Re: Line length [Was: Re: The campaigns simplified]

Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
Skitt wrote:

[snipped to the essentials]

Robert Lieblich wrote:

BTW, Mike Gravel lives in the same condo-apartment
building I do
(true), and he's a very nice guy. I don't know him well
enough to
[...]

Tangentially, Maria, your line lengths are set too short. See how
that chopped up Bob's post? I use 76 as my setting, and that seems
to work fairly well.

In all the mail/newsgroup applications (and browsers) I've used and
use, the *default* and recommended line length is *72* characters per
line.

Lines starting out with 76 or higher get badly chopped up once they're
quoted several times, because of the additional >> > >> marks.

There are at least two cretins (Full Professors of English) on the
"ADS-List" who use no set line length, which causes their lines to be
three to five times the width of a screen (necessitating annoying
multiple horizontal scrolling). In other words, their paragraphs turn
into one single 3- or 4-foot-long line of 250 to 500+ characters!

These tenured morons are in the same class of imbeciles who mail or
post .jpgs of 300K to 5MB that would look just fine if they were
reduced to 60K. Using their cameras but not their brains, these
dipshits set (extremely) high resolutions that are needed for
printing photos in glossy high-quality publications but are a total
waste of pixels on computer monitors.

Thank you, I feel better now.

~~~ Reinhold (Rey) Aman ~~~

Oh, OK, I just checked. I was wrong in recommending a 76 setting. While my OE is set at 76, my QF is set at 72, and the latter appears to be the limiting factor. Counting what I saw in your post and quoted material, I see that 73 characters (including the > mark and its space) were allowed in one of the quoted lines of my text.

It also seems that QF reformats quoted text to fit the line length limits. Observe the above-quoted text starting with "Tangentially". I did not reformat that paragraph, but it surely is reformatted.
--
Skitt (AmE)

.

Loading