• Program Quoter - you are very welcomed

    From Ardith Hinton@1:153/7715 to alexander koryagin on Fri Mar 2 18:00:57 2018
    Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to All:

    Some people cannot write good quoted messages.
    Their messages sometimes look like this:

    =========Beginning of the citation==============
    But even more exciting is this big asteriod heading our
    way and they say it will orbit inside the area between us and all those satelites in the sky. Worst case is it hits us, and it's a big sucker.
    I
    thought we had to December 22nd, but maybe the calendar was a bit off?

    Get even with them. Don't pay any income tax. There are

    ARE THE MAN!!"

    And at my age, free medical, room and board, and even a funeral when
    I'm
    shanked. Lookin good!
    =========The end of the citation================


    Yes, and by the time others have quoted the same material it may look
    even more like a dog's breakfast [British/Canadian slang used in reference to a
    mixture which evokes images of table scraps from someone else's dinner].

    I'm fortunate in that I know how to get timEd to tidy up messy quotes
    & shorten the length of lines so as to avoid confusing truncations and/or line-
    wrapping later. I made no attempt to edit your citation because you'd provided
    us with such a great example of how *not* to quote effectively. It seems to me
    that the purpose of language is to communicate. Whatever we can do to make our
    own writing easier to understand increases the likelihood that others will take
    the time to read, mark, and inwardly digest what we are trying to explain. ;-)



    I've made a very useful utility "Quoter." It is a
    freeware program and designed for the people who
    love participate in discussions in USENET, FIDONET
    groups and also in web forums.


    Good for you! If you've found a way to help others whose software is
    less amenable than mine to quoting neatly, I hope at least some will use it. I
    tend to have difficulty following the logic when I can't remember who said what
    in a protracted discussion & other folks are unwilling to meet me halfway. :-)




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/7715)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/7715 to alexander koryagin on Fri Mar 2 18:00:57 2018
    Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

    I'd like to hear your opinion - what is better.


    I would treat quoted material differently from whatever comment(s) I
    may have chosen to add. #1 works with everyday prose, if one is not quoting...
    other people's software will adjust the line length as needed to fit within the
    space available on their computer screen. I take it most Fidonetters set their
    margins at 76-80 characters per line... but I saw something recently in another
    echo which indicated the number might be as low as 40, or as high as 100+. The
    adjustment I am alluding to here is what I described previously as "line wrap".

    Adjustments to line length can often be made without sacrificing the
    integrity of the original message. If the trend nowadays is to force us to use
    a single space between sentences, rather than the double space I think makes my
    work easier to read, I may feel mildly irritated about how these young whipper-
    snapper programmers think they know how to use my native language better than I
    do although I'm qualified to teach English at secondary school level here in BC
    & although I was involved in Fidonet while they were still wet behind the ears.
    But I think you'll know what I mean even if my work looks a bit untidy.... :-)



    1. Paragraphs consist of one long line. Like this (and yours):

    I've made a very useful utility "Quoter." It is a freeware program and
    designed for the people who love participate in discussions in
    USENET, FIDONET groups and also in web forums.


    Since you began this paragraph with "ak>" my computer recognized the
    entire paragraph as a quotation & added your initials to subsequent lines. The
    author's intent is not in doubt, although the placement of "ak>" varies.

    My computer also decided to put the word "USENET" on the third line,
    probably because when left to its own devices timEd (my message editor program)
    limits the length of quoted lines to 72 characters. By typing the ">" yourself
    at the beginning of the paragraph you were in effect instructing timEd that you
    wanted to take charge of the decision-making about line length, whereupon timEd
    did its best to cram as much as possible into the first line before reaching my
    screen limit. The screen limit forced a line wrap. And then timEd reverted to
    doing its own thing because you'd offered no further information about what you
    were expecting it to do with all the stuff it couldn't fit into the first line.

    In variant #1, while I'd prefer the result to be more consistent WRT
    spacing, the meaning is still clear. It may not be by the time this same quote
    has been through half a dozen other computer systems en route to Someplace Else ... or by the time your modem buddies in the DEBATE echo have requoted it. :-)



    2. in the second variant I format all the lines to read them better:

    I've made a very useful utility "Quoter." It is a freeware program
    and designed for the people who love participate in discussions in
    USENET, FIDONET groups and also in web forums.


    AFAIC, this is easier to read & more esthetically attractive because
    of the consistency in the spacing. If not all the lines are precisely the same
    length I'd rather see some minor discrepacies at the right margin than a clumsy
    attempt to adjust the spacing between words and/or letters. The idea is not to
    distract the reader either by thoughtless untidiness or by compulsive neatness.


    I gather you have set a limit of 72 characters in variant #2. This
    limit allows for the possibility that other folks might want to comment on what
    two or more individuals have already said & add comments of their own. For the
    vast majority of users, it's probably quite satisfactory. However:

    1) Because of the nature of the echoes I participate in most frequently a lot
    of my readers aren't native speakers of English and/or may be emotionally upset
    about various life circumstances they're struggling with. The judicious use of
    blank spaces enables the reader to take mental breaks as necessary. That's why
    books aimed at beginning readers often have only a few words on each page.

    2) You've noticed how disaster strikes when "FS"... with his margin evidently
    set at 76 characters... tries to quote a sentence which has been quoted several
    times already. In your earlier message, "I" and "I'm" were located in splendid
    isolation on the next line where they were attributed to you whether or not you
    were the original author. I limit my own quotes to +/- 65 characters, in order
    to allow for the possibility that somebody who has more than two initials (e.g.
    "ARS" or "MvdV") might want to comment and leave enough space for others to add
    "-> ->" or ">>>>>" before I give up & resort to using the "(N)ext" key.... ;-)




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/7715)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/7715 to Anatoliy Kovalenko on Fri Mar 2 18:00:57 2018
    Hi, Anatoliy! Recently you wrote in a message to alexander koryagin:

    BTW, below there are two quoting variants. From your opinion - are they both correct? If yes, which one is better?

