Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS wrote:

PAS:
Plonk!

Eric Stevens:
I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies
on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is
mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two were
related.

I was asked about using Unicode, so I replied. I didn't bring it
up, I was questioned as to whether I was using it. I responded that
OE does not have a setting to use Unicode, it has a setting to use
Uuencode. How is that giving the impression of comparing the two?

Surely you can see that this is a possible interpretation?

"It doesn't support Unicode, it's Latin 1"

This is you saying that it doesn't support one character set, and that
it
does support another character set.

"It doesn't support Unicode, it supports a bluetooth keyboard"

This is you saying that it doesn't support one character set, and then
mentioning - in relation to that - something positively not related to
it.

"It doesn't support Unicode, it's UUencode"

Same here. But given the similarity in naming, the reader could easily
be
led to the impression that you think they are related. That you are
listing
what it does and doesn't support in relation to the question you were
given, and that it's rather logical to not assume that you were
knowingly
posting something totally unrelated to the question.



Posting something unrelated to the question? Now, what regular poster
to this newsgroup would ever do such a thing?

In article , "PAS"
wrote:

"android" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:51:24 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
.. .
In article , PAS

wrote:

Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?

that's how.

There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode.

It's not comparable. Unicode is a character set, and
UUencode is
a
binary to text encoding method.

I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no
setting
for
Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case.

no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different
things.

You like to argue for the sake of it, don't you (I know, that's a
silly
qustion to ask you)? When did I ever say Unicode and Uuencode
are
the
same? I said that OE does not have a setting for Unicode, it has
a
setting for Uuencode. This is not hard to understand, at least
for
some
of us.

obviously you don't understand much of anything.

when you say it doesn't have a setting for unicode but does for
uuencode, you are confusing the two.

it's like saying photoshop elements has no setting for cmyk but
has
gaussian blur.

outlook does not have unicode. it's broken.

whether it handles uuencoding or not makes no difference
whatsoever,
and uuencoding isn't even used anymore.

Plonk!

I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies on
this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is
mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two were
related.

"PAS" plonking nospam? It's his own loss... :-p
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

I'm already regretting it

I bet that nospam could help you find your plonkfile...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

In article , PAS wrote:

Sandman:
Surely you can see that this is a possible interpretation?

"It doesn't support Unicode, it's Latin 1"

This is you saying that it doesn't support one character set, and
that it does support another character set.

"It doesn't support Unicode, it supports a bluetooth keyboard"

This is you saying that it doesn't support one character set, and
then mentioning - in relation to that - something positively not
related to it.

"It doesn't support Unicode, it's UUencode"

Same here. But given the similarity in naming, the reader could
easily be led to the impression that you think they are related.
That you are listing what it does and doesn't support in relation
to the question you were given, and that it's rather logical to
not assume that you were knowingly posting something totally
unrelated to the question.



Posting something unrelated to the question? Now, what regular
poster to this newsgroup would ever do such a thing?

I can name a few. :-D


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , android wrote:

Eric Stevens:
I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your
replies on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when
unicode is mentioned. This gave the impression that you
thought the two were related.

android:
"PAS" plonking nospam? It's his own loss... :-p -- teleportation
kills http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

PAS:
I'm already regretting it

I bet that nospam could help you find your plonkfile...

Probably not. Most news readers don't use killfiles actually. Those that
actually use *files* use something called score files these days, and you
define a kill threshold.

Most other use a filtering system built into the software, not kept in a
seperate files.

As long as we're being pedantic


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , android wrote:

Eric Stevens:
I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your
replies on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when
unicode is mentioned. This gave the impression that you
thought the two were related.

android:
"PAS" plonking nospam? It's his own loss... :-p -- teleportation
kills http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

PAS:
I'm already regretting it

I bet that nospam could help you find your plonkfile...

Probably not. Most news readers don't use killfiles actually. Those that
actually use *files* use something called score files these days, and you
define a kill threshold.

Most other use a filtering system built into the software, not kept in a
seperate files.

As long as we're being pedantic

A plonkfile would be the file the plonkes would be found. Sure you can
use score points and stuff but than you lose control over what you
filter out. I'm keeping it simple...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

In article , PAS
wrote:

I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies on
this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is
mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two were
related.

I started this when I asked:

"Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?"

...and it went downhill from there when *PAS* responded to me:

"There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode."

yep. he confused the two.

Nope.

deny it all you want but that's exactly what you did.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I had already understood that from what you had written. nospam had
slightly confused the situation by writing:

"it'll read raw directly, with a default conversion.

there's nothing like it on any other platform."

I wasn't quite sure what he meant by a 'default conversion'.

you don't get to adjust it.
what would you expect from one line of code?

if you want to present the user with a way to adjust the raw
conversion, then it will take more than one line of code.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS
wrote:

I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies
on
this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is
mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two
were
related.

I started this when I asked:

"Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?"

...and it went downhill from there when *PAS* responded to me:

"There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode."

yep. he confused the two.

Nope.

deny it all you want but that's exactly what you did.

Nope.

In article , PAS
wrote:


I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies
on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is
mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two
were related.

I started this when I asked:

"Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?"

...and it went downhill from there when *PAS* responded to me:

"There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode."

yep. he confused the two.

Nope.

deny it all you want but that's exactly what you did.

Nope.

i thought you plonked me.

you can't even get that right.

On 8/22/2014 2:20 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PAS
wrote:


I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies
on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is
mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two
were related.

I started this when I asked:

"Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?"

...and it went downhill from there when *PAS* responded to me:

"There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode."

yep. he confused the two.

Nope.

deny it all you want but that's exactly what you did.

Nope.

i thought you plonked me.

you can't even get that right.


He had a bad day, and wanted somthing to laugh at. He decided to look at
your assinine postings.

--
PeterN