Re: [OT] Re: my_hdr as unknown command rejected
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 10:47:35PM +0200, Pablo Hoertner wrote:
> hi again!
>
> "i'll be back", someone said. and here i am! :-)
> why is someone that don't fit to your rules a newbie? or an oldbie who has
> already forgotten those rules? :-D
Oh, simply because I (we?) love labels, and categories, and funny
patterns. And everyone knows it's cool to be conformist (or is that
nonconformist? "Repeat after me: I am not a follower!")
> sometimes, i don't follow rules, because i don't like them; maybe, because i
> don't find a "comfortable" way to fullfill them; or simply, because i don't
> know
> them. all this doesn't mean, that i'm a newbie ... ;-)
Well, perhaps a key aspect of constantly learning is that even the
most seasoned veteran must take on aspects of a newbie to continue to
grow. I'd also like to echo SVW's reassurance that all my (our?)
needling is, in fact, good natured. (Though I judge by your smileys
that you've assimilated that message just fine)
> and who tells you, that m$-users don't want to switch to a _better_ OS or
> don't
> know about the problems and the troubles of outlook & co.? i do not know many
> windozers who use outlook or outlook express.
Something tells me I better keep a moderate amount of tension in the
muscles that control my mandible, lest my tarsal region form an
unsightly and awkward blockage of my windpipe. Therefore, I plead the
5th.
> i just changed my signature without a comment because it was not hard to do
> and
> because it's not a big issue for me. if you had discussed with me on the
> content
> of this sig and/or told me, that there is a rule that forbids to use
> (semi-)political sigs and such, and that it was good to follow this
> particular
> rule because it has been proofed in "real life" (and so on) i may have
> reacted
> in a different way.
afaik, no one has argued with the content of your sig, merely its
presentation. And, I'm still wondering what it all means, anyway. :)
(s'pose I better follow the URL in it and see, ne?)
> and who tells you, that i understood the relevance of this "limit sigs to 72
> chars and 4 lines"-rule? to limit the traffic (if that's the point) this
> messures seems not appropriate to me, because that's about politics
> (sanctioning
> spammers etc.) and not so much about a "christian mission", IMNSHO. :-)
Hm. I think that it's more an issue of prettiness rather than of
traffic limitation. Also, it may have something to do with channels
of information. 4 lines is enough for a personal identification (name
& affiliation) along with a personal touch such as a joke or
whatever. More than that might be more appropriately considered
message data, and thusly included in the "body" of any given message.
> sven, wo bleibst du? *laechel*
> tofu is cheese made by artificially manipulated soya. where i come from we
> use
> _tofu_ (just like _kaese_ or _topfen_) for bullshit (well, it's "softer");
> maybe
> also for chaos - indeed, it depends on you (the speaker)! :-D
mmmm.. bean-curd. Mmmmm... processed milk.
> > (http://www.rodos.net/outlook/
> > or my adventures at...
> > http://www.liv.ac.uk/~svwright/mutt/#d221002 )
>
> thank you for the links. did i quot correctly now? :-/
> btw: usually, i don't quote at all - but archive-readers and others may not
> like
> that. :-)
>
> to finish with: i would not try to convince a newbie, but to give an advice.
> regarding signatures and such i would do this by PM and wouldn't start a
> thread
> on the issue. *g*
The nice thing about putting it in a thread (even a thread that strays
so grossly from its original topic, as this one has) is that then
everyone gets a chance to join in the fun.
> i hope i've got enough smiles in my mails so that nobody feels offended. as
> i'm
> not a native speaker, i'm not sure sometimes, wether i'm polite engough or
> not.
> i at least can tell you, that i found this thread quite funny and where i put
> an
> emoticon i really felt like that. ;-)
Humor = best medicine. :-D
Ta ta,
Allister