Maximum Number of Fonts

[TLC]

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

 

[Ken Blake]

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]

I agree. I have 8217 fonts.

 

[Char Jackson]

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]

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.

 

[Seth]

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]

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.

 

[Char Jackson]

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.

 

[Seth]

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]

Apology accepted.

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]

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

 

[Nil]

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]

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.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

In the local context (newsgroups), "moderato" is a technical term.

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

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Typo. I meant "moderator", of course.

In the local context (newsgroups), "moderato" is a technical term.

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

 

[Nil]

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.

 

[Char Jackson]

Typo. I meant "moderator", of course.

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

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

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

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

 

[TLC]

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"?

 

[Nil]

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.