Maximum Number of Fonts

Discussion in 'alt.windows7.general' started by TLC, Sep 17, 2010.

  1. TLC

    TLC Guest

    Can the maximum number of fonts be increased from 500? If so; how?
     
    TLC, Sep 17, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. TLC

    Ken Blake Guest

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:58:28 -0400, TLC <> wrote:

    > Can the maximum number of fonts be increased from 500? If so; how?




    I don't where you got the idea that there is a 500-font limit, but
    that is not correct.
     
    Ken Blake, Sep 17, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. TLC

    MJMIII Guest

    I agree. I have 8217 fonts.

    --


    "Don't pick a fight with an old man.
    If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."


    "Ken Blake" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:58:28 -0400, TLC <> wrote:
    >
    >> Can the maximum number of fonts be increased from 500? If so; how?

    >
    >
    >
    > I don't where you got the idea that there is a 500-font limit, but
    > that is not correct.
    >
     
    MJMIII, Sep 17, 2010
    #3
  4. TLC

    Char Jackson Guest

    On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:44:15 -0400, TLC <> wrote:

    >You are both correct. I have 619 fonts. I found that it is Microsoft
    >Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
    >
    >Thanks for the replies.


    You can stop posting that same attachment now. This is at least the
    third time we've seen it. In fact, please stop posting attachments
    here, period.
     
    Char Jackson, Sep 18, 2010
    #4
  5. TLC

    TLC Guest

    Are you the moderator? Did you intercept my replies and then refuse to
    post them due to the attachment? If yes to these questions then the
    correct response should have been to inform me upon receipt of the 1st
    reply that attachments should not be included in posts. I never saw any
    of my replies and thought that, for some reason, my reply was not being
    fully received thus the 3 replies. Polite is always better than rude.

    On 9/18/2010 11:32 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:44:15 -0400, TLC<> wrote:
    >
    >> You are both correct. I have 619 fonts. I found that it is Microsoft
    >> Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
    >>
    >> Thanks for the replies.

    >
    > You can stop posting that same attachment now. This is at least the
    > third time we've seen it. In fact, please stop posting attachments
    > here, period.
    >
     
    TLC, Sep 21, 2010
    #5
  6. TLC

    Seth Guest

    "TLC" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Are you the moderator? Did you intercept my replies and then refuse to
    > post them due to the attachment? If yes to these questions then the
    > correct response should have been to inform me upon receipt of the 1st
    > reply that attachments should not be included in posts. I never saw any
    > of my replies and thought that, for some reason, my reply was not being
    > fully received thus the 3 replies. Polite is always better than rude.


    Not sure where or how you are posting, but I'm viewing your message via
    Usenet which is unmoderated.

    However I never saw your original messages as this is a non-binary group and
    as such many server don't propagate messages that contain attachments.
     
    Seth, Sep 21, 2010
    #6
  7. TLC

    TLC Guest

    The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question.
    I am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
    Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I
    did not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me
    believe they were being moderated.

    On 9/21/2010 10:57 AM, Seth wrote:
    >
    > "TLC" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Are you the moderator? Did you intercept my replies and then refuse to
    >> post them due to the attachment? If yes to these questions then the
    >> correct response should have been to inform me upon receipt of the 1st
    >> reply that attachments should not be included in posts. I never saw
    >> any of my replies and thought that, for some reason, my reply was not
    >> being fully received thus the 3 replies. Polite is always better than
    >> rude.

    >
    > Not sure where or how you are posting, but I'm viewing your message via
    > Usenet which is unmoderated.
    >
    > However I never saw your original messages as this is a non-binary group
    > and as such many server don't propagate messages that contain attachments.
    >
    >
    >
     
    TLC, Sep 22, 2010
    #7
  8. TLC

    Char Jackson Guest

    On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:07:06 -0400, TLC <> wrote:

    >The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question.
    >I am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
    >Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I
    >did not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me
    >believe they were being moderated.


    My apologies. As Seth said, this is an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup.
    In effect, you moderated yourself (in some people's eyes, including
    your own) by posting a binary attachment to a non-binary newsgroup. My
    provider, Easynews, allowed the posts through, but your provider,
    Giganews, apparently did not.
     
    Char Jackson, Sep 22, 2010
    #8
  9. TLC

    Seth Guest

    "TLC" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question. I
    > am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
    > Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I did
    > not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me believe they
    > were being moderated.


    Not moderated, but dropped.

    Ok, not the "original" message, but any replies with attachments I have not
    seen as my server ignores (not moderates, there are no moderators on Usenet)
    and drops without passing on.

    There is a difference between being moderated and having a message
    dropped/ignored because it violated the no-attachment setting of a text only
    message group.
     
    Seth, Sep 22, 2010
    #9
  10. TLC

    TLC Guest

    Apology accepted.

    On 9/21/2010 8:56 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:07:06 -0400, TLC<> wrote:
    >
    >> The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question.
    >> I am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
    >> Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I
    >> did not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me
    >> believe they were being moderated.

    >
    > My apologies. As Seth said, this is an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup.
    > In effect, you moderated yourself (in some people's eyes, including
    > your own) by posting a binary attachment to a non-binary newsgroup. My
    > provider, Easynews, allowed the posts through, but your provider,
    > Giganews, apparently did not.
    >
     
    TLC, Sep 22, 2010
    #10
  11. TLC

    TLC Guest

    Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either by a
    human being or robo software.

    On 9/22/2010 10:11 AM, Seth wrote:
    >
    > "TLC" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question.
    >> I am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
    >> Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I
    >> did not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me
    >> believe they were being moderated.

