Medical OT

On 1/25/2012 1:28 PM, MaryL wrote:


"CatNipped" wrote in message ...

On 1/25/2012 2:15 AM, MaryL wrote:


wrote in message ...

MaryL wrote:


wrote in message ...


For some reason, whenever you respond to one of my posts, my user
name (bastxxxette) never shows up in the line above (attributing it
to me). I wonder why that is? This used to happen with someone else,
don't remember who it was.

- - - - - - - - - -

This is puzzling to me, too. I just went back to the Kindle thread to
check, and your name does show up in my post. I would have blamed it on
my newsreader (still using Windows Live Mail), but everything looks
correct on mine *except* that WLM will not put in markers to show quoted
text.

MaryL

Mary, the " - - - - - " you put on top of your post (to separate it
since it's not putting markers) is causing it to look like a signature
in my reader (it's defaulted out and not quoted when I reply to you).


--
Hugs,

CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped

See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/

Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net



Thanks. I did not know that. Please let me know if the markers I
placed above this response work better. And, of course, what I really
*should* do (and I have known it for a long time) is get a better
newsreader.

MaryL

OK, for this one I highlighted all the text in the note and *then* hit
"reply", so it quoted it. I use Mozilla Thunderbird in case anyone who,
unlike me, knows how these things work might be able to help.

I think it probably has something to do with your newsreader not putting
the quote marks in it???

--
Hugs,

CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped

See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/

Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net

"CatNipped" wrote in message ...

On 1/25/2012 1:28 PM, MaryL wrote:


"CatNipped" wrote in message ...

On 1/25/2012 2:15 AM, MaryL wrote:


wrote in message ...

MaryL wrote:


wrote in message ...


For some reason, whenever you respond to one of my posts, my user
name (bastxxxette) never shows up in the line above (attributing it
to me). I wonder why that is? This used to happen with someone else,
don't remember who it was.

- - - - - - - - - -

This is puzzling to me, too. I just went back to the Kindle thread to
check, and your name does show up in my post. I would have blamed it on
my newsreader (still using Windows Live Mail), but everything looks
correct on mine *except* that WLM will not put in markers to show quoted
text.

MaryL

Mary, the " - - - - - " you put on top of your post (to separate it
since it's not putting markers) is causing it to look like a signature
in my reader (it's defaulted out and not quoted when I reply to you).


--
Hugs,

CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped

See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards,
at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/

Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net



Thanks. I did not know that. Please let me know if the markers I
placed above this response work better. And, of course, what I really
*should* do (and I have known it for a long time) is get a better
newsreader.

MaryL

OK, for this one I highlighted all the text in the note and *then* hit
"reply", so it quoted it. I use Mozilla Thunderbird in case anyone who,
unlike me, knows how these things work might be able to help.

I think it probably has something to do with your newsreader not putting
the quote marks in it???

--
Hugs,

CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped

See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/

Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net


Does this mean I should go back to using - - - - - - - - as a separator or
begin using until I get another newsreader? Which worked
better for you?

MaryL

Thanks. I did not know that. Please let me know if the markers
I placed above this response work better. And, of course, what
I really *should* do (and I have known it for a long time) is get
a better newsreader.

The newsreader has not a lot to do with it. Whatever newsreader
you've got, you have to edit. No piece of software can decide
how much text to quote so as to make your posting as attractive
and readable as possible.

The one I use would create a ghastly mess if I let it decide for
me what I was going to quote. So I decide instead.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 http://www.campin.me.uk Twitter: JackCampin

On 1/25/2012 5:36 PM, MaryL wrote:


"CatNipped" wrote in message ...

On 1/25/2012 1:28 PM, MaryL wrote:


"CatNipped" wrote in message ...

On 1/25/2012 2:15 AM, MaryL wrote:


wrote in message ...

MaryL wrote:


wrote in message ...


For some reason, whenever you respond to one of my posts, my user
name (bastxxxette) never shows up in the line above (attributing it
to me). I wonder why that is? This used to happen with someone else,
don't remember who it was.

- - - - - - - - - -

This is puzzling to me, too. I just went back to the Kindle thread to
check, and your name does show up in my post. I would have blamed it on
my newsreader (still using Windows Live Mail), but everything looks
correct on mine *except* that WLM will not put in markers to show quoted
text.

