Andy Burns wrote:
> Ant wrote:
>
>> Carl Fink wrote:
>>
>>> Middle-click is even easier than Ctrl-click.
>>
>> For me, clicking the middle scroll wheel is harder to press compared
>> regular mouse buttons due to my disabilities. :(
>
> Even without disabilities, the middle scroll wheel is less convenient
> than left or right mouse buttons.

I'd say this depends on the design of your mouse. For me a middle click
is nearly as convenient in my everyday work-flow as left or right.

Moreover when editing text under Linux a middle click pastes the content
of the primary clipboard. Whereas Ctrl-v pastes the content of the
secondary clipboard.

On 05/03/2024 09:12, Andy Burns wrote:
> Ant wrote:
>
>> Carl Fink wrote:
>>
>>> Middle-click is even easier than Ctrl-click.
>>
>> For me, clicking the middle scroll wheel is harder to press compared
>> regular mouse buttons due to my disabilities. :(
>
> Even without disabilities, the middle scroll wheel is less convenient
> than left or right mouse buttons.
>
Well, as a person who started using a three-button serial mouse back in
1984 - writing the drivers to integrate it into a CGS300 page-layout
system - I've had no problems with it.

If I'm driving the mouse with my left hand, ring-finger is on the left
button, middle-finger on the centre button/wheel, and index-finger on
the right button.

If I'm using my right hand - I became ambi-mouseo-dextrous when I
developed tennis elbow from mousing usage soem decades ago -
index-finger on the left button, middle-finger on the centre
button/wheel, ring finger on the right button.

It suppose it took a bit of practice, but it's so long ago that I've
forgotten when I couldn't do it.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

Am 04.03.24 um 23:06 schrieb micky:
> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:50:09 -0000 (UTC),
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
> wrote:
>
>> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 18:35 this Monday (GMT):
>>> Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-04, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>>>> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 03 Mar 2024 12:26:18 -0800, croy
>>>>> <croy@spam.invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
>>>>>> a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
>>>>>> apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't know about this. It would save me one click per link**, and
>>>>> that's good. But I read your post yesterday and didn't remember to try
>>>>> it when I was in FF. If it's fading away already, by the time I
>>>>> remember to try it, and the time I remember to keep using it, alas, it
>>>>> may be too late for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> **I've been using right click/new tab. I wish these programs came with
>>>>> instructions.
>>>
>>>> Middle-click is even easier than Ctrl-click.
>>>
>>> For me, clicking the middle scroll wheel is harder to press compared
>>> regular mouse buttons due to my disabilities. :(
>>
>> oof, what disabilities?
>
> An ant has 6 legs but few fingers.
>
> As for me, the scroll wheel is all right for turning and rotating, but
> pressing it seems satanic. I don't consider understanding the deep
> nature of things to be a disability.

And my mice even do not have a scroll wheel (Apple).

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 2024-03-04, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
> Same, tho I sometimes out of habit do control and right click.

I only use Ctrl-click when I'm on my laptop trackpad, which has no middle
button. (Yes, there are gestures to emulate a third button, but for me
Ctrl-click is more reliable than my system's ability to detect a
three-finger tap.)
--
Carl Fink carl@finknetwork.com
https://reasonablyliterate.com https://nitpicking.com
If you want to make a point, somebody will take the point and stab you with it.
-Kenne Estes

On 2024-03-04 02:34, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Jorg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Am 03.03.24 um 21:45 schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>>>>>> croy <croy@pam.invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding
>> down the Ctrl key would cause
>>>>>>>> a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but
>> more and more pages are
>>>>>>>> apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another.
>> I wonder why.
>>>
>>>>>>> Right click, then use "T" for opening in its own tab, or "D" for opening
>>>>>>> in its own window.
>>>
>>>>>>> Would you please fix your line length? Don't use a variable-spaced font.
>>>
>>>> What has the lenght of the lines got to do with the font *he* is using?
>>>
>>> If a fixed-width font is used, then the right boundary of the text is a
>>> better indication of a 76 character width, or so.
>>
>> Right boundary? Where? Your terminal, his editor, your usenet-client?
>
> See if you can figure it out from context.
>
>>> If a variable-width font is used, it's harder to judge, and the number
>>> of characters sent per line will vary too greatly.
>
>> Correct.
>
>> But why do you suggest him to use a fixed font width - if you even don't
>> know, if he already uses it?
>
> See if you can read for understanding.
>
>>>> So what's your problem then?
>
>>> Uh, awkward line wrap?
>
>> That's only *your personal* problem.
>
> Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s.

