On Fri, 9 May 2008 00:15:21 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

[content snipped]

Would you shorten your sig please! It's very interesting but also
irritating having to scroll through 11 superfluous lines of text every
time you post.

tom

--
For the first few years I ate lunch with he mathematicians. I soon found
that they were more interested in fun and games than in serious work,
so I shifted to eating with the physics table. There I stayed for a
number of years until the Nobel Prize, promotions, and offers from
other companies, removed most of the interesting people. So I shifted
to the corresponding chemistry table where I had a friend. At first I
asked what were the important problems in chemistry, then what important
problems they were working on, or problems that might lead to important
results. One day I asked, "if what they were working on was not important,
and was not likely to lead to important things, they why were they working
on them?" After that I had to eat with the engineers! -- R. W. Hamming

On Sat, 10 May 2008, G wrote:

On Fri, 9 May 2008 00:15:21 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

[content snipped]

Would you shorten your sig please! It's very interesting but also
irritating having to scroll through 11 superfluous lines of text every
time you post.

It would be if you had to. My sig changes frequently, so you don't.

Also, why do you have to scroll through it? It's at the bottom, and i
don't top-post!

tom

--
For the first few years I ate lunch with he mathematicians. I soon found
that they were more interested in fun and games than in serious work,
so I shifted to eating with the physics table. There I stayed for a
number of years until the Nobel Prize, promotions, and offers from
other companies, removed most of the interesting people. So I shifted
to the corresponding chemistry table where I had a friend. At first I
asked what were the important problems in chemistry, then what important
problems they were working on, or problems that might lead to important
results. One day I asked, "if what they were working on was not important,
and was not likely to lead to important things, they why were they working
on them?" After that I had to eat with the engineers! -- R. W. Hamming



--
For one thing at least is almost certain about the future, namely,
that very much of it will be such as we should call incredible. --
Olaf Stapledon

On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:32:26 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2008, G wrote:

On Fri, 9 May 2008 00:15:21 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

[content snipped]

Would you shorten your sig please! It's very interesting but also
irritating having to scroll through 11 superfluous lines of text every
time you post.

It would be if you had to. My sig changes frequently, so you don't.

Also, why do you have to scroll through it? It's at the bottom, and i
don't top-post!

The accepted usenet convention is that a sig. should not exceed four
lines.

Some people get upset if they are exceeded.
--
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

In article ,
Mike Roebuck wrote:

The accepted usenet convention is that a sig. should not exceed four
lines.

Some people get upset if they are exceeded.
--
[1] Regards
[2]
[3] Mike
[4]
[5] mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

But what the heck - there are fewer characters there than a single, full
80 character line.

Sam

On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:08:08 +0100, Sam Wilson
wrote:

In article ,
Mike Roebuck wrote:

The accepted usenet convention is that a sig. should not exceed four
lines.

Some people get upset if they are exceeded.
--
[1] Regards
[2]
[3] Mike
[4]
[5] mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

But what the heck - there are fewer characters there than a single, full
80 character line.

Yes - I hadn't noticed that an extra blank line had crept in.

I've fixed it now.

--
Regards

Mike
mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

In article ,
Mike Roebuck wrote:

On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:08:08 +0100, Sam Wilson
wrote:

In article ,
Mike Roebuck wrote:

The accepted usenet convention is that a sig. should not exceed four
lines.

Some people get upset if they are exceeded.
--
[1] Regards
[2]
[3] Mike
[4]
[5] mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

But what the heck - there are fewer characters there than a single, full
80 character line.

Yes - I hadn't noticed that an extra blank line had crept in.

I've fixed it now.

Oh, dear. I was joking, really... :-)

Sam

On Mon, 12 May 2008, Mike Roebuck wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:32:26 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2008, G wrote:

On Fri, 9 May 2008 00:15:21 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

[content snipped]

Would you shorten your sig please! It's very interesting but also
irritating having to scroll through 11 superfluous lines of text every
time you post.

It would be if you had to. My sig changes frequently, so you don't.

Also, why do you have to scroll through it? It's at the bottom, and i
don't top-post!

The accepted usenet convention is that a sig. should not exceed four
lines.

Oh, i know. And most of mine don't. But i like that quote ...

Some people get upset if they are exceeded.

.... and i'm willing to upset a few people once in a blue moon to use it!

tom

--
Argumentative and pedantic, oh, yes. Although it's properly called
"correct" -- Huge