Hum from phone wires running next to mains?

In alt.engineering.electrical JosephKK wrote:
| On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:06:17 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
| wrote:
|
|
|"Stuart" wrote in message

|: 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.
|
|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
|
| I went poking through the RFC's including 3977, 2980, and 1036. None
| of them specified a quoting character for Usenet. Can anyone find one
| that does?

I have never seen one. That would suggest any character is allowed. The
first indenting I ever saw was with "" either with or without a space.
The space isn't required, either. It seems most use a space following the
character they use, so it could be considered customary. But without the
space there isn't any misleading indications; it's just a tad bit harder
to read, but not much (and others may find it the other way around). What
is a problem is when someone indents the text in such a way that it looks
like it was indented then indented again. It looks like such a poster is
quoting someone who quoted someone else when in fact they are just merely
quoting someone. It doesn't matter what character they are choosing.

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

wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
"Ivor Jones"

.... snip ...

I went poking through the RFC's including 3977, 2980, and 1036.
None of them specified a quoting character for Usenet. Can
anyone find one that does?

I have never seen one. That would suggest any character is
allowed. The first indenting I ever saw was with "" either
with or without a space. The space isn't required, either. It
seems most use a space following the character they use, so it
could be considered customary. But without the space there isn't
any misleading indications; it's just a tad bit harder to read,
but not much (and others may find it the other way around). What
is a problem is when someone indents the text in such a way that
it looks like it was indented then indented again. It looks like
such a poster is quoting someone who quoted someone else when in
fact they are just merely quoting someone. It doesn't matter
what character they are choosing.

The following is a quote from 'son of RFC1036'.

"The order of arrival of news articles at a particular host
depends somewhat on transmission paths, and occasionally
articles are lost for various reasons. When responding to a
previous article, posters SHOULD not assume that all readers
understand the exact context. It is common to quote some of
the previous article to establish context. This SHOULD be
done by prefacing each quoted line (even if it is empty)
with the character "". This will result in multiple levels
of "" when quoted context itself contains quoted context."

--
[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

"Ian Smith" wrote in
message

[snip]

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

Well putting my pedant's hat on, you don't *have* to read it..!

But in any case I am saying no more, I'm as tired of the argument as you
are.


Ivor

wrote in message


[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.

Ivor

"David Taylor" wrote in message


[snip]

: Quote with ":" if you like. Quote with "" if you like.
: But don't quote with ": " because that looks like two
: levels of quoting.

I've finally figured out what was wrong. I'm using OE with the Quotefix
addon, both were adding quotemarks, I'd changed the one in Quotefix but
forgot that OE itself inserted another one as well.

It should be ok now, apologies for my obtuseness..!

Ivor

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:06:17 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:


"Stuart" wrote in message

: 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.

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.

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:06:17 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:


"Stuart" wrote in message

: 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.

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

I went poking through the RFC's including 3977, 2980, and 1036. None
of them specified a quoting character for Usenet. Can anyone find one
that does?

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:18:49 -0400, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
t
: In article ,
: lid 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.

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:07:16 -0000, "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 ;-)

Ivor

Thank you.

JosephKK 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.

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)