No.

>
>> If your newsreader isn't able to
>> wrap long lines in a decent matter, it's only you who has a problem. But
>> don't teach other user users, which fonts they should use when they are
>> composing messages.
>
> No one's can wrap. It wasn't sent as flowed text.

It displays just fine here. He has nothing to change. It is your
problem, not his.

>
> I didn't specify a font but a type of font.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote at 13:40 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On 2024-03-04, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>
>> Same, tho I sometimes out of habit do control and right click.
>
> I only use Ctrl-click when I'm on my laptop trackpad, which has no middle
> button. (Yes, there are gestures to emulate a third button, but for me
> Ctrl-click is more reliable than my system's ability to detect a
> three-finger tap.)

My laptop trackpad has a middle button, so its easy to do.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote at 06:35 this Tuesday (GMT):
> Am 04.03.24 um 23:06 schrieb micky:
>> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:50:09 -0000 (UTC),
>> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 18:35 this Monday (GMT):
>>>> Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-04, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 03 Mar 2024 12:26:18 -0800, croy
>>>>>> <croy@spam.invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
>>>>>>> a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
>>>>>>> apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't know about this. It would save me one click per link**, and
>>>>>> that's good. But I read your post yesterday and didn't remember to try
>>>>>> it when I was in FF. If it's fading away already, by the time I
>>>>>> remember to try it, and the time I remember to keep using it, alas, it
>>>>>> may be too late for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I've been using right click/new tab. I wish these programs came with
>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>
>>>>> Middle-click is even easier than Ctrl-click.
>>>>
>>>> For me, clicking the middle scroll wheel is harder to press compared
>>>> regular mouse buttons due to my disabilities. :(
>>>
>>> oof, what disabilities?
>>
>> An ant has 6 legs but few fingers.
>>
>> As for me, the scroll wheel is all right for turning and rotating, but
>> pressing it seems satanic. I don't consider understanding the deep
>> nature of things to be a disability.
>
> And my mice even do not have a scroll wheel (Apple).

I think some of the mac mice have a really really small scroll
wheel that I hate.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>On 2024-03-04 02:34, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>Jorg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>Am 03.03.24 um 21:45 schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>>>>>>>croy <croy@pam.invalid.net> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
>>>>>>>>>a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
>>>>>>>>>apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.

>>>>>>>>Right click, then use "T" for opening in its own tab, or "D"
>>>>>>>>for opening in its own window.

>>>>>>>>Would you please fix your line length? Don't use a variable-spaced
>>>>>>>>font.

>>>>>What has the lenght of the lines got to do with the font *he* is using?

>>>>If a fixed-width font is used, then the right boundary of the text is a
>>>>better indication of a 76 character width, or so.

>>>Right boundary? Where? Your terminal, his editor, your usenet-client?

>>See if you can figure it out from context.

>>>>If a variable-width font is used, it's harder to judge, and the number
>>>>of characters sent per line will vary too greatly.

>>>Correct.

>>>But why do you suggest him to use a fixed font width - if you even don't
>>>know, if he already uses it?

>>See if you can read for understanding.

>>>>>So what's your problem then?

>>>>Uh, awkward line wrap?

>>>That's only *your personal* problem.

>>Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s.

>No.

Yes. You don't win an argument with gaslighting.
>>>If your newsreader isn't able to
>>>wrap long lines in a decent matter, it's only you who has a problem. But
>>>don't teach other user users, which fonts they should use when they are
>>>composing messages.

>>No one's can wrap. It wasn't sent as flowed text.

>It displays just fine here. He has nothing to change. It is your
>problem, not his.

It's too bad you cannot express a thought without going over the top. It
displays for me as it was sent, as a series of long lines awkwardly
wrapped, which is what happens when long lines are sent and displayed on
a character cell terminal with a conventional 80-character width.

That's the nature of plain text communication. It includes an assumption
about line length.
>>I didn't specify a font but a type of font.

.. . . and people send long lines when they aren't using fixed fonts in
the composer without realizing they are doing so.

