Robin Lee Powell wrote: <E Clifford wrote: > A>The program appears to be Yahoo Mail and that does not appear to be > an adaptation of any other mail program. It also does not appear to > have within itself any way to change the quoting convention.
If you wouldn't mind trying the instructions at:
including the switching to the plain editor and then mailing me that way, I'd appreciate it. If you really hate it so much you can't do it, fine, but I'd like to at least prove that it can be done.>>
Thanks. The regular Yahoo guides do fail to mention a lot of this stuff. As long as it is here, I have no real objection to using it — in spite of its being (and having been since the early eighties) a particularly bad quoting convention (mainly because after step three it become impossible to keep track of who is who, but also because of the waste of space and three other reasons that I forget. Have you really never heard of The RAND Corp?) I see that I now have NO quote markers. Hmmm!
Hot damn! Now the quote convention is adhered to!
The early stuff is vcovered by the reply to the later post.
> > D> It is not clear to me why complaints and > accurate comments about > > your systems are interdicted while your > comments about others are not. > > Because I do this for a living, so I speak from > an authority you do not, > for one thing. For another, because as I said > I work my ass off on > lojban.org infrastructure, and I demand respect > as a response.
It is probably because you do it for a living that many of your comments are inappropriate: you know how to work the angles but do not have to live with these critters on a day to day basis, getting by on only what dribbles of instructions some one who does it for a living sees fit to pass on (the Yahoo Help files is a classic example in a small way) You also obviously know where to go when you need more information; this is not something generally known (and again I thank you for leading me to what was needed in this case. And I have to say that the Tiki instructions have gotten better: I can't remember the last time I had a problem that did not have an answer somewhere — not always where I would have expected it, to be sure — in the instruction pages. Thanks again.)
> It occurs to me that by "defective systems", > you may have meant my style > of quoting, rather than my computer systems, in > which case I am slightly > less annoyed.
I did indeed mean the stye of quoting, going from the RAND study of probably 20 years ago now -- which had no impact at all that I can see.
> > You insult a reasonably good program and > insist on the superiority of > > an inferior one > > What the *HELL* are you talking about? I don't > know what program you > are using, so I cannot have insulted it, and I > have yet to reccomend any > other programs, because you haven't given me > enough information to do > so. > > (somewhere there is a RAND study on how > quotes ought to be done) > > I have no idea what RAND is. Citation or URL?
The study came out shortly after my friend got to be assistant director of the Ergonomics Section at RAND, so I'd say about 1985, give or take a year. She didn't do it but she did approve it and sent me a prepub, which I have since lost. I don't remember either title or RD number and only fragments of the content.
> > I am not overjoyed with the system I have but > it is what I have and I > > am stuck with it for now. > > No, you are not, and if you'd listen to what I > say and answer me I would > have already suggested several alternatives.
All of which, alas, depended — until the one you sent later — on knowing what I was dealing with and finding on it certain menus (which either don't exist on Yahoo or go by different names and are filed in places I would never think to look -- I still have not found Tools.) I have been giving you the best answers I had available, sorry that they were not — until finally — of much use. > > > E> Same back atcha, fella. I have never > knbowingly insulted your > > work; > > "defective systems" isn't an insult? > > > F> You set up the quotation convention? > Shame on you. > > When I read "defective systems", I assumed that > you mean my *computer* > systems, i.e. lojban.org.
Hell, no. Of the sites I have to deal with from time to time, Lojban is about as good as any -- including (or even especially) those for computer haard- or soft-ware companies (which are slicker, usually, but much less helpful). Although I admit I have a residuual memory of you or someone recommending Linux over Windows, to which my only comments is that while Windows occasionally doesn't work and its security leaks like a sieve, it never destroyed 7 gigs of harddrive the way that Suse Linux did.