OT.... but I need help

In message , choro
writes:
On 06/11/2012 21:43, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
[Of course, a _good_ reply to an email or followup to a post should
_manually_ snip the parts _not_ being responded to as well, but having
the .sig automatically snipped is a good start.]

Thanks for the info. Re snipping parts of mail being responded to that
are not relevant to the response, it can be a double edged sword.
Unless the correspondence gets too long I prefer not to snip anything.
However, snipping does become desirable if the thread gets too long and
over verbose. I must plead guilty to taking the easy route out and not
snipping anything unless I feel I literally have to. Same applies to
top posting. Sometimes it actually is more desirable to top post. But

That'll never do - far too sensible (-:! Seriously, your method is
reasonable; I prefer to snip so that I'm not pointlessly repeating the
bits I'm not replying to (posts get very long - and thus tedious to work
through - otherwise). And I do occasionally top-post too, especially in
an environment where it is the norm. But yours is better than many! (The
only double edge - disadvantage - to snipping that I can think of, other
than perhaps the moment's extra time it takes, is that one can snip so
much that it's not clear what you're responding to; I usually don't find
that a problem.)

then again one has to use a bit of common sense.--

Unfortunately, something removed the newline after "sense.", which put
the separator on the same line. It has also lost the following space.
Both of these stop it working, such that the

choro
*****

part of your post is still quoted.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said the Borg, "we assimilated a Pooh."

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
Opinions vary on the function of the tiny spring. I'm not sure
I believe them. One person suggested it "coupled quartz vibrations",
which is highly unlikely. A second suggested the spring was
"part of the alarm". A third reason, might be usage as a contact
to touch the back plate of the watch, but for that to make sense,
the back would have to be metal. (I have a multimeter, that uses
a spring like that, for an electrical contact to a shield over
the PCB.) If the back pf the watch was plastic, the
spring would be pointless as an electrical contact.
[]
I had something - probably _was_ a watch - that did indeed use the tiny
spring as a contact, and it was "part of the alarm": it made contact
with the sounder (the beeper, speaker, whatever you call it), which
was/is a flat disc glued inside the cover (the cover may or may not have
been metal - I think it was, probably thus providing the other contact
to the beeper). Without the spring, the device worked fine, other than
that it didn't beep.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said the Borg, "we assimilated a Pooh."

On 07/11/2012 07:38, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , choro
writes:
On 06/11/2012 21:43, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
[Of course, a _good_ reply to an email or followup to a post should
_manually_ snip the parts _not_ being responded to as well, but having
the .sig automatically snipped is a good start.]

Thanks for the info. Re snipping parts of mail being responded to that
are not relevant to the response, it can be a double edged sword.
Unless the correspondence gets too long I prefer not to snip anything.
However, snipping does become desirable if the thread gets too long
and over verbose. I must plead guilty to taking the easy route out and
not snipping anything unless I feel I literally have to. Same applies
to top posting. Sometimes it actually is more desirable to top post. But

That'll never do - far too sensible (-:! Seriously, your method is
reasonable; I prefer to snip so that I'm not pointlessly repeating the
bits I'm not replying to (posts get very long - and thus tedious to work
through - otherwise). And I do occasionally top-post too, especially in
an environment where it is the norm. But yours is better than many! (The
only double edge - disadvantage - to snipping that I can think of, other
than perhaps the moment's extra time it takes, is that one can snip so
much that it's not clear what you're responding to; I usually don't find
that a problem.)

then again one has to use a bit of common sense.--

Unfortunately, something removed the newline after "sense.", which put
the separator on the same line. It has also lost the following space.
Both of these stop it working, such that the

choro
*****

part of your post is still quoted.

In that case I must NOT snip the blank line above the sig which
automatically moves the double dash to the end of the last line of my
posting. In other words, let things be as I am doing here. Got it now.
No cheating from now on because I realise I am only cheating myself.
--
choro
*****
I guess this will mean that this particular para coming as it does after
the double dash will not be quoted in your response to me. Let's see...

On 07/11/2012 05:45, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 04:32:13 +0000, choro wrote:

On 07/11/2012 03:57, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 03:42:04 +0000, choro wrote:

On 07/11/2012 00:24, Robin Bignall wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 23:19:06 +0000, choro wrote:

On 06/11/2012 22:41, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[....]

