If I have:
struct one_{
unsigned int one_1;
unsigned short one_2;
unsigned short one_3;
};
struct two_{
unsigned int two_1;
unsigned short two_2;
unsigned char two_3;
};
struct mystruct{
struct one_ one;
struct two_ two;
}mystruct1;
Then could I by any change ask on the value of the whole struct mystruct1,
that is all the elements in the struct in one call? I want to do something
like (in pseudo like language):
if(mystruct1 == 0) { print("All elements of mystruct1 is zero");}
Best Regards
Terry
Nov 13 '05
258  8347  te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom wrote: You are apparently ignoring the inevitability of a USENET on which HTML
is common
You are apparently the only one who thinks this is inevitable.
This, of course, does assume that USENET survives to make the
transition...which is by no means guaranteed either.
Death of Usenet predicted, film at eleven.
Richard
Richard Bos wrote: But fire up any MS-Windows machine and ask for FixedSys. It, like
many others such as Terminal (MS-specific again, I suspect),
Lucida Console and OCR-A only have serifs on narrow letters (i, j
and l).
True enough. Maybe we can call them half-serif. (-:
(In fact, I moved to Lucida Console for most of my source code
editors *because* it is cleaner.)
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Mark Gordon wrote: Truly indented? I don't mean indented with spaces or tabs.
What is wrong with spaces for the indent if the editor handles it
for you?
Nothing, really. It's just slightly cruder.
Auto-wrapping? Sure, so long as you didn't put any hard returns
in (something HTML would ignore).
It's not perfect, but I've just resized my text window for reading
to about 20 characters and it is still perfectly readable.
Try reading 65-column text with hard returns in a 55-column window!
Looks kinda ugly with those alternating short and full lines.
Automatic Justification? Yeah, I've seen it in text. Ugly!!
I don't find a ragged right edge to be a problem.
Nor do I, although (well) justified text is easier to read (hence
its common use in books and magazines).
Bullet Lists? By hand, sure.
I'm sure it can be done in emacs or vim, either of which I can
use as an editor for my client.
By hand (or with macros, I suppose), but you're rather restricted
to the ASCII symbol set. HTML gives you those cute bullets.
If people stick to standard quoting conventions then SW can rewrap
quoted text...
Fine for reading other people's writing. I just wouldn't mind
having more formatting ability for MY writing. As I've said,
I'd much rather use "real" bullet lists, real bold, real italics
and real underlining rather than their ASCII-alikes.
Considering the overall movement towards more sophisticated tools,
I continue to suspect I need only bide my time. (-:
Peace out.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Mark Gordon wrote: Simple solution: set your HTML reader/writer to emit basically what
you type. Of even turn off the HTML.
Please note your previous paragraph and note that the majority of
people are not wise. Then consider what it means for the likely
formatting.
[shrug] It's a learning process. I'd still rather move forward
than stay in one place.
Alternatively don't add a need for the extra options then no one
needs to learn how to use them and no one needs to write them.
Sounds stagnant to me. While I don't support Obsessive Growth
(something of an American Way Of Life), I do think growth and
change are vital to, well, vitality.
Suppose we'd all decided there was no need for the extra options
offered by improved medical care? Or any other advance.
But I dislike, very much, living in a world limited by lower
common denominators. Other people's inability to handle "X"
shouldn't prevent me from it if I am able.
Why should your ability to cope with it exclude those who either
by choice or lack of resources are not able to cope?
I don't think it *excludes* at all. If you want to stay with
plain text, do so. If you want to strip HTML tags from HTML
posts, do so. If you want to use HTML tags as a filter to
eliminate posts you refuse to see, do so.
I'm not in favor of forcing anyone to do anything. I would like
the ability to use advanced tools if *I* choose.
As I've said, if you want *bold* rendered in *bold* and _underlined_
rendered as _underlined_ then you can get a news reader today for
free that will do it.
No, I want to be able to *produce* text that looks a certain way.
Peace Out.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:55:26 -0600, Programmer Dude
<Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote: Mark Gordon wrote:
Truly indented? I don't mean indented with spaces or tabs.
What is wrong with spaces for the indent if the editor handles it
for you?
Nothing, really. It's just slightly cruder.
Because you can't indent in other than multiples of a character? I
doubt that I'd ever notice the difference. Auto-wrapping? Sure, so long as you didn't put any hard returns
in (something HTML would ignore).
It's not perfect, but I've just resized my text window for reading
to about 20 characters and it is still perfectly readable.
Try reading 65-column text with hard returns in a 55-column window!
Looks kinda ugly with those alternating short and full lines.
I can have my (text) reader re-wrap the text. Automatic Justification? Yeah, I've seen it in text. Ugly!!
I don't find a ragged right edge to be a problem.
Nor do I, although (well) justified text is easier to read (hence
its common use in books and magazines).
Hmm.. Chapter and verse, please. I've never explicitly researched
this, but I do remember a study some years ago which indicated that
ragged right edges are actually easier to read. Bullet Lists? By hand, sure.
I'm sure it can be done in emacs or vim, either of which I can
use as an editor for my client.
By hand (or with macros, I suppose), but you're rather restricted
to the ASCII symbol set. HTML gives you those cute bullets.
Yes, I've seen some of those - one was miniature elephants waving
their trunks. I didn't think it added to readability, but that's just
my opinion. If people stick to standard quoting conventions then SW can rewrap
quoted text...
