Path: utzoo!utstat!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!sumax!roise From: roise@sumax.UUCP (Linda Roise) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: Line wrap? Message-ID: <1258@sumax.UUCP> Date: 18 Feb 90 23:20:20 GMT References: <2933.25D60BEC@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> <10183@hoptoad.uucp> Reply-To: roise@sumax.UUCP (Linda Roise) Organization: Addiction Studies Program, Seattle University Lines: 31 In article peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >My own experience >with message systems like Fido and Opus and TBBS that do smart wrapping is >that it's more of a pain than it's worth. These days everyone's got 80 >column terminals, even on 8-bitters, so perhaps it's time to quit catering >to old hardware on *both* sides. Having experienced trying to use various BBSs and Unix systems with some nonstandard (read: old) hardware, I'd hate to put anyone out of business who hasn't got the bucks to upgrade. But I have to agree with Peter that the wordwrap on systems is a pain in the neck when one is used to having a choice. I would like to be able to append a .signature and have it stay formatted the way I had it in the first place. I've tried to figure out a way to fox those systems into leaving it alone, but a space at the beginning of the line doesn't always work. And I am aware that since what I want left alone is 80-column text, those with 40-column machines will get a strange result. I suppose that since one of the beauties of computer communication is the ability of incompatible machines to talk to each other (which to me is a miracle in itself), it's a good idea to cultivate tolerance for small annoyances. Provided that, to you, they ARE small ones. -- Linda L. Roise, M.A. : uucp :{uw-beaver,uunet!gtenmc!dataio}!sumax!roise Addiction Studies Pgm : Internet: roise@{blake,max,uwacdc}.acs.washington.edu Seattle University : BITNet : roise@max.acs.washington.edu Seattle, WA 98122______: Voice___: (206) 296-5351_____________________________