On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:42:56 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:33:54 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 5:30:08 PM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> >> IKEA measures shelves in centimeters.
> >My Billys are 36" (inches).
>
> Wow! I have the same bookcases as Peter T. Daniels. IKEA unites the
> world, and creates a common and shared world-culture! Perhaps George
> Soros should sponsor them!?

Except they stopped making the 20" ones, they stopped making the
extender that goes on top, and they stopped making the light fixtures
that attach to the top shelf. (The corner unit seemed to me to waste
space, so I didn't get one.)

There's really no reason but the meatballs to go there any more.

Fri, 15 Oct 2021 06:41:30 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:40:56 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:32:26 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >> O wait, you already object to having to scroll INSIDE the index. And
>> >> how's that in a paper book? You see it all in one glance?
>> >
>> >I can put my finger 10 pages later and flip to it, while keeping another
>> >finger in the first spot.
>> Yes. With hyperlinks, the computer does that for you. How convenient!
>
>No. Not one, then the other, then the first one, with pauses in between.
>Both at the same time, and then another. And a whole page at once, not
>a part of the page that I've had to enlarge to be able to read.

You can buy bigger screen if that is you problem. For me, and average
sized laptop suffices.

>> >Maybe I want to see how the references to "Phoneme" line up with the
>> >references to "Alphabet." How often do they appear on the same page?
>>
>> In a browser, you can open each in a different tab. Unfortunately the
>
>And see one tab at a time. How helpful.
>
>> good old MDI (multi document interface), which let you see both side
>> by side, has been abandoned by most modern software including
>> browsers. I think Opera kept it around for quite a while. I never
>> understood why it had to go.
>
>Because computer jocks have no understanding of research.
>
>> >> >> >> > You have mentioned before that you do not use books. Maybe you
>> >> >> >> > don't know any better.
>> >> >> >> Pity you can't see my working room. Some 5 yards of bookshelves,
>> >> >> >> from bottom to ceiling.
>> >> >> >That's one bookcase.
>> >> >> So I should have had more of them?
>> >> >If you were a serious scholar. you would have.
>> >> Good my wife doesn't read this.
>> >Does she also think you're not a serious scholar?
>>
>> She does, and doesn't care.
>
>Sounds like you were lucky.

I am.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 1:11:50 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 15 Oct 2021 06:41:30 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:40:56 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:32:26 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

No, he did not. Do not falsify attributions.

> >> >> O wait, you already object to having to scroll INSIDE the index. And
> >> >> how's that in a paper book? You see it all in one glance?
> >> >I can put my finger 10 pages later and flip to it, while keeping another
> >> >finger in the first spot.
> >> Yes. With hyperlinks, the computer does that for you. How convenient!
> >No. Not one, then the other, then the first one, with pauses in between.
> >Both at the same time, and then another. And a whole page at once, not
> >a part of the page that I've had to enlarge to be able to read.
>
> You can buy bigger screen if that is you problem. For me, and average
> sized laptop suffices.

I haven't seen a portrait-oriented monitor in decades. The equipment
Oxford bought me so I could typeset *The World's Writing Systems*
included a Radius Pivot monitor, which I usually kept in Portrait mode.
Unfortunately, by the time color came along, they no longer made Radius
Pivots.

Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:32:12 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 1:11:50 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Fri, 15 Oct 2021 06:41:30 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:40:56 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:32:26 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>No, he did not. Do not falsify attributions.

If you break in at the wrong spot, you create the seemingly incorrect
attribution yourself. All the attributions were computer-generated
and are correct, I just checked them in my original post.

>> >> >> O wait, you already object to having to scroll INSIDE the index. And
>> >> >> how's that in a paper book? You see it all in one glance?

You did write the followed. Marked with five >s, and the attribution
had four.

>> >> >I can put my finger 10 pages later and flip to it, while keeping another
>> >> >finger in the first spot.
>> >> Yes. With hyperlinks, the computer does that for you. How convenient!

You wrote this too. Three >s, the attribution way above has two.

>> >No. Not one, then the other, then the first one, with pauses in between.
>> >Both at the same time, and then another. And a whole page at once, not
>> >a part of the page that I've had to enlarge to be able to read.
>>
>> You can buy bigger screen if that is you problem. For me, and average
>> sized laptop suffices.
>
>I haven't seen a portrait-oriented monitor in decades.