On 05.03.24 17:10, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote at 06:35 this Tuesday (GMT):
>> Am 04.03.24 um 23:06 schrieb micky:
>>> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:50:09 -0000 (UTC),
>>> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 18:35 this Monday (GMT):
>>>>> Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-04, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 03 Mar 2024 12:26:18 -0800, croy
>>>>>>> <croy@spam.invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
>>>>>>>> a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
>>>>>>>> apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't know about this. It would save me one click per link**, and
>>>>>>> that's good. But I read your post yesterday and didn't remember to try
>>>>>>> it when I was in FF. If it's fading away already, by the time I
>>>>>>> remember to try it, and the time I remember to keep using it, alas, it
>>>>>>> may be too late for me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **I've been using right click/new tab. I wish these programs came with
>>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Middle-click is even easier than Ctrl-click.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me, clicking the middle scroll wheel is harder to press compared
>>>>> regular mouse buttons due to my disabilities. :(
>>>>
>>>> oof, what disabilities?
>>>
>>> An ant has 6 legs but few fingers.
>>>
>>> As for me, the scroll wheel is all right for turning and rotating, but
>>> pressing it seems satanic. I don't consider understanding the deep
>>> nature of things to be a disability.
>>
>> And my mice even do not have a scroll wheel (Apple).
>
> I think some of the mac mice have a really really small scroll
> wheel that I hate.

I never ever saw one and I use the Magic Mouse for almost 15 years now.

--
"Ave Caesar! Morituri te salutant!"

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 18:35 this Monday (GMT):
> > Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
> >> On 2024-03-04, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> >> > In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 03 Mar 2024 12:26:18 -0800, croy
> >> ><croy@spam.invalid.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
> >> >>a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
> >> >>apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.
> >> >
> >> > I didn't know about this. It would save me one click per link**, and
> >> > that's good. But I read your post yesterday and didn't remember to try
> >> > it when I was in FF. If it's fading away already, by the time I
> >> > remember to try it, and the time I remember to keep using it, alas, it
> >> > may be too late for me.
> >> >
> >> > **I've been using right click/new tab. I wish these programs came with
> >> > instructions.
> >
> >> Middle-click is even easier than Ctrl-click.
> >
> > For me, clicking the middle scroll wheel is harder to press compared
> > regular mouse buttons due to my disabilities. :(

> oof, what disabilities?

Deformed hands since birth. When pressing the scroll wheel button, it
scrolls too. My fingers aren't stable.

--
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight." --Proverbs 3:5-6. "Trust no one" except God!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 17:42 this Tuesday (GMT):
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 18:35 this Monday (GMT):
>> > Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2024-03-04, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> >> > In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 03 Mar 2024 12:26:18 -0800, croy
>> >> ><croy@spam.invalid.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
>> >> >>a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
>> >> >>apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.
>> >> >
>> >> > I didn't know about this. It would save me one click per link**, and
>> >> > that's good. But I read your post yesterday and didn't remember to try
>> >> > it when I was in FF. If it's fading away already, by the time I
>> >> > remember to try it, and the time I remember to keep using it, alas, it
>> >> > may be too late for me.
>> >> >
>> >> > **I've been using right click/new tab. I wish these programs came with
>> >> > instructions.
>> >
>> >> Middle-click is even easier than Ctrl-click.
>> >
>> > For me, clicking the middle scroll wheel is harder to press compared
>> > regular mouse buttons due to my disabilities. :(
>
>> oof, what disabilities?
>
> Deformed hands since birth. When pressing the scroll wheel button, it
> scrolls too. My fingers aren't stable.

Ouch, I'm sorry man.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2024-03-05, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 18:35 this Monday (GMT):
>> > Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2024-03-04, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> >> > In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 03 Mar 2024 12:26:18 -0800, croy
>> >> ><croy@spam.invalid.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
>> >> >>a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
>> >> >>apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.
>> >> >
>> >> > I didn't know about this. It would save me one click per link**, and
>> >> > that's good. But I read your post yesterday and didn't remember to try
>> >> > it when I was in FF. If it's fading away already, by the time I
>> >> > remember to try it, and the time I remember to keep using it, alas, it
>> >> > may be too late for me.
>> >> >
>> >> > **I've been using right click/new tab. I wish these programs came with
>> >> > instructions.
>> >
>> >> Middle-click is even easier than Ctrl-click.
>> >
>> > For me, clicking the middle scroll wheel is harder to press compared
>> > regular mouse buttons due to my disabilities. :(
>
>> oof, what disabilities?
>
> Deformed hands since birth. When pressing the scroll wheel button, it
> scrolls too. My fingers aren't stable.