Fine for reading other people's writing. I just wouldn't mind
having more formatting ability for MY writing. As I've said,
I'd much rather use "real" bullet lists, real bold, real italics
and real underlining rather than their ASCII-alikes.
Considering the overall movement towards more sophisticated tools,
I continue to suspect I need only bide my time. (-:
Peace out.
If the tools get sophisticated enough so that *your* tool can turn
your html into plain text for transmission, go for it, but I don't
want to have to supply a tool that turns your 100 lines of html into
my 10 lines of text. Let's do it the other way around.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************************@att.net
Programmer Dude wrote:
<snip> If you want to stay with
plain text, do so. If you want to strip HTML tags from HTML
posts, do so. If you want to use HTML tags as a filter to
eliminate posts you refuse to see, do so.
I'm not in favor of forcing anyone to do anything. I would like
the ability to use advanced tools if *I* choose.
Indeed (although we could quibble over "advanced" - but let's not).
But the problem is this: most of the people in comp.lang.c who are providing
a service are also the people who don't like HTML articles. Most of the
people posting in HTML (and I don't mean to make it sound like there are
hundreds, because there aren't) are also the people who wish to avail
themselves of that service.
So - which is better? To say to these people "please don't post in HTML" and
then help them out with their C question, or to ignore their articles
completely without even telling them why they're being ignored?
<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Richard Heathfield wrote: I'm not in favor of forcing anyone to do anything. I would like
the ability to use advanced tools if *I* choose.
Indeed (although we could quibble over "advanced" - but let's not).
Good. You'd lose.
So - which is better? To say to these people "please don't post in
HTML" and then help them out with their C question, or to ignore
their articles completely without even telling them why they're
being ignored?
I don't agree those are the only choices.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Alan Balmer wrote: Try reading 65-column text with hard returns in a 55-column window!
Looks kinda ugly with those alternating short and full lines.
I can have my (text) reader re-wrap the text.
It will ignore hard returns? Slick.
I don't find a ragged right edge to be a problem.
Nor do I, although (well) justified text is easier to read (hence
its common use in books and magazines).
Hmm.. Chapter and verse, please. I've never explicitly researched
this, but I do remember a study some years ago which indicated that
ragged right edges are actually easier to read.
I did a little poking around the 'net. Opinions vary with a number
of them in favor of "ragged right" (although some of them go on to
mention the potential for "really ragged right" (unattractive)).
Justified seems to be considered more formal and does require care
to insure you don't have "rivers" (of white running down the text).
It was also mentioned that the additional space betweed words does
have the potential to slow reading time.
I suspect it boils down to this: with very good typesetting and
the right line width, justified is probably "better". In most
other cases, it probably is not.
Thus, I retract my original statement (I have a background in the
publishing industry, and that was the source of my belief--which
remains true IN THAT CONTEXT).
Yes, I've seen some of those - one was miniature elephants waving
their trunks. I didn't think it added to readability,...
No, I'd agree! Cute does not good writing make.
Indeed, writing for content should be as "transparent" as possible.
My opinion is that true bold/italic/underline is more transparent
than their ASCII alikes (when I write very seriously (in text) I
tend to not use the ASCII indicators and emoticons at all). I would
also opine that proportional spacing is more transparent than mono
for anything but source code.
[shrug] As I've said; time will tell.
Peace Out.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:56:45 -0600, Programmer Dude
<Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote: My opinion is that true bold/italic/underline is more transparent
than their ASCII alikes
I think I have to agree with that, so long as it's transparent to a
reader which doesn't support it.
(when I write very seriously (in text) I
tend to not use the ASCII indicators and emoticons at all).
The ability to effective convey emotional tone without the use of such
devices is a mark of a good wordsmith.
I would
also opine that proportional spacing is more transparent than mono
for anything but source code.
Once again, I agree with you. I use a proportional font unless there's
code involved. Just don't send me HTML!
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************************@att.net
Programmer Dude wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
I'm not in favor of forcing anyone to do anything. I would like
the ability to use advanced tools if *I* choose.
Indeed (although we could quibble over "advanced" - but let's not).
Good. You'd lose.
I don't think so. In this case, what you call "advanced" is what most people
taking part in this discussion would consider retarded or regressed,
because providing newbies with the power to post HTML into comp.lang.c
without also providing them with the wisdom not to is not a sign of
advancement, but of poverty of thought.
So - which is better? To say to these people "please don't post in
HTML" and then help them out with their C question, or to ignore
their articles completely without even telling them why they're
being ignored?
I don't agree those are the only choices.
But you don't get to choose other people's actions for them, any more than I
do. You only get to choose your own. Personally, I'm getting more and more
fed up of off-topic bickering such as has been seen in this thread, and
it's getting to the point where I would go for the second option rather
than the first, because the first only leads to asinine threads like this
one.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Programmer Dude wrote: Richard Bos wrote:
(which suggests the odd idea that a sans-serif, monospace font
would be ideal...I just don't think I *know* of one!)
You've never used a _real_ terminal? *Blink* Even most MS-DOS
computers originally had sans-serif monospaced fonts.
Yes. But the name of that font?.....
It was probably a basic 5x7 ROM encoded display font, ya know?
OK, hardware time.