Usually the last; just put it on a separate line on its own. Your post
above just has "--", but it should be followed by a space "-- ". That's
why my news client has not excluded your signature in my reply. See my
signature below.

OK. Holy cow! Now I get it. I didn't cut and paste the sig delemiter as
you call it. So it remained at the top messing things up. I remember
this happened once before and I was wondering what was happening.

Here, I'll give it one last try... Yep, I've got the space after the 2
dashes. By rights this should work now even though I've got the sig
delimiter at the end of the last line of my response. --
choro
*****

Nope. The sig delimiter needs to be on a line by itself, not mashed up
into the text in the body of your post. Your newsreader is also
apparently confused, as well, since it's stripping the trailing space
that you knowingly added. It will probably behave if you do your part
correctly.

Just do it right and all will be well. ;-)

OK. This will work, I am sure. I have already corrected the sig.

I will just cut and paste my message together with the sig and from the
top to the bottom of the posting. And I'll leave the -- space on a line
by itself. But I have removed a blank line. I hope this won't affect it.
We'll see.. Yes the space is still there...--
choro
*****

So close, and still not quite there. You're still managing to suck
your delimiter up into the body of text. It won't work that way.

When you configure the entire sig in Thunderbird, start by hitting the
Enter key, (twice, even), then two dashes followed by a space, another
Enter, then choro, Enter, and finally *****. Done, and TBird will take
care of it for ever more. You won't need to make any edits on the fly
anymore.

In that case I must NOT snip the space at the end of the last line of my
response which precedes the double dash and the sig which automatically
moves the double dash to the end of the last line of my posting. In
other words, let things be as I am doing here. Got it now. No cheating
from now on because I realise I am only cheating myself.
--
choro
*****
PS. This line is to test what happens to text keyed in AFTER the double
dash and the sig.

On 07/11/2012 08:07, choro wrote:
On 07/11/2012 07:38, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , choro
writes:
On 06/11/2012 21:43, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
[Of course, a _good_ reply to an email or followup to a post should
_manually_ snip the parts _not_ being responded to as well, but having
the .sig automatically snipped is a good start.]

Thanks for the info. Re snipping parts of mail being responded to that
are not relevant to the response, it can be a double edged sword.
Unless the correspondence gets too long I prefer not to snip anything.
However, snipping does become desirable if the thread gets too long
and over verbose. I must plead guilty to taking the easy route out and
not snipping anything unless I feel I literally have to. Same applies
to top posting. Sometimes it actually is more desirable to top post. But

That'll never do - far too sensible (-:! Seriously, your method is
reasonable; I prefer to snip so that I'm not pointlessly repeating the
bits I'm not replying to (posts get very long - and thus tedious to work
through - otherwise). And I do occasionally top-post too, especially in
an environment where it is the norm. But yours is better than many! (The
only double edge - disadvantage - to snipping that I can think of, other
than perhaps the moment's extra time it takes, is that one can snip so
much that it's not clear what you're responding to; I usually don't find
that a problem.)

then again one has to use a bit of common sense.--

Unfortunately, something removed the newline after "sense.", which put
the separator on the same line. It has also lost the following space.
Both of these stop it working, such that the

choro
*****

part of your post is still quoted.

In that case I must NOT snip the blank line above the sig which
automatically moves the double dash to the end of the last line of my
posting. In other words, let things be as I am doing here. Got it now.
No cheating from now on because I realise I am only cheating myself.

Good! I can see my sig as well as the text keyed in after the sig greyed
out. Thanks for you patience.
--
choro
*****

On 07/11/2012 08:14, choro wrote:
On 07/11/2012 05:45, Char Jackson wrote:
[....]
So close, and still not quite there. You're still managing to suck
your delimiter up into the body of text. It won't work that way.

When you configure the entire sig in Thunderbird, start by hitting the
Enter key, (twice, even), then two dashes followed by a space, another
Enter, then choro, Enter, and finally *****. Done, and TBird will take
care of it for ever more. You won't need to make any edits on the fly
anymore.

In that case I must NOT snip the space at the end of the last line of my
response which precedes the double dash and the sig which automatically
moves the double dash to the end of the last line of my posting. In
other words, let things be as I am doing here. Got it now. No cheating
from now on because I realise I am only cheating myself.