MaryL

Mary, the " - - - - - " you put on top of your post (to separate it
since it's not putting markers) is causing it to look like a signature
in my reader (it's defaulted out and not quoted when I reply to you).


--
Hugs,

CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped

See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark
Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/

Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net



Thanks. I did not know that. Please let me know if the markers I
placed above this response work better. And, of course, what I really
*should* do (and I have known it for a long time) is get a better
newsreader.

MaryL

OK, for this one I highlighted all the text in the note and *then* hit
"reply", so it quoted it. I use Mozilla Thunderbird in case anyone who,
unlike me, knows how these things work might be able to help.

I think it probably has something to do with your newsreader not putting
the quote marks in it???

--
Hugs,

CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped

See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/

Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net


Does this mean I should go back to using - - - - - - - - as a separator
or begin using until I get another newsreader? Which
worked better for you?

MaryL

Yep, that would work! ;


--
Hugs,

CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped

See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/

Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net

"Jack Campin" wrote in message
...

Thanks. I did not know that. Please let me know if the markers
I placed above this response work better. And, of course, what
I really *should* do (and I have known it for a long time) is get
a better newsreader.

The newsreader has not a lot to do with it. Whatever newsreader
you've got, you have to edit. No piece of software can decide
how much text to quote so as to make your posting as attractive
and readable as possible.

The one I use would create a ghastly mess if I let it decide for
me what I was going to quote. So I decide instead.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u
k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU,
Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 http://www.campin.me.uk Twitter:
JackCampin

- - - - - - - - -

Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, I am now using Windows Live
Mail simply because it came with Win 7 and is free. However, it does not
insert markers () to show quoted material. So, I really was not talking
about how much to quote or how much to edit. Instead, this newsreader does
not seem to give me the option of showing what is being quoted (and
therefore clearly separating it from my own responses). Even Outlook had
that function.

MaryL

wrote in message
...
MaryL wrote:

Do you like to read? I have a Kindle, and I absolutely love it. I held
off
for a long time because I have always liked the feel of a book in my
hands.
Well, I got a lighted cover and that gives the feel of a book. It can
be
balanced on my knees or on a pillow on my lap, so it's easy to use, land
the
light enables me to read in the dark if I lose power. I can keep any
number
of books on it instead of carrying a stack of books around with me. One
problem with printed books in recent years is that publishers often
print
right up to the margin binding, so we almost have to bend some books in
half
to read. That's not a problem with Kindle. Finally, I love the fact
that I
can change the size of the font--just like with a computer--so I don't
have
to use reading glasses. There are *lots* of free books available from
amazon, in addition to the ones that are purchased. The classics and
books
that are out of copyright are often free.

Starting a new thread here. I have some questions about the Kindle. Can
you
get any book at all for the Kindle? It doesn't seem like that would be the
case, since that would mean that every book in existence has been
digitized,
and I seriously doubt that. Many obscure movies never even made it to VHS
tapes, much less DVD. Is it harder to find obscure or out-of-print books
to
read on the Kindle than it is to just hunt in used bookstores, or on the
web?

Second question - of the books that *have* been digitized, can all of them
be read on the Kindle? Or can you only read books that have been digitized
to a certain proprietary format for the Kindle? Are there competing
devices
that use different formats, which cannot be read on the Kindle, or vice-
versa? (I really *hate* that!)

Last, does Amazon have special arrangements with different publishers, and
not with other publishers, so that you can only get the books from the
ones
that have a deal with Amazon? That's how it is with online movie
streaming.
You can buy an Internet-to-TV device (which allows you to watch streaming
video from the 'net on your TV), but the company that makes that device
has deals with different Internet providers of films (eg, Netflix, Hulu,
etc) so you can access whatever movies those providers offer (for a fee),
but you can't surf the web from your TV and watch any old video you come
across. Actually, there are devices that allow that, but I'm focusing my
question on the ones that don't, because I'm wondering if Amazon has the
same kind of deal, where you can only get books from the publishers they
have arrangements with. It so controlling. "If you buy our device, we will
control what you can and can't have access to."