You want something that's informally called the "IBM ASCII Character set"
(sic) that's documented in the IBM PC/XT Technical Reference
Sorry, I don't have an IC number for you; my guess is that it was a custom
ROM defined by (if not built by) IBM. While my resources give the pinouts
for the video controller (a 6845, they say), no mention of the chip id of
the rom is given.
Sorry
--
Lew Pitcher
Master Codewright and JOAT-in-training
Registered Linux User #112576 ( http://counter.li.org/)
Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing.
Richard Heathfield wrote: [...] I read my email in vi (well, all right, vim). [...]
Do you do it ~comfortably~? I've always wanted to do this but have never
found a non-clumbsy way to do it. May I email you regarding your setup? (In
plain-text, of course.)
Regards,
Bob
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote: Personally, I'm getting more and more fed up of off-topic bickering such
as has been seen in this thread, and it's getting to the point where I
would go for the second option rather than the first, because the first
only leads to asinine threads like this one.
I am amazed that it has taken you this long to figure that out.
The boy is becoming a man.
--
Alan Balmer wrote: My opinion is that true bold/italic/underline is more transparent
than their ASCII alikes
I think I have to agree with that, so long as it's transparent to
a reader which doesn't support it.
That's the rub, isn't it. A plain text reader probably won't have
a "remove HTML tags" option (which would be simple to implement).
Not intending to open another can of worms, but MIME multi-part
would (almost) solve the problem. One part plain text, one part
HTML. Everyone wins.
Except for those readers that don't do MIME, either. :-\
I do fully understand and appreciate the plain text thing (and
obviously have been participating in it for a couple decades).
I just also think the time may be at hand when the lowest common
denominator could be moved up a notch. Maybe not quite "today"
or "tomorrow", but perhaps "next week" or "next month"...
Just don't send me HTML!
I won't. For now. (-:
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Richard Heathfield wrote: In this case, what you call "advanced" is what most people
taking part in this discussion would consider retarded or
regressed,...
No, those words would not be appropriate. "Undesirable" (for
arguably good reasons) or "unwelcome" or "dangerous" or "unwieldy"
or "problematic" would all be appropriate words.
...because providing newbies with the power to post HTML into
comp.lang.c without also providing them with the wisdom not to
is not a sign of advancement, but of poverty of thought.
No, that's just your *opinion* based on your desire for a TTY text
environment. The concept of "advanced" or "retarded" doesn't apply.
Isn't the point of TTY text a lowest common denominator environment?
Isn't the point avoiding advanced features not supported by all?
Look, formatted text IS a true superset of unformatted text. A
thing with more features and capabilities than something else is
advanced, pure and simple.
Your desires, evaluations and opinions are an unrelated matter. So - which is better? To say to these people "please don't post in
HTML" and then help them out with their C question, or to ignore
their articles completely without even telling them why they're
being ignored?
I don't agree those are the only choices.
But you don't get to choose other people's actions for them,..
??? The reply doesn't seem to connect to the quoted bit at all.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Bob Chan <nospam> wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...] I read my email in vi (well, all right, vim). [...]
Do you do it ~comfortably~?
Yes. I have an excellent office-type chair, with a nice leather cover and
proper armrests.
I've always wanted to do this but have never
found a non-clumbsy way to do it.
vi em*
That's pretty elegant.
May I email you regarding your setup?
(In plain-text, of course.)
Well, you could, but I get about a thousand emails a day, so yours might get
lost in the noise. (No, I'm not joking or exaggerating. I wish I were.)
I'm currently in the process of solving my kiloemail problem. Normal service
will be resumed in several months. I hope.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Programmer Dude wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
In this case, what you call "advanced" is what most people
taking part in this discussion would consider retarded or
regressed,...
No, those words would not be appropriate.
Clearly, we disagree.
"Undesirable" (for
arguably good reasons) or "unwelcome"
I agree with those.
or "dangerous"
I don't see that one.
or "unwieldy"
or "problematic" would all be appropriate words.
Yes to those.
...because providing newbies with the power to post HTML into
comp.lang.c without also providing them with the wisdom not to
is not a sign of advancement, but of poverty of thought.
No, that's just your *opinion* based on your desire for a TTY text
environment.
No, it's my opinion based on my desire for a low threshold for
interoperability. When I write a letter for immediate printing and posting,
I use a word processor (Lotus WordPro, if you care), with proportional
fonts, italics, colour, or whatever seems appropriate. But when I send
information to someone, I want to maximise their chance of reading it
swiftly and efficiently, without having to dig out some special software or
having to switch to a different OS. I don't send people WordPro docs unless
I know for sure that they use WordPro as their word processor of choice
(and I'm the only one I know who uses it!) Text is just about the most
portable form of computer communication there is, so I think it makes sense
for everyone to use it when interfacing with each other, except when *all*
parties to a communication agree to use some other format that (by accident
or design) they can all access.
The concept of "advanced" or "retarded" doesn't apply.
Isn't the point of TTY text a lowest common denominator environment?
Yes.
Isn't the point avoiding advanced features not supported by all?
The point is to maximise communication by minimising barriers to
communication. So - which is better? To say to these people "please don't post in
HTML" and then help them out with their C question, or to ignore
their articles completely without even telling them why they're
being ignored?
I don't agree those are the only choices.
But you don't get to choose other people's actions for them,..
??? The reply doesn't seem to connect to the quoted bit at all.
