Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:04:56 -0500
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: gah! let's try that again - Re: google word list
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

On 12/20/2010 9:16 AM, Michael Walsh wrote:
>> Tamar Lindsay<dicconf at yahoo.com>  12/20/2010 2:03 AM>>>
>> On Mon, 12/20/10, Ted White<twhite8 at cox.net>  wrote:=0A>  Keith F. Lynch =
> wro=
>> te:=0A>>=A0 "Michael Walsh"<mjw at press.jhu.edu>=0A>>  wrote:=0A>>=
> =0A>>>  Too =
>> many pages to proofread would be=0A>>>  they're argument I would =
> imagine.=0A=
>>>> =0A>>  There's a great shortage of proofreaders=0A>>  everywhere.=0A=
>> =0A>  =
>> At least one of whom would point out that=0A>  it should be "their =
> argument.=
>> "=0A=0AWhich Keith did, at least on my system,=0Aby underlining the =
> word wi=
>> th =0Aa row of ^^^^ marks.=0A=0A=Tamar=0A=0A=0A
>
> Ted's email reader stripped out Keith's  ^^^^^ and your email reader =
> doesn't play well with Keith's email system.
>
> Gotta love computer standards, there are so many of them<g>.

Not sure, but Tamar may be sending "quoted printable" text, and Keith's
anti-HTML rules may not deal well with them.  Wild guess only...

The "=0A" stuff is Line Feed (LF) characters BTW.  If those get changed
into line breaks (LF on unix/Linux, CR on Mac, and CRLF on Windows), the
message is fairly readable.

-- Mike B.