There are old-school mice with a middle button instead of the scroll wheel,
but I don't know if you actually use the wheel to scroll, which you
presumably would rather not give up. Some gaming mice have like 9 buttons,
which you can program to do various things?
--
Carl Fink carl@finknetwork.com
https://reasonablyliterate.com https://nitpicking.com
If you want to make a point, somebody will take the point and stab you with it.
-Kenne Estes

On 2024-03-05 18:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-04 02:34, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>> Jorg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 03.03.24 um 21:45 schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>>>>>>>> croy <croy@pam.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
>>>>>>>>>> a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
>>>>>>>>>> apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.
>
>>>>>>>>> Right click, then use "T" for opening in its own tab, or "D"
>>>>>>>>> for opening in its own window.
>
>>>>>>>>> Would you please fix your line length? Don't use a variable-spaced
>>>>>>>>> font.
>
>>>>>> What has the lenght of the lines got to do with the font *he* is using?
>
>>>>> If a fixed-width font is used, then the right boundary of the text is a
>>>>> better indication of a 76 character width, or so.
>
>>>> Right boundary? Where? Your terminal, his editor, your usenet-client?
>
>>> See if you can figure it out from context.
>
>>>>> If a variable-width font is used, it's harder to judge, and the number
>>>>> of characters sent per line will vary too greatly.
>
>>>> Correct.
>
>>>> But why do you suggest him to use a fixed font width - if you even don't
>>>> know, if he already uses it?
>
>>> See if you can read for understanding.
>
>>>>>> So what's your problem then?
>
>>>>> Uh, awkward line wrap?
>
>>>> That's only *your personal* problem.
>
>>> Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s.
>
>> No.
>
> Yes. You don't win an argument with gaslighting.

You say "Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s."

Well, I don't, so your sentence is false.

....

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>On 2024-03-05 18:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>On 2024-03-04 02:34, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>>>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>Jorg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Am 03.03.24 um 21:45 schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>>>>>>>>>croy <croy@pam.invalid.net> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
>>>>>>>>>>>a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
>>>>>>>>>>>apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.

>>>>>>>>>>Right click, then use "T" for opening in its own tab, or "D"
>>>>>>>>>>for opening in its own window.

>>>>>>>>>>Would you please fix your line length? Don't use a variable-spaced
>>>>>>>>>>font.

>>>>>>>What has the lenght of the lines got to do with the font *he* is using?

>>>>>>If a fixed-width font is used, then the right boundary of the text is a
>>>>>>better indication of a 76 character width, or so.

>>>>>Right boundary? Where? Your terminal, his editor, your usenet-client?

>>>>See if you can figure it out from context.

>>>>>>If a variable-width font is used, it's harder to judge, and the number
>>>>>>of characters sent per line will vary too greatly.

>>>>>Correct.

>>>>>But why do you suggest him to use a fixed font width - if you even don't
>>>>>know, if he already uses it?

>>>>See if you can read for understanding.

>>>>>>>So what's your problem then?

>>>>>>Uh, awkward line wrap?

>>>>>That's only *your personal* problem.

>>>>Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s.

>>>No.

>>Yes. You don't win an argument with gaslighting.

>You say "Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s."

>Well, I don't, so your sentence is false.

You haven't expected the conventional terminal window to be 80
characters wide for the last several decades? You, sir, are a liar.

At this point, you are simply trolling.

Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
....
> >> >> Middle-click is even easier than Ctrl-click.
> >> >
> >> > For me, clicking the middle scroll wheel is harder to press compared
> >> > regular mouse buttons due to my disabilities. :(
> >
> >> oof, what disabilities?
> >
> > Deformed hands since birth. When pressing the scroll wheel button, it
> > scrolls too. My fingers aren't stable.

> There are old-school mice with a middle button instead of the scroll wheel,
> but I don't know if you actually use the wheel to scroll, which you
> presumably would rather not give up. Some gaming mice have like 9 buttons,
> which you can program to do various things?