But it is. The point I was making is simple enough. You say that there are
more choices than the two I presented. But you don't have control over the
choices people make. In practice, the two I outlined are, IMHO, the most
likely that people in clc will make. I may be wrong about that, of course,
but I don't believe I am.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Richard Heathfield wrote: vi em*
That's pretty elegant.
Thanks a lot.
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote: Not intending to open another can of worms, but MIME multi-part
would (almost) solve the problem. One part plain text, one part
HTML. Everyone wins.
Except for those readers that don't do MIME, either. :-\
And except for those news servers which are decent enough to kill all
multi-part posts in non-binary newsgroups. Mine does.
Richard
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<bp**********@sparta.btinternet.com>... Programmer Dude wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
...because providing newbies with the power to post HTML into
comp.lang.c without also providing them with the wisdom not to
is not a sign of advancement, but of poverty of thought.
No, that's just your *opinion* based on your desire for a TTY text
environment.
No, it's my opinion based on my desire for a low threshold for
interoperability. When I write a letter for immediate printing and posting,
I use a word processor (Lotus WordPro, if you care), with proportional
fonts, italics, colour, or whatever seems appropriate. But when I send
information to someone, I want to maximise their chance of reading it
swiftly and efficiently, without having to dig out some special software or
having to switch to a different OS. I don't send people WordPro docs unless
I know for sure that they use WordPro as their word processor of choice
(and I'm the only one I know who uses it!) Text is just about the most
portable form of computer communication there is, so I think it makes sense
for everyone to use it when interfacing with each other, except when *all*
parties to a communication agree to use some other format that (by accident
or design) they can all access.
I use Word Pro (96 edition) now and then! And it used to be
considered such a resource hog...........
on text, generally agree, i sometimes get work related email saying,
essentially, read this [attached] pdf! The pdf is a letter or
somesuch, perfectly formatted, nice logos etc - completely unreadable
if i don't have a pdf reader, and i need to go through the bother of
launching it too (and frequently resizing onscreen to read it!)
I always prefer the seperation of message (just plain text) and other
stuff (image, design, 'officialdom' etc) into an attachment itself
fairly standards compliant (so i can be confident that i can see it
without using some exclusive software).
In discussion newsgroups there's specifically no need for attachments
and this plain text is the natural default with broadest reach.
Richard Heathfield wrote: ...your *opinion* based on your desire for a TTY text environment.
No, it's my opinion based on my desire for a low threshold for
interoperability.
Same thing. You stated it in terms of the goal; I stated it in terms
of the mechanism.
However, if you truly mean it exactly as written, I assume you would
be open to formatted text if it became as ubiquitous as TTY text, for
it would then achieve your stated goal.
When I write a letter for immediate printing and posting, I use a
word processor (Lotus WordPro, if you care), with proportional
fonts, italics, colour, or whatever seems appropriate.
So you recognize the usefulness of formatted text.
...I think it makes sense for everyone to use [TTY text] when
interfacing with each other, except when *all* parties to a
communication agree to use some other format that (by accident
or design) they can all access.
And, in fact, I agree. My feeling, as I have said, is that a time
is coming when something (probably HTML) *will* be a default tool
that everyone has access to. Isn't the point avoiding advanced features not supported by all?
The point is to maximise communication by minimising barriers to
communication.
Then it would seem another solution is to provide those advanced
features to everyone. That removes the barriers AND allows for
the increased utility of formatted text (which it appears we agree
is useful). I don't agree those are the only choices.
But you don't get to choose other people's actions for them,..
??? The reply doesn't seem to connect to the quoted bit at all.
You say that there are more choices than the two I presented. But
you don't have control over the choices people make. In practice,
the two I outlined are, IMHO, the most likely....
"Most likely". In other words, there ARE more than two. That
people may self-select the possibles down to two is another matter.
More importantly (from my POV), if people have narrowed options
due to habit, tradition, ignorance or stubbornness, it's good to
introduce a dialog for change once in a while. Even if the result
of the dialog is, "Not yet" (or "Over my dead body!" :-), at least
the issue gets aired and--hopefully--genuinely considered.
Peas Out.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Programmer Dude wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
...your *opinion* based on your desire for a TTY text environment.
No, it's my opinion based on my desire for a low threshold for
interoperability.
Same thing. You stated it in terms of the goal; I stated it in terms
of the mechanism.
True enough. But it's the goal that counts.
However, if you truly mean it exactly as written, I assume you would
be open to formatted text if it became as ubiquitous as TTY text, for
it would then achieve your stated goal.
The problem is that, by its very nature, formatted text is considerably more
painful to process than plain text. For example, consider utilities such as
grep. Such utilities, which are very powerful tools for information
processing, work much better with plain text than with formatted text.
When I write a letter for immediate printing and posting, I use a
word processor (Lotus WordPro, if you care), with proportional
fonts, italics, colour, or whatever seems appropriate.
So you recognize the usefulness of formatted text.
In non-electronic form? Sure. I have no problem with printed documents being
formatted nicely, because there's no downside (other than OCR difficulties
- but if I send someone information that they then decide they would prefer
to have electronically, all they have to do is ask, and I can send them an
electronic version). I also have no problem with HTML on, say, a Web site.
(That, after all, is what HTML is /for/.)
...I think it makes sense for everyone to use [TTY text] when
interfacing with each other, except when *all* parties to a
communication agree to use some other format that (by accident
or design) they can all access.