So put two portrait pages side by side, on a standard landscape
monitor?

> The equipment
>Oxford bought me so I could typeset *The World's Writing Systems*
>included a Radius Pivot monitor, which I usually kept in Portrait mode.
>Unfortunately, by the time color came along, they no longer made Radius
>Pivots.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On 2021-10-14 20:35:30 +0000, Christian Weisgerber said:

> On 2021-10-14, Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Some unscrupulous interior decorating firms sell "books by the yard"
>> for those who wish to have an impressive-looking library. People with
>> actual (functioning) libraries describe the shelving in feet. AUE has
>> discussed road signs that are given in (fractions of) miles and (for
>> very short distances) feet.
>
> Why are you talking in 18th century units?

Because he's American. That's what they do. They still run their
country on the basis of a largely 18th century Constitution. When he
says "People with actual (functioning) libraries describe the shelving
in feet" he means that people he knows in the USA do that.
>
>> Have you ever noticed what IKEA displays on the shelves of its
>> model bookcases?
>
> IKEA measures shelves in centimeters.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:52:19 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:32:12 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
> >On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 1:11:50 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Fri, 15 Oct 2021 06:41:30 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:40:56 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:32:26 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

> >No, he did not. Do not falsify attributions.
>
> If you break in at the wrong spot, you create the seemingly incorrect
> attribution yourself. All the attributions were computer-generated
> and are correct, I just checked them in my original post.

That is entirely false. I did not write the first line of your message, you did,
but your attribution line was and is missing.

> >> >> >> O wait, you already object to having to scroll INSIDE the index. And
> >> >> >> how's that in a paper book? You see it all in one glance?
>
> You did write the followed. Marked with five >s, and the attribution
> had four.

"the following"

Of course I did. I did not, however, write the two lines above your "You
did write."

> >> >> >I can put my finger 10 pages later and flip to it, while keeping another
> >> >> >finger in the first spot.
> >> >> Yes. With hyperlinks, the computer does that for you. How convenient!
> You wrote this too. Three >s, the attribution way above has two.
> >> >No. Not one, then the other, then the first one, with pauses in between.
> >> >Both at the same time, and then another. And a whole page at once, not
> >> >a part of the page that I've had to enlarge to be able to read.
> >> You can buy bigger screen if that is you problem. For me, and average
> >> sized laptop suffices.
> >I haven't seen a portrait-oriented monitor in decades.
>
> So put two portrait pages side by side, on a standard landscape
> monitor?

What "standard" monitor is 11" high and 17" across? Or, since you
have trouble with "customary units," what "standard monitor" is
big enough to display an entire A3 sheet of paper at at least full
size (bigger, actually, because of the distance between screen
and eyes)?

And another thing. I am reminded while flipping through a book
to find a passage I intended to quote, I can put pencil marks in
the margin to draw attention to important or interesting or mistaken
bits. Don't tell me to use the Comment feature. a pencil mark takes
a moment. A Comment takes far more than a moment and breaks
concentration.

When I got a book from the U of Chicago library, I saw from certain
marks in the margin that I.J. Gelb had read it closely. When the
library was going to an electronic charging system and they were
discarding the book cards in the pockets, a friend of mine came
across one that had been signed by both Leonard Bloomfield and
Edward Sapir. (In the 1920s.) Such connections -- and also, such
information about what specific people had been reading when
they were creating our fields of study -- are irretrievably lost with
the demise of paper.

> > The equipment
> >Oxford bought me so I could typeset *The World's Writing Systems*
> >included a Radius Pivot monitor, which I usually kept in Portrait mode.
> >Unfortunately, by the time color came along, they no longer made Radius
> >Pivots.

Sat, 16 Oct 2021 06:51:24 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:52:19 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:32:12 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>> >On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 1:11:50 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Fri, 15 Oct 2021 06:41:30 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >> >On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:40:56 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> >> Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:32:26 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> >No, he did not. Do not falsify attributions.
>>
>> If you break in at the wrong spot, you create the seemingly incorrect
>> attribution yourself. All the attributions were computer-generated
>> and are correct, I just checked them in my original post.
>
>That is entirely false. I did not write the first line of your message, you did,
>but your attribution line was and is missing.