I do use the scrollwheel once in a while. Just clicking on it is annoying
since sometimes it scrolls too. I am not a fan of those fancy mouses and
keyboards. I am just a basic old school user. ;)

When I use computers, I just use my left hand to do the key clicking with
my right hand on the mouse. When I open new tabs, I like to hold down my
left ctrl key and left mouse click. :)
--
"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." --Genesis 3:6. Bad Eve! Tues. got little a slammy thanks to iOS v17.4.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 2024-03-06 16:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-05 18:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-04 02:34, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jorg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.03.24 um 21:45 schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>>>>>>>>>> croy <croy@pam.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
>>>>>>>>>>>> a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right click, then use "T" for opening in its own tab, or "D"
>>>>>>>>>>> for opening in its own window.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Would you please fix your line length? Don't use a variable-spaced
>>>>>>>>>>> font.
>
>>>>>>>> What has the lenght of the lines got to do with the font *he* is using?
>
>>>>>>> If a fixed-width font is used, then the right boundary of the text is a
>>>>>>> better indication of a 76 character width, or so.
>
>>>>>> Right boundary? Where? Your terminal, his editor, your usenet-client?
>
>>>>> See if you can figure it out from context.
>
>>>>>>> If a variable-width font is used, it's harder to judge, and the number
>>>>>>> of characters sent per line will vary too greatly.
>
>>>>>> Correct.
>
>>>>>> But why do you suggest him to use a fixed font width - if you even don't
>>>>>> know, if he already uses it?
>
>>>>> See if you can read for understanding.
>
>>>>>>>> So what's your problem then?
>
>>>>>>> Uh, awkward line wrap?
>
>>>>>> That's only *your personal* problem.
>
>>>>> Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s.
>
>>>> No.
>
>>> Yes. You don't win an argument with gaslighting.
>
>> You say "Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s."
>
>> Well, I don't, so your sentence is false.
>
> You haven't expected the conventional terminal window to be 80
> characters wide for the last several decades? You, sir, are a liar.

I certainly don't expect it to be any size in particular. It can be 10,
40, 50, 60, 73, 87, 92, 104, 115, whatever. The time for the terminal to
be just 80 are past, decades ago.

>
> At this point, you are simply trolling.

Sure.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 21:27:18 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2024-03-06 16:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-05 18:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-04 02:34, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jorg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.03.24 um 21:45 schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>>>>>>>>>>> croy <croy@pam.invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right click, then use "T" for opening in its own tab, or "D"
>>>>>>>>>>>> for opening in its own window.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you please fix your line length? Don't use a variable-spaced
>>>>>>>>>>>> font.
>>
>>>>>>>>> What has the lenght of the lines got to do with the font *he* is using?
>>
>>>>>>>> If a fixed-width font is used, then the right boundary of the text is a
>>>>>>>> better indication of a 76 character width, or so.
>>
>>>>>>> Right boundary? Where? Your terminal, his editor, your usenet-client?
>>
>>>>>> See if you can figure it out from context.
>>
>>>>>>>> If a variable-width font is used, it's harder to judge, and the number
>>>>>>>> of characters sent per line will vary too greatly.
>>
>>>>>>> Correct.
>>
>>>>>>> But why do you suggest him to use a fixed font width - if you even don't
>>>>>>> know, if he already uses it?
>>
>>>>>> See if you can read for understanding.
>>
>>>>>>>>> So what's your problem then?
>>
>>>>>>>> Uh, awkward line wrap?
>>
>>>>>>> That's only *your personal* problem.
>>
>>>>>> Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s.
>>
>>>>> No.
>>
>>>> Yes. You don't win an argument with gaslighting.
>>
>>> You say "Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s."
>>
>>> Well, I don't, so your sentence is false.
>>
>> You haven't expected the conventional terminal window to be 80
>> characters wide for the last several decades? You, sir, are a liar.
>
>I certainly don't expect it to be any size in particular. It can be 10,
>40, 50, 60, 73, 87, 92, 104, 115, whatever. The time for the terminal to
>be just 80 are past, decades ago.

