On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:28:24 -0500
Steve C. Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Define most. In all of the email clients I have ever chosen to use not
a single one exhibits the behavior you describe. Pine, elm, mutt, PMMail/2,
PMMail2000, TheBat, Sylpheed-Claws, Thunderbird just to name most.
Kamaraju Kusumanchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wow! Nice explanation. I have always liked white on black xterms and
never was able to explain why so. Glad to hear that there is a logical
reason behind all this
Yeah, it will be nice in the future when we have better display
technologies -- I
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:27:07PM -0500, Steve C. Lamb wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 08:57:07PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Personally, I feel this hardcoding of colors in the application is a
downside of X.
One of the few visual things I miss from OS/2. There I had my apps set to
Dave Sherohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suspect it's because Gnome and KDE seem to think that looks like
Windows is the best interface design and Windows uses black-on-white,
It does? I'm pretty sure I've only seen white-on-black command-line
windows in Windows. Can't ever remember seeing
John L Fjellstad wrote:
It does? I'm pretty sure I've only seen white-on-black command-line
windows in Windows. Can't ever remember seeing a black-on-white window.
I think he's not talking about the DOS prompt, but applications like
word processors, spreadsheets and the like.
--
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:27:07PM -0500, Steve C. Lamb wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 08:57:07PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Personally, I feel this hardcoding of colors in the application is a
downside of X.
One of the few visual things I miss from OS/2. There I had my apps set to
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 02:41:21PM -0500, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote:
I wonder why gnome, kde chose to have white on black
background as defaults in konsole, gnome-terminal etc., Are those developers
so reflective than being projective? :-)
I suspect it's because Gnome and KDE seem to think
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:24:52PM -0500, Steve C. Lamb wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 03:17:17AM +0100, Wim De Smet wrote:
One of the reasons I prefer dark on light is the excessive use of blue
in ls output (which I tend to use a lot).
So... change it. LS_COLORS controls what colors
On 1/23/07, Dave Sherohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 11:55:32AM -0500, celejar wrote:
On 1/22/07, Dave Sherohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:25:23AM -0600, John C wrote:
I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much
Liberty
It's kinda like a religious fanaticism... everyone should act
and believe like I do. And yes, you're absolutely right - there
is too much bile being spewed at top posters.
So which is best, top posting or bottom posting? Who knows? Who
^%^% cares? I certainly don't. On this list however, I
Celejar writes:
I confess that I am rather leery of Jefferson's almost unbalanced
extremism as manifested in his over-the-top support for the French
Revolution, as in the notorious Adam and Eve quote [0].
Seems pretty reasonable to me, in the context of the times.
--
John Hasler
--
To
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 10:41:02AM -0600, John C wrote:
It's kinda like a religious fanaticism... everyone should act
and believe like I do. And yes, you're absolutely right - there
is too much bile being spewed at top posters.
So which is best, top posting or bottom posting? Who knows?
John C wrote:
It's kinda like a religious fanaticism... everyone should act and
believe like I do. And yes, you're absolutely right - there is too much
bile being spewed at top posters.
No, it's not. It's called a convention for communicating with one
another. Do you call it religious
On Wednesday 24 January 2007 14:03, Steve Lamb wrote:
The fanatics insisted that the background should be black and the text
white because that was the natural way to view a computer screen. It
was the way that it would always remain. Of course, when I went to my
office supply store and
Francis Healy wrote:
I'm dodging the bile being spewed at top posters. Bottom line, top
posting is not evil. Scrool down if you want to read the original
message.
Just because you do it among your limited circle of friends and coworkers
doesn't mean it's acceptable in a public environment.
On 1/24/07, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Celejar writes:
I confess that I am rather leery of Jefferson's almost unbalanced
extremism as manifested in his over-the-top support for the French
Revolution, as in the notorious Adam and Eve quote [0].
Seems pretty reasonable to me, in the
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:03:55AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
John C wrote:
It's kinda like a religious fanaticism... everyone should act and
believe like I do. And yes, you're absolutely right - there is too much
bile being spewed at top posters.
No, it's not. It's called a
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 02:41:21PM -0500, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote:
On Wednesday 24 January 2007 14:03, Steve Lamb wrote:
The fanatics insisted that the background should be black and the text
white because that was the natural way to view a computer screen. It
was the way that it
Steve Lamb wrote:
John C wrote:
It's kinda like a religious fanaticism... everyone should act and
believe like I do. And yes, you're absolutely right - there is too much
bile being spewed at top posters.
No, it's not. It's called a convention for communicating with one
another. Do you
Celejar writes:
I confess that I am rather leery of Jefferson's almost unbalanced
extremism as manifested in his over-the-top support for the French
Revolution, as in the notorious Adam and Eve quote [0].
