On 16/09/09 01:50, Linda W wrote: > > > > Gene Kwiecinski wrote: >>> If you are unable to read my HTML posting, >>> rendered in HTML, I felt you would be deprived >> You seem to be mistaking "unable" vs *unwilling*... >> >> I was absolutely *able* to see your initial email, but the >> blinding-white background made me feel around for the<del> key and kill >> it unread. >> > ---- > Sorry, but on my terminal it it was a charcoal-greyish > aqua-turquoise text against a pale lavender background. I'm sorry it > appeared wrong on your terminal. Do you have 'high contrast' turned on > in your reader's settings, or perhaps the option to ignore suggested > colors and use your own? I think that's an option in Mozilla's engine > as well as MS's. > Perhaps it ignored my colors and displayed some forced HTML default > color specific to your system?
I thought I had seen it in some sort of pink over white first time, but on going back it's some sort of darkish cyan over lightgreyish cyan. But it was in that unnaturally big sans-serif font which I had noticed -- and immediately disliked. One advantage of plaintext is that it gets displayed in the colors, font face and font size preferred by whoever receives it. I don't care if you see this text in pink-on-yellow one-centimeter high sans-serif, I see it here in the monospace font which I prefer, with white background, and (while composing a new email) blue text for quotes and black text for new text; but I think I know where I could change all that in my mailer's Preferences. Not that I would: I like what I've got. > > I've also tried to make sure I have calibrated my monitor's color > and have included the latest, suggested color profiles for color -- but > I think those only apply to images. My best guess would be some setting > in your reader or even a personalized style sheet that over-rode my > my style sheet? Just guessing. > >> In addition, you seem to be insisting on top-posting, despite being >> mentioned to death that this is *not* a top-posting list, and that some >> (quite many, actually) people object to it. That says quite a bit about >> you that you still insist on doing this despite others' preferences that >> you and others *not* do so. >> > Insisting? I didn't notice. Why should people care that strongly? I > prefer the most recent stuff first -- as used in the professional world, > as that's mostly who I deal with. I use an GUI do to chronic RSI > problems and having to scroll down to read actual content can exacerbate > symptoms. I wonder if those who insist on the most important stuff last > have thought about the affect their demand has on people with > disabilities? [...] The way I see it, bottom-posting means "the question before the answer". "Unimportant" (read: irrelevant, or old and known) stuff should come neither first nor last, it should be trimmed away. Regards, Tony. -- Nuke the gay, unborn, baby whales for Jesus. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
