"Stuart" <SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4f7d88c922SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com
: > In article <63ishuF282s6lU1@mid.individual.net>,
: > Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> 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

"Stuart" <SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4f7d88c922SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com
: > In article <63ishuF282s6lU1@mid.individual.net>,
: > Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> 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

In article <63ishuF282s6lU1@mid.individual.net>,
ivor@thisaddressis.invalid says...

"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.223dff2f50174ee99898e2@news.individual.net
: > In article <63gmrhF27s269U1@mid.individual.net>,
: > ivor@thisaddressis.invalid 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?

"Stuart" <SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4f7d876e8aSW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com

[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

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.

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.

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fr4fcs0225b@news3.newsguy.com

[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.

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:18:49 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <63ishuF282s6lU1@mid.individual.net>,
ivor@thisaddressis.invalid says...

"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.223dff2f50174ee99898e2@news.individual.net
: > In article <63gmrhF27s269U1@mid.individual.net>,
: > ivor@thisaddressis.invalid 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.

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:frdud411c9d@news4.newsguy.com
: In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
:
: | : | 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.
:
: What kind of _standard_ are you looking for? Specific
: rules about what you can indent with?

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.