, but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just HAVE to fight this nonsense "logic". I'd say it's time for some new RFCs and for news/email readers to be programmed more intelligently and intuitively.
Get outta the past...this is the computer industry and if you don't keep up with its progress, you'll simply fall away to obsoletion.
joanne...@home.com wrote:
> Eep² wrote:
> >
> > Derek, D. wrote:
>
> > > But where would Usenet be without long-winded speeches by people who
> > > know little or nothing about the topic they're lecturing about? It
> > > just wouldn't be the same Usenet that i've come to grow and love.
> > > :-)
> >
> > I don't? http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html
>
> It's nice that you have gone and made a web page about your own personal
> Usenet preferences, Eep, but some other people feel differently about
> the subject.
>
> 1.) Rules for posting to Usenet
>
> http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/usenet/posting-rules/part1.html
>
> <begin quote>
> In preparing an article, be aware that other people's machines are
> not the same as yours. The following is a list of things to keep
> in mind:
> * Keep your lines under 80 characters, and under 72 if possible (so
> that
> the lines won't get longer than 80 when people include them when
> responding to your postings). Most editors have a fill or format
> mode
> that will do this for you automatically. Make sure that it
> actually puts ("hard") newline characters into the file, rather
> than just wrapping the displayed lines on your screen.
> <end quote>
>
> 2.) The seven "don'ts" of Usenet
>
> http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/usenet/dont.html
>
> <begin quote>
> Don't post anything but plain text to Usenet, except to groups where
> other formats are explicitly allowed. No HTML, no vcards, no GIFs or
> other binaries. (You can put your material onto the Web and include the
> URL into your posting.) Don't use any program for posting to Usenet
> before checking the settings so that your message won't be sent in a
> non-text format by it. Plain text means it's text only, with line length
> under 80 (preferably under 72) characters; it doesn't mean boring or
> careless text.
> <end quote>
>
> RFC 1036 - Basic format of Usenet articles
>
> http://x29.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps,ST_cam=search.yahoo.none.slot]/getdoc.xp?AN=586808612&CONTEXT=954553159.2059862026&hitnum=3
>
> (this is a deja news link - you may have to copy and paste the link in
> order to view the article)
>
> <begin quote>
> In plain-text messages (those with no Mime headers, or those with a Mime
> Content-Type of text/plain) posting agents SHOULD endeavour to keep the
> length of body lines within some reasonable limit. The size of this
> limit is a matter of policy, the default being to keep within 79
> characters at most, and preferably within 72 characters (to allow room
> for quoting in followups). Exceptionally, posting agents SHOULD NOT
> adjust the length of quoted lines in followups unless they are able to
> reformat them in a consistent manner. Moreover, posting agents MUST
> permit the poster to include longer lines if he so insists.
> <end quote>
--
http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping.
Eep²
> e...@tnlc.com (Eep²) spake this:
>
> >Um, so what? Who made these archaic rules anyway, eh? The
> >Netherlands sure didn't invent the Net. Good ol' USA did. The same
> >dinks who set the "standards" for Usenet back when it was created,
> >in, like, the 60s or 70s? In case you (and they) haven't noticed,
> >the Net's changed and it's time to change with it.
> >
> >Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per
> >line (cpl) screws up when quoted 2 or more times. 72cpl is bunk and
> >I will continue to post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none at
> >all, preferably) until everyone sees why it's better for everyone.
> >
> >This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my
> >line length, but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just
> >HAVE to fight this nonsense "logic". I'd say it's time for some new
> >RFCs and for news/email readers to be programmed more intelligently
> >and intuitively.
> >
> >Get outta the past...this is the computer industry and if you don't
> >keep up with its progress, you'll simply fall away to obsoletion.
>
> Enjoy your monologues.
> *plonk*
Ah, yes, another typical response of those too inept to understand a new way of doing something. Enjoy your trip into obsoletion.
gr...@apple2.com
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> Enjoy your trip into obsoletion.
Wouldn't your barbs would be more effective if you used real words?
--
-- --- <gr...@apple2.com>
-- -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
-- -- --- <http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/>
---
seman...@lurker.com
>Um, so what? Who made these archaic rules anyway, eh? The
>Netherlands sure didn't invent the Net. Good ol' USA did. The same
>dinks who set the "standards" for Usenet back when it was created,
>in, like, the 60s or 70s? In case you (and they) haven't noticed,
>the Net's changed and it's time to change with it.
>
>Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per
>line (cpl) screws up when quoted 2 or more times. 72cpl is bunk and
>I will continue to post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none at
>all, preferably) until everyone sees why it's better for everyone.
>
>This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my
>line length, but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just
>HAVE to fight this nonsense "logic". I'd say it's time for some new
>RFCs and for news/email readers to be programmed more intelligently
>and intuitively.
>
>Get outta the past...this is the computer industry and if you don't
>keep up with its progress, you'll simply fall away to obsoletion.
>
>--
>http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game
>comparison, The Sims Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping.
>
Enjoy your monologues.
*plonk*
rdb
joanne...@home.com
>
> Um, so what? Who made these archaic rules anyway, eh? The Netherlands sure didn't invent the Net. Good ol' USA did. The same dinks who set the "standards" for Usenet back when it was created, in, like, the 60s or 70s? In case you (and they) haven't noticed, the Net's changed and it's time to change with it.
<a whole bunch of self-serving shite snipped>
Goodnight, Eep. I hope you enjoy ranting when nobody is listening.
*plonk*
Jo Anne
Krud
>
> This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line
length, but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just HAVE to fight
this nonsense "logic". I'd say it's time for some new RFCs and for
news/email readers to be programmed more intelligently and intuitively.
>
> Get outta the past...this is the computer industry and if you don't keep
up with its progress, you'll simply fall away to obsoletion.
And so the saga continues................ Stay tuned for the next episode of
"As the Twit Burns", when our hero decides to start wearing his underwear
outside his pants..............