Good! I can see both my sig and text below it greyed out now. Thanks to
everybody for your patience. I have learned something new. And I won't
be trying any new tricks from now on. Select, cut and paste this from
the top to the bottom and voile as the French say...
--
choro
*****

choro wrote:
On 07/11/2012 08:07, choro wrote:
On 07/11/2012 07:38, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , choro
writes:
On 06/11/2012 21:43, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
[Of course, a _good_ reply to an email or followup to a post should
_manually_ snip the parts _not_ being responded to as well, but having
the .sig automatically snipped is a good start.]

Thanks for the info. Re snipping parts of mail being responded to that
are not relevant to the response, it can be a double edged sword.
Unless the correspondence gets too long I prefer not to snip anything.
However, snipping does become desirable if the thread gets too long
and over verbose. I must plead guilty to taking the easy route out and
not snipping anything unless I feel I literally have to. Same applies
to top posting. Sometimes it actually is more desirable to top post.
But

That'll never do - far too sensible (-:! Seriously, your method is
reasonable; I prefer to snip so that I'm not pointlessly repeating the
bits I'm not replying to (posts get very long - and thus tedious to work
through - otherwise). And I do occasionally top-post too, especially in
an environment where it is the norm. But yours is better than many! (The
only double edge - disadvantage - to snipping that I can think of, other
than perhaps the moment's extra time it takes, is that one can snip so
much that it's not clear what you're responding to; I usually don't find
that a problem.)

then again one has to use a bit of common sense.--

Unfortunately, something removed the newline after "sense.", which put
the separator on the same line. It has also lost the following space.
Both of these stop it working, such that the

choro
*****

part of your post is still quoted.

In that case I must NOT snip the blank line above the sig which
automatically moves the double dash to the end of the last line of my
posting. In other words, let things be as I am doing here. Got it now.
No cheating from now on because I realise I am only cheating myself.

Good! I can see my sig as well as the text keyed in after the sig greyed
out. Thanks for you patience.

A work of art, suitable for framing.

*
/ \
/ \
/ \
+-----------+
| |
| -- |
| choro |
| ***** |
| |
+-----------+

"This is to certify that Choro has completed
the Signature 100 course, with distinction."

:-)

Paul

This is to certify that I have framed my Signature 100 Course
Certificate in the Courier New font in Gold Lettering.

--
choro
*****

On 07/11/2012 08:54, Paul wrote:

A work of art, suitable for framing.

*
/ \
/ \
/ \
+-----------+
| |
| -- |
| choro |
| ***** |
| |
+-----------+

"This is to certify that Choro has completed
the Signature 100 course, with distinction."

:-)

Paul

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:12:42 -0600, Bob I wrote:



On 11/6/2012 2:40 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:52:39 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:


They tell you the day of the week as well as the month, date, and year.

One can't figure those out very accurately by looking at the sun.

I usually know what year it is, plus or minus. ;-)


Wow, you can tell that by looking at the sun!? ;-)


No, no! Don't look at the sun! You can go blind if you do that. g

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 19:32:56 -0500, Paul wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:53:18 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:23:35 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

Even if I don't know the language, the one thing I learn how to say
before I go is "where is the bathroom?"
For certain values of "go".


LOL!


When you head to a foreign country, always be ready
for culture shock.

A buddy at work, went on a business trip to Europe, and visited
a major manufacturer (a company worth billions). He
heads to the can at break time, and... no toilet.
Just a hole in the floor. The rest of the building
was as modern looking as any in North America. He
wasn't really prepared for what he found behind that
door.


Yes, I've seen them many times. That's what's often known as a Turkish
toilet.

Many people prefer them because they are more sanitary. You don't have
to come into physical contact with anything. But I sure don't want to
squat over one,

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:14:03 +0000, choro wrote:

In that case I must NOT snip the space at the end of the last line of my
response which precedes the double dash and the sig which automatically
moves the double dash to the end of the last line of my posting. In
other words, let things be as I am doing here. Got it now. No cheating
from now on because I realise I am only cheating myself.

Nice job!

--

Char Jackson

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:46:54 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 18:08:59 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:40:27 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:52:39 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:25:12 -0800, ASCII wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:38:47 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

But I'm not saying you have to wear a clock; I'm just rather resenting
the implication that I am (and others here who do are) strange for doing
so.