    The first one is better for GUI editors like mine, the second one is
    better for text mode editors (80x25) like GoldEd or I don't know
    what people use in DOS (does anyone use DOS anyway?).


    I am allowing my message editor a free hand, for purposes of this discussion, and the quoted lines here meet my criteria re legibility.... ;-)


    From my standpoint... using timEd, which is a text mode editor... the second version is easier to read because the margins are consistent & all the quoted material appears in the same colour. With this program Dallas & I can select different colours for displaying quotations, kludge lines, and new input. When TimEd line wraps material quoted by another person in such a way that it exceeds my 80-character screen limit, all hell breaks loose:

    1) The line length is erratic & unpredictable.

    2) Some lines appear in the wrong colour.

    3) Some lines are attributed to the person who quoted them last, not to the
    original authors.


    It was this message of yours, BTW, which enabled me to figure out why typing "ak>" only at the beginning of a multi-line quotation doesn't work very well when timEd tries to make sense of it. Thanks for the insight. :-)




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/7715)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/7715 to alexander koryagin on Fri Mar 2 18:00:57 2018
    Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Anatoliy Kovalenko:

    But I strongly doubt that you always make your windows so wide to be
    able to write 120 symbol lines.


    Maybe he can, if he is using a GUI interface and/or he has a wider screen than you & I do and/or he has 25-year-old eyes.... ;-)

    I also tend to make a clear distinction between reading & writing, however. Just for fun I typed a series of periods here to see if there was a limit to how many characters I could type on a single line. At 294 I figured there was no point in proceeding any further, because in actual practice I am using words & I would have been feeling quite lost shortly after whatever I'd just written began to disappear off the screen to my left. Once I'd saved my experiment timEd organized it this way:

    _ _ _ O / _ _ C_U_T_ H_E_R_E_ _ _ _
    O \ ................................................................................
    ................................................................................
    ................................................................................
    ...................................................... (80 characters per line).

    _ _ _ O / _ _ C_U_T_ H_E_R_E_ _ _ _
    O \

    IOW, the author of timEd seems to agree with you & with the publishers of the non-reference book which came closest to hand in our household as to the line length we can reasonably expect other adults to take in. (See below.)



    I've added "ak>" to the beginning of the next line, because it's a continuation of what you said, but made no attempt to improve on the spacing:

    It means that you usually set a
    reasonable width for your window, and you see lines that are hardly
    longer than 80 symbols.


    That does appear to be the case when I connect over the web with a BBS I use occasionally to track down missing Fidonet mail. Although there is enough space on the display screen to accommodate longer lines there's also a generous margin on both sides... with the result that messages are centred on the screen. If I re-read my own work I see no significant difference between the way it looked when it left here & the way it looks on the other BBS. :-)



    60-80 symbols width is the most comfortable width for the text. We
    used it in books and etc.


    Interesting idea. As the sort of person who likes to verify other people's observations for herself, I counted the characters per line in a few lines selected at random from a biography written by an emeritus professor of Greek & Latin. I would estimate the language he used there as "some college" level... i.e. probably about the same educational level as that of his former students & of the average participant in Fidonet nowadays.

    By my reckoning the vast majority of lines in this book are within the limits you've suggested. Exceptions complicated by indentation, footnote numbers & whatnot appear to be shorter rather than longer.... :-)




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/7715)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to All on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    Hello, All!

    http://www.koryagin.newmail.ru/my_soft/soft_menu_eng.htm

    Some people cannot write good quoted messages. Their messages sometimes look like this:
    =========Beginning of the citation==============
    But even more exciting is this big asteriod heading our
    way and they say it will orbit inside the area between us and all those satelites in the sky. Worst case is it hits us, and it's a big sucker.
    I
    thought we had to December 22nd, but maybe the calendar was a bit off?

    Get even with them. Don't pay any income tax. There are

    ARE THE MAN!!"

    And at my age, free medical, room and board, and even a funeral when
    I'm
    shanked. Lookin good!
    =========The end of the citation================

    Now their problems are solved by me. I've made a very useful utility
    "Quoter." It is a freeware program and designed for the people who love participate in discussions in USENET, FIDONET groups and also in web forums. With the help of Quoter you are able to mark essential lines of yours and
    your opponent with initials and a special quoter symbol (as a rule ">").
    Your discussions, even long and complicated, will be neat, like this:

    =========Beginning of the citation==============
    (Ask the American Indians about their history.) Since Israel
    has now occupied that land for six decades, they now have as
    much right to it as do the Palestinians.
    The core of the problem is that Palestinians is not a small
    ethnic group whose rights can be violated with impunity. All
    the Arabs actually is one nation, with one language

    Actually the Arabian nations not only have more than one dialect
    of Arabic, some cannot even understand the other. Example,
    Egyptian Arabic is said to be completely unintelligible to Iraqi
    Arabic speakers. And Iran, of course, isn't even an Arabian
    nation; they speak Farsi. However, they all hate Israel with
    about the same intensity.

    Well, probably Israelis would understand Palestinians better if
    they had put themselves in their boots after the WW2. What had
    happened then?

    True enough -- but equally true for all nations, if they would put themselves in the shoes of other nations.

