highlighting and fontification

highlighting and fontification

[Daniel Monjar]

This probably isn't a gnus question but since I see the behavior in gnus
here goes:

If I compose a post and do _this_ when I then read the post in gnus the
'this' is in a bold font.  It is a cool effect but I've never seen it
documented.  What mechanism is doing it?  Is there any other special
things that it does, like making italics or something?
-- 
Daniel Monjar (mailto:dmonjar@orgtek.com)
Organon Teknika
Durham, NC US

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Jack Vinson]

>>>>> "DM" == Daniel Monjar <dmonjar@orgtek.com> writes:

DM> If I compose a post and do _this_ when I then read the post in gnus the
DM> 'this' is in a bold font.  It is a cool effect but I've never seen it
DM> documented.  What mechanism is doing it?  Is there any other special
DM> things that it does, like making italics or something?

Actually, this *is* a /Gnus/ _feature_.   If I can remember all the
*/Combinations/*, this _/article/_ would look a _*little*_ silly.  Don't
you think?

There may be one more _*/feature/*_, but I am not positive how it works.

To turn off this behavior permanently, unset gnus-treat-emphasize.  You
might want to look at the whole list of gnus-treat* variables to see what
else Gnus is doing behind the scenes.

To see what one article really looks like, just do 'C-u g' on the Summary
buffer entry for the article.

-- 
Jack Vinson
I will not hide behind the Fifth Amendment

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Karl Kleinpaste]

No, actually _this_ is underlined. :-)

There are 3 emphasizations, underline, bold, and italic.  Think of
them in those terms, "u b i", in that order.  They only work in
combinations when expressed in that order.

_underline_    *bold*    /italic/
_/underline italic/_   _*underline bold*_   */bold italic/*
_*/underline bold italic/*_

There are some weirdnesses involved in whether the regexps to notice
these emphasizations cope with end-of-sentence and so forth.  The
"safe" rule is to put `.?!' outside the emphasized text.

In the manual:
`C-h i' -> Gnus -> The Summary Buffer -> Article Treatment -> Article Fontisizing

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Stainless Steel Rat]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

* Karl Kleinpaste <karl@justresearch.com>  on Thu, 09 Sep 1999
| There are some weirdnesses involved in whether the regexps to notice
| these emphasizations cope with end-of-sentence and so forth.  The
| "safe" rule is to put `.?!' outside the emphasized text.

Unfortunately, this is typographically incorrect.  Punctuation should have
the same typographical features as the text it abuts.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE32SUygl+vIlSVSNkRAtewAJ9SMtv2q0TdNlSbPo9jpJrAcf9vjwCgoWQm
aGOgJU/3B2gZrXMrCLWn6XU=
=RYdp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Kai Großjohann]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

> Unfortunately, this is typographically incorrect.  Punctuation
> should have the same typographical features as the text it abuts.

I don't know what `abuts' means.  But I always thought the rule was if
the whole sentence (or sub-sentence) is italic, the punctuation should
be italic, too, but if only one word is italic, any punctuation
directly before or after that word shouldn't be italic?

This is off-topic, but...

kai
-- 
I like BOTH kinds of music.

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Emerick Rogul]

Kai Großjohann writes:

: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:
:: Unfortunately, this is typographically incorrect.  Punctuation
:: should have the same typographical features as the text it abuts.

: I don't know what `abuts' means.  But I always thought the rule was if
: the whole sentence (or sub-sentence) is italic, the punctuation should
: be italic, too, but if only one word is italic, any punctuation
: directly before or after that word shouldn't be italic?

That's how I've always understood it too.

-Emerick
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerick Rogul       /\/  "i've said many, many, many unkind things about
emerick@cs.bu.edu   /\/   philadelphia, and i meant every one of them."
----------------------------------------------------------- david lynch

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Stainless Steel Rat]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

* Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)  on Fri, 10 Sep 1999
| I don't know what `abuts' means.

To touch along a border.

| But I always thought the rule was if the whole sentence (or sub-sentence)
| is italic, the punctuation should be italic, too, but if only one word is
| italic, any punctuation directly before or after that word shouldn't be
| italic?

