In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones wrote:
|
|
| "CBFalconer" yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:47D0B5CD.55C84978@yahoo.com
| : : PCPaul wrote:
| : : : Ivor Jones wrote:
| : : : : "ehsjr" bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
| : : : :
| : : : : [snip]
| : : : :
| : : : : : : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder
| : : : : : : to : :
| : : : : understand, and more difficult for others.
| : : : : Apparently, : : you don't care. I'm just adding one
| : : : : more response to : : let you know that your
| : : : : non-standard usage is not : : appreciated.
| : : : :
| : : : : Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years.
| : : : : When that figure gets to a noticable percentage, I
| : : : : might sit up and take notice.
| : : :
| : : : Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*
| : :
| : : 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 >
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).
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-07-0842@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
