The Great "Hard Return" Debate

[David]

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:47:35 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:

>    And now, folks, a demonstration of a reflowing editor and why Bill's
>arguments are moot.  Here is his text, currently.  Note the utterly horrid
>formatting with the very same hard CRs he so detests.  It looks like it is
>wrapped to, oh.... 60 characters?
>
>Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 7:12:55 AM, Bill wrote:
>> No. Your are not missing anything at all. The only
>> problem is that single strings without HRts are messed
>> with by the internet fabric for ancient reasons for
>> which I haven't grasped the technical justification.
>
>    Now witness the same block after one simple command in three editors that
>I am personally aware of.
>
>Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 7:12:55 AM, Bill wrote:
>> No. Your are not missing anything at all. The only problem is that single
>> strings without HRts are messed with by the internet fabric for ancient
>> reasons for which I haven't grasped the technical justification.
>
>    Now doesn't that look neater?

Yes it does indeed and it is exactly what I would like to be able to do but first let me make 
three points: 

1. Most members of this list use OS/2; I (now) use NT. 

2. I suspect that most members of this list could type before they could walk. I can 
manage only a few words a minute and produce everything, in the same way as I am 
writing this e-mail , using speech recognition software. 

3. I think that most members of this list are thoroughly familiar with such beasts as dlls and 
Imaps; indeed I expect the majority are on first name terms with these strange entities. 
Me? - I'm very good at clicking the icons along the top of PMmail ... 

Can anybody suggest a way that a Microsoft using,  technically backward , keyboard 
illiterate could achieve the  elegant result that Steve has demonstrated?




David