Okay, I suppose that I should have said that it is an American
typographical convention.  There are a lot of little differences between
American and European typography.  This is one of them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE32U30gl+vIlSVSNkRAsv1AKCpIgh0L4/BOkWXaag2T5ItPxsdwgCg9HxA
B4jAbnOR4BG4rPV6TAiTE+Q=
=WIDX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Kai Großjohann]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

> Okay, I suppose that I should have said that it is an American
> typographical convention.  There are a lot of little differences
> between American and European typography.  This is one of them.

Ah.  So, to borrow some HTML:

Americans emphasize like <em>this?</em>
And Europeans emphasise like <em>this</em>?

Very interesting.  I care about these little differences.  But since
I'm not a native English speaker, things start to get vague for me.
For instance, should I assume that I'm writing British English if my
text contains a lot of `old chap' and `lift' and adjust my typography
accordingly, as opposed to `hey, guys' and `elevator'?

The situation is worse for Germans writing about computers (in
German): the German word for `to backup' is `sichern', which is a
homonym (or polyseme?) and also means `to make secure'.  Thus, the
word `Backup' is likely to be used as a noun in a German text, but it
is not clear at all how to make that into a verb.  In speech, one will
say `wurde gebackupt' (for `has been backed up'), but the spelling is
not at all clear: maybe `wurde gebackupped' with a pseudo-English
suffix which is pronounced the same as the other one?  But in German,
the prepositions are separated from the noun, maybe `wurde upgebackt'
would be better?  Even though Germans would laugh when seeing that,
they don't think twice about saying `Ich bin eingeloggt' (I am
logged in).

I think the French approach the whole thing by not using English words
(at least officially) -- ordinateur instead of computer and so on...

How do other nations deal with this?

8-)

Sorry for the off-topic posting, hope it is interesting anyway.

kai
-- 
I like BOTH kinds of music.

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Stainless Steel Rat]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

* Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)  on Fri, 10 Sep 1999
| Americans emphasize like <em>this?</em>
| And Europeans emphasise like <em>this</em>?

Pretty much.

A couple of others that I can think of: American typography (typographical
convention) puts two spaces after the punctuation that ends a sentence,
European typography tends to use only one[1].  American typography puts
trailing punctuation inside the quotation mark, "like this," whereas
European typography puts it outside, "like that".  Yet another is that
American typography uses "double quotation marks" for quotations, while
European tends to use `single quotation marks'.[2]


[1] This is why Emacs has the sentence-end-double-space variable.

[2] Note the European style of sentence terminating punctuation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE32zchgl+vIlSVSNkRAtY0AKCggRW1y7ry5EUkYSGTF2E6K3KuwQCgmUlC
3XepCxMvcGJsM9kNDGpKdEo=
=nPnk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ 
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ 

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Michael Piotrowski]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

> European typography puts it outside, "like that".  Yet another is that
> American typography uses "double quotation marks" for quotations, while
> European tends to use `single quotation marks'.[2]

To be precise, single quotation marks are British style.  German
quotation marks are like ,,this`` or like »this«, while the French use 
« this » (note the space around the quotation marks).  In French
typography, you also put spaces around "!", "?", and ":".

-- 
Michael Piotrowski, M.A. <m.piotrowski@springer.de>
Electronic Technologies, Springer-Verlag Heidelberg

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Florian Weimer]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

> * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)  on Fri, 10 Sep 1999
> | Americans emphasize like <em>this?</em>
> | And Europeans emphasise like <em>this</em>?
> 
> Pretty much.

Knuth writes in his TeXbook that this convention is changing and he's
recommending the latter, and he's following it in his books (judging
from a more-or-less random sample).

> A couple of others that I can think of: American typography (typographical
> convention) puts two spaces after the punctuation that ends a sentence,
> European typography tends to use only one[1].  

Jan Tschichold recommends putting an extra space after a such a
punctuation (except for very dense lines, of course).  So this isn't
a purely American convention.

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Mick Gower]

>>> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> writes:

FW> Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:
>> * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)  on Fri, 10 Sep 1999
>> | Americans emphasize like <em>this?</em>
>> | And Europeans emphasise like <em>this</em>?
>> 
>> Pretty much.

