Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-02.inet.qwest.net!132.250.1.121.MISMATCH!ra.nrl.navy.mil!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!MIX!Blackbird From: billy@MIX.COM Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Upcoming New Newsreader for the Mac: Signal Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 94 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1403093568 10572 166.84.1.5 (18 Jun 2014 12:12:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.apps:23046 comp.sys.mac.system:61067 dorayme wrote, quoting me: > > > I am well aware of the effort thank you very much. Why should it > > > be all the small efforts of repliers rather than your one time > > > once only effort in a newsreader to keep your Regards Billy or > > > whatever under the delimiters? > > > > Because you (and they) have elected to reply to what I've written. > > That is a reply that makes no sense at all in the argument. It is an > assumption of the whole issue that people are replying, and so it > cannot be a reason to include your name above the delimiters. Whose problem is it? Everyone replying to anything has some cleaning up to do. But, far more people read news articles than reply to them. Would you have all those suffer a loss for the sake of the tiny few who might want to post a followup? What loss? If they're not displaying sigs (I don't know how common this is, but from your screen shot I know you don't display them), then they miss seeing my name (which is not, has not been for decades, and is not going into my email address). You'll probably find fault with that, too. My response will be you're welcome to do it your way, and I will do mine. > > > > > Maybe I have the wrong idea, I don't know, but properly delimited sigs > > > > > are good for signing off (as well as giving any useful information > > > > > about contacts, funnies, cleveries, whatever). > > > > > > > > Mine will probably only be understood by those skilled in assembly > > > > language programming. > > > > > > Yes, OK, but we are not talking about that... > > > > You are the one who brought it up, and I replied, thus yes, we _are_ > > talking about it. > > > > Another uncomprehending reply. We were never ever *talking about* the > details of what you have actually been putting under the dashes. Details? What does "(as well as giving any useful information about contacts, funnies, cleveries, whatever)" mean to you? You said it, so you are quite qualified to provide an answer. Additionally, why are you including the extra blank lines of "> > " in included text, as in just below "> > talking about it." in the above? A proper followup means I have to trim those, although I left the one just above, so we can discuss it now. They make more work for me than my sign off does for you. > Your "So?" shows you still don't get it. The Regards Billy or whatever > is something you can do something about, the other stuff is not in > your power to help disappear (except by drastic action like not > posting at all or posting nothing at all). Well, the useless and uncalled for extra "> > " lines of text, and the unneeded trailing spaces at the ends of your lines of text (most likely left there by your text editor because the moron who wrote it could not be bothered to strip them when wrapping lines of text), are both things you can do something about. NB I have not bothered to reformat the paragraphs of this note, so your trailing spaces yet remain, even though one line now exceeds 80 columms. > > > You serious? Do you throw your chocolate wrapper out of your car > > > because you think what the hell, look at the other rubbish thrown > > > around by others? Ever heard about doing your bit? > > > > You'll have to come with an proper analogy to argue this point. > > It is a proper analogy. It is interesting to see you and Sandman at > work here, neither of you really understanding analogies. A proper analogy is the one I've just made, directly above. Ignore this if you must, but it (extra "> > " and trailing blanks) remain a spot on, 100% correct analogy. A comparison with littering is not. > As I say, horses do better. But, to say something more optimistic, > these lacks are often balanced (not quite the right word) by great > skills elsewhere, skills even horses never have). These lacks are, in the overall scheme of things, quite miniscule. Again, to be sure, I really don't care about what useless things are in your news articles, but if you must knock my analogical abilities, they are quite useful to demonstrate your conclusions are erroneous. Billy Y.. -- sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer bcc 20$ ; not a number