Easy CSS Question but I don't get it!!

[dorayme]

The attribution *to nothing* was sloppy but only confusing to >
someone who doesn't understand attribution in general. So far,
that seems to belimted to dorayme.

Please God, let me develop as good an understanding about
attribution as Blinky...

At the very least, let me into the deep truths about "attribution
in general"

I will do anything, I will enrol in a course on counting
quotation levels, I will study this rocket science including
alternative methods employed by various newsreaders. Night and
day until I can just glance at any combinations of a-z and > and
answer within a few secs whether it was Pamela or George or Brian
or Sarah or Peter or Paul or Diane or Mary or your son Jesus or
Roger Rabbit who said any particular thing.

Please God, make it an Olympic sport.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

And should I complain about your quoting, there? After all, I didn't
write it that way, with gt's scattered all throughout the paragraph. You
are misrepresenting that, by showing them that way when they were
originally on the left margin where they belong.

Please God, let me develop as good an understanding about attribution as
Blinky...

That would serve you well.

At the very least, let me into the deep truths about "attribution in
general"

Just pay attention while you're reading Usenet. That's how we all learn.

 

[dorayme]

And should I complain about your quoting, there? After all, I didn't
write it that way, with gt's scattered all throughout the paragraph. You
are misrepresenting that, by showing them that way when they were
originally on the left margin where they belong.

You have lost me?

Your posts look to me exactly like the png I sent a while back in
the link, gt signs or alternative lines at left Nothing is
particularly scattered?

There seems to be some significant difference between how you are
viewing them and how I am viewing? Is there some wrapping
problem?

In what I see above there is a ">" between "confusing to" and
"someone". This is a scattered ">". It appears in all my
newsreaders and it appeared before this reply.

I even looked at your posts in that web based Google thing and no
surprises at my end. That little scattered ">" I mention above is
also there scattered. You saying you did not put that 'lil 'ol
thing there? Who did? A toon maybe? All others were on the left?

 

[Blinky the Shark]

You have lost me?

Why would you ask me that? How would I know?

Your posts look to me exactly like the png I sent a while back in the
link, gt signs or alternative lines at left Nothing is particularly
scattered?

You seem to have cleaned them up, up there. Only one remains. That's not
good, presenting as a quote something you've doctored. It's no longer a
quote, then.

There seems to be some significant difference between how you are
viewing them and how I am viewing? Is there some wrapping problem?

At your end, yes.

In what I see above there is a ">" between "confusing to" and "someone".
This is a scattered ">". It appears in all my newsreaders and it
appeared before this reply.

Yes, it started appearing with one of your earlier replies.

I even looked at your posts in that web based Google thing and no
surprises at my end. That little scattered ">" I mention above is also
there scattered. You saying you did not put that 'lil 'ol thing there?
Who did? A toon maybe? All others were on the left?

No, they weren't. Something on your end did.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Jose


The version you're using is nearly 18 months old - they quite
possibly have got it right by now.

Isn't 7.2 the last version of Netscape with mail/news? AFAIK, that was
the last of the 7 series, now replaced with 8, which is just a browser.

Time to move to Thunderbird, or if you need the suite, Mozilla or
Seamonkey.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Thank you for looking at it. And everything, Mark old son. But I
think the situation is worse than you make out. Personally I
don't mind lewd attributions even if they are false. But there
has been a development: I have had the local Catholic priest, the
Anglican rector and the Rabbi knock on my door complaining
furiously and searching my house for magazines.

I tried to explain to them and showed them the posts on my
screen. They screamed at me that the posts showed clearly I had
said what seemed to be attributed to me. I said what news client
did they use but they brushed such things aside as attempts to
distract them with science.

You have put me in a very awkward position Blinky!

See how bad it looks when you actually face the reality at
http://dorayme.150m.com/test/blinky.html

Hmm, I'd stick with my Mozilla!

I sidetracked these religious leaders by telling them the one
about about the three friends, a Catholic priest, an Anglican
rector and a Rabbi...

They rolled out in paroxysms of laughter and forgot about it, (I
noticed that the Rabbi had a few of my Chess magazines in his
mits. He plays, you see! But I think it was just an oversight!)
Anyway, they were headed to the pub but I think I will give the
local a miss for tonight just in case....

 

[dorayme]

Why would you ask me that? How would I know?