And what point of changing the title to "kindle" helps me?
Tweed

"Christina Websell" wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...
MaryL wrote:

Do you like to read? I have a Kindle, and I absolutely love it. I held
off
for a long time because I have always liked the feel of a book in my
hands.
Well, I got a lighted cover and that gives the feel of a book. It can
be
balanced on my knees or on a pillow on my lap, so it's easy to use, land
the
light enables me to read in the dark if I lose power. I can keep any
number
of books on it instead of carrying a stack of books around with me. One
problem with printed books in recent years is that publishers often
print
right up to the margin binding, so we almost have to bend some books in
half
to read. That's not a problem with Kindle. Finally, I love the fact
that I
can change the size of the font--just like with a computer--so I don't
have
to use reading glasses. There are *lots* of free books available from
amazon, in addition to the ones that are purchased. The classics and
books
that are out of copyright are often free.

Starting a new thread here. I have some questions about the Kindle. Can
you
get any book at all for the Kindle? It doesn't seem like that would be the
case, since that would mean that every book in existence has been
digitized,
and I seriously doubt that. Many obscure movies never even made it to VHS
tapes, much less DVD. Is it harder to find obscure or out-of-print books
to
read on the Kindle than it is to just hunt in used bookstores, or on the
web?

Second question - of the books that *have* been digitized, can all of them
be read on the Kindle? Or can you only read books that have been digitized
to a certain proprietary format for the Kindle? Are there competing
devices
that use different formats, which cannot be read on the Kindle, or vice-
versa? (I really *hate* that!)

Last, does Amazon have special arrangements with different publishers, and
not with other publishers, so that you can only get the books from the
ones
that have a deal with Amazon? That's how it is with online movie
streaming.
You can buy an Internet-to-TV device (which allows you to watch streaming
video from the 'net on your TV), but the company that makes that device
has deals with different Internet providers of films (eg, Netflix, Hulu,
etc) so you can access whatever movies those providers offer (for a fee),
but you can't surf the web from your TV and watch any old video you come
across. Actually, there are devices that allow that, but I'm focusing my
question on the ones that don't, because I'm wondering if Amazon has the
same kind of deal, where you can only get books from the publishers they
have arrangements with. It so controlling. "If you buy our device, we will
control what you can and can't have access to."


And what point of changing the title to "kindle" helps me?
Tweed



Please re-read the original reply to your message. Mine was *one paragraph*
where I suggested a Kindle if you like to read because I thought it would
give you an opportunity to get some books without any need to leave the
house or carry a stack of books. I did not change the title. The title
never was changed. Joyce started a *new thread* but quoted my paragraph
because she was interested in Kindle and wanted some information. But that
should not have changed your original thread unless some of the newsreaders
had that effect. Joyce started her message with these words: "Starting a
new thread here. I have some questions about the Kindle...." So that should
have made it clear that she was not trying to hijack your thread. I'm sorry
if it looked like any of us were trying to interfere with your thread, but I
would think you know us well enough by now to know that's not what we were
trying to do.

MaryL

Christina Websell wrote:


wrote in message
...
MaryL wrote:

Do you like to read? I have a Kindle, and I absolutely love it. I held
off
for a long time because I have always liked the feel of a book in my
hands.
Well, I got a lighted cover and that gives the feel of a book. It can
be
balanced on my knees or on a pillow on my lap, so it's easy to use, land
the
light enables me to read in the dark if I lose power. I can keep any
number
of books on it instead of carrying a stack of books around with me. One
problem with printed books in recent years is that publishers often
print
right up to the margin binding, so we almost have to bend some books in
half
to read. That's not a problem with Kindle. Finally, I love the fact
that I
can change the size of the font--just like with a computer--so I don't
have
to use reading glasses. There are *lots* of free books available from
amazon, in addition to the ones that are purchased. The classics and
books
that are out of copyright are often free.

Starting a new thread here. I have some questions about the Kindle. Can
you
get any book at all for the Kindle? It doesn't seem like that would be the
case, since that would mean that every book in existence has been
digitized,
and I seriously doubt that. Many obscure movies never even made it to VHS
tapes, much less DVD. Is it harder to find obscure or out-of-print books
to
read on the Kindle than it is to just hunt in used bookstores, or on the
web?

