Re: ASCII convention

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Andreas Prilop wrote:
> >
> > It is hopeless to try to explain this to Peter Daniels.
> > We had this before and he just refuses to learn anything.
>
> Peter Daniels is not interested in coding. Peter Daniels is talking
> about the fonts on desktop computers -- the fonts that ordinary
> scholars, not up-to-the-minute tech gurus like yourself, use in
> preparing their scholarly manuscripts. If any portion of the "coding"
> process is visible to the end user, then the coding process is a
> failure.

Yes. Your personal contribution to its failure, which is not
inconsiderable and which goes other than unremarked on at intermittent
length, is to persist with antediluvian software, viz. Netscape 3.

Didn't you say that you had enough RAM to upgrade to OS X now? If you
do and you do and you find a nice new newsreader, the sins of
software past will (probably) no longer be visited on you, and even
Aidan's quotes will become a mere idiosyncracy.

> Just as no one using a typewriter needed to know anything about
> its innards other than changing the ribbon (though presumably they had
> their secretary do that).

Your typewriter ribbon needs changing and you have no secretary.

You are not especially likely to be eaten by a grue, but you could
make lots of persons' lives very slightly less inconvenient by
switching to less broken software.

Des
is living one of them
.