-Krud
Rejo Zenger
[Quoted message rewrapped]
++ <38E57624...@tnlc.com>; Eep²:
>The same dinks who set the "standards" for Usenet back when it was
>created, in, like, the 60s or 70s?
You should learn about it if you want to use it as an argument, the
Usenet was created somewhere in the start of the eighties.
>Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per line
>(cpl) screws up when quoted 2 or more times. 72cpl is bunk and I will
>continue to post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none at all,
>preferably) until everyone sees why it's better for everyone.
Please do. If your lines are long enough your message will be messed up
as some servers will choke on it. I'm not quite sure, but i think that
998 is on some servers really the limit.
And, why not just follow the Nettiquete (as defined in RFC1855)?
>This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line
>length, but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just HAVE to
>fight this nonsense "logic".
Well, that is one way to do it. The other way would be to think about it
why you actually *do* get so much opposition.
>I'd say it's time for some new RFCs and for news/email readers to be
>programmed more intelligently and intuitively.
Well, go ahead. No one will try to stop you.
>joanne...@home.com wrote:
>
>> Eep² wrote:
>> >
>> > Derek, D. wrote:
>>
>> > > But where would Usenet be without long-winded speeches by people
>> > > who know little or nothing about the topic they're lecturing
[...]
And while you are at it, learn how to quote as well.
Have a nice day,
-Rejo.
--
= Rejo Zenger re...@sisterray.xs4all.nl
= http://mediaport.org/~sister (and my_urls.html) PGP: see headers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eep²
> [Followup-To: news.software.readers]
> [Quoted message rewrapped]
>
> ++ <38E57624...@tnlc.com>; Eep²:
> >The same dinks who set the "standards" for Usenet back when it was
> >created, in, like, the 60s or 70s?
>
> You should learn about it if you want to use it as an argument, the
> Usenet was created somewhere in the start of the eighties.
<twirl finger> So I'm off a decade or 2; dinks still set the so-called "standard"...
> >Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per line
> >(cpl) screws up when quoted 2 or more times. 72cpl is bunk and I will
> >continue to post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none at all,
> >preferably) until everyone sees why it's better for everyone.
>
> Please do. If your lines are long enough your message will be messed up
> as some servers will choke on it. I'm not quite sure, but i think that
> 998 is on some servers really the limit.
>
> And, why not just follow the Nettiquete (as defined in RFC1855)?
Why not just think outside the box? Stop limiting yourself to old-school thinking and get a clue.
> >This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line
> >length, but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just HAVE to
> >fight this nonsense "logic".
>
> Well, that is one way to do it. The other way would be to think about it
> why you actually *do* get so much opposition.
Because I'm doing something so rebellious that no-life twitiots like yourself feel they're justified in mentioning some governmentalesque "standard" regulatory legislation without actually knowing why such rules are still in effect despite the ever-changing status of the Net? Hmm...YOU do the math.
> >joanne...@home.com wrote:
> >
> >> Eep² wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Derek, D. wrote:
> >>
> >> > > But where would Usenet be without long-winded speeches by people
> >> > > who know little or nothing about the topic they're lecturing
>
> And while you are at it, learn how to quote as well.
Excuse you? I quote just fine, thank you. Perhaps you should learn how to read. <smack>
Eep²
> In article <38E57E56...@tnlc.com>,
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> > Enjoy your trip into obsoletion.
>
> Wouldn't your barbs would be more effective if you used real words?
Actually it would help if you knew spelling better. Simply extract the root word and apply the prefix or suffix. So, in this case, "obsolete" is the root word and "tion" is the suffix. Perhaps try a trip to http://dictionary.com/ would help...
The Unknown James
Subject: spelling (was Re: line length)
Newsgroup: alt.family-names.sims
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000
>gr...@apple2.com wrote:
>
>> In article <38E57E56...@tnlc.com>,
>> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Enjoy your trip into obsoletion.
>>
>> Wouldn't your barbs would be more effective if you used real words?
>
>Actually it would help if you knew spelling better. Simply extract the root word and
>apply the prefix or suffix. So, in this case, "obsolete" is the root word and "tion" is
>the suffix. Perhaps try a trip to http://dictionary.com/ would help...
I think you'll find the correct word to be Obsolescence. Maybe you
yourself should read a dictionary.
--
The Unknown James
PGP Encryption Keys:
0x7DFEBC8B
0xDAB6DE16
Contact me via:
alt.fan.unknownj
alt.fan.adjective-army
L.J. Wischik
>I think you'll find the correct word to be Obsolescence. Maybe you
>yourself should read a dictionary.
I think you'll find that "obsolescence" means "the process of becomming
obsolete"; while "obsoletion" means "the action of becoming obsolete".
There is a definite difference between the two, and Eep^2 was entirely
correct in using the second. Both words exist. If you yourself don't know
them, maybe you should check in a larger dictionary. (Both are present in
my 'Shorter Oxford English Dictionary')
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
The Unknown James
Subject: line length (was Re: patch0.exe)
Newsgroup: alt.family-names.sims
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000
>Rejo Zenger wrote:
>
>> [Followup-To: news.software.readers]
>> [Quoted message rewrapped]
>>
>> ++ <38E57624...@tnlc.com>; Eep²:
>> >The same dinks who set the "standards" for Usenet back when it was
>> >created, in, like, the 60s or 70s?
>>
>> You should learn about it if you want to use it as an argument, the
>> Usenet was created somewhere in the start of the eighties.
>
><twirl finger> So I'm off a decade or 2; dinks still set the so-called "standard"...
Well I don't see *you* contributing on the Usefor mailing list...
>> >Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per line
>> >(cpl) screws up when quoted 2 or more times. 72cpl is bunk and I will
>> >continue to post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none at all,
>> >preferably) until everyone sees why it's better for everyone.
>>
>> Please do. If your lines are long enough your message will be messed up
>> as some servers will choke on it. I'm not quite sure, but i think that
>> 998 is on some servers really the limit.
>>
>> And, why not just follow the Nettiquete (as defined in RFC1855)?
