Posted by Dan Bloomquist on August 2, 2005, 2:20 am
JoeSixPack wrote:
>I wouldn't consider "fixing" my newsreader until I heard
> the same story from at least one other person.
You heard it from me. So, are you looking for three?
Best, Dan.
--
Add one for email
Posted by Derek Broughton on August 2, 2005, 10:40 am
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
>>I wouldn't consider "fixing" my newsreader until I heard
>> the same story from at least one other person.
>
> You heard it from me. So, are you looking for three?
>
And I agree with you, Joe, that there's nothing wrong with Outlook Express -
despite popular opinion, it's one of MS's better products. If it's failing
to quote, and properly delineate your words from those to which you're
responding, then it's a misconfiguration on your part.
--
derek
Posted by Bill Ward on August 2, 2005, 12:26 pm
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 03:42:06 GMT, "JoeSixPack"
>> JoeSixPack wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We might have to invest in solar and wind energy collection on a
>>>>>>>massive scale, and then either use it to distill biofuels or use it
>>>>>>>directly to create hydrogen fuel....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are over a trillion tons of proven coal reserves on the planet.
>>>>>>There is nuclear energy. There is by no means enough land to replace
>>>>>>this civilization's demand for energy with crop fuels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sounds like you need another six pack.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like you misread the post. My words were at the bottom, without
>>>>> the little >> thingies in front.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying I didn't quote you correctly? That you didn't write the
>>>> above about solar, wind, and hydrogen?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's correct. I responded to a post by someone else. My comments are at
>>> the bottom, without the
>>> little >> thingies in front.
>>
>> Wrong. There were no little thingies (!) until we responded. If you
>> _didn't_ write "We might have to invest in solar and wind ...", then you
>> seriously need to fix your news program, because it's quoting wrong.
>> --
>> derek
>Well, there's nothing I can do to help you. The simple fact is that my post
>was a response to someone else's words, and there's nothing you can do to
>alter that fact. I wouldn't consider "fixing" my newsreader until I heard
>the same story from at least one other person. Outlook Express by the way,
>is a well-tested application for this purpose.
Joe, here's the way it appeared on my Free Agent newsreader:
____________________________________________________________
<begin quote>
wrote in message
> Hydrogen was suggested as an alternative energy source by corporate
> interests who were anxious to keep the public dependent on high technology
> (and therefore established industrial players).
> The production, transport, storage and sale of hydrogen is dangerous and
> difficult.
> In comparison, my own car that's standing outside as I type this will run
> on
> alcohol.
> The solution is alcohol, not hydrogen. It's easy to make, cheap, burns
> clean, is safe to distribute and store.
> It can be distilled from sewage, from crops, from surplus and waste
> foodstuffs.
> There's even the likelihood that new organisms that will in one stage
> ferment to higher concentrations will be genetically engineered.
> You can even run a fuel cell on it.
> _Alcohol_, not hydrogen.
Face it, the days of blasting down the interstate,
surrounded by 3 tonnes of
metal, using 75,000 Watts of power (0 HP = 64,119,700
calories per hour)
are over in the near future.
Such an orgy of wasted energy was a wet dream that we were
allowed to live
out for a century or so.
We might have to invest in solar and wind energy collection
on a massive
scale, and then either use it to distill biofuels or use it
directly to
create hydrogen fuel.
Either way it won't be cheap. The fossil-fuel free ride will
soon be over.
<end quote>
____________________________________________________________
Hope this helps,
Bill Ward
Posted by CM on August 2, 2005, 7:23 pm
>>>>>> Looks like you misread the post. My words were at the bottom,
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> the little >> thingies in front.
>>>>> Are you saying I didn't quote you correctly? That you didn't write
>>>>> the
>>>>> above about solar, wind, and hydrogen?
>>>> That's correct. I responded to a post by someone else. My comments are
>>>> at
>>>> the bottom, without the
>>>> little >> thingies in front.