That surprises me. I thought you were going to resent the fact that I
pretty much suggested that no one under about 60 years of age wears a
watch anymore, implying that only old people still do. :-)

Kidding aside, I don't think it's strange if you wear a watch, (well,
maybe a little), but I do think you'd be in a dwindling subset of the
(civilized) world's population by doing so. It's completely up to you
to decide when it's time to go naked, as it were.

By wearing a watch I seem to have a better feel for the day's progress,
and if I'm alone in that, then I guess I have a tremendous advantage over
those who don't.

And no one so far seems to have mentioned the most important function of
today's watches, the digital ones, at least.

They tell you the day of the week as well as the month, date, and year.

One can't figure those out very accurately by looking at the sun.

I usually know what year it is, plus or minus. ;-)

What's the secret?

The secret is, don't look at the sun.

Still trying to keep me in the dark, I see.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 03:54:08 -0500, Paul wrote:

choro wrote:
On 07/11/2012 08:07, choro wrote:
On 07/11/2012 07:38, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , choro
writes:
On 06/11/2012 21:43, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
[Of course, a _good_ reply to an email or followup to a post should
_manually_ snip the parts _not_ being responded to as well, but having
the .sig automatically snipped is a good start.]

Thanks for the info. Re snipping parts of mail being responded to that
are not relevant to the response, it can be a double edged sword.
Unless the correspondence gets too long I prefer not to snip anything.
However, snipping does become desirable if the thread gets too long
and over verbose. I must plead guilty to taking the easy route out and
not snipping anything unless I feel I literally have to. Same applies
to top posting. Sometimes it actually is more desirable to top post.
But

That'll never do - far too sensible (-:! Seriously, your method is
reasonable; I prefer to snip so that I'm not pointlessly repeating the
bits I'm not replying to (posts get very long - and thus tedious to work
through - otherwise). And I do occasionally top-post too, especially in
an environment where it is the norm. But yours is better than many! (The
only double edge - disadvantage - to snipping that I can think of, other
than perhaps the moment's extra time it takes, is that one can snip so
much that it's not clear what you're responding to; I usually don't find
that a problem.)

then again one has to use a bit of common sense.--

Unfortunately, something removed the newline after "sense.", which put
the separator on the same line. It has also lost the following space.
Both of these stop it working, such that the

choro
*****

part of your post is still quoted.

In that case I must NOT snip the blank line above the sig which
automatically moves the double dash to the end of the last line of my
posting. In other words, let things be as I am doing here. Got it now.
No cheating from now on because I realise I am only cheating myself.

Good! I can see my sig as well as the text keyed in after the sig greyed
out. Thanks for you patience.

A work of art, suitable for framing.

*
/ \
/ \
/ \
+-----------+
| |
| -- |
| choro |
| ***** |
| |
+-----------+

"This is to certify that Choro has completed
the Signature 100 course, with distinction."

:-)

Paul

Good work, Mr Gauguin :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:14:42 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:46:54 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 18:08:59 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:40:27 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:52:39 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:25:12 -0800, ASCII wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:38:47 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

But I'm not saying you have to wear a clock; I'm just rather resenting
the implication that I am (and others here who do are) strange for doing
so.

That surprises me. I thought you were going to resent the fact that I
pretty much suggested that no one under about 60 years of age wears a
watch anymore, implying that only old people still do. :-)

Kidding aside, I don't think it's strange if you wear a watch, (well,
maybe a little), but I do think you'd be in a dwindling subset of the
(civilized) world's population by doing so. It's completely up to you
to decide when it's time to go naked, as it were.

By wearing a watch I seem to have a better feel for the day's progress,
and if I'm alone in that, then I guess I have a tremendous advantage over
those who don't.

And no one so far seems to have mentioned the most important function of
today's watches, the digital ones, at least.

They tell you the day of the week as well as the month, date, and year.

One can't figure those out very accurately by looking at the sun.

I usually know what year it is, plus or minus. ;-)

What's the secret?

The secret is, don't look at the sun.

Still trying to keep me in the dark, I see.

I keep some of my favorite mushrooms in the dark. You'll be in good
company.

--

Char Jackson

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:14:42 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:46:54 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

The secret is, don't look at the sun.

Still trying to keep me in the dark, I see.

No. If you went blind from looking at the sun, you would be in
the dark even when you were not in the dark. Please do not test this.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko