Hum from phone wires running next to mains?

Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*

Absolute nonsense.

Bullsnit. Try reading your EE100 text again.

Actually, that's why it works so well as a balanced transmission line.

I'd suggest studying transmission lines and antennas. Start with Kraus.

The only problem with a straight plonk is that other peoples quotes of the plonkee shine through. The advantage of that is that one has a chance to decide the plonk should be retracted.

Indeed. But even three complaints in 10+ years (and I have my doubts on the validity of at least one of them) is not worth worrying about. I post a *lot* of articles on Usenet in 20+ groups, 3 complaints doesn't even register. 3000 might, or even 300. But 3..? Try harder.

BTW nobody has yet mentioned which piece of flaky software gets upset by a : instead of a >

Ivor

Sure, it's a transmission line for the t-wave on the line. It's also an antenna, with the gain proportional to the area of the loop. Try running that open line next to a power line.

Get real Floyd!

It looks like maybe PCPaul's software, which identifies itself as "Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)" might be getting them confused. I don't know if it because it is a ":" or because you are using double ": :". I don't see a logical reason for the software to get confused. Once it has parsed passed the headers and into the content body, the logic should simply be to look for any special character that is repeated at the beginning of every line. I believe a "." might have problems because it gets used as an escape during transmission in NNTP. But even that has generally worked for me (so most software still handles it OK).

Apparently what his software did was dismiss line breaks of the message he quoted, and mingle the ": :" into the message.

What can be confusing to people is the double ": :" usage. That makes it look like you quoted with ":" what your previous poster quoted with ":". So instead of that quoted text being understood as the part of the parent post, it gets misunderstood as part of the grandparent post. It also looks like you or your software replaced other people's quoting character with ":" or ": :". Whatever anyone uses, that should be left as is (unless it is clearly broken).

... snip ...

Piggy-backing, because Jones is plonked. Obviously he doesn't get complaints, since all those who would complain have been ignored and have plonked him. Most plonkers don't bother to advise the plonkee.

Here's a third complaint. The only thing worse is those that post in html and so some newsreaders won't automatically mark the quoted text at all.

daestrom

Most folks just ignore you instead of bothering getting sucked into arguments. Life's too short to waste my time on you and your 'non-standard' stuff.

Spot on. My parents had a 'princess phone' in the bedroom and a small AC transformer in the basement fed the light with yellow/black. But all the phones in my house are just R-G.

daestrom

I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it should not be someone else's burden to cope with non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps can do so.

: > What can be confusing to people is the double ": :" : > usage. That makes : > it look like you quoted with ":" what your previous : > poster quoted with ":". So instead of that quoted text : > being understood as the part of : > the parent post, it gets misunderstood as part of the : > grandparent post. : > It also looks like you or your software replaced other : > people's quoting character with ":" or ": :". Whatever : > anyone uses, that should be : > left as is (unless it is clearly broken).

It's OE Quotefix and I've found the setting that caused it to convert the existing quote marks and I've disabled that, so they should now be as they were.

Hope this helps.

Ivor

: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of : > worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it : > should not be someone else's burden to cope with : > non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps : > can do so.

It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't cope.

Ivor

My software copes with anything reasonable, but not with idiots who misconfigure their software.

Yes it should because the whole point of usenet is the simple and standard format it is presented in, versus say a web forum.

: >>[snip] : >>

: >>: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are : >>: > lots of worse things but make it a 4th complaint : >>: > because it should not be someone else's burden to : >>: > cope with non-standard quote marks - even if many : >>: > newsreader apps can do so. : >>

: >>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't : >>cope. : >

: > My software copes with anything reasonable, but not with : > idiots who misconfigure their software.

It's not misconfigured. Just configured differently.

Ivor

: >>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't : >>cope. : >>

: >>Ivor : >

: > Yes it should because the whole point of usenet is the : > simple and standard format it is presented in, versus : > say a web forum.

Plain text. If you have a problem with that, then I'm sorry but it *is* your problem. It's people who post in HTML and other strange formats that are the problem.

Although even Outlook Express can cope with that.

Ivor

I think software developers sometimes call this kind of dilemma Postel's Law .