    If Jews had wanted to built a Jewish religious state in an unsettled
    area it would probably have been all right. No local people, no
    problem. There would not have been any racial and religious issues and violations. But millions of Arabs had already lived at that land and
    they had been guilty of nothing. Did Jews have right to built a state
    for Jews? They could make a democratic state for all the people living
    there. In all the civilized countries religion is separated from state,
    and it helps solve a big host of problems.
    =========The end of the citation================

    First, select the text from your forum window, word processor, etc. Paste it
    to Quoter via Windows clipboard. After editing you put the text at the old place, in the same way. While editing you can save/load the text on your
    flash drive, so you can edit the text on different computers. If you want to correct the paragraph that has already been formatted -- no problem. Just select this paragraph and reformat it. You can make a tricky replacements in all the text. If you need to quote a table, verses or other things, that
    must not be formatted, you can just insert initials on the left side of the text.
    Read the built-in help for more details. The program has Russian and English interfaces.

    Bye All!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to Ardith Hinton on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    F2EP
    Hi, Ardith Hinton! How are you?
    on Wednesday, 28 of March, I read your message to alexander koryagin
    about "Program Quoter - you are very welcomed"

    I'd like to hear your opinion - what is better.

    1. Paragraphs consist of one long line. Like this (and yours):

    I've made a very useful utility "Quoter." It is a freeware program and
    designed for the people who love participate in discussions in USENET, FIDONET groups and also in web forums.

    Good for you! If you've found a way to help others whose software is less amenable than mine to quoting neatly, I hope at least some will use it. I tend to have difficulty following the logic when I can't remember who said what in a
    protracted discussion & other folks are unwilling to meet me halfway. :-)


    2. in the second variant I format all the lines to read them better:

    I've made a very useful utility "Quoter." It is a freeware program
    and designed for the people who love participate in discussions in
    USENET, FIDONET groups and also in web forums.

    Good for you! If you've found a way to help others whose software is
    less amenable than mine to quoting neatly, I hope at least some will use
    it. I tend to have difficulty following the logic when I can't remember
    who said what in a protracted discussion & other folks are unwilling to
    meet me halfway. :-)

    ------
    Now I am writing in long line paragraphs again:

    I heard different opinions on this account. IMHO it's not convinient to read long lines if you have wide display. From another side the text will look much better if you have a narrow display, for instance 40 symbols.

    From another side if you have 40 simbol display you software must reformat wide
    texts for you. ;)

    [...Bye, firmly press your throat]
    Bye Ardith!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)
  • From Anatoliy Kovalenko@2:5020/1042.46 to alexander koryagin on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    Hello alexander!
    11.03.2012 12:31:06, alexander koryagin wrote to All:

    Some people cannot write good quoted messages. Their messages sometimes
    look
    like this:

    I use FTNed 2001 for Windows (yeah, rather old stuff). It's easy to use and makes quotes fine. It also can work with windows clipboard (ctrl-c, ctrl-v), and this is sometimes useful. I don't know, maybe there exists better software nowadays, but I installed it a long time ago and haven't tried anything else since that time because it satisfies my needs completely.


    Bye, Anatoliy.
    --- FTNed 2001 Build 0058-RC6/Windows NT 6.1
    * Origin: http://www.acritum.com (2:5020/1042.46)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to Anatoliy Kovalenko on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    Hi, Anatoliy Kovalenko! How are you?
    on Thursday, 29 of March, I read your message to alexander koryagin
    about "Program Quoter - you are very welcomed"

    BTW, below there are two quoting variants. From your opinion - are they
    both correct? If yes, which one is better?

    ==== variant two ===========
    Some people cannot write good quoted messages. Their messages sometimes look like this:

    I use FTNed 2001 for Windows (yeah, rather old stuff). It's easy to use
    and makes quotes fine. It also can work with windows clipboard (ctrl-c, ctrl-v), and this is sometimes useful. I don't know, maybe there exists better software nowadays, but I installed it a long time ago and haven't tried anything else since that time because it satisfies my needs completely. ============================

    ==== variant two ===========
    Some people cannot write good quoted messages. Their messages
    sometimes look like this:

    I use FTNed 2001 for Windows (yeah, rather old stuff). It's easy to
    use and makes quotes fine. It also can work with windows clipboard (ctrl-c, ctrl-v), and this is sometimes useful. I don't know, maybe
    there exists better software nowadays, but I installed it a long
    time ago and haven't tried anything else since that time because it satisfies my needs completely.
    ============================

    [...Nulla dies sine linea]
    Bye Anatoliy!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)
  • From Anatoliy Kovalenko@2:5020/1042.46 to alexander koryagin on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    Hello alexander!
    29.03.2012 9:18:52, alexander koryagin wrote to Anatoliy Kovalenko:

    BTW, below there are two quoting variants. From your opinion - are they both correct? If yes, which one is better?

    The first one is better for GUI editors like mine, the second one is better for
    text mode editors (80x25) like GoldEd or I don't know what people use in DOS (does anyone use DOS anyway?). If you need a screenshot, I've uploaded it here: http://savepic.su/1676611.htm

    You can see that the first version fills the whole screen while the second version uses less than 2/3 of the screen. The readability is fine in both versions.


    Bye, Anatoliy.
    --- FTNed 2001 Build 0058-RC6/Windows NT 6.1
    * Origin: http://www.acritum.com (2:5020/1042.46)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to mark lewis on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    Hi, mark lewis! How are you?
    on Friday, 30 of March, I read your message to Anatoliy Kovalenko
    about "Program Quoter - you are very welcomed"

    BTW, below there are two quoting variants. From your opinion - are
    they both correct? If yes, which one is better?

