Hum from phone wires running next to mains?

How about a little support besides your attitude.

Thank you.

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.... :-)

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".

Well done, Madge.

Yes, it is OK now. Apology accepted.

???

: ... 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

| : ... 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.

: | : | 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

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.

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

Ivor

Ivor. Dr Drivel and Weatherlawyer are looking for a soulmate, do you want to join 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.

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 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.

: >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

: 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

cut

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