Hum from phone wires running next to mains?

"David Taylor" wrote in message

: On 2008-03-09, Ivor Jones
: wrote:
:
:
: "Stuart" wrote in message
:
:
: [snip]
:
: : Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the
: : fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of
: : quoting as if you had used " "
:
: Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
:
: Not quite. You're now quoting with ": " compared to
: ": :" previously.

So what's the problem with that..?

No, don't bother answering, I've had enough of this pointless argument.

You don't like my quote style, tough. Don't read my posts. Simple, problem
solved.

Bye.

Ivor

On 2008-03-10, Ivor Jones wrote:


"David Taylor" wrote in message

: On 2008-03-09, Ivor Jones
: wrote:
:
:
: "Stuart" wrote in message
:
:
: [snip]
:
: : Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the
: : fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of
: : quoting as if you had used " "
:
: Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
:
: Not quite. You're now quoting with ": " compared to
: ": :" previously.

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.

--
David Taylor

krw wrote:

: *MY* system is configured properly. *YOU* have the
: problem. ...and more than one.

Eh..? *I* don't have a problem.

Yes, you do.

Seems to me it's *you* that has the
problem, if you can't cope with a simple : character in a plain text
message.

Again, it is not *I* who has a problem.


Can't the two of you continue this by email and stop wasting
everyone else's bandwidth?

regards, Ian

David Taylor wrote:
Ivor Jones 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.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: http://cbfalconer.home.att.net
Try the download section.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones wrote:
|
|
| wrote in message
|
| : In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
| : wrote:
|
| [snip]
|
| : | 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.
| :
| : The fact that you are DOUBLE indenting makes it appear
| : that you have
| : quoted ONLY the quoting of the previous poster. It
| : doesn't matter if
| : the indenting is ": " or ": :" or even " ". It is
| : misleading.
|
| I put a space in, not a double indent. I have now modifed the system so it
| puts a single : instead of converting the previous quote mark to a : which
| it did before. So now you should be getting : and not : :

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.


| Regarding it appearing that I am quoting only the previous poster, I
| normally only do that anyway unless the thread dictates otherwise, but I
| don't see how it's misleading because I ensure I quote the names of the
| previous posters that I'm including, see the top of this message.

It is misleading because it appears you are responding to someone else
that responded to me, and that someone else used " " and then you used
an additional ": ". You should choose BETWEEN ": " and " ", but not
have both combined.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

David Taylor wrote:
Ivor Jones 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.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: http://cbfalconer.home.att.net
Try the download section.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones wrote:
|
|
| wrote in message
|
| : In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
| : wrote:
| : |
| : |
| : | "Stuart" wrote in message
| : |
| : |
| : | [snip]
| : |
| : | : Can't say as it caused me any issues here except
| : | : the fact of ": :" putting it down to the second
| : | : level of quoting as if you had used " "
| : |
| : | Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
| :
| : What was fixed? The same issue still exists. It is
| : NOT an issue of what the character is. It is an issue
| : of DOUBLE indenting.
|
| No, that's a space, not another indent.

Who put the " " on the text I wrote?
Who put the ": " on that?

You put them both. Maybe that was because your client put " " first and
then you added ": " by some other means. But it is still TWO and it is
misleading.


| If it were double indenting it would be :: or : or whatever not : : or :
|

It is ": " (colon space right-angle-bracket space) and that is TWO indents.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones wrote:
|
|
| "David Taylor" wrote in message
|
| : On 2008-03-09, Ivor Jones
| : wrote:
| :
| :
| : "Stuart" wrote in message
| :
| :
| : [snip]
| :
| : : Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the
| : : fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of
| : : quoting as if you had used " "
| :
| : Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
| :
| : Not quite. You're now quoting with ": " compared to
| : ": :" previously.
|
| So what's the problem with that..?

The problem is it looks like the text you are quoting was quoted by
someone else before you.


| No, don't bother answering, I've had enough of this pointless argument.

Why are you trying to say you not doing that which you are doing?


| You don't like my quote style, tough. Don't read my posts. Simple, problem
| solved.

That would be a simple solution. I bet some already have.

What I am trying to do is get you to realize what it is you are doing.
So far, your explanations DO NOT MATCH UP WITH what you actually ARE DOING.
Maybe it is because you just don't see it for some reason. I don't know
what the reason is. But I'm to keep on you until you at least understand
that you are putting on TWO layers of indenting (first " " and then after
that ": " to the left of it).

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 23:46:53 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:

"JosephKK" wrote in message

: On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:43:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: wrote:

[snip]

: It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't
: cope.
:
: Ivor
:
: That depends on how non-standard you are. Just because
: some newsreaders can cope does not make it standard or
: right. Your stuff don't bother me none. News clients
: that produce non-quotable posts do bother me, it makes
: trying to reply worthless.

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.

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:02:09 +0000 (GMT), Stuart
wrote:

In article ,
Ivor Jones wrote:
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.

I think the only real issue is that ":" could appear naturally in a "plain
text" email as it is a standard punctuation mark, "" is far less likely
though I suppose ": :" is unlikely too.

IIRC the RFC specifies that the quote marking character be in the
first column. The rest of the line is then simple quoted unless the
quoting level causes a word wrap. No big deal for me either way.