| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Electronics - Equipment Forum » Hum from phone wires running next to mains?
Page 10 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:36 pm |
|
|
|
|
In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
|
|
| <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.
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.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-14-1232@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| kony |
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:53:29 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
Quote: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:frd2iu02an@news4.newsguy.com
: In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
: |
: | 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
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| kony |
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:27:11 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
Quote: : 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.
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ivor Jones |
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:aramt3hu0j9eflchjigor3bob3f35vl6qa@4ax.com
: On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:27:11 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
:
:
: >: 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.
: >
:
: 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ivor Jones |
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:6pamt39l9ngukl89hcborhkvf5o3uin7jm@4ax.com
[snip]
: 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sjouke Burry |
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ivor Jones wrote:
Quote:
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.
cut
But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand that I follow your
conventions.
Trolling and obnoxious behavior is something only yo can stop.
Meanwhile others are free to call you a social crossposting misfit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ivor Jones |
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote
in message
news:47dc02e6$0$25501$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl
[snip]
: Trolling and obnoxious behavior is something only yo can
: stop. Meanwhile others are free to call you a social
: crossposting misfit.
Yes mother.
Ivor |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| kony |
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:35:13 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
Quote:
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:aramt3hu0j9eflchjigor3bob3f35vl6qa@4ax.com
: On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:27:11 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
:
:
: >: 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.
:
:
: 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.
It is only when people lack common sense and courtesy that
society has to take extra measure to force or compell
compliance. As you might note by looking at other posts,
the vast majority have no problem figuring out how to post.
Surely you're not deluded enough to think you're doing it
the right way versus everyone else has for years?
Are you stupid?
(It's not really a question.)
It should be obvious to anyone why using two characters
instead of one is problematic.
Quote: :
: 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.
Want to bet whether a google search for "usenet rules" turns
up anything? What exactly is it that would be necessary for
your compliance? Loss of ISP or news account? A fine?
Imprisonment? They all seem rather ridiculous things to
have to do when there is no compelling reason to do it wrong
as you do. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| kony |
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:36:48 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
Quote: "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:6pamt39l9ngukl89hcborhkvf5o3uin7jm@4ax.com
[snip]
: 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
Incorrect. Someone not saying it's disagreeable is no more
evidence that it's agreeable to them than that it wasn't.
When someone didn't say anything they were being patient,
courteous, thinking you must just be ignorant and a bit slow
in the mind but will figure it out eventually. When you
start acknowledging you do it and trying to defend it, NOW
you actually see what people think. It can't just be
coincidence that more than one person has something to say
about it when you've never had anyone say it was acceptible
or a good idea. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| krw |
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <j6rot3lr1122gb0o539upaeubgrljankcg@4ax.com>,
spam@spam.com says...
Quote:
In an unregulated environment such as Usenet, I can't do anything wrong as
there are no rules.
Want to bet whether a google search for "usenet rules" turns
up anything? What exactly is it that would be necessary for
your compliance? Loss of ISP or news account? A fine?
Imprisonment? They all seem rather ridiculous things to
have to do when there is no compelling reason to do it wrong
as you do.
Nonconformity is all some have to prove (to themselves) that they're
an individual.
--
Keith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ivor Jones |
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:rirot35knkj8ncn995h4ctqvm8ltiaqut4@4ax.com
: On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:36:48 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
: >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
:
: Incorrect. Someone not saying it's disagreeable is no
: more evidence that it's agreeable to them than that it
: wasn't.
Incorrect. No evidence is precisely that. If there is no evidence against
someone then a conviction is not possible.
: When someone didn't say anything they were being patient,
: courteous, thinking you must just be ignorant and a bit
: slow in the mind but will figure it out eventually.
Or they didn't have a problem with it.
I'm getting bored now, please go away.
Ivor |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| kony |
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:32:48 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
Quote: "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:rirot35knkj8ncn995h4ctqvm8ltiaqut4@4ax.com
: On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:36:48 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
: >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
:
: Incorrect. Someone not saying it's disagreeable is no
: more evidence that it's agreeable to them than that it
: wasn't.
Incorrect. No evidence is precisely that.
If there were no evidence, but THERE IS, WE'RE TELLING YOU!
Quote:
I'm getting bored now, please go away.
Wouldn't that be even more boring? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 10 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:48 pm
|
|