    The first one is better for GUI editors like mine, the second one is
    better for text mode editors (80x25) like GoldEd or I don't know what
    people use in DOS (does anyone use DOS anyway?). If you need a
    screenshot, I've uploaded it here:
    http://savepic.su/1676611.htm

    You can see that the first version fills the whole screen while the
    second version uses less than 2/3 of the screen. The readability is
    fine in both versions.

    this is exactly what has been being pointed out to alexander in another echo or two... thank you for demonstrating it and sharing ;)

    Nobody said there that both the variants so fine as I saw the picture. Van der Vlist, for instance, complained that he could not read the second variant properly because of his Golded.

    [...Don't believe in girl's tears - crocodiles cry either]
    Bye mark!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to Anatoliy Kovalenko on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    F2EP
    Hi, Anatoliy Kovalenko! How are you?
    on Friday, 30 of March, I read your message to alexander koryagin
    about "Re: Program Quoter - you are very welcomed"

    BTW, below there are two quoting variants. From your opinion - are
    they both correct? If yes, which one is better?

    The first one is better for GUI editors like mine, the second one
    is better for text mode editors (80x25) like GoldEd or I don't know
    what people use in DOS (does anyone use DOS anyway?). If you need a screenshot, I've uploaded it here: http://savepic.su/1676611.htm

    You can see that the first version fills the whole screen while the
    second version uses less than 2/3 of the screen. The readability is
    fine in both versions.

    But I strongly doubt that you always make your windows so wide to be able to write 120 symbol lines. It means that you usually set a reasonable width for your window, and you see lines that are hardly longer than 80 symbols. I think it can be explained by the fact that 60-80 symbols width is the most comfortable width for the text. We used it in books and etc.

    In short I've made a conclusion that it is not my text was 2/3 of your window -- it is your window was 1/3 wider than necessary. ;=)

    [...The road to hell is paved with good intentions]
    Bye Anatoliy!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to Ardith Hinton on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    F2EP
    Hi, Ardith Hinton! How are you?
    on Tuesday, 03 of April, I read your message to alexander koryagin
    about "Program Quoter - you are very welcomed"


    (I reply in the same format I've got it - the width is 79 symbols).

    I'd like to hear your opinion - what is better.

    I would treat quoted material differently from whatever comment(s) I may have chosen to add. #1 works with everyday prose, if one is not quoting... other people's software will adjust the line length as needed to fit within the space available on their computer screen.

    But note, that quoted lines are, very often, the bulk of a message. You often add just a line or two. So, if you cannot see a formatted quoting well it becomes useless to use not-quoted paragraphs in form of long single lines. In short, your reader program must be able to work with formatted paragraphs. If your narrow screen doesn't allow to shown formatted lines (for instance like these, formatted by 79 symbols) properly, your reader must unformat the formatted text and show it on its narrow screen. It's easy IMHO.

    <skipped>
    variant #1 1. Paragraphs consist of one long line. Like this (and yours):

    I've made a very useful utility "Quoter." It is a freeware program and
    designed for the people who love participate in discussions in USENET,
    FIDONET groups and also in web forums.


    Since you began this paragraph with "ak>" my computer recognized the entire paragraph as a quotation & added your initials to subsequent lines. The author's intent is not in doubt, although the placement of "ak>" varies.

    My computer also decided to put the word "USENET" on the third line, probably because when left to its own devices timEd (my message editor program) limits the length of quoted lines to 72 characters. By typing the ">" yourself at the beginning of the paragraph you were in effect instructing timEd that you wanted to take charge of the decision-making about line length, whereupon timEd did its best to cram as much as possible into the first line before reaching my screen limit. The screen limit forced a line wrap. And then timEd reverted to doing its own thing because you'd offered no further information about what you were expecting it to do with all the stuff it couldn't fit into the first line.

    Many people complain in the same way. Their sofware cannot treat a long line quoting well. Acctually now there is a sort of compromise: people send quoted paragraphs as short lines, and they send their own writing as a long line.

    2. in the second variant I format all the lines to read them better:

    I've made a very useful utility "Quoter." It is a freeware program and
    designed for the people who love participate in discussions in USENET,
    FIDONET groups and also in web forums.


    AFAIC, this is easier to read & more esthetically attractive because of the consistency in the spacing. If not all the lines are precisely the same length I'd rather see some minor discrepacies at the right margin than a clumsy attempt to adjust the spacing between words and/or letters. The idea is not to distract the reader either by thoughtless untidiness or by compulsive neatness.

    But judging by your justified message you like a formatted text justified at the right margin? Don't you? ;) Well, I like it too. But most of people don't have software capable to produce justified messages. Also in windows many program don't use monospacious fonts (althoughy they can set up such a font if they like).

    <skipped>
    al author. I limit my own quotes to +/- 65 characters, in order to allow for the possibility that somebody who has more than two initials (e.g. "ARS" or "MvdV") might want to comment and leave enough space for others to add "-> - >" or ">>>>>" before I give up & resort to using the "(N)ext" key.... ;-)

    But in the message I am replying to you formatted and justified your text by the 79 symbols margin. Probably, some people will see broken lines if they don't have a cool editor (like Quoter, for instance). ;-)

    [...Why am I so kind? I haven't enough malice for all]
    Bye Ardith!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)
  • From Anatoliy Kovalenko@2:5020/1042.46 to Ardith Hinton on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    Hello Ardith!
    02.04.2012 23:56:13, Ardith Hinton wrote to Anatoliy Kovalenko:

    From my standpoint... using timEd, which is a text mode
    editor...

    I think text-mode editors have some problems in text formatting because they are text-mode from the beginning. Their programmers knew only 80x25 chars screen mode and programmed for this resolution. Later, there appeared GUI solutions that could correctly wrap the text in any window size and were designed to do it from the beginning, so this feature works fine in FTNed. For example, if I resize this window, both my text (white) and your text (yellow) is wrapped correctly and the "AH>" quoting mark stands at the beginning of each
    quoting line, no matter what the char width of the window is. So, if some editor cannot wrap text properly, it is the problem of that editor and should be solved by the developer (if he still works on that project). Otherwise, maybe it's time to switch to a modern editor which follows the requirements of the time.


