Subj : broken quotes To : Paul Kienitz From : Charles Angelich Date : Sun Jul 23 2000 10:30 am 1230c7fff3d1 offline Hello Paul - CA>> Wrong. The "ambiguity" you refer to is in the quoters that do it CA>> the wrong way - not my responsibility. PK> If they arrested you in England for driving on the wrong side of PK> the road, I guess you'd claim that the other drivers were the PK> ones in error... As has been said many times the style you believe to be a `law' was never adopted even as a suggestion. It's a non-starter. CA>> The "ambiguity" is broken code that should be fixed by the CA>> authors. No reason I should worry about it at all. PK> Broken, my ass. Sorry to hear your ass is broken. Must be hard to think eh? PK> Nobody has ever found the algorithm that can handle all the PK> different kinds of old quote marks when adding new ones, cleaning PK> them up consistently and predictably. After a complete rewrite of ATP's quoter I can manage to quote existing messages for reply most of the time. The odd message will have a few problems but not often. PK> The idea that "XX>" should never be added in front of a ">" is PK> not feasible. I didn't say that it should be done that way. The method I use is rather obvious and easilly understood IMO. PK> And the idea that all the existing software that may do this PK> should be fixed is not feasible either, as you know perfectly PK> well. Fixed or not their method of quoting is broken, not mine. PK>> That's why the suggested standard that was posted recommended PK>> that style. CA>> Nope. "The standard" isn't even a standard. It was never CA>> adopted, only suggested by someone. PK> That's why I said "suggested". What are you saying "nope" to? I'm saying that referring to it is a smoke screen. It was someone's suggestion that has no more `official' status than one of yours. It's just one person's opinion. Who cares? CA>> Whoever suggested it just never thought of the way I do it. PK> HAHA!! Sometimes, no matter how often I am exposed to the way you PK> think, I am just stupefied by the notions you come up with. It's good to know that you're entertained. I would hate to bore you, you know that? PK> Never thought of it... Good God! What kind of retards do you take PK> these people for? An eight year old could go through the PK> different plausible combinations without failing to think of any. I don't think they were impressive nor do I think of them often. Is that what you mean? PK> How could anyone careless enough to fail to think of such a PK> simple variation be capable of producing any kind of standards PK> document at all? It's not a standards document. It was a SUGGESTION that was never made a part of any standard. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend. It's a NOTHING at all. PK> The people who wrote that document thought the question through PK> far more thoroughly than you did. Count on it. So well thought out that it was left out and not used. Right. NOT! PK> More importantly, they were thinking of people other than PK> themselves. Think this through for a minute. I spend hours modifying an offline reader to write messages to others and you think it's for me somehow? I've already read the message why would I need any of this for me? The OLR modifications were to make replies easier for others to read and you characterize this as self-indulgent? You're strange. > > , , > o/ Charles.Angelich \o , > <| AngelFirecom |> __o/ > / > USA, MI < \ __\__ ___ * ATP/16bit 2.30 * .... FREE! TAG v2.7d / Y2K / 256 nodes / telnet'able / FIDO BBS software. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000) .