Hum from phone wires running next to mains?

JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:06:17 -0000, "Ivor Jones"

But what is the objection..? I just don't get it. I've been on Usenet for
over 10 years and nobody has *ever* complained about this before.

Ivor

A mere 10 years. I have been on Usenet since 1983. That is 25 years.
It was 1978 when i got clued in to its existence. Shortly after i got
my first email account.
Click to expand...
You've got some real explaining to do! How'd you know about the
existence of Usenet in 1978, when the guys who came up with it
didn't do so until late in 1979? Hmmmmm.... :)


--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
 
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:03:38 -0800, JosephKK
<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:


Which makes it the *software's* problem, not mine. If your software can't
do what you want it to, get software that can.

Ivor

I am not having any problem with your posts, Keith's, or Floyd's.

A few irregular posters are producing posts that Agent does not seem
to quote properly.
Click to expand...

Who? Agent quotes the irregular characters fine for me,
even using a (now quite) dated version but that doesn't mean
we can chuck the standards which allow the most versatile
use by _everyone_ . Remember that we're entering a new era
of mobile devices that many not run WinTel platforms, may
have limited processing, display, storage, etc. Standards
are about compatiblity, not about "it's up to the other guy
to work around what I'm doing that's nonstandard".
 
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:56:04 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fr4fcs0225b@news3.newsguy.com

[snip]

: There is a ": > " in front of the text I wrote that you
: quoted. That is TWO characters of intending. It is NOT
: converting the previous quote mark because there was no
: previous quote mark from me, other than for the text
: I quoted which has a "| " in front.

Ah, *finally* I see it. I am using OE with the QuoteFix addon and both
were inserting quotemarks, OE was inserting a > and Quotefix the : so yes
there were two quotemarks.

Hope this is ok now, many apologies to all for my obtuseness.
Click to expand...
Well done, Madge.


--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/ http://www.pherber.com/
 
In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
|
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:fr4fcs0225b@news3.newsguy.com
|
| [snip]
|
| : There is a ": > " in front of the text I wrote that you
| : quoted. That is TWO characters of intending. It is NOT
| : converting the previous quote mark because there was no
| : previous quote mark from me, other than for the text
| : I quoted which has a "| " in front.
|
| Ah, *finally* I see it. I am using OE with the QuoteFix addon and both
| were inserting quotemarks, OE was inserting a > and Quotefix the : so yes
| there were two quotemarks.
|
| Hope this is ok now, many apologies to all for my obtuseness.

Yes, it is OK now. Apology accepted.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-11-1756@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
 
In article <4nqbt39bfslkeci68es5qosa18qscokc6j@4ax.com>,
quiettechblue@yahoo.com says...
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:18:49 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <63ishuF282s6lU1@mid.individual.net>,
ivor@thisaddressis.invalid says...

"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.223dff2f50174ee99898e2@news.individual.net
: > In article <63gmrhF27s269U1@mid.individual.net>,
: > ivor@thisaddressis.invalid says...

[snip]

: >> Which makes it the *software's* problem, not mine. If
: >> your software can't do what you want it to, get
: >> software that can.
:
: > This is only true if your intention is to write for
: > yourself. In that case, why bother the rest of us?

Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is written in plain text,
by the way. If you can't cope with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII
text, tough.

This post typifies your attitude toward you reader. The question
is, why do *you* bother writing if you have no interest in your
reader?

How about a little support besides your attitude.
Click to expand...
???

--
Keith
 
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47D5AE7B.D27816C5@yahoo.com
: David Taylor wrote:
: > Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
: >
: ... snip ...
: >
: >> So what's the problem with that..? No, don't bother
: >> answering, I've had enough of this pointless argument.
: >
: > Quote with ":" if you like. Quote with ">" if you like.
: > But don't quote with ": >" because that looks like two
: > levels of quoting.
:
: Piggybacking. It is topical here as long as you fail to
: observe the standard protocols.

Where may I view these "standard protocols" please..?