I can't help it if you can't count the >'s.

Sat, 16 Oct 2021 06:51:24 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>What "standard" monitor is 11" high and 17" across? Or, since you
>have trouble with "customary units,"

I haven't. I had to deal with them on a daily basis, translating
American technical texts. https://joshmadison.com/convert-for-windows/
is great. Runs perfectly under Wine too, so I can use it under Linux
Mint.

>what "standard monitor" is
>big enough to display an entire A3 sheet of paper at at least full
>size (bigger, actually, because of the distance between screen
>and eyes)?

What books are published in A3 or similar pages sizes? A5 is much more
realistic. Or in between A4 and A5.

On https://coolblue.nl I see affordable 24 inch monitors (yes, TVs,
computer screens, and car and bicycle tyres are still measured in
inches, even in Europe), for example the
https://www.coolblue.nl/product/874383/philips-241v8la-00.html,
Philips model Philips 241V8LA/00 at 159 euro (including 21% VAT),
about 185 USD.

The resolution is 1920x1080 pixels, Pythagoras tells me that makes the
diagonal 2203 pixels. That is the 24 inch. So the height of this
screen is almost 30 cm (11.75 inch), which fits the height of a
portrait A4 page. It's about 20.9 inch wide, 53 cm, while the width of
A3 landscape 42 cm (twice the width of A4 portrait,
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4_(papierformaat)>. So yes, A3 fits,
i.e. two A4 pages side by side.

27, 32, and 34 inch screens are also avaibable, at prices still under
900 euros. I think the Samsung would be great for you:
https://www.coolblue.nl/product/886512/samsung-odyssey-g70a-uhd-gaming.html
Samsung Odyssey G70A UHD Gaming, at 829 euros (962 dollars).

Prices of this type of equipment tend to be lower in the US than in
Europe.

>And another thing. I am reminded while flipping through a book
>to find a passage I intended to quote, I can put pencil marks in
>the margin to draw attention to important or interesting or mistaken
>bits. Don't tell me to use the Comment feature. a pencil mark takes
>a moment. A Comment takes far more than a moment and breaks
>concentration.

I proofread some books that were available as PDF. For the recent one,
I used the program okular for Linux. It has 'text notes' and 'pop-up
notes'. I also remember it was possible to set green and yellow
markers. I didn't like the interface, but once used to it, it was
workable.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 10:35:53 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 06:51:24 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
> >On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:52:19 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:32:12 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 1:11:50 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Fri, 15 Oct 2021 06:41:30 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >> >On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:40:56 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> >> Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:32:26 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

> >> >No, he did not. Do not falsify attributions.
> >> If you break in at the wrong spot, you create the seemingly incorrect
> >> attribution yourself. All the attributions were computer-generated
> >> and are correct, I just checked them in my original post.
> >That is entirely false. I did not write the first line of your message, you did,
> >but your attribution line was and is missing.
>
> I can't help it if you can't count the >'s.

It has nothing to do with counting chevrons. The correct number of
chevrons for my attribution and my first lines was given.

But you deleted your own name from the attributions and did not
delete the lines it introduced.

As was clearly visible in what you deleted above.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 11:29:24 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 06:51:24 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >What "standard" monitor is 11" high and 17" across? Or, since you
> >have trouble with "customary units,"
> I haven't. I had to deal with them on a daily basis, translating
> American technical texts. https://joshmadison.com/convert-for-windows/
> is great. Runs perfectly under Wine too, so I can use it under Linux
> Mint.
> >what "standard monitor" is
> >big enough to display an entire A3 sheet of paper at at least full
> >size (bigger, actually, because of the distance between screen
> >and eyes)?
>
> What books are published in A3 or similar pages sizes? A5 is much more
> realistic. Or in between A4 and A5.

What on earth are you talking about? Papers are prepared on
letter-size ("A4") paper. You claimed that a "standard monitor"
can accommodate A4 paper (11" high). In a landscape-orientation
monitor of normal proportions, there would be plenty of room for
two of them side by side, which is A3. That is not a standard-size
monitor.

Otherwise, your "solution" is not one.