And, in fact, I agree. My feeling, as I have said, is that a time
is coming when something (probably HTML) *will* be a default tool
that everyone has access to.
It will need to be paralleled by global accessibility to text processing
tools that can do for (say) HTML what (say) grep does for plain text.
Isn't the point avoiding advanced features not supported by all?
The point is to maximise communication by minimising barriers to
communication.
Then it would seem another solution is to provide those advanced
features to everyone. That removes the barriers AND allows for
the increased utility of formatted text (which it appears we agree
is useful).
I agree that it's useful for printed matter. Usenet is not a print medium.
> I don't agree those are the only choices.
But you don't get to choose other people's actions for them,..
??? The reply doesn't seem to connect to the quoted bit at all.
You say that there are more choices than the two I presented. But
you don't have control over the choices people make. In practice,
the two I outlined are, IMHO, the most likely....
"Most likely". In other words, there ARE more than two. That
people may self-select the possibles down to two is another matter.
No, it's the matter at hand. I'm talking about reality, not mere
possibilities.
More importantly (from my POV), if people have narrowed options
due to habit, tradition, ignorance or stubbornness, it's good to
introduce a dialog for change once in a while. Even if the result
of the dialog is, "Not yet" (or "Over my dead body!" :-), at least
the issue gets aired and--hopefully--genuinely considered.
Well, there's no harm in dialog, as long as everyone stays cool.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Richard Heathfield wrote: And, in fact, I agree. My feeling, as I have said, is that a time
is coming when something (probably HTML) *will* be a default tool
that everyone has access to.
It will need to be paralleled by global accessibility to text
processing tools that can do for (say) HTML what (say) grep does
for plain text.
Agreed. Text *became* a universal medium. I'm thinking/guessing
HTML (or something like it) will *become* a universal medium.
When I remember how fast the web grew (it wasn't all THAT long ago
I was playing with this weird new thing, called "Mosaic", that mixed
formatted text and graphics on "the World Wide Web"...and thought
to myself, "This will never fly. Too slow. Too silly. Who needs
it?"), and when I observe how fast modern developments spread to
the corners of the world, and when I see how much HTML email I get,
and when I see the *need* to fight it off in amUSENET,.... well, I
can't help but wonder if TTY text's days are numbered.
And with not very big numbers, either! ;-\
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote in
news:3F***************@Sonnack.com: Richard Heathfield wrote:
And, in fact, I agree. My feeling, as I have said, is that a time
is coming when something (probably HTML) *will* be a default tool
that everyone has access to.
It will need to be paralleled by global accessibility to text
processing tools that can do for (say) HTML what (say) grep does
for plain text.
Agreed. Text *became* a universal medium. I'm thinking/guessing
HTML (or something like it) will *become* a universal medium.
I don't know about text 'becoming' a universal medium. Certainly for all
of my life it /is/ the universal medium.
HTML is merely another expression of text, with tags, to say how it
should be 'marked up'. If you want to, you can also include CSS into HTML
since they're so tied together... in which case HTML becomes text with
tags to say how it should be marked up and an external file to say how it
should be rendered. Ultimately, however, it's still text.
Whether it's an HTML email or an XHTML usnet message, the majority of the
useful context (unless you're in one of the binaries.erotica groups) is
still text. Why use HTML to format text when text is already easilly
formatted in not-HTML?
Anyone who says a picture is worth 1,000 words doesn't have enough
imagination... :)
When I remember how fast the web grew (it wasn't all THAT long ago
I was playing with this weird new thing, called "Mosaic", that mixed
formatted text and graphics on "the World Wide Web"...and thought
to myself, "This will never fly. Too slow. Too silly. Who needs
it?"), and when I observe how fast modern developments spread to
the corners of the world, and when I see how much HTML email I get,
and when I see the *need* to fight it off in amUSENET,.... well, I
can't help but wonder if TTY text's days are numbered.
And with not very big numbers, either! ;-\
There's no way in hell you can eliminate the TTY, at least not until
corporations rule the world entirely.
Just look at what you can do on a text console which /cannot/ be done in
GUI land! The GUI people have been harping on for at least since I did
user-interface design in uni about how hard it is to /allow/ complex
tasks. I can easilly, for example, find all the header files in a
directory (recursively), except backups, put them through a document
processor and make both LaTeX and HTML documentation, compile it and run
test programs against the compiled version.
And I can do it without using any software other than a makefile.
The TTY is far from dead.
Ian Woods
[snips]
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:23:50 +0000, Keith Thompson wrote: We've seen a major transition of e-mail from a medium that only
supported plain text to one that also supports HTML. We simply are
not seeing any signs of a similar transition for Usenet, though the
idea has been under discussion for years. Usenet has evolved
mechanisms for transferring binary files, but there just hasn't been
any significant demand for HTML. If this transition is inevitable,
why hasn't it started?
It has. Thing is, every time it gets going, the old guard jumps in with
their "We must preserve the sanctity of Usenet" bit and it stops again.
If the old guard stopped screaming every time they saw an HTML post, you'd
very soon see HTML posts regularly. Whether this is a good thing or a
desirable thing may be open to question.
Programmer Dude wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
And, in fact, I agree. My feeling, as I have said, is that a time
is coming when something (probably HTML) *will* be a default tool
that everyone has access to.
It will need to be paralleled by global accessibility to text
processing tools that can do for (say) HTML what (say) grep does
for plain text.