FW> Knuth writes in his TeXbook that this convention is changing and he's
FW> recommending the latter, and he's following it in his books (judging
FW> from a more-or-less random sample).

>> A couple of others that I can think of: American typography (typographical
>> convention) puts two spaces after the punctuation that ends a sentence,
>> European typography tends to use only one[1].  

FW> Jan Tschichold recommends putting an extra space after a such a
FW> punctuation (except for very dense lines, of course).  So this isn't
FW> a purely American convention.

The British Military had a manual for typography and that, IIRC, is two
spaces after the and of a sentence ie after full stop, question mark and 
exclamation mark and one space after a break in a sentence ie after a
comma or semi-colon. I think the manual was known as the JSP101.
-- 
Mick Gower

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Edward J. Sabol]

Excerpts from mail: (13-Sep-99) Re: highlighting and fontification by Mick Gower
>>> A couple of others that I can think of: American typography
>>> (typographical convention) puts two spaces after the punctuation that
>>> ends a sentence, European typography tends to use only one[1].
>
>> Jan Tschichold recommends putting an extra space after a such a
>> punctuation (except for very dense lines, of course). So this isn't a
>> purely American convention.
>
> The British Military had a manual for typography and that, IIRC, is two
> spaces after the and of a sentence ie after full stop, question mark
> and exclamation mark and one space after a break in a sentence ie after
> a comma or semi-colon. I think the manual was known as the JSP101.

For what it's worth, it's not cut and dry here in the U.S. either, despite
what the Rat says.

According to MLA (Modern Language Association) guidelines (the standard most
universities follow), either one or two spaces are permissible following
end-of-sentence punctuation when typing a paper. Neither one nor two is
stated as the preferred choice.

However, other guidelines, such as the APA (American Psychological
Association) style, require only a single space after end-of-sentence
punctuation.

Personally, I believe that having two spaces at the end of a sentence is an
antiquated convention born in an era of typewriters and fixed-width fonts.
With the advent of computers and proportional spacing, the two-space
convention is virtually useless and people are moving away from it.
Professional typesetting for books, etc. has never followed it to begin with.
Pick up any book, and you won't find the spacing between sentences to be any
larger than the spacing between words.

The above information concerning the MLA and APA styles was obtained from _A
Writer's Reference_, 4th Edition, by Diane Hacker.

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Greg Stark]

"Edward J. Sabol" <sabol@alderaan.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:

> Professional typesetting for books, etc. has never followed it to begin with.
> Pick up any book, and you won't find the spacing between sentences to be any
> larger than the spacing between words.

You certainly will, but only if you measure it carefully or have a very
discerning eye for these things. The difference in width is much smaller than
a factor of 2. 

Things generally went the other way; professional typesetting has existed much
longer than typewriters. Early typewriters were much more limiting than lead
typesetting, so many conventions for typesetting were adapted for typewriters.
Underlining was used where italics were appropriate, periods were placed
before quotes instead of kerned underneath them, and spaces were doubled after
periods instead of merely widened by a small amount.

Most of these conventions should have been forgotten when typewriters became
more capable and certainly should have by now with computers. But as often
happens the approximations are what most people have become familiar with and
are now repeated as rules without any idea what the original goal was.

-- 
greg

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Ken McGlothlen]

"Edward J. Sabol" <sabol@alderaan.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:

| Personally, I believe that having two spaces at the end of a sentence is an
| antiquated convention born in an era of typewriters and fixed-width fonts.
| With the advent of computers and proportional spacing, the two-space
| convention is virtually useless and people are moving away from it.
| Professional typesetting for books, etc. has never followed it to begin with.
| Pick up any book, and you won't find the spacing between sentences to be any
| larger than the spacing between words.

(I realize that I'm answering this kind of late.)

I must respectfully disagree.  It's there, but it's smaller than two normal
spaces between words on the same line.  In justified text, it was considered
better to expand the space between sentences "faster" than the space between
words; in English-style typesetting, uniform spacing was considered "lazy."
(Of course, the *French* never followed this convention, but c'est la vie.)

Even TeX, possibly the most careful computerized implementation of typesetting
known to date, took this into account.  In extremely tight lines, by default,
the spacing was uniform, but as the line got looser, the space after sentences
would stretch three times faster than the space between normal words.