>
>Why not just think outside the box? Stop limiting yourself to old-school thinking and
>get a clue.
Funny, that's what the fuckwits who try posting in HTML say.... Get over
it - when something is made standard, it's very difficult to change said
standard. Older software won't comply, and there shouldn't be an
emphasis on the user to upgrade software for something so mind numbingly
simple as line breaks.
>> >This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line
>> >length, but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just HAVE to
>> >fight this nonsense "logic".
>>
>> Well, that is one way to do it. The other way would be to think about it
>> why you actually *do* get so much opposition.
>
>Because I'm doing something so rebellious that no-life twitiots like yourself feel
>they're justified in mentioning some governmentalesque "standard" regulatory
>legislation without actually knowing why such rules are still in effect despite the
>ever-changing status of the Net? Hmm...YOU do the math.
Because if said rules were not in effect, nothing would work with
anything else. The status of the net isn't changing as quickly as you
might think.
Eep²
> Some f'in snetter called =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote the following:
> > This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line length, but I've come across SO
> > damn much opposition I just HAVE to fight this nonsense "logic". I'd say it's time for some new RFCs and
> > for news/email readers to be programmed more intelligently and intuitively.
>
> Yeesh, you really have some problems here, don't you. Has it, perhaps,
> occured to you that your use of long lines messes with those newsreaders
> specifically designed to see your posts as you write them? Some people
> default to over 80 characters simply because it's better on their screen,
> and my newsreader is set up so that, if they do that, I see it how they did.
> Otherwise, if they write things which have to be in line on the screen
> (uncommon, but still happens), I see them properly. However, in your
> case, your overly long line lengths just makes the message look confusing
> and stupid. Examination of the content does nothing to persuade me
> otherwise.
How silly that window-width line lengths makes messages look confusing and stupid when you read essays, websites, books, etc just fine. Did you even bother to read http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html? Go ahead...I'll wait here...
Eep²
> Poster: Eep²
> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000
>
> >Rejo Zenger wrote:
> >
> >> [Followup-To: news.software.readers]
> >> [Quoted message rewrapped]
> >>
> >> ++ <38E57624...@tnlc.com>; Eep²:
> >> >The same dinks who set the "standards" for Usenet back when it was
> >> >created, in, like, the 60s or 70s?
> >>
> >> You should learn about it if you want to use it as an argument, the
> >> Usenet was created somewhere in the start of the eighties.
> >
> ><twirl finger> So I'm off a decade or 2; dinks still set the so-called "standard"...
>
> Well I don't see *you* contributing on the Usefor mailing list...
Why should I? I'm not a sysadmin and am only simply defending myself against the onslaught of attacks against my line length setting. <shrug> Heed this: the more you offend, the more I will defend; it's that simple...
> >> >Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per line
> >> >(cpl) screws up when quoted 2 or more times. 72cpl is bunk and I will
> >> >continue to post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none at all,
> >> >preferably) until everyone sees why it's better for everyone.
> >>
> >> Please do. If your lines are long enough your message will be messed up
> >> as some servers will choke on it. I'm not quite sure, but i think that
> >> 998 is on some servers really the limit.
> >>
> >> And, why not just follow the Nettiquete (as defined in RFC1855)?
> >
> >Why not just think outside the box? Stop limiting yourself to old-school thinking and
> >get a clue.
>
> Funny, that's what the fuckwits who try posting in HTML say.... Get over
> it - when something is made standard, it's very difficult to change said
> standard. Older software won't comply, and there shouldn't be an
> emphasis on the user to upgrade software for something so mind numbingly
> simple as line breaks.
Poor initial design, more like it. This is what happens when quality is maintained. Perhaps these so-called standards could use some quality assurance (QA), eh?
> >> >This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line
> >> >length, but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just HAVE to
> >> >fight this nonsense "logic".
> >>
> >> Well, that is one way to do it. The other way would be to think about it
> >> why you actually *do* get so much opposition.
> >
> >Because I'm doing something so rebellious that no-life twitiots like yourself feel
> >they're justified in mentioning some governmentalesque "standard" regulatory
> >legislation without actually knowing why such rules are still in effect despite the
> >ever-changing status of the Net? Hmm...YOU do the math.
>
> Because if said rules were not in effect, nothing would work with
> anything else. The status of the net isn't changing as quickly as you
> might think.
I have no problem with rules so long as they are the most efficient, updated, and well-designed. I don't feel a 72-/80-character-per-line length is very efficient or well-designed for the reasons I state at http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html. Please read it, as I created the page to reduce (perferably eliminate) how much I have to regurgitate the same argument to people like you who just can't seem to get a clue...
Quatoria
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per line (cpl) screws up when quoted 2 or more times. 72cpl is bunk and I will continue to post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none at all, preferably) until everyone sees why it's better for everyone.
>
And we will continue to ignore, kill file, or mock you, twit.
>This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line length, but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just HAVE to fight this nonsense "logic". I'd say it's time for some new RFCs and for news/email readers to be programmed more intelligently and intuitively.
There's a laudable characteristic. "Everybody tells me I'm wrong, so
I'm gonna do it just to spite those lousy bastards!" Hey, fun
question. You don't read, don't have any experience with, can't write,
and don't comprehend RFC's, so even if someone did write one, how the
hell would you ever know, asshole?
-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!"
Quatoria
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't your barbs would be more effective if you used real words?
>
>Actually it would help if you knew spelling better. Simply extract the root word and apply the prefix or suffix. So, in this case, "obsolete" is the root word and "tion" is the suffix. Perhaps try a trip to http://dictionary.com/ would help...
Rules of grammar and spelling have no more hold on crEep then rules of
netiquette. Unfortunately, he seems to feel the same way about rules
of logic, rational debate, and sanity.
Quatoria
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>How silly that window-width line lengths makes messages look confusing and stupid when you read essays, websites, books, etc just fine. Did you even bother to read http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html? Go ahead...I'll wait here...
