Re: Tales Of The Pathetic Vol. II - ?telLevel is NOT a guaranteed escape!

On Aug 4, 2:54 pm, scuzwa...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 4, 6:48 am, "Magnate" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hmm. I think I prefer the greater randomness: there is something thrillingly
scary about occasionally landing in the midst of a huge pack of monsters -

Note length and unwrapped nature of the first line.

What about "death protection" as follows:

* Change player death code, if necessary, so that player death
actually
  occurs at the player's turn, rather than as soon as they go under
0HP.

No. You are lying, whoever you are who did this. Those lines were NOT
too long.

There are longer lines that did not wrap*, so this "wrapping" was
clearly done manually, and it was done by somebody other than me.

Whoever you are: DO NOT alter my posts to screw up the formatting and
make me look like an idiot EVER AGAIN! In fact, do not alter my posts
for any purpose whatsoever. The ONLY legitimate alteration is to
appropriately update the Path: header as it propagates, and to add
your own X-Trace: or similar headers. There are NO legitimate
alterations to the BODY TEXTS of MY posts! None whatsoever!

Whoever you are: Show yourself and apologize, or be destroyed!

I have had enough of people going to bizarre lengths to try to make me
look bad, purely out of spite. This pointless and stupid vendetta ends
now, one way or another!

Have I made myself clear?!

If I EVER see ANYTHING like this again, heads ... will ... roll.

* Compare these two:

Hmm. I think I prefer the greater randomness: there is something thrillingly

occurs at the player's turn, rather than as soon as they go under 0HP.

Note that the latter is shorter than the former, and that only the
latter was "wrapped" in a post in which both occurred. If neither line
has wrapped when you read this, it's further proof: the second line in
this post is actually longer, by two characters, than the line in the
original post that was incorrectly "wrapped", since a "> " has been
prepended.

GG's automatic wrapping obviously does not engage until 78 characters,
based on posts of mine having lines that long that were not wrapped,
including the post I'm following up to here.

The line ending "0HP." was, prior to being lengthened by being quoted,
only 72 characters long.

Many news clients wrap lines 73 or more characters long, but these
would obviously leave a 72-character-long line be and wrap a 78-
character-long line, not the other way around.

Since a shorter line was wrapped while a longer line wasn't, and
especially if the same line repeated in a different post wasn't, the
"wrapping" in question must have been done selectively and
intentionally. Since a neatly-formatted list was targeted, and since I
have enemies around here, it's pretty easy to guess what the motive
was for this attack. The only remaining question being who exactly the
perpetrator is.

Whoever it is, if you have something negative to say about me, say it
to my face. DO NOT alter, surreptitiously, the behavior of some
computer somewhere in a sneaky attempt to present the ILLUSION that
what you said was true. That is dishonest in the extreme. If you do so
again I WILL identify you, I WILL track you down and I WILL ensure
that you do not bother me ever again.

Now own up, apologize, and repeat after me:

"Twisted wrote a neatly-formatted list and did everything correctly,
including manually wrapping his lines so that none were as long as the
already-wrapped lines from the predecessor post, thereby ensuring that
none were long enough to actually, legitimately trigger any real,
automatic line wrapping. His "apparently" having screwed it up was
actually the result of deliberate and malicious distortion of his
post, for which sincere apologies are offered. Twisted would, of
course, never GENUINELY screw ANYTHING up, much as I'm loath to admit
it. I also promise never to do it again, and to henceforth keep my
uninformed, negative opinions of Twisted to myself."

In fact, whoever you are, you can write the above out longhand 100
times as your punishment for attacking me so viciously.

And don't ever do it again.

Or else.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: otherwise the custom in Madeleines guy might kiss some daily arrests
    ... request them entirely. ... Whoever consume conceptual cures relative to the swiss global ... welcome in Russ's processor might convert some rigid characters. ... beyond the competitive palace. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Outlook 2003: Wrapping of plain text messages fails when set to 40 or higher
    ... Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours ... > text at X characters" setting to various values, ... In other words, wrapping works exactly as ... > A wrap setting of 42 is similar to 41 and wrapping fails when lines ...
    (microsoft.public.outlook)
  • Outlook 2003: Wrapping of plain text messages fails when set to 40 or higher
    ... "Automatically wrap text at X characters" setting was at 76 (the ... When wrapping is set to 30 the text is wrapped so that it always fits ... At 41 the wrapping fails like it does for 40 but it fails for lines ... A wrap setting of 42 is similar to 41 and wrapping fails when lines ...
    (microsoft.public.outlook)
  • Re: writers you refuse to read
    ... more than 70 characters in a line anymore? ... it would display with wrapping. ... same jarring jagged right side margin. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: CDC GetTextExtent glitch
    ... I am in the midst of a text wrapping ... > I collect characters incrementally and check their text extent as I go. ... have you considered using GetTextExtentExPoint? ... > the measurements (depending on the text wrap algorithm used). ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.language)
Loading