I wrote:
Seems pretty reasonable to me, in the context of the times.
Celejar writes:
John C wrote:
It's kinda like a religious fanaticism... everyone should act
and believe like I do. And yes, you're absolutely right - there
is too much bile being spewed at top posters.
So which is best, top posting or bottom posting? Who knows? Who
^%^% cares?
Anybody with a limited
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 03:43:26PM -0600, John C wrote:
Wow! and you don't think that's fanaticism?? :-)
Nope. Want to know what I call fanaticism?
cut
I'll just cut out the so-called facts over which you and I will
never agree. (I've heard them all before-thank you)
Don't
John C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Lamb wrote:
John C wrote:
It's kinda like a religious fanaticism... everyone should act and
believe like I do. And yes, you're absolutely right - there is too much
bile being spewed at top posters.
No, it's not. It's called a convention for
Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote:
Paper is REFLECTIVE. Monitors are PROJECTIVE. What's that mean? It means
that paper REFLECTS the light that hits it. Without an outside source of
light you wouldn't see jack on paper. However a monitor PROJECTS light.
In the absence of all other light you
On 1/24/07, Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John C wrote:
It's kinda like a religious fanaticism... everyone should act and
believe like I do. And yes, you're absolutely right - there is too much
bile being spewed at top posters.
No, it's not. It's called a convention for
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 03:17:17AM +0100, Wim De Smet wrote:
Then again, contrast is higher with light-on-dark sometimes increasing
eye strain. If your whites are blinding you you might just want to
adjust your monitor brightness and/or contrast.
Which results in me constantly adjusting
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 08:57:07PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Personally, I feel this hardcoding of colors in the application is a
downside of X.
One of the few visual things I miss from OS/2. There I had my apps set to
white on black and they all behaved properly. Colors were set in the OS'
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 11:55:32AM -0500, celejar wrote:
On 1/22/07, Dave Sherohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:25:23AM -0600, John C wrote:
I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much
Liberty
than those attending too small degree of it.
-
John C wrote:
I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty
than those attending too small degree of it.
- Thomas Jefferson
If you really believe this quote, why do you insist that bottom
posting is the only correct way to go?
Because the top-posters are
I'm dodging the bile being spewed at top posters. Bottom line, top posting is
not evil. Scrool down if you want to read the original message.
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John C wrote:
I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty
than those attending
On 1/18/07, Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts, I was
thinking if anyone has ever developed a way to fix the problem.
- ---
HEADER
BLANK_LINE
TOP_POST
BLANK_LINE
MESSAGE
I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty
than those attending too small degree of it.
- Thomas Jefferson
If you really believe this quote, why do you insist that bottom
posting is the only *correct* way to go?
By the way, I do love the quote. :-)
John
--
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:25:23AM -0600, John C wrote:
I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty
than those attending too small degree of it.
- Thomas Jefferson
If you really believe this quote, why do you insist that bottom
posting is the only *correct*
On 1/22/07, Dave Sherohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:25:23AM -0600, John C wrote:
I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty
than those attending too small degree of it.
- Thomas Jefferson
[snip]
By the way, I do love the quote.
celejar wrote:
On 1/22/07, Dave Sherohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:25:23AM -0600, John C wrote:
I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much
Liberty
than those attending too small degree of it.
- Thomas Jefferson
[snip]
By the way, I
Kevin Mark wrote:
Now if only I would switch from mutt to gnus
That's a pretty good idea if you have more than one list/newsgroup
subscription that gets this kind of traffic. I would still give yourself a
rainy weekend to learn gnus if you're not a LISPer, though; it's got
something of a
Please turn your line wraps on at 72 columns, indent quoted material, and
reply *above* the singature break.
http://wiki.ursine.ca/Best_Online_Quoting_Habits
Francis Healy wrote:
Andy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 07:43:05AM
-0800, Francis Healy wrote:
Why is it that
Francis Healy wrote:
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Ken Irving wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:57:25PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts...
Why is it that most mail clients default to a top post?
They don't. Most
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 07:43:05AM -0800, Francis Healy wrote:
Why is it that most mail clients default to a top post? When you hit
reply, There is a blank space where your cursor it, followed by .
wrote: and then the message you are replying to. If top posting is really
as bad as some
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 12:15:55PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
Granted, context is much less of a concern when reading in threaded
mode within a single mail-reading session, but some blighted souls are
still using non-threaded MUAs, memory of the thread's content fades
when you move on to
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:37:56AM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:25:23AM -0600, John C wrote:
If you really believe this quote, why do you insist that bottom
posting is the only *correct* way to go?
There is a huge difference between encouraging someone to do
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 07:43:05AM -0800, Francis Healy wrote:
Why is it that most mail clients default to a top post? When you hit
reply, There is a blank space where your cursor it, followed by .
wrote: and then the message you are replying to.