Excepting, of course, that books, like all printed text in the world
(aside from your inane rants) have margins, and do not simply seep
from one edge of the page to the other. Oddly enough, websites and
essays and, one assumes, etc, also have accepted standards of
formatting. Fascinating, isn't it? Perhaps you should go and read a
book, to get some experience with the medium.
Karl Kleinpaste
>>> Enjoy your trip into obsoletion.
gr...@apple2.com wrote:
>> Wouldn't your barbs would be more effective if you used real words?
Eep˛ <e...@tnlc.com> writes:
> Actually it would help if you knew spelling better.
Turn around, so you can take a look in that mirror on the wall behind you.
dictionary.com indicates "No entry found for obsoletion." This is
correct, because the word in question is "obsolescence."
L.J. Wischik
>dictionary.com indicates "No entry found for obsoletion." This is
>correct, because the word in question is "obsolescence."
'Obsolescence' and 'Obsoletion' are both valid words, as you'd have
discovered if you had used a real dictionary. They have different shades
of meaning. Obsoletion was the correct word in this context.
The Unknown James
Subject: line length (was Re: patch0.exe)
Newsgroup: alt.family-names.sims
>The Unknown James wrote:
>
>> Some f'in snetter called =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote the
>following:
>> > This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line length, but
>I've come across SO
>> > damn much opposition I just HAVE to fight this nonsense "logic". I'd say it's time
>for some new RFCs and
>> > for news/email readers to be programmed more intelligently and intuitively.
>>
>> Yeesh, you really have some problems here, don't you. Has it, perhaps,
>> occured to you that your use of long lines messes with those newsreaders
>> specifically designed to see your posts as you write them? Some people
>> default to over 80 characters simply because it's better on their screen,
>> and my newsreader is set up so that, if they do that, I see it how they did.
>> Otherwise, if they write things which have to be in line on the screen
>> (uncommon, but still happens), I see them properly. However, in your
>> case, your overly long line lengths just makes the message look confusing
>> and stupid. Examination of the content does nothing to persuade me
>> otherwise.
>
>How silly that window-width line lengths makes messages look confusing and
>stupid when you read essays, websites, books, etc just fine.
In case you didn't notice, books are normally written with fewer than 80
characters per line. As to other things - they generally wrap to the
size of the paper. That's fine. However, your "paragraphs" are usually
two lines long, and span the width of the screen. This strikes me as
ugly.
> Did you even bother
>to read http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html? Go ahead...I'll wait here...
I already have:
==========
With all the varying graphical user interface (GUI) text readers, GUI
operating system (OS) screen resolutions, and monitor sizes, arbitrary,
small line lengths just don't cut it anymore. Non-GUI text readers may
be out of luck, but oh well. People who still use ASCII text readers
deserve the inconvenience and there's no sense in penalizing GUI text
readers for archaic, primitive ASCII text readers that can't handle
longer line lengths.
==========
This part is what I perceive to be wrong with your argument. You are
presupposing that everybody who uses Usenet uses GUI readers. Here's a
small hint for you - Usenet is ASCII based. You send stuff as text. Why
should you *have* to be using a GUI reader? It can't possibly improve
the quality of what you read, since all a message *is* is a block of
text. All it does it alter how you go about getting hold of the posts,
and makes it simple to reply. Therefore, there should be no emphasis on
upgrading from a simple ASCII reader. I have programmed newsreader
software which I sometimes use in preference to what I'm using right
now. It has no word wrap, because there's no need for it. Implementing
it would be awkward. This means that I have to manually break each line
when I think it looks long enough, and it means that your messages are
displayed as very short, but wide, paragraphs. Are you saying that I
ought to fix that, in order to comply with *your* personal standards?
Additionally, your method of quoting is, as you have pointed out,
flawed. There is not one single popularly use newsreader which will
*correctly* display your method of quoting. Are you suggesting that we
all use it, until such time that support for it is provided?
In closing, kindly get a clue. The Internet does not revolve around you
- you are not *obliged* to follow conventional standards, but if you do
not, don't keep on whining about being flamed for it.
The Unknown James
Subject: spelling (was Re: line length)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000
>Karl Kleinpaste <ka...@charcoal.com> wrote:
>>dictionary.com indicates "No entry found for obsoletion." This is
>>correct, because the word in question is "obsolescence."
>
>'Obsolescence' and 'Obsoletion' are both valid words, as you'd have
>discovered if you had used a real dictionary. They have different shades
>of meaning. Obsoletion was the correct word in this context.
According to my Concise Oxford English Dictionary, "Obsoletion" is not a
word. My spell checker, for what it's worth, agrees with this.
JeffH
On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 07:07:57 -0800, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>The Unknown James wrote:
>
>> Some f'in snetter called =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote the following:
>> > This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line length, but I've come across SO
>> > damn much opposition I just HAVE to fight this nonsense "logic". I'd say it's time for some new RFCs and
>> > for news/email readers to be programmed more intelligently and intuitively.
>>
>> Yeesh, you really have some problems here, don't you. Has it, perhaps,
>> occured to you that your use of long lines messes with those newsreaders
>> specifically designed to see your posts as you write them? Some people
>> default to over 80 characters simply because it's better on their screen,
>> and my newsreader is set up so that, if they do that, I see it how they did.
>> Otherwise, if they write things which have to be in line on the screen
>> (uncommon, but still happens), I see them properly. However, in your
>> case, your overly long line lengths just makes the message look confusing
>> and stupid. Examination of the content does nothing to persuade me
>> otherwise.
>
>How silly that window-width line lengths makes messages look confusing and stupid when you read essays, websites, books, etc just fine. Did you even bother to read http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html? Go ahead...I'll wait here...
The Unknown James
Hey, fuckwit, here's a free clue - please use it. Some of us use
software which is designed to allow proper formatting, by not inflicting
its own word wrap on text. If somebody formats text beautifully in 85
chars per line, then my newsreader can read that perfectly. Therefore,
there is no "change word wrap" option. Please understand that there are
more people in this world than Agent and OE users.