> On https://coolblue.nl I see affordable 24 inch monitors (yes, TVs,
> computer screens, and car and bicycle tyres are still measured in
> inches, even in Europe), for example the
> https://www.coolblue.nl/product/874383/philips-241v8la-00.html,
> Philips model Philips 241V8LA/00 at 159 euro (including 21% VAT),
> about 185 USD.

Monitor sizes give the diagonal measure (did you not know that?).
What is the vertical measure of the screen?

> The resolution is 1920x1080 pixels, Pythagoras tells me that makes the
> diagonal 2203 pixels. That is the 24 inch. So the height of this
> screen is almost 30 cm (11.75 inch), which fits the height of a
> portrait A4 page. It's about 20.9 inch wide, 53 cm, while the width of
> A3 landscape 42 cm (twice the width of A4 portrait,
> <https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4_(papierformaat)>. So yes, A3 fits,
> i.e. two A4 pages side by side.

I'll happily await your transfer of $185 to my account.

Similar (presumably; not the same number) models are available from
amazon for $181.01 and from Walmart at $274.99. (Those are the
first two ads that show up when searching the model number.)

The exact model is available from something called Tech INN,
where it is descried as a "gaming monitor." Tech INN is one of
many brands under Trade INN, which suggests they deal in
second-hand merchandise.

> 27, 32, and 34 inch screens are also avaibable, at prices still under
> 900 euros. I think the Samsung would be great for you:
> https://www.coolblue.nl/product/886512/samsung-odyssey-g70a-uhd-gaming.html
> Samsung Odyssey G70A UHD Gaming, at 829 euros (962 dollars).
>
> Prices of this type of equipment tend to be lower in the US than in
> Europe.
>
> >And another thing. I am reminded while flipping through a book
> >to find a passage I intended to quote, I can put pencil marks in
> >the margin to draw attention to important or interesting or mistaken
> >bits. Don't tell me to use the Comment feature. a pencil mark takes
> >a moment. A Comment takes far more than a moment and breaks
> >concentration.
>
> I proofread some books that were available as PDF. For the recent one,
> I used the program okular for Linux. It has 'text notes' and 'pop-up
> notes'. I also remember it was possible to set green and yellow
> markers. I didn't like the interface, but once used to it, it was
> workable.

Whatever you're describing, it is not like a pencil.

Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:13:11 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 10:35:53 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 06:51:24 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>> >On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:52:19 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:32:12 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 1:11:50 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> >> Fri, 15 Oct 2021 06:41:30 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >> >> >On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:40:56 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> >> >> Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:32:26 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> >> >No, he did not. Do not falsify attributions.
>> >> If you break in at the wrong spot, you create the seemingly incorrect
>> >> attribution yourself. All the attributions were computer-generated
>> >> and are correct, I just checked them in my original post.
>> >That is entirely false. I did not write the first line of your message, you did,
>> >but your attribution line was and is missing.
>>
>> I can't help it if you can't count the >'s.
>
>It has nothing to do with counting chevrons. The correct number of
>chevrons for my attribution and my first lines was given.

So what are you nagging about? I did nothing wrong.

>But you deleted your own name from the attributions and did not
>delete the lines it introduced.

I snip irrelevant material, I quote only short reminders of what
preceded. As a principle. More people should do that. It belongs to
Usenet Best Practices Avant la Lettre. That many people choose not to
understand that or practice that, is not my problem. And Google Groups
facilitates the wrongdoers. So be it. But just don't come accusing me.

>As was clearly visible in what you deleted above.

Deleting irrelevant lines in a quote IS A MUST. Those whose are too
lazy to do that, are polluting the news group.

This is 22 years old. (And I was on Usenet earlier than that, 10 years
earlier.) https://rudhar.com/sfreview/plyafter.htm
I'm still behind what I wrote then. But I also learned that people
commonly refuse to understand or follow that, they prefer to work in a
mess. So be it. I have learnt to accept reality.

Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:25:52 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 11:29:24 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 06:51:24 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >What "standard" monitor is 11" high and 17" across? Or, since you
>> >have trouble with "customary units,"
>> I haven't. I had to deal with them on a daily basis, translating
>> American technical texts. https://joshmadison.com/convert-for-windows/
>> is great. Runs perfectly under Wine too, so I can use it under Linux
>> Mint.
>> >what "standard monitor" is
>> >big enough to display an entire A3 sheet of paper at at least full
>> >size (bigger, actually, because of the distance between screen
>> >and eyes)?
>>
>> What books are published in A3 or similar pages sizes? A5 is much more
>> realistic. Or in between A4 and A5.
>
>What on earth are you talking about? Papers are prepared on
>letter-size ("A4") paper.