Phew! What a bad temper! What do you understand that I have asked
you? I meant simply that I could not see what was wrong with my
quoting and could not see scattered >s (except one that I
mentioned). And I go on later to think more about and entertain
the possibility we are seeing different things, that maybe there
is something about our respective newsreaders.

You seem to have cleaned them up, up there. Only one remains. That's not
good, presenting as a quote something you've doctored. It's no longer a
quote, then.

Right! First you give the whole world the impression it was me
who buys lewd mags and gets excited by them, then you try to
brush it off saying it is only me who would get that impression.
When I give you some evidence of how it appeared, you say I
doctored things and directly insult me. I take some exception to
this accusation. You are totally out of line here. I did not
doctor anything. Post pics of relevant representations (perhaps
the Google ones so they are independent of particular news
clients, browsers tend to represent things more evenly perhaps)
and show in detail where you are saying I have "doctored" things.
You made the accusation, now put up or shut up.

At your end, yes.

Never give an inch eh? When I invite rapproachment by suggesting
there may be issues to do with how things are appearing at each
end - in other words "Hey, this may not be either of our faults"
- you decide that unconsolable and remorseless is the way to go.

Yes, it started appearing with one of your earlier replies.

Yes, you are right on this, I looked up article 59 in the thread
and it was not there but did appear in my 61. It appears in
slightly different places subsequently. I do not know how this
happened. But I accept this one was not from you. But I am
puzzled by all the others you claim which I do not see. To be
clear, I am not saying you invented these things, just that I do
not see any significant scattering of ">"s.

But perhaps it is silly to try to be reasonable with someone who
is in such a brutal mood. Maybe go back to your magazine and
finish things off, you might be in a better mood then.

 

[dorayme]

http://dorayme.150m.com/test/blinky.html

Hmm, I'd stick with my Mozilla!
[/QUOTE]

It is neat the way Mozilla does quoting, I have heard that other
news clients for Mac OS X operate similarly. My email program
Mail is this way and I think it is much neater a method. But I
have been using a well regarded (in the Mac community) news
client, MT-NewsWatcher, and getting used to it in spite of
initial misgivings. It seems to do a good job but I am rattled at
the way things are appearing to at least one old timer on this
group. I am not sure now whether I have the wrap text and tab
preferences set right. I have 65 for the former and 3 for the
latter. (Big improvement on OE where I had no really good options
for such and had to hand edit).

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Phew! What a bad temper! What do you understand that I have asked you? I
meant simply that I could not see what was wrong with my quoting and could
not see scattered >s (except one that I mentioned). And I go on later to
think more about and entertain the possibility we are seeing different
things, that maybe there is something about our respective newsreaders.

Right! First you give the whole world the impression it was me who buys
lewd mags and gets excited by them, then you try to brush it off saying it
is only me who would get that impression. When I give you some evidence of
how it appeared, you say I doctored things and directly insult me. I take
some exception to this accusation. You are totally out of line here. I did
not doctor anything. Post pics of relevant representations (perhaps the
Google ones so they are independent of particular news clients, browsers
tend to represent things more evenly perhaps) and show in detail where you
are saying I have "doctored" things. You made the accusation, now put up
or shut up.

Never give an inch eh? When I invite rapproachment by suggesting there may
be issues to do with how things are appearing at each end - in other words
"Hey, this may not be either of our faults" - you decide that unconsolable
and remorseless is the way to go.

Yes, you are right on this, I looked up article 59 in the thread and it
was not there but did appear in my 61. It appears in slightly different
places subsequently. I do not know how this happened. But I accept this
one was not from you. But I am puzzled by all the others you claim which I
do not see. To be clear, I am not saying you invented these things, just
that I do not see any significant scattering of ">"s.

But perhaps it is silly to try to be reasonable with someone who is in
such a brutal mood. Maybe go back to your magazine and finish things off,
you might be in a better mood then.

<offering to shake hands>

 

[dorayme]

<offering to shake hands>

<onOrderFromMyMartianMinders>offer
accepted</onOrderFromMyMartianMinders>

 

[Blinky the Shark]

<onOrderFromMyMartianMinders>offer
accepted</onOrderFromMyMartianMinders>

Hah! That was the sticky hand from looking through that magazine.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:

Phew! What a bad temper!

Gimme a break! Women, infamous for their tempermentality, are hardly in
a position to criticize other species for one of their own greatest
faults.