Poster: JeffH
Subject: line length (was Re: patch0.exe)
Newsgroup: alt.family-names.sims
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000
>Okay, Eep, you've convinced at least me. I can only set my newsreader to 999
--
L.J. Wischik
>word. My spell checker, for what it's worth, agrees with this.
I found both words in the Shorter OED... And the complete 2nd edition OED
gives these quotations for 'obsoletion':
1804. Mitford "Inquiry", 140. Words and phrases..verging..toward
obsoletion.
Ibid. 170. Provincial dialects, still spoken, tho now fast going into
obsoletion.
1817. Keats "Lett." Wks. 1889 III. 98. Lamentation on the obsoletion of
Christmas gambols and pastimes.
Annabel Smyth
>Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per line (cpl)
>screws up when quoted 2 or more times. 72cpl is bunk and I will continue to
>post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none at all, preferably) until everyone
>sees why it's better for everyone.
>
Well, if you really *want* people not to read what you write, because
they will simply killfile you (another "hangover" from the early days
of Usenet, I suppose), then go right ahead.
Did you ever hear of the proud mother who turned to her neighbour
as the army paraded by and said: "Oh, look! They're all out of step
except for my Johnny!"?
>This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line length,
>but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just HAVE to fight this
>nonsense "logic". I'd say it's time for some new RFCs and for news/email
>readers to be programmed more intelligently and intuitively.
You may be right, but this is not the right way to go about it. Go and
do it in one of the groups aimed at patrolling Usenet. Otherwise you
may just find that someone with no patience complains about you to
your ISP once too often, and your account is closed down.
>
>Get outta the past...this is the computer industry and if you don't keep up
>with its progress, you'll simply fall away to obsoletion.
>
(A) the word is "obsolescence"
(B) So we're all rolling in money, are we, and can afford to upgrade
our equipment and software every few months? Well, if you are, you
may buy me an up-to-date computer with a 56K modem, thank you
very much!
--
Annabel Smyth mailto:Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 6 March 2000
Annabel Smyth
>gr...@apple2.com wrote:
>
>> In article <38E57E56...@tnlc.com>,
>> Eep˛ <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Enjoy your trip into obsoletion.
>>
>> Wouldn't your barbs would be more effective if you used real words?
>
>Actually it would help if you knew spelling better. Simply extract the root
>word and apply the prefix or suffix. So, in this case, "obsolete" is the root
>word and "tion" is the suffix. Perhaps try a trip to http://dictionary.com/
>would help...
>
Yes, why don't you, since the word you are looking for is actually
"obsolescence".
Alex Crosby
"JeffH" <not...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:38e630a9...@news2.magmacom.com...
SNIP
It doesn't fucking quote properly if you do that. I suggest you go back to
the default settings.
derek_d.
(Quatoria) wrote:
>In the swirling mists of history, on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:08:05 -0800,
>Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
>>Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per line (cpl) screws up when quoted 2 or more times. 72cpl is bunk and I will continue to post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none at all, preferably) until everyone sees why it's better for everyone.
>>
>
>And we will continue to ignore, kill file, or mock you, twit.
Killfiling works best on people who crave attention like this Eep
here.
>>This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line length, but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just HAVE to fight this nonsense "logic". I'd say it's time for some new RFCs and for news/email readers to be programmed more intelligently and intuitively.
>
>There's a laudable characteristic. "Everybody tells me I'm wrong, so
>I'm gonna do it just to spite those lousy bastards!" Hey, fun
>question. You don't read, don't have any experience with, can't write,
>and don't comprehend RFC's, so even if someone did write one, how the
>hell would you ever know, asshole?
>
>-Quatoria
LOL tell us how you really feel, Quatoria...
I know lots of grown adults with this sad characteristic, to show off
how much more they know than everyone else, frequently at the expense
of logic or common sense. And besides, why are we paying any attention
to these lame topics lately...first, line lengths, then whether
"obsoletion" is a word...<shakes head>
~ Derek ~
Eep²
> In a message on Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Eep² wrote:
>
> >Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per line (cpl)
> >screws up when quoted 2 or more times. 72cpl is bunk and I will continue to
> >post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none at all, preferably) until everyone
> >sees why it's better for everyone.
>
> Well, if you really *want* people not to read what you write, because
> they will simply killfile you (another "hangover" from the early days
> of Usenet, I suppose), then go right ahead.
<yawn> How do you think I weed out all the idiots? :)
> Did you ever hear of the proud mother who turned to her neighbour
> as the army paraded by and said: "Oh, look! They're all out of step
> except for my Johnny!"?
nope :)
> >This wasn't my intention when I initially decided to increase my line length,
> >but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just HAVE to fight this
> >nonsense "logic". I'd say it's time for some new RFCs and for news/email
> >readers to be programmed more intelligently and intuitively.
>
> You may be right, but this is not the right way to go about it. Go and
> do it in one of the groups aimed at patrolling Usenet.
Again, what part of "this wasn't my intention" don't you understand? People like YOU have forced me to defend myself against your petty attacks. Get lives and quit bugging me and I won't have to waste so much energy defending such a trivial thing. Think, please...I know it's tough for you but you can do it!
> Otherwise you
> may just find that someone with no patience complains about you to
> your ISP once too often, and your account is closed down.
<chuckle> Go ahead and try. I'm simply voicing (typing) my opinion, which is protected under the 1st Amendment in the US Bill of Rights. Perhaps you Brits should also adopt similar rights, as apparently you don't seem to be aware of them...
> >Get outta the past...this is the computer industry and if you don't keep up
> >with its progress, you'll simply fall away to obsoletion.