No. Letter is nowhere near A4. Nor is legal. They are American
formats, didn't you know?

And may I remind you that it was YOU who started about A3? So yes,
that is what I am talking about. I respond to your message. Do you
find that strange?

>You claimed that a "standard monitor"
>can accommodate A4 paper (11" high). In a landscape-orientation
>monitor of normal proportions, there would be plenty of room for
>two of them side by side, which is A3. That is not a standard-size
>monitor.
>
>Otherwise, your "solution" is not one.

What about reading on before posting uselessly uninformed comments?

>> On https://coolblue.nl I see affordable 24 inch monitors (yes, TVs,
>> computer screens, and car and bicycle tyres are still measured in
>> inches, even in Europe), for example the
>> https://www.coolblue.nl/product/874383/philips-241v8la-00.html,
>> Philips model Philips 241V8LA/00 at 159 euro (including 21% VAT),
>> about 185 USD.
>
>Monitor sizes give the diagonal measure (did you not know that?).

I did. I even mention it in the following. Didn't you read it?

>What is the vertical measure of the screen?

I was about to go calculate that, you failed to read that before you
started commenting.

You have this sick desire to portray yourself as the renowned scholar
(which I think you are; in your field), and belittle everybody else.
Why? Screaming over some fears of your own?

Anyway, it doesn't work, and has never work. I am who I am, I know
what I know, and I admit weaknesses and mistakes. You don't, because
you can't. And that is your weakness.

>> The resolution is 1920x1080 pixels, Pythagoras tells me that makes the
>> diagonal 2203 pixels. That is the 24 inch. So the height of this
>> screen is almost 30 cm (11.75 inch), which fits the height of a
>> portrait A4 page. It's about 20.9 inch wide, 53 cm, while the width of
>> A3 landscape 42 cm (twice the width of A4 portrait,
>> <https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4_(papierformaat)>. So yes, A3 fits,
>> i.e. two A4 pages side by side.
>
>I'll happily await your transfer of $185 to my account.

Alas.

Perhaps somebody else will start some kind of crowd surfing, or
whatever it's called.

>Similar (presumably; not the same number) models are available from
>amazon for $181.01 and from Walmart at $274.99. (Those are the
>first two ads that show up when searching the model number.)
>
>The exact model is available from something called Tech INN,
>where it is descried as a "gaming monitor." Tech INN is one of
>many brands under Trade INN, which suggests they deal in
>second-hand merchandise.
>
>> 27, 32, and 34 inch screens are also avaibable, at prices still under
>> 900 euros. I think the Samsung would be great for you:
>> https://www.coolblue.nl/product/886512/samsung-odyssey-g70a-uhd-gaming.html
>> Samsung Odyssey G70A UHD Gaming, at 829 euros (962 dollars).
>>
>> Prices of this type of equipment tend to be lower in the US than in
>> Europe.
>>
>> >And another thing. I am reminded while flipping through a book
>> >to find a passage I intended to quote, I can put pencil marks in
>> >the margin to draw attention to important or interesting or mistaken
>> >bits. Don't tell me to use the Comment feature. a pencil mark takes
>> >a moment. A Comment takes far more than a moment and breaks
>> >concentration.
>>
>> I proofread some books that were available as PDF. For the recent one,
>> I used the program okular for Linux. It has 'text notes' and 'pop-up
>> notes'. I also remember it was possible to set green and yellow
>> markers. I didn't like the interface, but once used to it, it was
>> workable.
>
>Whatever you're describing, it is not like a pencil.

And a pencil is a lot cheaper, so everybody's happy.

Meanwhile, I'll continue working on my current web articles (for free,
as I'm finally retired), which of course are HTML5 only. Nothing else
is needed. A text editor, and a browser for testing. I love it.

https://rudhar.com/sfreview/html5.htm
Quote:
"But then, why include a doctype in the first place? It’s simply html,
suggesting HTML5 will be the holy grail forever and there will never
be a HTML6. And I like that; why change or replace things every few
years if they work fine?"