Second question - of the books that *have* been digitized, can all of them
be read on the Kindle? Or can you only read books that have been digitized
to a certain proprietary format for the Kindle? Are there competing
devices
that use different formats, which cannot be read on the Kindle, or vice-
versa? (I really *hate* that!)

Last, does Amazon have special arrangements with different publishers, and
not with other publishers, so that you can only get the books from the
ones
that have a deal with Amazon? That's how it is with online movie
streaming.
You can buy an Internet-to-TV device (which allows you to watch streaming
video from the 'net on your TV), but the company that makes that device
has deals with different Internet providers of films (eg, Netflix, Hulu,
etc) so you can access whatever movies those providers offer (for a fee),
but you can't surf the web from your TV and watch any old video you come
across. Actually, there are devices that allow that, but I'm focusing my
question on the ones that don't, because I'm wondering if Amazon has the
same kind of deal, where you can only get books from the publishers they
have arrangements with. It so controlling. "If you buy our device, we will
control what you can and can't have access to."


And what point of changing the title to "kindle" helps me?

The conversation about Kindles was an aside. Something in the original
thread made me think of it and I had some questions about them. But it
seemed disrespectful to go off on a tangent under the same subject
title, in which we were discussing your loss of smell and taste and your
CT scan and MRI, etc, which is a pretty serious topic. I don't know, Tweed,
if I had posted about something scary like that, I wouldn't want to come
to RPCA and see a whole ton of responses to my problem, only to discover
that most of the posts were about Kindles. It just seemed more respectful
to change the subject line so the side topic would be under a different
title.

In addition to changing the subject title, I also removed the references
from my first "Kindle" post. That way, my post should not have been tied
to your original thread. If it was, then I apologize. This has come up
before, and someone advised me to remove references so that I am truly
starting a new thread, not just changing the subject line. If that didn't
work, then I guess that advice wasn't any good. I can't test it myself
because I don't use threading at all. Every post I read is on the same
hierarchical level, appearing sequentially (although not always in the
order in which they were posted - but that can't be helped, as it depends
on the vagaries of the Internet).

If someone has a better solution for this, feel free to post. But I hope
it doesn't come down to "start a brand-new topic from scratch", because I
want to have quoted text from the post that brought up a side issue I
wanted to talk about. If I start from scratch, there's no quoted text.

--
Joyce

I want freedom, the right to self expression, everyone's right to
beautiful radiant things. -- Emma Goldman

MaryL wrote:

"Christina Websell" wrote in message

And what point of changing the title to "kindle" helps me?

Please re-read the original reply to your message. Mine was *one paragraph*
where I suggested a Kindle if you like to read because I thought it would
give you an opportunity to get some books without any need to leave the
house or carry a stack of books. I did not change the title. The title
never was changed. Joyce started a *new thread* but quoted my paragraph
because she was interested in Kindle and wanted some information. But that
should not have changed your original thread unless some of the newsreaders
had that effect. Joyce started her message with these words: "Starting a
new thread here. I have some questions about the Kindle...." So that should
have made it clear that she was not trying to hijack your thread. I'm sorry
if it looked like any of us were trying to interfere with your thread, but I
would think you know us well enough by now to know that's not what we were
trying to do.

Exactly. That was my intention. If my first "Kindle" post showed up in
the same thread as Tweed's post and related discussion, then I'm not sure
what I did wrong, as I followed advice that was posted here the last time
this issue came up.

Thanks Mary, that explained the situation very well!

--
Joyce

I want freedom, the right to self expression, everyone's right to
beautiful radiant things. -- Emma Goldman

Exactly. That was my intention. If my first "Kindle" post showed up
in the same thread as Tweed's post and related discussion, then I'm
not sure what I did wrong, as I followed advice that was posted here
the last time this issue came up.

Tweed is using Outlook Express, which behaves in a wildly nonstandard
way compared with other newsreaders. There's no way for anybody else
to post messages in such a way that the flow of communication looks
the same as it does to somebody using that system. So don't waste any
time and emotional energy trying.

Threading can't be consistent between newsreaders because the official
specification for Usenet messages doesn't define it completely. But
Outlook Express has always been the odd one out among all the many
newsreaders available for every platform.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 http://www.campin.me.uk Twitter: JackCampin