For me, the big milestones were 40, 80, and 132, but as you said, all of that
was decades ago. For a very long time now, line length has made absolutely no
difference to me, especially if we're talking about longer lines. I find short
lines, say less than 40, to be annoying, but that's just me.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 16:53:38 -0600, Char
Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 21:27:18 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2024-03-06 16:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-05 18:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-04 02:34, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Jorg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.03.24 um 21:45 schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> croy <croy@pam.invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right click, then use "T" for opening in its own tab, or "D"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for opening in its own window.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you please fix your line length? Don't use a variable-spaced
>>>>>>>>>>>>> font.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What has the lenght of the lines got to do with the font *he* is using?
>>>
>>>>>>>>> If a fixed-width font is used, then the right boundary of the text is a
>>>>>>>>> better indication of a 76 character width, or so.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Right boundary? Where? Your terminal, his editor, your usenet-client?
>>>
>>>>>>> See if you can figure it out from context.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> If a variable-width font is used, it's harder to judge, and the number
>>>>>>>>> of characters sent per line will vary too greatly.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>>>>>> But why do you suggest him to use a fixed font width - if you even don't
>>>>>>>> know, if he already uses it?
>>>
>>>>>>> See if you can read for understanding.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what's your problem then?
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Uh, awkward line wrap?
>>>
>>>>>>>> That's only *your personal* problem.
>>>
>>>>>>> Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s.
>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>
>>>>> Yes. You don't win an argument with gaslighting.
>>>
>>>> You say "Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s."
>>>
>>>> Well, I don't, so your sentence is false.
>>>
>>> You haven't expected the conventional terminal window to be 80
>>> characters wide for the last several decades? You, sir, are a liar.
>>
>>I certainly don't expect it to be any size in particular. It can be 10,
>>40, 50, 60, 73, 87, 92, 104, 115, whatever. The time for the terminal to
>>be just 80 are past, decades ago.
>
>For me, the big milestones were 40, 80, and 132, but as you said, all of that

132 was for mainframe printers, right? Anywhere else?

>was decades ago. For a very long time now, line length has made absolutely no
>difference to me,

Nor me. I have no expectation of what the line length should be. if I
don't have one I don't why one would doubt that Carlos also has not got
such an expectation.

>especially if we're talking about longer lines. I find short
>lines, say less than 40, to be annoying, but that's just me.

On 2024-03-08 05:04, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 16:53:38 -0600, Char
> Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 21:27:18 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-03-06 16:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-05 18:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-04 02:34, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jorg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.03.24 um 21:45 schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> croy <croy@pam.invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It used to be that when clicking on a link in a web page, holding down the Ctrl key would cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new tab to open. It still works that way on some pages, but more and more pages are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently coding that out. iHerb is one, and Walmart is another. I wonder why.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right click, then use "T" for opening in its own tab, or "D"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for opening in its own window.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you please fix your line length? Don't use a variable-spaced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> font.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What has the lenght of the lines got to do with the font *he* is using?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If a fixed-width font is used, then the right boundary of the text is a
>>>>>>>>>> better indication of a 76 character width, or so.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right boundary? Where? Your terminal, his editor, your usenet-client?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> See if you can figure it out from context.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If a variable-width font is used, it's harder to judge, and the number
>>>>>>>>>> of characters sent per line will vary too greatly.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But why do you suggest him to use a fixed font width - if you even don't
>>>>>>>>> know, if he already uses it?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> See if you can read for understanding.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what's your problem then?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Uh, awkward line wrap?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's only *your personal* problem.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s.
>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. You don't win an argument with gaslighting.
>>>>
>>>>> You say "Everybody expects an 80-character width since the '80s."
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I don't, so your sentence is false.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't expected the conventional terminal window to be 80
>>>> characters wide for the last several decades? You, sir, are a liar.
>>>
>>> I certainly don't expect it to be any size in particular. It can be 10,
>>> 40, 50, 60, 73, 87, 92, 104, 115, whatever. The time for the terminal to
>>> be just 80 are past, decades ago.
>>
>> For me, the big milestones were 40, 80, and 132, but as you said, all of that
>
> 132 was for mainframe printers, right? Anywhere else?

EGA displays had it. EGA or VGA or both, not sure. Not CGA, IIRC.
Printers too, the condensed "font". There was 10 letters per inch, or
12, normally, plus the condensed versions. That was long ago, I can't be
sure of all the details.

>> was decades ago. For a very long time now, line length has made absolutely no
>> difference to me,
>
> Nor me. I have no expectation of what the line length should be. if I
> don't have one I don't why one would doubt that Carlos also has not got
> such an expectation.

Right.

Maybe the Windows MS-Dos shell is still 80 characters and can not be
resized. But I am on Linux, everybody knows that ;-)

>
>> especially if we're talking about longer lines. I find short
>> lines, say less than 40, to be annoying, but that's just me.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 10-03-2024 00:18, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-03-08 05:04, micky wrote:
..
..
..
>> 132 was for mainframe printers, right?  Anywhere else?
>
> EGA displays had it. EGA or VGA or both, not sure. Not CGA, IIRC.
> Printers too, the condensed "font". There was 10 letters per inch, or
> 12, normally, plus the condensed versions. That was long ago, I can't be
> sure of all the details.
My printer does 17 cpi for maximum 16.5", giving about 280
characters/line...
(...about 40 years old) (...that is, the printer. My age is almost
double that)