Ivor
 
In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
|
|
| "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:47D5AE7B.D27816C5@yahoo.com
| : David Taylor wrote:
| : > Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
| : >
| : ... snip ...
| : >
| : >> So what's the problem with that..? No, don't bother
| : >> answering, I've had enough of this pointless argument.
| : >
| : > Quote with ":" if you like. Quote with ">" if you like.
| : > But don't quote with ": >" because that looks like two
| : > levels of quoting.
| :
| : Piggybacking. It is topical here as long as you fail to
| : observe the standard protocols.
|
| Where may I view these "standard protocols" please..?

In other posts in these same newsgroups.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-14-0030@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
 
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:frd2iu02an@news4.newsguy.com
: In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

: |
: | Where may I view these "standard protocols" please..?
:
: In other posts in these same newsgroups.

That's convention, which isn't the same thing. But you knew that.

Ivor
 
In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:frd2iu02an@news4.newsguy.com
| : In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
| : <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
|
| [snip]
|
| : |
| : | Where may I view these "standard protocols" please..?
| :
| : In other posts in these same newsgroups.
|
| That's convention, which isn't the same thing. But you knew that.

What kind of _standard_ are you looking for? Specific rules about what
you can indent with? In such a case, I think convention is what applies.
Protocols are for specific communications mechanisms, like NNTP for article
transfer. And those have escapement mechanisms for just about anything you
might put in the content body.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-14-0823@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
 
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:frdud411c9d@news4.newsguy.com
: In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
:
: | : | Where may I view these "standard protocols"
: | : | please..?
: | :
: | : In other posts in these same newsgroups.
: |
: | That's convention, which isn't the same thing. But you
: | knew that.
:
: What kind of _standard_ are you looking for? Specific
: rules about what you can indent with?

Yes, if you want me to abide by them.

: In such a case, I think convention
: is what applies.

But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand that I follow your
conventions.

: Protocols are for specific
: communications mechanisms, like NNTP for article
: transfer. And those have escapement mechanisms for just
: about anything you might put in the content body.

My eyes are my escapement mechanism. I can read just about anything that
is put into a plain text message (that doesn't mean that I can
*understand* it though..!)

Ivor
 
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:27:11 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:frdud411c9d@news4.newsguy.com
: In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
:
: | : | Where may I view these "standard protocols"
: | : | please..?
: | :
: | : In other posts in these same newsgroups.
: |
: | That's convention, which isn't the same thing. But you
: | knew that.
:
: What kind of _standard_ are you looking for? Specific
: rules about what you can indent with?

Yes, if you want me to abide by them.

: In such a case, I think convention
: is what applies.

But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand that I follow your
conventions.
Click to expand...
Ivor. Dr Drivel and Weatherlawyer are looking for a soulmate, do you
want to join them?



--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/ http://www.pherber.com/
 
In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
|
|
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:frdud411c9d@news4.newsguy.com
| : In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
| : <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
| :
| : | : | Where may I view these "standard protocols"
| : | : | please..?
| : | :
| : | : In other posts in these same newsgroups.
| : |
| : | That's convention, which isn't the same thing. But you
| : | knew that.
| :
| : What kind of _standard_ are you looking for? Specific
| : rules about what you can indent with?
|
| Yes, if you want me to abide by them.

I asked for you to indent with a single character of your choice. That is
the common practice. You've addressed the issue that was resulting in a
double indent. What more is needed? I'm OK with you using ":" to indent.
That even helps identify things better, that you are using a different
character.


| : In such a case, I think convention
| : is what applies.
|
| But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand that I follow your
| conventions.

Correct, I have no such authority, aside from (eventually) choosing to
bypass your posts.


| : Protocols are for specific
| : communications mechanisms, like NNTP for article
| : transfer. And those have escapement mechanisms for just
| : about anything you might put in the content body.
|
| My eyes are my escapement mechanism. I can read just about anything that
| is put into a plain text message (that doesn't mean that I can
| *understand* it though..!)

I go for a little more than just reading and understanding ... I'd like for
it to be easy and not take too much time to read and understand. As it now
stands, I have no problem with how you are indenting.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-14-1232@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
 
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:53:29 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:frd2iu02an@news4.newsguy.com
: In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

: |
: | Where may I view these "standard protocols" please..?
:
: In other posts in these same newsgroups.

That's convention, which isn't the same thing. But you knew that.

Ivor
Click to expand...
Convention and standard, it's a fine line you're trying to
draw mainly for an argumentative state to support a position
that is obviously not agreeable to others and obviously not
what was intended for usenet by your own observations.
 