>
> (A) the word is "obsolescence"
That is another variation, but not the word I chose to use. -tion is a valid suffix, as Lucian Wischik stated in an earlier post:
"I think you'll find that 'obsolescence' means 'the process of becoming obsolete'; while 'obsoletion' means 'the action of becoming obsolete'. There is a definite difference between the two, and Eep^2 was entirely correct in using the second. Both words exist. If you yourself don't know them, maybe you should check in a larger dictionary. (Both are present in my 'Shorter Oxford English Dictionary')"
> (B) So we're all rolling in money, are we, and can afford to upgrade
> our equipment and software every few months? Well, if you are, you
> may buy me an up-to-date computer with a 56K modem, thank you
> very much!
Um, most GUI text readers are free and can run on even the lowest Pentium. If you don't have at least that you deserve whatever text problems your software can't deal with. However, Lucian Wischik stated in an email to me (which was also crossposted to the newsgroups but I haven't seen it yet) about various UNIX text readers (tin, vln, and some other one) that can handle long line lengths fine. So quit bitching and get over this totally geek-infested argument, eh? My god...
Geoff Black
L.J. Wischik <ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8c5go7$5sk$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> The Unknown James <Unkn...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >According to my Concise Oxford English Dictionary, "Obsoletion" is not a
> >word. My spell checker, for what it's worth, agrees with this.
>
> I found both words in the Shorter OED... And the complete 2nd edition OED
> gives these quotations for 'obsoletion':
>
> 1804. Mitford "Inquiry", 140. Words and phrases..verging..toward
> obsoletion.
> Ibid. 170. Provincial dialects, still spoken, tho now fast going into
> obsoletion.
> 1817. Keats "Lett." Wks. 1889 III. 98. Lamentation on the obsoletion of
> Christmas gambols and pastimes.
>
Looks like our crEep is into use fairly obsolete words. Neat.
Geoffrey
Geoff Black
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com>
<Snipped crEep rant>
>I will continue to post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none
> at all, preferably) until everyone sees why it's better for everyone.
>
<More snippage>
Isn't one definition of insanity to continue to do something the same way
and expect different results? Keep it up, crEep.
Geoffrey
Geoff Black
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote
<Snip>
>People like YOU have forced me to defend myself against
>your petty attacks. Get lives and quit bugging me and I won't
>have to waste so much energy defending such a trivial thing.
>Think, please...I know it's tough for you but you can do it!
<Snip>
This has got to be a classic.
Thought I'd quote it out so those who might have missed it in the mess that
crEep considers good message formating can see it in all its glory.
Geoffrey
Eep²
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com>
>
> >I will continue to post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none
> > at all, preferably) until everyone sees why it's better for everyone.
>
> Isn't one definition of insanity to continue to do something the same way
> and expect different results? Keep it up, crEep.
Perhaps you've never heard of persistance in the face of adversity? Attempt to think, please.
Rejo Zenger
++ <38E61274...@tnlc.com>; Eep²:
>> Well I don't see *you* contributing on the Usefor mailing list...
>
>Why should I? I'm not a sysadmin and am only simply defending myself
[...]
Why you should? You are the ones trying to change the 'rules' maybe?
Look, i don't care if you want to set a new standard. However, just
doing what you want will not change a standard, nor create a new one.
If you want to change a standard you will have to do a little more then
what you are doing now (which is probably only earning a place in a few
killfiles...).
>I have no problem with rules so long as they are the most efficient,
>updated, and well-designed. I don't feel a 72-/80-character-per-line
>length is very efficient or well-designed for the reasons I state at
>http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html. Please read it, as I created the page to
[...]
We are talking about Usenet here, so could you please post your reasons
here. If you already did, please send me the Message-Id i can find it
with. Thank you.
-Rejo.
--
= Rejo Zenger re...@sisterray.xs4all.nl
= http://mediaport.org/~sister (and my_urls.html) PGP: see headers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
seman...@lurker.com
>>
>> Well, that is one way to do it. The other way would be to think
>> about it why you actually *do* get so much opposition.
>
>Because I'm doing something so rebellious that no-life twitiots like
>yourself feel they're justified in mentioning some governmentalesque
>"standard" regulatory legislation without actually knowing why such
>rules are still in effect despite the ever-changing status of the
>Net? Hmm...YOU do the math.
Do you think that gratuitous insults will aid your argument? I must
have missed that lecture in disputation.
You are not a maverick or a rebel. You are fighting a solitary
battle against a well-established *convention* (not a regulation) that
works fine as it is. This marks you rather as an eccentric. Do as you
will, but realize that, once the smoke clears and people tire of you,
your inconveniently formatted messages will go unread and languish
forevermore in the bit-bucket of Usenet. Why don't you direct your
considerable polemic energies toward something more significant and
useful?
rdb
Quatoria
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>Perhaps you've never heard of persistance in the face of adversity? Attempt to think, please.
When one continues to run head first into a brick wall, claiming that
the wall is egging one on by its stubborn refusal to move, persistence
transitions to insanity. Would you like to wager a guess on which
category you belong in?
-Quatoria
gr...@apple2.com
Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> People like YOU have forced me to defend myself against your petty
> attacks.
Nobody's forcing you to do anything of the sort. You do not need to
respond to every critic to take your stand.
--
-- --- <gr...@apple2.com>
-- -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
-- -- --- <http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/>
---
gr...@apple2.com
> I'm simply voicing (typing) my opinion, which is protected under the 1st
> Amendment in the US Bill of Rights.
I'm amazed that some of the most vocal people who so vehemently assert
their own First Amendment rights are those who seek to eliminate that
right from everyone else (i.e. he says we should shut up so that his
opinion can reign supreme).
David Thomas
<ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes
>Karl Kleinpaste <ka...@charcoal.com> wrote:
>>dictionary.com indicates "No entry found for obsoletion." This is
>>correct, because the word in question is "obsolescence."
>
>'Obsolescence' and 'Obsoletion' are both valid words, as you'd have
>discovered if you had used a real dictionary. They have different shades
>of meaning. Obsoletion was the correct word in this context.
>
--
David Thomas
David Thomas
>Um, so what? Who made these archaic rules anyway, eh? The Netherlands sure
>didn't invent the Net. Good ol' USA did. The same dinks who set the "standards"
>for Usenet back when it was created, in, like, the 60s or 70s? In case you (and
>they) haven't noticed, the Net's changed and it's time to change with it.