Agreed. Text *became* a universal medium.
Yes, it did.
I'm thinking/guessing
HTML (or something like it) will *become* a universal medium.
I don't think it will become universal as long as programmers are around,
because the sheer flexibility that text gives you is hard to beat. But when
we've all programmed ourselves out of a job? Well, at that point, maybe
you'll be right. But at that point we probably won't need comp.lang.c any
more, either.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:13:09 +0000 (UTC),
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
It will need to be paralleled by global accessibility to text processing
tools that can do for (say) HTML what (say) grep does for plain text.
The only HTML email I receive is spam where the HTML has been used to
trick spam filters. v<!--important-->i<!--message-->a etc.
i.e. HTML has been chosen because it stops tools like grep working.
"Fixing" grep would be a nightmare.
grep --content
grep --tags
grep --nocomments
And then what do you do with malformed HTML? The beauty of plain text is
that it cannot be malformed. It can be gibberish but in general people don't
disagree with what it says. But people do disagree with what HTML says
(or looks like) which is why so many websites just don't work except with
IE at 800x600.
Tim.
--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light. http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
Tim Woodall wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:13:09 +0000 (UTC),
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
It will need to be paralleled by global accessibility to text processing
tools that can do for (say) HTML what (say) grep does for plain text.
The only HTML email I receive is spam where the HTML has been used to
trick spam filters. v<!--important-->i<!--message-->a etc.
i.e. HTML has been chosen because it stops tools like grep working.
Quite.
"Fixing" grep would be a nightmare.
On the contrary. All we have to do is find a programmer who advocates HTML
as a valid universal format, and ask him to produce an HTML-aware version
of grep.
And then we get to test it! ;-)
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
>Tim Woodall wrote: The only HTML email I receive is spam where the HTML has been used to
trick spam filters. v<!--important-->i<!--message-->a etc.
i.e. HTML has been chosen because it stops tools like grep working.
In article <bp**********@sparta.btinternet.com>
Richard Heathfield <bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk> writes:Quite.
"Fixing" grep would be a nightmare.
On the contrary. All we have to do is find a programmer who advocates HTML
as a valid universal format, and ask him to produce an HTML-aware version
of grep.
If one's only goal is to test for spam, there is an easier method:
just remove (or separate out) the HTML tags.
There are two ways to go about this; one works better than another.
The "dumb" way is to split an input into two outputs based only
on the "<" and ">" characters:
/*
* Copy input from "in" to "txt" and "tag" output files.
* Text in <angle brackets> goes to the "tag" file, the
* rest goes to the "txt" file.
*/
int separate(FILE *in, FILE *txt, FILE *tag) {
int c;
int in_tag = 0, next_tag;
while ((c = getc(in)) != EOF) {
next_tag = in_tag;
if (c == '<')
in_tag = 1;
else if (c == '>')
next_tag = 0;
putc(c, in_tag ? tag : txt);
in_tag = next_tag;
}
}
The "smart" way is to process the HTML and recognize the parts
of text that browser-type readers discard. This works better
for spam-detection, because some spammers have switched from:
s<!--junk>pamkeyword
to something more like:
s<script language="unknown">junk</script>pamkeyword
The spammers are doing this because people are stripping HTML
comments before feeding text to spam-detectors.
(None of this really addresses the fundamental problem, which is
the fact that spam is theft. As long as the spammer's ill-gotten
profits exceed his or her cost and risk, the spammer comes out
ahead on average. Since the cost and risk is miniscule -- especially
with spammers hijacking Windows-based boxes to send the actual spam
-- the required "per-spam profit" is likewise miniscule. The only
real solution is to raise the cost of spamming, either directly
[e.g., in dollars] or indirectly [e.g., by jailing the thieves for
their hijacking of cable-connected home PCs]. This will not make
the spam stop completely, but will reduce it to manageable levels.
Content-filtering is an attempt to increase the cost, but because
spammers *are* thieves, the increased costs are mainly borne by
those being stolen from, rather than the spammers.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://67.40.109.61/torek/index.html (for the moment)
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
Chris Torek <no****@elf.eng.bsdi.com> wrote:
<snip> /*
* Copy input from "in" to "txt" and "tag" output files.
* Text in <angle brackets> goes to the "tag" file, the
* rest goes to the "txt" file.
*/
int separate(FILE *in, FILE *txt, FILE *tag) {
int c;
int in_tag = 0, next_tag;
while ((c = getc(in)) != EOF) {
next_tag = in_tag;
if (c == '<')
in_tag = 1;
If you replace above line with:
in_tag = next_tag = 1;
the code actually works. ;-)
else if (c == '>')
next_tag = 0;
putc(c, in_tag ? tag : txt);
in_tag = next_tag;
}
}
<snip>
Regards
--
Irrwahn
(ir*******@freenet.de)
Hmmmm... thought this thread was dying... guess not?
Ian Woods wrote: Text *became* a universal medium.
I don't know about text 'becoming' a universal medium.
Long ago, there were an awful lot of IBM 3270/SNA terminals!
Another big item was DEC VT*** terminals. Neither were plain
text.
HTML is merely another expression of text, with tags, to say how
it should be 'marked up'.
Agreed, however the whole point is that 'mark up'.
Whether it's an HTML email or an XHTML usnet message, the majority
of the useful context still text. Why use HTML to format text when
text is already easilly formatted in not-HTML?