>>> Wrong. There were no little thingies (!) until we responded. If you
>>> _didn't_ write "We might have to invest in solar and wind ...", then
>>> you
>>> seriously need to fix your news program, because it's quoting wrong.
>>Well, there's nothing I can do to help you. The simple fact is that my
>>post
>>was a response to someone else's words, and there's nothing you can do to
>>alter that fact. I wouldn't consider "fixing" my newsreader until I heard
>>the same story from at least one other person. Outlook Express by the
>>way,
>>is a well-tested application for this purpose.
> Joe, here's the way it appeared on my Free Agent newsreader:
<snipped for brevity>
I dare say it appears about the same in either Outlook Express or Free
Agent.
BTW, I use both Outlook Express and Agent - OE works best for simple "text
only" and simple binary photo newsgroups, while Agent does a much better
job with large multipart files on certain other binary newsgroups.
CM
Posted by JoeSixPack on August 2, 2005, 9:02 pm
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 03:42:06 GMT, "JoeSixPack"
>>
>>> JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We might have to invest in solar and wind energy collection on a
>>>>>>>>massive scale, and then either use it to distill biofuels or use it
>>>>>>>>directly to create hydrogen fuel....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There are over a trillion tons of proven coal reserves on the planet.
>>>>>>>There is nuclear energy. There is by no means enough land to replace
>>>>>>>this civilization's demand for energy with crop fuels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sounds like you need another six pack.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like you misread the post. My words were at the bottom,
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> the little >> thingies in front.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying I didn't quote you correctly? That you didn't write the
>>>>> above about solar, wind, and hydrogen?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's correct. I responded to a post by someone else. My comments are
>>>> at
>>>> the bottom, without the
>>>> little >> thingies in front.
>>>
>>> Wrong. There were no little thingies (!) until we responded. If you
>>> _didn't_ write "We might have to invest in solar and wind ...", then you
>>> seriously need to fix your news program, because it's quoting wrong.
>>> --
>>> derek
>>
>>Well, there's nothing I can do to help you. The simple fact is that my
>>post
>>was a response to someone else's words, and there's nothing you can do to
>>alter that fact. I wouldn't consider "fixing" my newsreader until I heard
>>the same story from at least one other person. Outlook Express by the way,
>>is a well-tested application for this purpose.
>>
>>
> Joe, here's the way it appeared on my Free Agent newsreader:
> ____________________________________________________________
> <begin quote>
> wrote in message
>> Hydrogen was suggested as an alternative energy source by corporate
>> interests who were anxious to keep the public dependent on high
>> technology
>> (and therefore established industrial players).
>> The production, transport, storage and sale of hydrogen is dangerous and
>> difficult.
>>
>> In comparison, my own car that's standing outside as I type this will run
>> on
>> alcohol.
>>
>> The solution is alcohol, not hydrogen. It's easy to make, cheap, burns
>> clean, is safe to distribute and store.
>> It can be distilled from sewage, from crops, from surplus and waste
>> foodstuffs.
>> There's even the likelihood that new organisms that will in one stage
>> ferment to higher concentrations will be genetically engineered.
>> You can even run a fuel cell on it.
>>
>> _Alcohol_, not hydrogen.
> Face it, the days of blasting down the interstate,
> surrounded by 3 tonnes of
> metal, using 75,000 Watts of power (0 HP = 64,119,700
> calories per hour)
> are over in the near future.
> Such an orgy of wasted energy was a wet dream that we were
> allowed to live
> out for a century or so.
> We might have to invest in solar and wind energy collection
> on a massive
> scale, and then either use it to distill biofuels or use it
> directly to
> create hydrogen fuel.
> Either way it won't be cheap. The fossil-fuel free ride will
> soon be over.
> <end quote>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Hope this helps,
> Bill Ward
Thanks for the help and all, but the ">>" or lack thereof is a function of
your own reader, not mine. Nothing I can do about it.
XML site map
> the same story from at least one other person.