    Bye, Anatoliy.
    --- FTNed 2001 Build 0058-RC6/Windows NT 6.1
    * Origin: http://www.acritum.com (2:5020/1042.46)
  • From Anatoliy Kovalenko@2:5020/1042.46 to alexander koryagin on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    Hello alexander!
    30.03.2012 15:01:13, alexander koryagin wrote to Anatoliy Kovalenko:

    But I strongly doubt that you always make your windows so wide to be able
    to write 120 symbol lines. It means that you usually set a reasonable width for
    your window, and you see lines that are hardly longer than 80 symbols. I think it can be explained by the fact that 60-80 symbols width is the most comfortable width for the text. We used it in books and etc.

    In short I've made a conclusion that it is not my text was 2/3 of your
    window -- it is your window was 1/3 wider than necessary. ;=)

    No, I use an old notebook with 1280x800 pixel resolution and always read texts in full screen (as seen on the screenshot). What's the use for me to reduce the
    window to 1/2 screen or less? I believe you don't resize MS WORD window to a column size of 1/2-1/3 of screen when you type text, do you? I think the more text you see at once, the better. Modern computers have even hgher resolution screens, so formatting the text to 60 characters may become really annoying because it will look as a tiny column, and all the rest screen space will be left unused.


    Bye, Anatoliy.
    --- FTNed 2001 Build 0058-RC6/Windows NT 6.1
    * Origin: http://www.acritum.com (2:5020/1042.46)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to Anatoliy Kovalenko on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    Hi, Anatoliy Kovalenko! How are you?
    on Thursday, 05 of April, I read your message to alexander koryagin
    about "Re: Program Quoter - you are very welcomed"

    <skipped>
    60-80 symbols width is the most comfortable width for the text. We
    used it in books and etc. In short I've made a conclusion that it
    is not my text was 2/3 of your window -- it is your window was 1/3
    wider than necessary. ;=)

    No, I use an old notebook with 1280x800 pixel resolution and always
    read texts in full screen (as seen on the screenshot). What's the
    use for me to reduce the window to 1/2 screen or less? I believe
    you don't resize MS WORD window to a column size of 1/2-1/3 of
    screen when you type text, do you? I think the more text you see at
    once, the better. Modern computers have even hgher resolution
    screens, so formatting the text to 60 characters may become really annoying because it will look as a tiny column, and all the rest
    screen space will be left unused.


    -----my text not formatted----
    IMHO You contradict yourself. When you write your message it is very often that
    quoted paragraphs constitute almost all the message. You just add your text below, like a comment. But, note, all the quoted paragraphs ARE ALWAYS FORMATTED by 70-80 symbols!

    It means that there is no sense to complain that some paragraphs are too narrow
    for your screen. No, it's your font too small! ;) When you choose the side of the font you, probably, have to set such a size so QUOTED paragraphs would be seen at full screen length. Then it will be a perfect reading.

    It is logical. What's the use of making not-quoted text in the form of a single
    line if all the quoted paragraphs are formatted?
    ----------------------

    -----my text formatted----
    IMHO You contradict yourself. When you write your message it is very
    often that quoted paragraphs constitute almost all the message. You just
    add your text below, like a comment. But, note, all the quoted
    paragraphs ARE ALWAYS FORMATTED by 70-80 symbols!

    It means that there is no sense to complain that some paragraphs are too
    narrow for your screen. No, it's your font too small! ;) When you choose
    the side of the font you, probably, have to set such a size so QUOTED paragraphs would be seen at full screen length. Then it will be a
    perfect reading.

    It is logical. What's the use of making not-quoted text in the form of a
    single line if all the quoted paragraphs are formatted?
    ----------------------


    [...The chain is no stronger than its weakest link]
    Bye Anatoliy!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)
  • From Anatoliy Kovalenko@2:5020/1042.46 to alexander koryagin on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    Hello alexander!
    05.04.2012 9:33:26, alexander koryagin wrote to Anatoliy Kovalenko:

    What's the use of making not-quoted text in the form of a single line if
    all the quoted paragraphs are formatted?

    What gremlin told you this? Quoted paragraphs are ONLY formatted to 60-80 chars
    if they are divided by the sender using line breaks on purpose, i.e. he pressed
    Enter after every 60 chars! Otherwise the quotes fill the whole screen no matter what the window size is, the same as the text that I type.

    Bye, Anatoliy.
    --- FTNed 2001 Build 0058-RC6/Windows NT 6.1
    * Origin: http://www.acritum.com (2:5020/1042.46)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to Anatoliy Kovalenko on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    Hi, Anatoliy Kovalenko! How are you?
    on Friday, 06 of April, I read your message to alexander koryagin
    about "Re: Program Quoter - you are very welcomed"

    What's the use of making not-quoted text in the form of a single
    line if all the quoted paragraphs are formatted?

    What gremlin told you this? Quoted paragraphs are ONLY formatted to
    60-80 chars if they are divided by the sender using line breaks on purpose, i.e. he pressed Enter after every 60 chars! Otherwise the
    quotes fill the whole screen no matter what the window size is, the
    same as the text that I type.

    Tell me where I can look at the quoted paragraphs sent as long single lines? All quoted paragraph everywhere are formatted == they chopped by short lines (60-80 symbols) with line break at the end of every one.

    [...De gustibus non est disputandum]
    Bye Anatoliy!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)
  • From Aleksej Serdjukov@2:5020/1042.42 to alexander koryagin on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    Hello alexander.