TeX, of course, had a \frenchspacing command that would revert to the French
style of uniform spacing.

But at least in English and often in German, larger spacing after
end-of-sentence marks was common, accepted, and considered good style.  And
that is what led to the two-space convention in typewriting.

Obviously, I still prefer it.  Call me a traditionalist, I guess.  :)

							---Ken

Re: highlighting and fontification

[François Pinard]

"Edward J. Sabol" <sabol@alderaan.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:

> Personally, I believe that having two spaces at the end of a sentence is an
> antiquated convention born in an era of typewriters and fixed-width fonts.

It is still usual to consider email as based on fixed-width fonts (even if
XEmacs allow proportional fonts in many contexts, I've been told so :-).
Even if antique, fixed width fonts are still very actual.  And so the
double space convention, even for French.  This is how I learned to type
initially with mechanical typewriters, following French typing textbooks.

I guess conventions are often quoted out of context.  In usual typography,
printing articles and books, fixed fonts are rather unusual.  The single
space rule is more popular in that field, but it never meant that single
spacing is sufficient with fixed width fonts.

Whatever the rules are, we should keep in sight that the driving force is
legibility, much more than aesthetics.  Two spaces between sentences with
fixed width fonts is clearly more legible to me, this goes without saying.
With proportional fonts, the two-spaces rule is less meaningful, because
spaces are compressible and stretchable, and there are other compensating
devices ensuring good legibility nevertheless.

Let's take the simultaneous left-right justification.  It has been
demonstrated that for fixed width fonts, it hurts legibility and decreases
reading speed.  This is pure evil.  Some people consider it makes their
texts more graphically pleasing, which might be true, even if totally out
of place, because texts are written to be read, not admired.

Of course, everything else being equal, aesthetical texts are more
pleasing to read, and so, acquire a bit of legibility by being pleasing.
Proportional fonts allow for simultaneous left-right justification without
serious loss of legibility, so it is appropriate in this case.

But for fixed-text fonts, like in average email, or with document sources,
legibility is seriously hurt to start with, and then special care is much
more importantly taken wherever possible.  This is why it is especially
important to totally avoid simultaneous left-right justification, and to
use more space between sentences than between words.  Those relaxations,
which become acceptable with proportional fonts, are not fully welcome
for those still using/reading fixed width fonts, like for example, in email.

-- 
François Pinard   http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Hrvoje Niksic]

François Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> Let's take the simultaneous left-right justification.  It has been
> demonstrated that for fixed width fonts, it hurts legibility and
> decreases reading speed.

Does somebody have more info about this?  I've heard the claim that
justification decreased legibility of texts written in fixed-width
fonts many time, but I've never seen an explanation on why that is so,
or a reference to research.

(Note that I am not disputing the claim -- in fact, I agree with it.
I'm just wondering about the underlying mechanisms involved.)

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Russ Allbery]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1204 bytes --]

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:
> François Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> Let's take the simultaneous left-right justification.  It has been
>> demonstrated that for fixed width fonts, it hurts legibility and
>> decreases reading speed.

> Does somebody have more info about this?  I've heard the claim that
> justification decreased legibility of texts written in fixed-width fonts
> many time, but I've never seen an explanation on why that is so, or a
> reference to research.

Left-right justification, when done with word choice and careful attention
to line length, should be as legible as normal ragged-right text.  Perhaps
slightly more legible because it's aesthetically pleasing; that's a matter
of personal taste.  When it is done by inserting more white space into the
text, however, it disrupts the normal flow of inter-word spacing, which is
highly distracting for the reader's eye.  We're used to inter-word spacing
being uniform throughout the text; extra spacing stands out, causes longer
pauses in reading, and sets off as specially significant breaks which have
no special meaning.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: highlighting and fontification

[David Coe]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

> Left-right justification, when done with word choice and careful attention
> to line length, should be as legible as normal ragged-right text.  Perhaps
> slightly more legible because it's aesthetically pleasing; that's a matter
> of personal taste.  When it is done by inserting more white space into the
> text, however, it disrupts the normal flow of inter-word spacing, which is
> highly distracting for the reader's eye.  We're used to inter-word spacing
> being uniform throughout the text; extra spacing stands out, causes longer
> pauses in reading, and sets off as specially significant breaks which have
> no special meaning.