Because (I claim) true italics, bold & underline is more "transparent"
(see previous posts) than their ASCII equivalents.
Anyone who says a picture is worth 1,000 words doesn't have enough
imagination... :)
Probably true, but would you rather have a map to a complicated
destination or written instructions? (Actually, this varies by
person.) The interesting thing is, a map allows you to design
alternate routes if there turns out to be a problem with the
designated one.
There's no way in hell you can eliminate the TTY, at least not
until corporations rule the world entirely.
(Ah, you've seen ROLLERBALL... :-)
Just look at what you can do on a text console which /cannot/ be
done in GUI land!
Yes, but I'm not talking about user interfaces. (And I agree very
much.) I'm talking about written communications.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Richard Heathfield wrote: All we have to do is find a programmer who advocates HTML
as a valid universal format, and ask him to produce an
HTML-aware version of grep.
You know, I'm surprised such doesn't exist. You'd think there
would be enough decent HTML parser libraries out there that it
wouldn't be very difficult.
Hmmm... wonder if there's any money in it.....
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Richard Heathfield wrote: I'm thinking/guessing
HTML (or something like it) will *become* a universal medium.
I don't think it will become universal as long as programmers
are around, because the sheer flexibility that text gives you
is hard to beat.
Perhaps, but there are a LOT more non-programmers on amUSENET
these days. We're severely outnumbered!
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Programmer Dude wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
I'm thinking/guessing
HTML (or something like it) will *become* a universal medium.
I don't think it will become universal as long as programmers
are around, because the sheer flexibility that text gives you
is hard to beat.
Perhaps, but there are a LOT more non-programmers on amUSENET
these days. We're severely outnumbered!
But we're discussing comp.lang.c, not Usenet. In the context of comp.lang.c,
I sincerely hope that there are more programmers than non-programmers.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Richard Heathfield wrote: Perhaps, but there are a LOT more non-programmers on amUSENET
these days. We're severely outnumbered!
But we're discussing comp.lang.c, not Usenet.
No, I've been talking about amUSENET.
If I'm right and HTML (or similar) does become a standard on
amUSENET, do you expect that you'll be able to keep clc TTY?
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Programmer Dude <Ch***@sonnack.com> wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
Perhaps, but there are a LOT more non-programmers on amUSENET
these days. We're severely outnumbered!
But we're discussing comp.lang.c, not Usenet.
No, I've been talking about amUSENET.
If I'm right and HTML (or similar) does become a standard on
amUSENET, do you expect that you'll be able to keep clc TTY?
What is this amuseNET you speak of? Surely it is not the same
thing as the Usenet. Perhaps the soul of the argument is that you
believe to be a part of this 'amuseNET', which obviously favors
HTML for amusement purposes.
Alex
Programmer Dude wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
Perhaps, but there are a LOT more non-programmers on amUSENET
these days. We're severely outnumbered!
But we're discussing comp.lang.c, not Usenet.
No, I've been talking about amUSENET.
Usenet is off-topic in comp.lang.c. :-)
If I'm right and HTML (or similar) does become a standard on
amUSENET, do you expect that you'll be able to keep clc TTY?
If we can, then HTML (or similar) is not really a Usenet standard.
And if we can't, perhaps many of us may stop bothering to use Usenet
altogether. Perhaps we'll find other, more efficient ways of communicating.
Or perhaps we'll just stop communicating. Some, of course, will plough on
through all the tags, and I admire them for their devotion. I don't think
I'll be one of them.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Alex <al*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bp*************@ID-190529.news.uni-berlin.de>... Programmer Dude <Ch***@sonnack.com> wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
Perhaps, but there are a LOT more non-programmers on amUSENET
these days. We're severely outnumbered!
But we're discussing comp.lang.c, not Usenet.
No, I've been talking about amUSENET.
If I'm right and HTML (or similar) does become a standard on
amUSENET, do you expect that you'll be able to keep clc TTY?
What is this amuseNET you speak of? Surely it is not the same
thing as the Usenet. Perhaps the soul of the argument is that you
believe to be a part of this 'amuseNET', which obviously favors
HTML for amusement purposes.
afaik, Dude /does/ partake of serious conversation son usenet,
but has seen so many ridiculous/ludicrous arguments that he
prefers to call it "amuse-net" (emphasis on amuse).
hth
goose,
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
Perhaps, but there are a LOT more non-programmers on amUSENET
these days. We're severely outnumbered!
But we're discussing comp.lang.c, not Usenet.
No, I've been talking about amUSENET.
Well, you're right, there: on alt.fan.schildt HTML is probably
acceptable and on-topic. On comp.lang.c it is not, thank heavens.
Richard
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote: Some, of course, will plough on
through all the tags, and I admire them for their devotion. I don't think
I'll be one of them.
<html><body>Really? Cool.</body></html>
Although, this does sound more like a threat.
What you really meant to say:
Don't dare move to HTML or I will deprive you of my most
wondrous presence.
-- te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom wrote in
news:1g4m6f2.1uwlooy1kz4fpcN%te*********@BUSThotma ilE.Rcom: Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
Some, of course, will plough on
through all the tags, and I admire them for their devotion. I don't
think I'll be one of them.
<html><body>Really? Cool.</body></html>
Although, this does sound more like a threat.
What you really meant to say:
Don't dare move to HTML or I will deprive you of my most
wondrous presence.