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:27:11 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:


: In such a case, I think convention
: is what applies.

But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand that I follow your
conventions.
Click to expand...
So you're going to act like a 5 year old child thinking "you
can't make me!"?

Grow up and accept when you've done something wrong. It
doesn't take a genius to see why one character and only one
should be used to denote a quote line.
 
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:aramt3hu0j9eflchjigor3bob3f35vl6qa@4ax.com
: On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:27:11 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
:
:
: >: In such a case, I think convention
: >: is what applies.
: >
: >But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand
: >that I follow your conventions.
: >
:
: So you're going to act like a 5 year old child thinking
: "you can't make me!"?

Not at all. I am merely stating fact, you are free to interpret it as you
wish.
:
: Grow up and accept when you've done something wrong. It
: doesn't take a genius to see why one character and only
: one should be used to denote a quote line.

In an unregulated environment such as Usenet, I can't do anything wrong as
there are no rules.

Ivor
 
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:6pamt39l9ngukl89hcborhkvf5o3uin7jm@4ax.com

[snip]

: Convention and standard, it's a fine line you're trying to
: draw mainly for an argumentative state to support a
: position that is obviously not agreeable to others and
: obviously not what was intended for usenet by your own
: observations.

So explain to me just why, in 10+ years, this is the first time a
"complaint" has arisen. It's been "agreeable to others" until now, what
has suddenly happened..?

Ivor
 
Ivor Jones wrote:
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:frdud411c9d@news4.newsguy.com
: In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
:
: | : | Where may I view these "standard protocols"
: | : | please..?
: | :
: | : In other posts in these same newsgroups.
cut
But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand that I follow your
conventions.
Trolling and obnoxious behavior is something only yo can stop.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile others are free to call you a social crossposting misfit.
 
"Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote
in message
news:47dc02e6$0$25501$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl

[snip]

: Trolling and obnoxious behavior is something only yo can
: stop. Meanwhile others are free to call you a social
: crossposting misfit.

Yes mother.

Ivor
 
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:35:13 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:aramt3hu0j9eflchjigor3bob3f35vl6qa@4ax.com
: On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:27:11 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
:
:
: >: In such a case, I think convention
: >: is what applies.
:
: >But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand
: >that I follow your conventions.
:
:
: So you're going to act like a 5 year old child thinking
: "you can't make me!"?

Not at all. I am merely stating fact, you are free to interpret it as you
wish.
Click to expand...
It is only when people lack common sense and courtesy that
society has to take extra measure to force or compell
compliance. As you might note by looking at other posts,
the vast majority have no problem figuring out how to post.
Surely you're not deluded enough to think you're doing it
the right way versus everyone else has for years?

Are you stupid?
(It's not really a question.)
It should be obvious to anyone why using two characters
instead of one is problematic.



:
: Grow up and accept when you've done something wrong. It
: doesn't take a genius to see why one character and only
: one should be used to denote a quote line.

In an unregulated environment such as Usenet, I can't do anything wrong as
there are no rules.
Click to expand...
Want to bet whether a google search for "usenet rules" turns
up anything? What exactly is it that would be necessary for
your compliance? Loss of ISP or news account? A fine?
Imprisonment? They all seem rather ridiculous things to
have to do when there is no compelling reason to do it wrong
as you do.
 
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:36:48 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:6pamt39l9ngukl89hcborhkvf5o3uin7jm@4ax.com

[snip]

: Convention and standard, it's a fine line you're trying to
: draw mainly for an argumentative state to support a
: position that is obviously not agreeable to others and
: obviously not what was intended for usenet by your own
: observations.

So explain to me just why, in 10+ years, this is the first time a
"complaint" has arisen. It's been "agreeable to others" until now, what
has suddenly happened..?

Ivor
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Someone not saying it's disagreeable is no more
evidence that it's agreeable to them than that it wasn't.

When someone didn't say anything they were being patient,
courteous, thinking you must just be ignorant and a bit slow
in the mind but will figure it out eventually. When you
start acknowledging you do it and trying to defend it, NOW
you actually see what people think. It can't just be
coincidence that more than one person has something to say
about it when you've never had anyone say it was acceptible
or a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top