I'm just as conservative as you, Peter T. Daniels, and only slightly
younger, at 66.

O, and Unicode and UTF8, of course, we need that too. And it is
universally available. We live in glorious times.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:13:11 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
> >On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 10:35:53 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 06:51:24 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >>
> >> >On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:52:19 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:32:12 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 1:11:50 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> >> Fri, 15 Oct 2021 06:41:30 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >> >> >On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:40:56 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:32:26 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >
> >> >> >No, he did not. Do not falsify attributions.
> >> >> If you break in at the wrong spot, you create the seemingly incorrect
> >> >> attribution yourself. All the attributions were computer-generated
> >> >> and are correct, I just checked them in my original post.
> >> >That is entirely false. I did not write the first line of your message, you did,
> >> >but your attribution line was and is missing.
> >>
> >> I can't help it if you can't count the >'s.
> >
> >It has nothing to do with counting chevrons. The correct number of
> >chevrons for my attribution and my first lines was given.
> So what are you nagging about? I did nothing wrong.
> >But you deleted your own name from the attributions and did not
> >delete the lines it introduced.
> I snip irrelevant material, I quote only short reminders of what

Its relevance is irrelevant. You failed to delete some lines, but you
did delete the attribution of those lines.

> preceded. As a principle. More people should do that. It belongs to
> Usenet Best Practices Avant la Lettre. That many people choose not to
> understand that or practice that, is not my problem. And Google Groups
> facilitates the wrongdoers. So be it. But just don't come accusing me.
> >As was clearly visible in what you deleted above.
> Deleting irrelevant lines in a quote IS A MUST. Those whose are too
> lazy to do that, are polluting the news group.

If the two lines of yours that you didn't delete were relevant, then so
was the attribution for those two lines.

> This is 22 years old. (And I was on Usenet earlier than that, 10 years
> earlier.) https://rudhar.com/sfreview/plyafter.htm
> I'm still behind what I wrote then. But I also learned that people
> commonly refuse to understand or follow that, they prefer to work in a
> mess. So be it. I have learnt to accept reality.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 3:27:59 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:25:52 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

> >What on earth are you talking about? Papers are prepared on
> >letter-size ("A4") paper.
>
> No. Letter is nowhere near A4. Nor is legal. They are American
> formats, didn't you know?

You appear incredibly ignorant. A letter-size pdf comes out just fine
on A4, an A4 pdf comes out just fine on letter. A4 is slightly taller
and slightly narrower than letter.

By the way, you can use any modern TV as a computer monitor too, if
you have an HDMI cable. They are often larger than screens meant for
computers.

(Where "modern" means: 10 or 15 years, maybe even a lot longer.)

Absent a cable, it can also be done wirelessly, by buying a Google
Chromecast (they're quite cheap), and casting the computer from Google
Chrome to the TV (or whatever else the Chromecast is attached to with
its 3-inch HDMI cable). This is the standard we now watch television.

Just like telephone, television, radio and internet are quickly
getting integrated to one whole, which in fact is internet, computer
screens and television screens are now essentially the same thing too.

Sat, 16 Oct 2021 12:46:54 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 3:27:59 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:25:52 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> >What on earth are you talking about? Papers are prepared on
>> >letter-size ("A4") paper.
>>
>> No. Letter is nowhere near A4. Nor is legal. They are American
>> formats, didn't you know?
>
>You appear incredibly ignorant. A letter-size pdf comes out just fine
>on A4, an A4 pdf comes out just fine on letter. A4 is slightly taller
>and slightly narrower than letter.

Right. So they don't fit.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 2:05:04 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 12:46:54 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
> >On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 3:27:59 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:25:52 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

> >> >What on earth are you talking about? Papers are prepared on
> >> >letter-size ("A4") paper.
> >> No. Letter is nowhere near A4. Nor is legal. They are American
> >> formats, didn't you know?
> >You appear incredibly ignorant. A letter-size pdf comes out just fine
> >on A4, an A4 pdf comes out just fine on letter. A4 is slightly taller
> >and slightly narrower than letter.
>
> Right. So they don't fit.

What "don't fit" what?????????

Adjust the bracket on the paper tray a few mm and I could use A4
paper in it, if it were available here.