>
>Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per line (cpl)
>why it's better for everyone.
>
>but I've come across SO damn much opposition I just HAVE to fight this nonsense
>"logic". I'd say it's time for some new RFCs and for news/email readers to be
>programmed more intelligently and intuitively.
>
>its progress, you'll simply fall away to obsoletion.
>
>joanne...@home.com wrote:
>
>> Eep² wrote:
>> >
>> > Derek, D. wrote:
>>
>> > > But where would Usenet be without long-winded speeches by people who
>> > > know little or nothing about the topic they're lecturing about? It
>> > > just wouldn't be the same Usenet that i've come to grow and love.
>> > > :-)
>> >
>> > I don't? http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html
>>
>> It's nice that you have gone and made a web page about your own personal
>> Usenet preferences, Eep, but some other people feel differently about
>> the subject.
>>
>> 1.) Rules for posting to Usenet
>>
>> http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/usenet/posting-rules/part1.html
>>
>> <begin quote>
>> In preparing an article, be aware that other people's machines are
>> not the same as yours. The following is a list of things to keep
>> in mind:
>> * Keep your lines under 80 characters, and under 72 if possible (so
>> that
>> the lines won't get longer than 80 when people include them when
>> responding to your postings). Most editors have a fill or format
>> mode
>> that will do this for you automatically. Make sure that it
>> actually puts ("hard") newline characters into the file, rather
>> than just wrapping the displayed lines on your screen.
>> <end quote>
>>
>> 2.) The seven "don'ts" of Usenet
>>
>> http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/usenet/dont.html
>>
>> <begin quote>
>> Don't post anything but plain text to Usenet, except to groups where
>> other formats are explicitly allowed. No HTML, no vcards, no GIFs or
>> other binaries. (You can put your material onto the Web and include the
>> URL into your posting.) Don't use any program for posting to Usenet
>> before checking the settings so that your message won't be sent in a
>> non-text format by it. Plain text means it's text only, with line length
>> under 80 (preferably under 72) characters; it doesn't mean boring or
>> careless text.
>> <end quote>
>>
>> RFC 1036 - Basic format of Usenet articles
>>
>> http://x29.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps,ST_cam=search.yahoo.none.slot]/getdoc.xp?AN=5868
>08612&CONTEXT=954553159.2059862026&hitnum=3
>>
>> (this is a deja news link - you may have to copy and paste the link in
>> order to view the article)
>>
>> <begin quote>
>> In plain-text messages (those with no Mime headers, or those with a Mime
>> Content-Type of text/plain) posting agents SHOULD endeavour to keep the
>> length of body lines within some reasonable limit. The size of this
>> limit is a matter of policy, the default being to keep within 79
>> characters at most, and preferably within 72 characters (to allow room
>> for quoting in followups). Exceptionally, posting agents SHOULD NOT
>> adjust the length of quoted lines in followups unless they are able to
>> reformat them in a consistent manner. Moreover, posting agents MUST
>> permit the poster to include longer lines if he so insists.
>> <end quote>
>
>--
>http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
>Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping.
>
--
David Thomas
David Thomas
><yawn> How do you think I weed out all the idiots? :)
--
David Thomas
Fenris Wolf
was sitting in my office when "Geoff Black"
<gbl...@nwrain.nospam.com> knocked on the door. I motioned for them
to come in. They stepped forth and handed me a note, on it was written
:
>Looks like our crEep is into use fairly obsolete words. Neat.
LOL! So much for his "progress" rant then. Maybe he should spend more
time trying to keep up with the changes in the English language rather
then trying to create his own changes in usenet.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Fenris Wolf (ICQ: 20111567)
http://www.darksider.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------------
REMOVE MY PANTS TO EMAIL ME
"One only see's what one observes and one only observes
what is already in the mind." - Alphonse Bertillon
L.J. Wischik
>Who cares and why is this argument going on?
It bugs me when people make spelling or grammar flames that are themselves
uninformed or incorrect.
derek_d.
>In article <38E6A422...@tnlc.com>,
>Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
>> People like YOU have forced me to defend myself against your petty
>> attacks.
>
>Nobody's forcing you to do anything of the sort. You do not need to
>respond to every critic to take your stand.
What makes me laugh is...a stand for what?? Line lengths?..I mean
there are much important things to worry about and fight over...who
gives a shit already? You write the way you want, Eep, anybody can
just killfile you if you they don't like it (which many have already).
This "debate" is rather pointless.
~ Derek ~
Eep²
> In article <38E6A422...@tnlc.com>,
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> > People like YOU have forced me to defend myself against your petty
> > attacks.
>
> Nobody's forcing you to do anything of the sort. You do not need to
> respond to every critic to take your stand.
And people don't need to critique my line length settings. It's a catch-22, really.
Eep²
> In article <38E6A422...@tnlc.com>,
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm simply voicing (typing) my opinion, which is protected under the 1st
> > Amendment in the US Bill of Rights.
>
> I'm amazed that some of the most vocal people who so vehemently assert
> their own First Amendment rights are those who seek to eliminate that
> right from everyone else (i.e. he says we should shut up so that his
> opinion can reign supreme).
Um, I'm not saying that at all. I wouldn't've HAD to assert my opinion if you ninnies didn't pester me about my line length setting in the FIRST place. This is what you and others fail to grasp...this VERY simple, basic concept. Look into the mirror, eh?
Eep²
> In article <8c56nu$rdc$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, L.J. Wischik
> <ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes
> >Karl Kleinpaste <ka...@charcoal.com> wrote:
> >>dictionary.com indicates "No entry found for obsoletion." This is
> >>correct, because the word in question is "obsolescence."
> >
> >'Obsolescence' and 'Obsoletion' are both valid words, as you'd have
> >discovered if you had used a real dictionary. They have different shades
> >of meaning. Obsoletion was the correct word in this context.
