[MPlayer-users] playlist file syntax

[The Wanderer]

James Gatt wrote:

> Quoting The Wanderer <inverseparadox at comcast.net>:
> 
>> James Gatt wrote:

>>> That's ok - I think we've discussed quotes in filenames to death
>>> now.
>> 
>> I don't, at least not as long as you're still advocating the sort
>> of change which started this thread. It's just that I don't feel up
>> to actually doing it at the moment.
> 
> I didn't start this thread. I am not advocating any change, and
> probably never will now.

I know you didn't start the thread, but you do seem to have been
advocating a type of change (or at least the use of a particular if
ill-defined design philosophy) to which I object. If you're willing to
drop it, however, I suppose there's not much point to my continuing to
press...

>> (Oh, incidentally: please learn to snip. It's a rare occasion when
>> retaining more than three levels of quoting depth is appropriate.)
> 
> Please don't tell me to "learn" to do something I obviously would
> already know how to do - it is rude. If I post a reply verbatim then
> that is the way I want it presented.

I didn't mean "learn how to snip", I meant "learn when it is appropriate
to snip", and "learn how much it is appropriate to snip". If you choose
to post a reply with six levels of quotation depth when no more than,
say, four (just to avoid blindly flogging my own rule) are needed, then
"the way you want it presented" is Not Acceptable by my standards - or,
indeed, by the standards of many others I've come across in my time.

It is not my intention to be rude, but I chose my phrasing deliberately.
If you find it offensive, that is your prerogative.

> If you don't want to read it then please don't.

And I don't. I am not, however, thus freed of the necessity of
downloading the entire block of duplicated text, or of storing it on my
hard drive as part of my permanent archive of received E-mail (unless,
in the latter case, I'm willing to create a hole in said archive); nor
are the intermediary transmitters freed of the necessity of re-sending
the extra bytes. The comparatively small amount of extra data involved
in a single message, or even all messages sent by a single person, is
comparatively trivial in today's high-bandwidth world, that's true - but
there is not only one person who routinely fails to snip, and when
multiplied across the number of people involved, the numbers are likely
to become significant.

The bulk of the preceding paragraph is, in part, a simple matter of
"justification after the fact" for my choosing to speak up, somewhat
mildly (and never on a first offense), to request that people adhere to
good Netiquette. If you find such a request objectionable, that is - as
I said - entirely your own problem.

And at this point (belatedly), barring the unlikely event of further
replies containing something which is on-topic, I will make no further
on-list replies to this branch of this thread. If you want to continue
discussing such things, you have my E-mail address.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.