Sun, 17 Oct 2021 05:30:39 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 2:05:04 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 12:46:54 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>> >On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 3:27:59 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:25:52 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> >> >What on earth are you talking about? Papers are prepared on
>> >> >letter-size ("A4") paper.
>> >> No. Letter is nowhere near A4. Nor is legal. They are American
>> >> formats, didn't you know?
>> >You appear incredibly ignorant. A letter-size pdf comes out just fine
>> >on A4, an A4 pdf comes out just fine on letter. A4 is slightly taller
>> >and slightly narrower than letter.
>>
>> Right. So they don't fit.

>What "don't fit" what?????????

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fit
" to be the proper size, shape, etc. for "
here more specifically:
"to be the same size etc."

https://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-a4-and-letter-paper-sizes

>Adjust the bracket on the paper tray a few mm and I could use A4
>paper in it, if it were available here.

..7 inch short in top and bottom margin, .2 width surplus.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 8:48:23 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sun, 17 Oct 2021 05:30:39 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
> >On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 2:05:04 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 12:46:54 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 3:27:59 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:25:52 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

> >> >> >What on earth are you talking about? Papers are prepared on
> >> >> >letter-size ("A4") paper.
> >> >> No. Letter is nowhere near A4. Nor is legal. They are American
> >> >> formats, didn't you know?
> >> >You appear incredibly ignorant. A letter-size pdf comes out just fine
> >> >on A4, an A4 pdf comes out just fine on letter. A4 is slightly taller
> >> >and slightly narrower than letter.
> >> Right. So they don't fit.
> >What "don't fit" what?????????
>
> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fit
> " to be the proper size, shape, etc. for "
> here more specifically:
> "to be the same size etc."

I still don't know what is supposed to fit where. I did not use the word.

> https://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-a4-and-letter-paper-sizes
>
> >Adjust the bracket on the paper tray a few mm and I could use A4
> >paper in it, if it were available here.
>
> .7 inch short in top and bottom margin, .2 width surplus.

When I email a .pdf to Europe so that they can print my handout,
there is never a problem when they use A4. Letter is 8 1/2 x 11, A4 is
210 x 297 mm, which this manufacturer gives as 8 1/4 x 11 3/4 (and
its equivalences are in 1/16s). (The calculator tells me that 11 3/4 is
actually too high.) Maybe you don't know that things on paper have
margins.

https://www.neenahpaper.com/resources/paper-101/international-sizes

Sun, 17 Oct 2021 10:38:51 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 8:48:23 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sun, 17 Oct 2021 05:30:39 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>> >On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 2:05:04 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 12:46:54 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >> >On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 3:27:59 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> >> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:25:52 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> >> >> >What on earth are you talking about? Papers are prepared on
>> >> >> >letter-size ("A4") paper.
>> >> >> No. Letter is nowhere near A4. Nor is legal. They are American
>> >> >> formats, didn't you know?
>> >> >You appear incredibly ignorant. A letter-size pdf comes out just fine
>> >> >on A4, an A4 pdf comes out just fine on letter. A4 is slightly taller
>> >> >and slightly narrower than letter.
>> >> Right. So they don't fit.
>> >What "don't fit" what?????????
>>
>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fit
>> " to be the proper size, shape, etc. for "
>> here more specifically:
>> "to be the same size etc."
>
>I still don't know what is supposed to fit where. I did not use the word.
>
>> https://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-a4-and-letter-paper-sizes
>>
>> >Adjust the bracket on the paper tray a few mm and I could use A4
>> >paper in it, if it were available here.
>>
>> .7 inch short in top and bottom margin, .2 width surplus.
>
>When I email a .pdf to Europe so that they can print my handout,
>there is never a problem when they use A4. Letter is 8 1/2 x 11, A4 is
>210 x 297 mm, which this manufacturer gives as 8 1/4 x 11 3/4 (and
>its equivalences are in 1/16s). (The calculator tells me that 11 3/4 is
>actually too high.) Maybe you don't know that things on paper have
>margins.

Margin?? What's that? This is completely new to me?
And padding? And stuffing?

>https://www.neenahpaper.com/resources/paper-101/international-sizes

Never seen that begore! Thanckxs!!!
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com