> >
> Who cares and why is this argument going on?
Because these people are newsgroupy geeks, nerds, twits, idiots, putzes, dorks, and have no lives? JUST A THEORY...
Eep²
> On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 10:17:14 -0500, gr...@apple2.com wrote:
>
> >In article <38E6A422...@tnlc.com>,
> >Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> People like YOU have forced me to defend myself against your petty
> >> attacks.
> >
> >Nobody's forcing you to do anything of the sort. You do not need to
> >respond to every critic to take your stand.
>
> What makes me laugh is...a stand for what?? Line lengths?..I mean
> there are much important things to worry about and fight over...who
> gives a shit already? You write the way you want, Eep, anybody can
> just killfile you if you they don't like it (which many have already).
> This "debate" is rather pointless.
As is people's objection to my line length settings. Look into the mirror...
David Thomas
<ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes
>David Thomas <Da...@reliance.nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>Who cares and why is this argument going on?
>
>uninformed or incorrect.
>
--
David Thomas
David Thomas
>David Thomas wrote:
>
>> In article <8c56nu$rdc$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, L.J. Wischik
>> <ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes
>> >Karl Kleinpaste <ka...@charcoal.com> wrote:
>> >>dictionary.com indicates "No entry found for obsoletion." This is
>> >>correct, because the word in question is "obsolescence."
>> >
>> >'Obsolescence' and 'Obsoletion' are both valid words, as you'd have
>> >discovered if you had used a real dictionary. They have different shades
>> >of meaning. Obsoletion was the correct word in this context.
>> >
>
>and have no lives? JUST A THEORY...
>
--
David Thomas
Eep²
Oops, then so are you. Drive through! Putz...
David Thomas
>David Thomas wrote:
>
>> In article <38E82BE5...@tnlc.com>, Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> writes
>> >David Thomas wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <8c56nu$rdc$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, L.J. Wischik
>> >> <ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes
>> >> >Karl Kleinpaste <ka...@charcoal.com> wrote:
>> >> >>dictionary.com indicates "No entry found for obsoletion." This is
>> >> >>correct, because the word in question is "obsolescence."
>> >> >
>> >> >'Obsolescence' and 'Obsoletion' are both valid words, as you'd have
>> >> >discovered if you had used a real dictionary. They have different shades
>> >> >of meaning. Obsoletion was the correct word in this context.
>> >> >
>> >> Who cares and why is this argument going on?
>> >
>> >Because these people are newsgroupy geeks, nerds, twits, idiots, putzes,
>dorks,
>> >and have no lives? JUST A THEORY...
>>
>> Your part of this argument so maybe you're one of them.
>
>Oops, then so are you. Drive through! Putz...
>
the argument about 'obselesence'. Two fatal flaws in your post. Think
before you make a fool of yourself.
--
David Thomas
Brian Robinson
> Besides, I have already shown on that page how 72 characters per line
> (cpl) screws up when quoted 2 or more times. 72cpl is bunk and I will
> continue to post with the MAXIMUM line length (or none at all,
> preferably) until everyone sees why it's better for everyone.
>
will stop. Yay!
--
Brian Robinson
brob...@ist.ucf.edu
Institute for Simulation and Training
Eep²
Ahaha, the fool is you, sport, for now you're making a big deal out of talking ABOUT something so pathetic an argument as spelling. You are quite the lamer indeed...
David Short
Quatoria wrote in message
>Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you've never heard of persistance in the face of adversity?
>>Attempt to think, please.
>
>When one continues to run head first into a brick wall, claiming that
>the wall is egging one on by its stubborn refusal to move, persistence
>transitions to insanity.
Kind of like responding to any of this troll's posts?
Oh I see he's crossposting to new groups.
Imagine that.
dfs
Eep²
I crosspost when relevant. <shrug>
Quatoria
"David Short" <dsh...@nova.wright.edu> wrote:
>>
>>When one continues to run head first into a brick wall, claiming that
>>the wall is egging one on by its stubborn refusal to move, persistence
>>transitions to insanity.
>
>Kind of like responding to any of this troll's posts?
No, attempting to change HIS opinion and actions would be like that.
I'm just amusing myself by mocking him repeatedly.
David Thomas
argument. I mean I must be such a fool for writing three posts
complaining about a pointless argument which is so much more than your
100 or more posts about line lengths. You really are as thick and
backwards as people say.
--
David Thomas
David Thomas
>David Short wrote:
>
>> Quatoria wrote in message
>> >Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Perhaps you've never heard of persistance in the face of adversity?
>> >>Attempt to think, please.
>> >
>> >the wall is egging one on by its stubborn refusal to move, persistence
>> >transitions to insanity.
>>
>> Kind of like responding to any of this troll's posts?
>>
>>
>> Imagine that.
>
>I crosspost when relevant. <shrug>
>
--
David Thomas
Eep²
You sure are. :) Drive through! <filter>
flaming cat
Eep² wrote in message <38EB3FD4...@tnlc.com>...
Hey! Filter me while you're at it. It's so much easier for ME that way.
Really. I'll call you an idiot, point out flaws in your arguments, whatever
it takes. I've never had a troll that did the work for me.
flaming cat
David Thomas
kids of 6. To find you saying it is not suprising at all. You claim
persistence in the face of adversity, like a mosquito.
--
David Thomas
Jim Richardson
Eep², in the persona of <e...@tnlc.com>,
brought forth the following words...:
>gr...@apple2.com wrote:
>
>> In article <38E6A422...@tnlc.com>,
>> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>>
>> > People like YOU have forced me to defend myself against your petty
>> > attacks.
>>
>> Nobody's forcing you to do anything of the sort. You do not need to
>> respond to every critic to take your stand.
>
>And people don't need to critique my line length settings. It's a catch-22, really.
>
Most of us didn't critique you, we just killfiled you.
Decko2K
<slrn8g4b7h...@troll.myth>:
>On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 22:23:53 -0700,
That was 3 weeks ago! Please put us all out of our misery and let this
thread die the death it deserves!