    11 Mar 12 12:31, you wrote to all:

    http://www.koryagin.newmail.ru/my_soft/soft_menu_eng.htm


    The page says "The autor permits using this version of the program freely, providing that the program will not be modified or used for commersial purposes."


    First, of course, the language: it should be "author" and "commercial".


    I can understand not wanting to allow commercial use, although it doesn't
    seem like a practical idea: look at all the free (as in "freedom") software.


    Second, what is the reason for limiting modification?

    If somebody wants to make malware of your program, they can just change the MD5 sum in the file (or even make a program with a similar user interface from scratch). But if somebody thinks the program has a bug, or wants to add a new feature to it, they will have to contact you. If you abandon the program, or don't want to add the feature, they will be out of luck.


    I can also imagine an argument that somebody could change the program and publish the binary without publishing the source. That's prohibited by copyleft free software licenses like GNU GPL, and that's why simply removing copyright restrictions is not a good solution to what copyright laws have come to.



    Aleksej

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5--b20110320
    * Origin: (2:5020/1042.42)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to Aleksej Serdjukov on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@newmail.ru>

    Hi, Aleksej Serdjukov! How are you?
    on Friday, 06 of April, I read your messsage to alexander koryagin
    about "Program Quoter - you are very welcomed"


    The page says "The autor permits using this version of the program
    freely, providing that the program will not be modified or used for commersial purposes."

    First, of course, the language: it should be "author" and
    "commercial".

    Yeah, it is fucking Billy's Front Page 2000 must be blamed. ;-) I could
    not make it to spell check an English text. It is tuned to Russian and
    there is no possibility to swith it into English. Can you imagine it?
    Well, my hurry must be blamed, too. Thanks, anyway.

    I can understand not wanting to allow commercial use, although it
    doesn't seem like a practical idea: look at all the free (as in
    "freedom") software.

    When Reformator package is ready in its final form it can be (in
    principal) a commerical product, unless I decide to release it as
    a freeware product.

    Second, what is the reason for limiting modification?

    If somebody wants to make malware of your program, they can just
    change the MD5 sum in the file (or even make a program with a
    similar user interface from scratch). But if somebody thinks the
    program has a bug, or wants to add a new feature to it, they will
    have to contact you. If you abandon the program, or don't want to
    add the feature, they will be out of luck.

    I prohibited modifications, appealing rather to people's conscience. Of
    course if a person wants to commit a crime he will commit it. ;-) It is imposssible to improve this program without the source texts. In the
    Reformator package every important function has an empty duplicate. So,
    if Reformator package complied as Quoter only, nobody can get access
    to other Reformator unilites.

    As for the MD5 checking, yes a hacker can put a malware into my program
    and distrubute it for instance selling his pirate CDs. But any person
    who downloads my program from my site can be sure that it is perfectly
    safe. MD5 checking serves for the purpose I declared: it checks the
    integrity of the program which can be broken for one or another reason.
    In the next modification I'll put into "about box" the URL where anybody
    can find the latest version of the Quoter.

    I can also imagine an argument that somebody could change the
    program and publish the binary without publishing the source.
    That's prohibited by copyleft free software licenses like GNU GPL,
    and that's why simply removing copyright restrictions is not a good solution to what copyright laws have come to.

    So, for a while there is only one way be more or less sure that my
    program was not be changed by crooks: download it from my site. Actually
    md5 sum is like my signiture.

    [...Diseases are the interests of pleasures]
    Bye Aleksej!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012


    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)
  • From Anatoliy Kovalenko@2:5020/1042.46 to alexander koryagin on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    Hello alexander!
    06.04.2012 11:17:02, alexander koryagin wrote to Anatoliy Kovalenko:


    Tell me where I can look at the quoted paragraphs sent as long single
    lines? All quoted paragraph everywhere are formatted == they chopped by short lines (60-80 symbols) with line break at the end of every one.

    Here it goes...
    http://savepic.su/1658746.htm
    I don't see any difference between author text and quoted text, both are texts and can be sent as the software sends it - either as a formatted block with line breaks or as a single text line.

    As I said, it depends on the software. In DOS, 60-70 chars per line look cool because you can't get more than 80 even if you really want! In Windows(R) it only makes problems because most (or even all) apps for Windows(R) can wrap words depending on window size, but they don't reformat #13#10 lines because they think that if someone pressed Enter at the end of the line, then there was
    some sense in it and it should not be reformatted to a single line block. As a result, changing window size leads to a sequence of long and short lines, which
    doesn't look attractive...

    But it's only IMHO, personally, I don't really care if the text formatted or not unless I want to copy it to the clipboard for further editing or printing. In this case the DOS-formatted text is a headache because all #13#10 should be removed manaully to to make the text comply with Windows(R) formatting requrements.


    Bye, Anatoliy.
    --- FTNed 2001 Build 0058-RC6/Windows NT 6.1
    * Origin: http://www.acritum.com (2:5020/1042.46)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to Anatoliy Kovalenko on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    F2EP
    Hi, Anatoliy Kovalenko! How are you?
    on Tuesday, 10 of April, I read your message to alexander koryagin
    about "Re: Program Quoter - you are very welcomed"

    Tell me where I can look at the quoted paragraphs sent as long
    single lines? All quoted paragraph everywhere are formatted ==
    they chopped by short lines (60-80 symbols) with line break at the
    end of every one.

    Here it goes...
    http://savepic.su/1658746.htm

    Well, now look in which way many programs show your message. For instance, I use Fidolook -- a special, very cool sofware to write/read messages for Fidonet/Usenet.

    http://savepic.su/1654459.htm

    As I said, it depends on the software. In DOS, 60-70 chars per line
    look cool because you can't get more than 80 even if you really
    want!