Very nice.  I think you should contribute the lisp code that did that nice
formatting for you!  It's not easy to do unless you have a lot of patience 
and flexibility in composing what you write, and don't mind rewording some
things and/or inserting irrelevant phrases about zebras and elephants just
to bring your word boundaries to the appropriate places.  ;-)
 

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Toby Speight]

Florian> Florian Weimer <URL:mailto:fw@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>

0> In article <871zc2hdb9.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>, Florian wrote:

Florian> Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

>> * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Fri, 10
>>   Sep 1999
>> | Americans emphasize like <em>this?</em>
>> | And Europeans emphasise like <em>this</em>?
>>
>> Pretty much.

Florian> Knuth writes in his TeXbook that this convention is changing
Florian> and he's recommending the latter, and he's following it in
Florian> his books (judging from a more-or-less random sample).

In the related case of whether quotation marks include punctuation[*],
Fowler recommends considering whether the punctuation is part of what's
quoted.  Compare

 - He asked, "What's happening?"

 - Who shouted "Fire"? [+]

[*] Particularly, whether the full stop, exclamation mark, or question
    mark at the end of the sentence is placed before or after the
    closing quotation mark.

[+] Hmm.  Perhaps that last should be, 'Who shouted "Fire!"?'?  :-)


Here's an actual quote from Fowler's 3rd ed.:

#> All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be
#> placed /according to sense/.  If an extract ends with a point or
#> exclamation or interrogation sign, let that point be included
#> before the closing quotation mark; but not otherwise.

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Tibor Simko]

>>>>> "Rat" == Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

    Rat> American typography (typographical convention) puts two
    Rat> spaces after the punctuation that ends a sentence, European
    Rat> typography tends to use only one.

>>>>> "MJG" == Mick Gower <mick@dexter.clara.co.uk> writes:

    MJG> The British Military had a manual for typography and that,
    MJG> IIRC, is two spaces after the and of a sentence [...]

Yes, AFAIK the British typography does put two spaces after a full
stop, unlike the French one (and other continental European ones,
too).  So the difference is not American vs. European, but rather
English vs. European, or TeXnically speaking, English vs. French:
referencing the \frenchspacing command, which makes TeX to switch to
the French way of spacing (suitable for other European styles too).

-TS

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Rene H. Larsen]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

> Okay, I suppose that I should have said that it is an American
> typographical convention.  There are a lot of little differences between
> American and European typography.  This is one of them.
[snip]

Just so you know it, this message failed the PGP signature check.
Could this be due to the article being QP encoded?  I'm using
mailcrypt 3.5.4 with pgnus 0.96 in XEmacs 20.4, in case it matters.
-- 
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
for(0..12){$b[$_]="|".($_==6?"-":" ")x78}for(0..78){substr($b[-
(sin($_*3.1415/22)-1)*6.499],$_,1)="*"}print join "\n",@b,"";

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Graham Murray]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Rene H. Larsen" <renehl@post1.tele.dk> writes:

> Just so you know it, this message failed the PGP signature check.
> Could this be due to the article being QP encoded?  I'm using
> mailcrypt 3.5.4 with pgnus 0.96 in XEmacs 20.4, in case it matters.

It passed the signature check for me, also using mailcrypt 3.5.4 but
with Gpg 1.0 and emacs 20.4.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.4 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>

iD8DBQE32f9eEhN/ETQwnEERArhkAJ9U/SYmCD34k5Q7K+LHyNnfxhumRACfdOG3
R7QxgiEH0lQROwAH7jP51n0=
=X5pf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: highlighting and fontification

[Stainless Steel Rat]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

* Graham Murray <graham@barnowl.demon.co.uk>  on Sat, 11 Sep 1999
| It passed the signature check for me, also using mailcrypt 3.5.4 but
| with Gpg 1.0 and emacs 20.4.

Same here.  Are you sure you have the correct key?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE32zSEgl+vIlSVSNkRAhedAKCh4K9le3g7iVpTfOeljEYfPDUmJgCgrTyV
uwd0R47rHw4XkN/q3J+r1mM=
=wZ3b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ head.