On 19 Nov 2006 11:26:47 -0800, jeremyrh.geo@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>Magda wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:39:13 +0000, in rec.travel.europe,
>> this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of=
the royal duchy of
>> city south and deansgate) arranged some electrons, so they looked like=
this:
>>
>> ... Martin wrote:
>> ...
>> ... > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:15:51 +0000, =
this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk
>> ... > (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city south=
and
>> ... > deansgate) wrote:
>> ... []
>> ... > >I certainly don't use a 80 column screen, so there's no =
difference in
>> ... > >reading the posts, just with me having to rewrap before =
sending. It
>> ... > >would be simpler if MacSOUP would simply rewrap them for me, =
but I don't
>> ... > >think it can. At my home just now, I use a 2-monitor set up, =
and can
>> ... > >drag the usenet window along both if I really want to, so =
that's 1280*2!
>> ... > >I've read posts that wouldn't fit into that! :)
>> ... >
>> ... > I posted with the setting changed to 79.
>> ...
>> ... I've a feeling that 78 would be fine! :)
>> ...
>> ... >
>> ... > You could always change to Agent that Magda Dave and others use=
:-)
>> ... >
>> ... > So what is Macsoup set to read?
>> ...
>> ... Anything, I think. There's no problem reading any post- just that=
if
>> ... when quoting one that exceeds 80 with the quotation marks, I have=
to
>> ... rewrap. It's not a big deal really, except as I said it only =
happens
>> ... with you and Magda that I can think of.
>>
>> It's because I've set my line to 90 characters. Every time someone =
complains about the
>> length, I add some more. Maybe 79 made sense when the screens were =
small, but now...
>
>It makes sense regardless of screen size - lines of a certain length
>are just easier to read. That's why books are typeset the way they are.
Why do you think they chose 80 and not 60 characters like David seems to
prefer?
--=20
Martin
|