I read that less of a threat but merely a statement. :) I have a similar
'energy threshold' over which I won't bother to do something rather than
spend the effort. If 'moving to HTML' means that the energy required to
participate is greater than the amount of energy I'm willing to part
with...
Personally, there's loads of places where people can yell stuff at each
other in marked-up text on all sorts of topics already. Why make USENET
like that too? Surely if it was so great we'd all be using the forums at www.cprogramming.com instead of here already.
Ian Woods
Ian Woods <ne******@wuggyNOCAPS.org> wrote: Personally, there's loads of places where people can yell stuff at each
other in marked-up text on all sorts of topics already. Why make USENET
like that too? Surely if it was so great we'd all be using the forums at
www.cprogramming.com instead of here already.
Not necessarily.
There are many other things about the web based boards that I truly hate
which have nothing to do with the fact that they are written in HTML -
that part I like.
For example, poor filtering and search options. Unable to read and reply
to messages off-line.
And I could go on to list many other things.
Eventually, however, the web based boards will catch up with the full
functionality that USENET has to offer and when that happens, I have
little doubt that unless USENET evolves, it will become increasingly
irrelevant.
....yes, yes...we've heard the snide comments before...'death of USENET
predicted, film at 11'.
The truth is that I still have great hope that USENET will evolve and
thereby survive...however, that is being made difficult by those who
desire to stand in the way of progress. Even a great man like Edison
fought against the superior technology of 'alternating current', given
what it was needed for, before he finally had to admit he was wrong.
--
Ian Woods <ne******@wuggyNOCAPS.org> wrote: I have a similar 'energy threshold' over which I won't bother to do
something rather than spend the effort. If 'moving to HTML' means that the
energy required to participate is greater than the amount of energy I'm
willing to part with...
There is no reason to believe that it does require more energy.
The integration of HTML & USENET is excellent with Thunderbird and will
only continue to get better.
It allows you to write in just plain text, if that is what you want, but
will also allow you to read those messages posted in HTML.
--
goose wrote: No, I've been talking about amUSENET.
What is this amuseNET you speak of? Surely it is not the same
thing as the Usenet. Perhaps the soul of the argument is that you
believe to be a part of this 'amuseNET', which obviously favors
HTML for amusement purposes.
afaik, Dude /does/ partake of serious conversations on usenet,
but has seen so many ridiculous/ludicrous arguments that he
prefers to call it "amuse-net" (emphasis on amuse).
Correct! (And thank you for paying attention!! :-)
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________| te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom wrote: Ian Woods <ne******@wuggyNOCAPS.org> wrote:
I have a similar 'energy threshold' over which I won't bother to do
something rather than spend the effort. If 'moving to HTML' means that the
energy required to participate is greater than the amount of energy I'm
willing to part with...
There is no reason to believe that it does require more energy.
It requires giving attention to mark-up or layout that doesn't exist in
plain text messages, and therefore requires more energy.
The integration of HTML & USENET is excellent with Thunderbird and will
only continue to get better.
<body bgcolor=fuchsia text=lime>
<h1><blink>OH YEAH? GOSH, FaNcY ThAt!</blink></h1>
</body>
And be grateful I didn't use JavaScript.
Richard
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote: te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom wrote:
Ian Woods <ne******@wuggyNOCAPS.org> wrote:
I have a similar 'energy threshold' over which I won't bother to do
something rather than spend the effort. If 'moving to HTML' means that the
energy required to participate is greater than the amount of energy I'm
willing to part with...
There is no reason to believe that it does require more energy.
It requires giving attention to mark-up or layout that doesn't exist in
plain text messages, and therefore requires more energy.
Pure FUD. Do you work or have you worked for Microsoft?
There is no reason for you to pay any attention to such things if you
don't want to...you are perfectly able to write in plain text if you so
choose.
The integration of HTML & USENET is excellent with Thunderbird and will
only continue to get better.
<body bgcolor=fuchsia text=lime>
<h1><blink>OH YEAH? GOSH, FaNcY ThAt!</blink></h1>
</body>
And I would just skip over your message and would place you in my kill
file for being overtly and unnecessarily obnoxious.
So, what's your point?
And be grateful I didn't use JavaScript.
Do you actually think I would allow JavaScript?
Or are you not aware that it could be disabled?
--
Richard Bos wrote: It requires giving attention to mark-up or layout that doesn't
exist in plain text messages, and therefore requires more energy.
Only if you WANT those things. If you don't, there shouldn't be
any extra effort whatsoever.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________| te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom wrote: Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
Some, of course, will plough on
through all the tags, and I admire them for their devotion. I don't think
I'll be one of them.
<html><body>Really? Cool.</body></html>
Although, this does sound more like a threat.
If that's what you choose to think, that's up to you. I might pay more
attention to your opinion if you spent as much time giving clueful C advice
as you do complaining.
<foolishness snipped>
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote: te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom wrote:
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
Some, of course, will plough on
through all the tags, and I admire them for their devotion. I don't think
I'll be one of them.
<html><body>Really? Cool.</body></html>
Although, this does sound more like a threat.
If that's what you choose to think, that's up to you. I might pay more
attention to your opinion if you spent as much time giving clueful C advice
as you do complaining.
oooo...you cut me to the core with your biting remarks....no more...I'm
begging you...I can't stand it....I'm melting...melting....aahhhh!
aaarrrggg!
-- This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