Yes, quoted. What else should
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 09:13:53PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
Thanks to all those emacs folks that pointed out this function!
If I can only translate the gnus function to a mutt function...
Now if only I would switch from mutt to gnus :-)
Could you not just use emacs as the editor for mutt?
--
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 09:53:33AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 09:13:53PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
Thanks to all those emacs folks that pointed out this function!
If I can only translate the gnus function to a mutt function...
Now if only I would switch from mutt to
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks to all those emacs folks that pointed out this function!
If I can only translate the gnus function to a mutt function...
Now if only I would switch from mutt to gnus :-)
I only use gnus to access newsgroups (I'm reading all my mailing lists
through
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 04:59:52AM -0500 or thereabouts, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 09:53:33AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
Could you not just use emacs as the editor for mutt?
I am in the process of trying to get procmail to filter all posts
through the gnus function so that
Andy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 07:43:05AM
-0800, Francis Healy wrote:
Why is it that most mail clients default to a top post? When you hit
reply, There is a blank space where your cursor it, followed by .
wrote: and then the message you are replying to.
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 10:32:35AM -0500, Stephen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 04:59:52AM -0500 or thereabouts, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 09:53:33AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
Could you not just use emacs as the editor for mutt?
I am in the process of trying to get
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 07:56:23AM -0800, Francis Healy wrote:
It's not in the event. You almost always need to trim your quotes.
Although response-before-reply quoting is itself often a pain to decipher,
my biggest beef with top-posting is that top-posters almost always just
throw some text in
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But so far, it has not changed an emails, at least as far as I can
tell. If anyone knows why or has a better function, let me know.
Did you try to run it on the command line, to see if it works? I don't
really know procmail enough to see what the problem
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 07:56:23AM -0800, Francis Healy wrote:
If top posting is realy the bane of everyone's existance that certian
voceriferous individuals claim it is, what is wrong with the mail
client putting the cursor at the at the botttom of the reply and
letting you move
Sven Arvidsson wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 22:57 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts, I was
thinking if anyone has ever developed a way to fix the problem.
Isn't top post fixer a synonym to a LART? ;-)
I think he was looking
Ken Irving wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:57:25PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts, I was
thinking if anyone has ever developed a way to fix the problem.
---
HEADER
BLANK_LINE
TOP_POST
BLANK_LINE
MESSAGE
SIG
Kevin Mark wrote:
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts, I was
thinking if anyone has ever developed a way to fix the problem.
- ---
HEADER
BLANK_LINE
TOP_POST
BLANK_LINE
MESSAGE
SIG
- ---
into
- ---
HEADER
BLANK_LINE
MESSAGE
BLANK_LINE
Paul Johnson writes:
Gnus has this functionality, IIRC. The name is on the tip of my tongue,
like de-outlookify or something.
,[ C-h k W-Y-f ]
| W Y f runs the command gnus-article-outlook-deuglify-article
| which is an interactive autoloaded Lisp function in `deuglify'.
| It is bound
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Ken Irving wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:57:25PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts...
Why is it that most mail clients default to a top post? When you hit reply,
There is a blank space
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:43:05 -0800 (PST)
Francis Healy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Ken Irving wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:57:25PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts...
Why is it that
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts, I was
thinking if anyone has ever developed a way to fix the problem.
The Gnus people already did that:
W Y c
or
Article - Washing - (Outlook) Deuglify - Rearrange Citation
--
John L.
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 09:59:26AM -0800, John L Fjellstad wrote:
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts, I was
thinking if anyone has ever developed a way to fix the problem.
The Gnus people already did that:
W Y c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts, I was
thinking if anyone has ever developed a way to fix the problem.
- ---
HEADER
BLANK_LINE
TOP_POST
BLANK_LINE
MESSAGE
SIG
- ---
into
- ---
HEADER
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:57:25PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts, I was
thinking if anyone has ever developed a way to fix the problem.
---
HEADER
BLANK_LINE
TOP_POST
BLANK_LINE
MESSAGE
SIG
---
into
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:57:25 -0500
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts, I was
thinking if anyone has ever developed a way to fix the problem.
- ---
HEADER
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 22:57 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts, I was
thinking if anyone has ever developed a way to fix the problem.
Isn't top post fixer a synonym to a LART? ;-)
--
Cheers,
Sven Arvidsson
http://www.whiz.se
PGP Key
Why would that be a problem? ;-}
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 12:29:04AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:57:25 -0500
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts,
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 23:49 +0100, Sven Arvidsson wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 22:57 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
Hi folks,
with the continual talk of the bad etiquitte of top posts, I was
thinking if anyone has ever developed a way to fix the problem.
Isn't top post fixer a synonym
65 matches
Mail list logo