    >
    > Not moderated, but dropped.
    >
    > Ok, not the "original" message, but any replies with attachments I have
    > not seen as my server ignores (not moderates, there are no moderators on
    > Usenet) and drops without passing on.
    >
    > There is a difference between being moderated and having a message
    > dropped/ignored because it violated the no-attachment setting of a text
    > only message group.
    >
    >
     
    TLC, Sep 22, 2010
    #11
  12. TLC

    Nil Guest

    On 22 Sep 2010, TLC <> wrote in
    alt.windows7.general:

    > Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either
    > by a human being or robo software.


    No, not semantics. To be "moderated" implies that there is a group
    moderator. There is no such being, human or electronic. Attachments are
    dropped by any news server that is set up to do so, not by one central
    newsgod.
     
    Nil, Sep 22, 2010
    #12
  13. TLC

    TLC Guest

    Again, semantics. You infer that there is a group moderator, but the
    definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the excessiveness of; make
    less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous". In this case, the news
    server appears to be the moderator.

    On 9/22/2010 10:41 AM, Nil wrote:
    > On 22 Sep 2010, TLC<> wrote in
    > alt.windows7.general:
    >
    >> Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either
    >> by a human being or robo software.

    >
    > No, not semantics. To be "moderated" implies that there is a group
    > moderator. There is no such being, human or electronic. Attachments are
    > dropped by any news server that is set up to do so, not by one central
    > newsgod.
     
    TLC, Sep 22, 2010
    #13
  14. In the local context (newsgroups), "moderato" is a technical term.

    In a classical mechanics class, would you insist that "gravity" is
    defined as "seriousness"?

    On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:19:34 -0400, TLC wrote:

    > Again, semantics. You infer that there is a group moderator, but the
    > definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the excessiveness of; make
    > less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous". In this case, the news
    > server appears to be the moderator.
    >
    > On 9/22/2010 10:41 AM, Nil wrote:
    >> On 22 Sep 2010, TLC<> wrote in
    >> alt.windows7.general:
    >>
    >>> Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either
    >>> by a human being or robo software.

    >>
    >> No, not semantics. To be "moderated" implies that there is a group
    >> moderator. There is no such being, human or electronic. Attachments are
    >> dropped by any news server that is set up to do so, not by one central
    >> newsgod.



    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Sep 22, 2010
    #14
  15. Typo. I meant "moderator", of course.

    On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:36:27 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

    > In the local context (newsgroups), "moderato" is a technical term.
    >
    > In a classical mechanics class, would you insist that "gravity" is
    > defined as "seriousness"?
    >
    > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:19:34 -0400, TLC wrote:
    >
    >> Again, semantics. You infer that there is a group moderator, but the
    >> definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the excessiveness of; make
    >> less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous". In this case, the news
    >> server appears to be the moderator.
    >>
    >> On 9/22/2010 10:41 AM, Nil wrote:
    >>> On 22 Sep 2010, TLC<> wrote in
    >>> alt.windows7.general:
    >>>
    >>>> Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either
    >>>> by a human being or robo software.
    >>>
    >>> No, not semantics. To be "moderated" implies that there is a group
    >>> moderator. There is no such being, human or electronic. Attachments are
    >>> dropped by any news server that is set up to do so, not by one central
    >>> newsgod.



    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Sep 22, 2010
    #15
  16. TLC

    Nil Guest

    On 22 Sep 2010, TLC <> wrote in
    alt.windows7.general:

    > Again, semantics. You infer that there is a group moderator, but
    > the definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the
    > excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or
    > rigorous". In this case, the news server appears to be the
    > moderator.


    That is not what "moderator" means in newsgroup/discussion forum
    jargon. You are misusing the term.
     
    Nil, Sep 23, 2010
    #16
  17. TLC

    Char Jackson Guest

    On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:56:12 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
    <> wrote:

    >Typo. I meant "moderator", of course.
    >
    >On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:36:27 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
    >
    >> In the local context (newsgroups), "moderato" is a technical term.


    I thought you were displaying your knowledge of Latin. ;-)
     
    Char Jackson, Sep 23, 2010
    #17
  18. On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:31:49 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

    > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:56:12 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Typo. I meant "moderator", of course.
    >>
    >>On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:36:27 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
    >>
    >>> In the local context (newsgroups), "moderato" is a technical term.

    >
    > I thought you were displaying your knowledge of Latin. ;-)


    Nah, it's all Greek to me...

    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Sep 23, 2010
    #18
  19. TLC

    TLC Guest

    So, you're saying that: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and
    quacks like a duck, according to Usenet it's probably a pigeon. Where
    can I find the official dictionary of "newsgroup/discussion forum jargon"?

    On 9/22/2010 9:07 PM, Nil wrote:
    > On 22 Sep 2010, TLC<> wrote in
    > alt.windows7.general:
    >
    >> Again, semantics. You infer that there is a group moderator, but
    >> the definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the
    >> excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or
    >> rigorous". In this case, the news server appears to be the
    >> moderator.

    >
    > That is not what "moderator" means in newsgroup/discussion forum
    > jargon. You are misusing the term.
     
    TLC, Sep 23, 2010
    #19
  20. TLC

    Nil Guest

    On 23 Sep 2010, TLC <> wrote in
    alt.windows7.general:

    > So, you're saying that: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck
    > and quacks like a duck, according to Usenet it's probably a
    > pigeon. Where can I find the official dictionary of
    > "newsgroup/discussion forum jargon"?


    You're not going to find anyone who understands how internet discussion
    groups work that will agrees with you, so you can stop trying to
    shoehorn inappropriate definitions into the term.

    Your delete key is not a moderator.
     
    Nil, Sep 23, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.