sameerds@it.iitb.ac.in wrote On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:50:34PM +0500, quasar@vsnl.net wrote:

I just noticed that there is something really fishy about this particular paragraph. All the original newlines that were present in >my message are no longer there ... hand-edit quotes?

And I was a fool to think we could have a adult discussion... They /are/ hand edited quotes. So? Your implication that I was cheating is ... for a better word ... a childishly personal attack. I am having to use the VSNL webmail interface which does not 'quote' a reply. So I had to 'hand-edit' them instead of leaving them unquoted. Yeah so I am the Evil Person (tm) now I suppose?

...

pissed me off which resulted in more than necessary sarcasm. >>Sorry.

I kinda never had any rules in mind ... I thought this was ``discussion'' about The Right Thing (tm).

/you/ may not have any rules in mind... please refer to Philip's initial musings about implementing auto-wraping by the mailer. Yes and I suppose /you/ own the (tm) for The Right Thing?

OT: Just discorvered something in vim ... pressed gq<down> at the >start of the earlier para, and it correctly broke and indented it for me!

Wow. But I suppose long lines are still 'evil'.

...

suppose we can ignore it.

Aaah ... there goes gq<down> again! :-)

That was so very funny. I almost choked. But how conveniently you have not answered/ignored the part about webmail.

The problem is in two parts - quoting somebody else's mail, which I >just discovered that vim can do very easily for me, and horizontal >scrolling ... think of the column width that newspapers use instead continuing >a line from edge to edge ... its about readability.

yeah, you /think/ of a newspaper where we have a column on one side with the rest of the paper blank.

And of course, the problem with webmail access remains.

you may consider rereading my previous post on this matter.