[Pan-users] One-off colorization of attributions.

[Eric Ortega]

I wish, I wish, Santa Claus could figure out this magic.  I want a
newsreader that is capable of color-coding responses with posts in the
proper, and not one-off, fashion.  It would reduce many, many headaches.

I realize that it's "been this way" since day one (well before PAN
existed) but even after so many years of dealing with it, it's driving
me bonkers once again.  It would be nice if the newsreader that I use
could handle it in a somewhat abnormal, but much more sane, way.

If only Usenet clients could have gotten this done "right" in the beginning
we would have probably reduced many a mis-quoted text.



Allow me to demonstrate WTH I'm talking about, from a group I lurk in, 
rec.gambling.sports:


  On 13 Jan 2003 21:38:38 GMT, address@hidden (HC) wrote:

  <snip irrelevant text>
  
  >From: The Beet Man address@hidden 
  >
  >>On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:55:32 GMT, g e e k . t r a g e d y
  >><address@hidden> wrote:
  >>
  >>>On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:37:50 -0500, "HC" <address@hidden> wrote:
  >>>
  >>>>
  >>>>"Bushay" <address@hidden> wrote in message
  >>>>news:address@hidden
  >>>>>
  >>>>>
  >>>>> The Beet Man wrote:
  >>>>> > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:58:27 GMT, "Von Fourche"
  >>>>> > <address@hidden> wrote:
  >>>>> >
  >>>>> >
  >>>>> >>
  >>>>> >>   What does it mean when a line is listed as OFF?
  >>>>> >
  >>>>> >
  >>>>> > OFF the board, often due to an injury but sometimes due to other
  >>>>> > concerns.  Sometimes it's listed as "OTB" but that could be
  >>>>> > confused
  >>>>> > with "Off Track Betting" I guess.
  >>>>>
  >>>>> And you could be confused as an idiot....I guess.
  >>>>
  >>>>He could be as confused as you?  I doubt it.
  >>>>
  >>>rupee, oh rupee, spit out your quill.
  >>>the pie is a-coolin' on the windowsill.
  >>>
  >>>rupee, oh rupee, get down on your knee.
  >>>i like you to beg, i love when you plea.
  >>>
  >>>rupee, oh rupee, daffodil butt.
  >>>an earring, a clambake, and your paper cut.
  >>>
  >>>rupee, oh rupee, for where art thou, eh?
  >>>the pans are all stillborn, so whadya say?
  >>>
  >>>end.
  >>
  >>Hi Steve.



Ok, so, um, what?  Let me put (default) colorization in to help:


  this line is BLACK:  On 13 Jan 2003 21:38:38 GMT, address@hidden (HC) wrote:
  this line is PURPLE: >From: The Beet Man address@hidden 
  this line is PURPLE: >
  this line is RED:    >>On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:55:32 GMT, g e e k . t r a g e 
d y
  this line is RED:    >><address@hidden> wrote:
  this line is RED:    >>
  this line is BROWN:  >>>On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:37:50 -0500, "HC" 
<address@hidden> wrote:
  this line is BROWN:  >>>
  this line is PURPLE: >>>>
  this line is PURPLE: >>>>"Bushay" <address@hidden> wrote in message
  this line is PURPLE: >>>>news:address@hidden
  this line is RED:    >>>>>
  this line is RED:    >>>>>
  this line is RED:    >>>>> The Beet Man wrote:
  this line is BROWN:  >>>>> > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:58:27 GMT, "Von Fourche"
  this line is BROWN:  >>>>> > <address@hidden> wrote:
  this line is BROWN:  >>>>> >
  this line is BROWN:  >>>>> >
  this line is PURPLE: >>>>> >>
  this line is PURPLE: >>>>> >>   What does it mean when a line is listed as 
OFF?

  Note that the attribution, which says that this is from "Von Fourche" is in
  brown, while the actual words he wrote are in purple.

  
  this line is BROWN:  >>>>> >
  this line is BROWN:  >>>>> >
  this line is BROWN:  >>>>> > OFF the board, often due to an injury but 
sometimes due to other
  this line is BROWN:  >>>>> > concerns.  Sometimes it's listed as "OTB" but 
that could be
  this line is BROWN:  >>>>> > confused
  this line is BROWN:  >>>>> > with "Off Track Betting" I guess.

  Note that the attribution, which says that this is from "The Beet Man" is in
  red, while the actual words he wrote are in brown.


  this line is RED:    >>>>>
  this line is RED:    >>>>> And you could be confused as an idiot....I guess.

  Note that the attribution, which says that this is from "Bushay" is in
  purple, while the actual words he wrote are in red.


  this line is PURPLE: >>>>
  this line is PURPLE: >>>>He could be as confused as you?  I doubt it.
  this line is PURPLE: >>>>

  Note that the attribution, which says that this is from "HC" is in
  brown, while the actual words he wrote are in purple.


  this line is BROWN:  >>>rupee, oh rupee, spit out your quill.
  this line is BROWN:  >>>the pie is a-coolin' on the windowsill.
  this line is BROWN:  >>>
  this line is BROWN:  >>>rupee, oh rupee, get down on your knee.
  this line is BROWN:  >>>i like you to beg, i love when you plea.
  this line is BROWN:  >>>
  this line is BROWN:  >>>rupee, oh rupee, daffodil butt.
  this line is BROWN:  >>>an earring, a clambake, and your paper cut.
  this line is BROWN:  >>>
  this line is BROWN:  >>>rupee, oh rupee, for where art thou, eh?
  this line is BROWN:  >>>the pans are all stillborn, so whadya say?
  this line is BROWN:  >>>
  this line is BROWN:  >>>end.

  Note that the attribution, which says that this is from "g e e k . t r a g e
  d y" is in red, while the actual words he wrote are in brown.


  this line is RED: >>
  this line is RED: >>Hi Steve.

  Note that the attribution, which says that this is from "The Beet Man"
  is in purple, while the actual words he wrote are in red.


I know that this is a tedious email to decipher, but it is simply
reflecting the tedium of deciphering multiple responses, I guess.

The real problem lies in the colorization of multiple '> >' or whatevers.
It never works right, it's always off by one as-per Usenet standard.

*grumble*