    I never wanted, and hardly anyone did. Symbols would become too small, and lines too long. I like the text to resemble a text in a paper book. I read many
    e-texts and found out that the most convinient width to understand the text is 68 symbols. For a reader every text line is a portion of the text to understand. It must not be too long on the screen.

    In Windows(R) it only makes problems because most (or even all)
    apps for Windows(R) can wrap words depending on window size,

    Wrapping? But you told me a few days ago that your screen too wide for a formatted text. ;)

    but they don't reformat #13#10 lines because they think that if
    someone pressed Enter at the end of the line, then there was some
    sense in it and it should not be reformatted to a single line
    block.

    It is not correct. When you receive "my" lines in the form of a long line paragraph it doesn't mean that I write lines 150 symbols long or more! Any person writes messages using short lines, but before sending your editor UNFORMATS these short lines paragraphs into one long line paragraphs and send it in the form of a single line. The program does not pay attention on your "/r/n".

    The same process can be on receving short line paragraphs. And after this unformatting process you can see paragraphs in the format-flowed form.

    But these variant is in use only in the case that your screen is more narrow than formatted paragraph, and this case can be only with modern small plane-table computers. And their software must know how to unformat the incoming text.

    At worst, if a small device cannot show formatted paragraph that too wide for it, it must not wrap it anyway, but show it using a horizontal scrolling line. BTW any windows editor allows to switch off the wrapping mode.

    As a result, changing window size leads to a sequence of long and
    short lines, which doesn't look attractive...

    If your have a normal computer and your window width is more than 80 symbols you will never have any problems. Because people format their text in a standand way.

    But it's only IMHO, personally, I don't really care if the text
    formatted or not unless I want to copy it to the clipboard for
    further editing or printing. In this case the DOS-formatted text is
    a headache because all #13#10 should be removed manaully to to make
    the text comply with Windows(R) formatting requrements.

    Windows does not requare to use long paragraphs. It is just one of many text formats. Any GUI windows text software must support a plain ASCII text for MSDOS. Take any decent text editor and look.

    In short, people have different sofware, and it is desirable to have a compromise for all how to show paragraphs. Most of people (80%) prefer to format the paragraphs with quoting and have not-quoted paragraphs as a long lines. It means that text formatting is acceptable.

    PS: In this text: I wrote the text carelessly in short lines, but before sending it Quoter unformatted "my" paragraphs into one line form. I mean that any program-reader can do this operation itself if it cannot show a formatted text.

    [...Natura abhorret vacuum]
    Bye Anatoliy!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)
  • From Anatoliy Kovalenko@2:5020/1042.46 to alexander koryagin on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    Hello alexander!
    10.04.2012 10:41:18, alexander koryagin wrote to Anatoliy Kovalenko:

    Well, now look in which way many programs show your message. For instance,
    I use Fidolook -- a special, very cool sofware to write/read messages for Fidonet/Usenet.

    http://savepic.su/1654459.htm

    Not as cool as you say. I'm too lazy to count now, but I suppose, in your screenshot, the program splits the long paragraph to 255 chars lines because the programmer decided to use easy solutions (as you know, 255 chars make a standard string type in most programming languages). The fact that the programmer didn't know how to store and process more than 255 chars doesn't mean that long text lines shouldn't be used. As you can see, the programmer of FTNed found a good solution and I never have any problems with wrapping.

    Wrapping? But you told me a few days ago that your screen too wide for a
    formatted text. ;)

    But it's my right to decrease window if I want to! For example, if I don't know
    Albanian, I can use one half of the screen for the Albanian message window and the other half for the dictionary window (I use Lingvo, it's a good dictionary). If I reduce the window twice, its width is already less than 80 chars, and your format becomes horribly distorted!

    Any person writes messages using short lines, but before sending your
    editor UNFORMATS these short lines paragraphs into one long line paragraphs and
    send it in the form of a single line. The program does not pay attention on your "/r/n".

    I don't understand this idea. In this case all #13#10 would be deleted, and there would be no paragraphs at all, but see:

    Par1
    Par2
    Par3

    Nothing is deleted! I write long lines from the beginning, and the software saves long lines and doesn't delete my line breaks! Maybe it's your Fidolook deletes something, I don't know. The problem with deleting ALL #13#10 is that you will get only one paragraph, but people usually divide long texts to many paragraphs according to sense, and you will not be able to restore these paragraphs backwards.

    Windows does not requare to use long paragraphs.

    Yep, but if you put your text to Word and try to print it, you will see that only half of the paper sheet is used:
    http://savepic.su/1642199.htm
    Paper is expensive nowadays, so it's much more prefferable to use not-#13#10-formatted text to fill the whole space of the sheet, and it's about 150-200 symbols per line (if you use Times New Roman, size 10).

    In short, people have different sofware, and it is desirable to have a
    compromise for all how to show paragraphs. Most of people (80%) prefer to format the paragraphs with quoting and have not-quoted paragraphs as a long lines. It means that text formatting is acceptable.

    Sure, it is acceptable in FIDO, because text is mostly used for reading and other kinds of text usage are limited.


    Bye, Anatoliy.
    --- FTNed 2001 Build 0058-RC6/Windows NT 6.1
    * Origin: http://www.acritum.com (2:5020/1042.46)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to Anatoliy Kovalenko on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    Hi, Anatoliy Kovalenko! How are you?
    on Friday, 13 of April, I read your message to alexander koryagin
    about "Re: Program Quoter - you are very welcomed"

    Well, now look in which way many programs show your message. For
    instance, I use Fidolook -- a special, very cool sofware to
    write/read messages for Fidonet/Usenet.
    http://savepic.su/1654459.htm

    Not as cool as you say. I'm too lazy to count now, but I suppose,
    in your screenshot, the program splits the long paragraph to 255
    chars lines because the programmer decided to use easy solutions
    (as you know, 255 chars make a standard string type in most
    programming languages). The fact that the programmer didn't know
    how to store and process more than 255 chars doesn't mean that long
    text lines shouldn't be used. As you can see, the programmer of
    FTNed found a good solution and I never have any problems with
    wrapping.

    Mosilla Thunderbird NNTP client does the same. Too many people affected badly. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2729127/quoter1.png

    All these NNTP clients make good quoting while answering, but they show it badly when you just read the messages with long quoted paragraph.

    Wrapping? But you told me a few days ago that your screen too wide
    for a formatted text. ;)

    But it's my right to decrease window if I want to!

    Yes! And you won't complain than that my formatted text is too narrow. ;)

    For example, if I don't know Albanian, I can use one half of the
    screen for the Albanian message window and the other half for the dictionary window (I use Lingvo, it's a good dictionary). If I
    reduce the window twice, its width is already less than 80 chars,
    and your format becomes horribly distorted!

    Well... it is the reason. But... when you write a usual text, for instance in MWord, you have the same "problem". A normal text is not format-flowed. At least it must not be done such by a writer himself. A human must think about contents, but not about how to preserve a long line paragraph. Also, it is usual that you cannot have all programs visible simultaneously. That's why all dictionaries work as pop-up software. A help program pops up, you look what you
    want and then the help program went behind your editor, and you again see all the text in a normal size window.

    But if you have a display of a big width you can set up a small size font, and the standard 80 symbols width. In this case you will be able to run another program and both the programs will be visible on the display together.

    Any person writes messages using short lines, but before sending
    your editor UNFORMATS these short lines paragraphs into one long
    line paragraphs and send it in the form of a single line. The
    program does not pay attention on your "/r/n".

    I don't understand this idea. In this case all #13#10 would be
    deleted, and there would be no paragraphs at all, but see:

    -----Beginning of the citation-----
    Par1
    Par2
    Par3
    -----The end of the citation-----

    Nothing is deleted! I write long lines from the beginning, and the software saves long lines and doesn't delete my line breaks!

    I think you are right - most programs do not do such a thing. But anyway, it is
    strange to demand from the person to write long line paragraphs. Suppose, he used to type texts on his typewriter, e-mail client, word processor and press Enter every line.

    Maybe it's your Fidolook deletes something, I don't know. The
    problem with deleting ALL #13#10 is that you will get only one
    paragraph, but people usually divide long texts to many paragraphs according to sense, and you will not be able to restore these
    paragraphs backwards.

    Why, there is a standard that paragraphs must be separated by a empty line. In Russia we like very much so called "red paragraphs" where paragraphs are put without a empty line, but every paragraph begins with 4-8 spaces.

    Windows does not require to use long paragraphs.

    Yep, but if you put your text to Word and try to print it, you will
    see that only half of the paper sheet is used: http://savepic.su/1642199.htm

    Well, but have you ever thought why a text page has 60-70 symbols? It is a compromise between line's symbol number and the font size. Text letters are not
    too small and not too big. So if my page is too narrow it means it was printed with too small font. Increase the font size and you will have a standard text, easy to read.

    If I had sent my message with single line paragraphs you could have done two things. First - to print it with the small font and have 150 symbols per line. But two long adjoining lines are poorly readable. Second - you can increase your font and print it in the standard way 60 - 70 symbol per line.

    Print this message as you did, with the small font and you'll see that it is not good looking when one paragraphs are formatted (quoted ones) and the other printed as long lines.

    [...The wider our mugs the tighter our rows]
    Bye Anatoliy!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to Ardith Hinton on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    F2EP
    Hi, Ardith Hinton! How are you?
    on Tuesday, 24 of April, I read your message to alexander koryagin
    about "Program Quoter - you are very welcomed"

    But I strongly doubt that you always make your windows so wide to be
    able to write 120 symbol lines.

    Maybe he can, if he is using a GUI interface and/or he has a wider screen than you & I do and/or he has 25-year-old eyes.... ;-)

    I also tend to make a clear distinction between reading & writing, however. Just for fun I typed a series of periods here to see if there was a limit to how many characters I could type on a single line. At 294
    I figured there was no point in proceeding any further, because in actual practice I am using words & I would have been feeling quite lost shortly after whatever I'd just written began to disappear off the screen to my left. Once I'd saved my experiment timEd organized it this way:


    _ _ O / _ C_U_T_ H_E_R_E_ _ _ _
    O \
    <skipped>

    Probably some people say to you that you need to switch your editor to so called wrapped mode. In this mode you write your sentences without using Enter key and your lines are wrapped automatically. They are wrapped only _visually_, and in reality you write long line paragraphs.

    IOW, the author of timEd seems to agree with you & with the publishers of the non-reference book which came closest to hand in our household as to the line length we can reasonably expect other adults to take in.

    Besides, there are a great lot of text MSDOS documents which are formatted and justified. Surely every fidonet user must have the possibility to post such documents as they are, i.e. in the formatted form. And it is quite logical to demand that every fidonet user must have the possibility to read them properly.

    The only problem is to decide what to do when a person wants to quote the formatted text. There are two ways: the simple one is when a person simply adds quoting symbols on(?) the left of the text, but this way makes the lines longer. The cooler way is when he adds quoting marks and then reformats the quoted paragraphs to prevent them from being excessively wide.

    [...LIZA: I dont want to talk grammar. I want to talk like a lady.]
    Bye Ardith!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)