From: usenet@only.tnx   
      
   On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:23:56 -0800, Snidely  wrote:   
   >Questor pounded on thar keyboard to tell us   
   >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 12:06:09 -0800, Snidely  wrote:   
   >>> Lo, on the 11/24/2020, Questor did proclaim ...   
   >>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 03:04:16 -0800 (PST), Roger House <61rroger@gmail.com>   
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>> My smartphone has a news feature.  I was briefly looking at a news story   
   >>>>> fr= om Breitbart news about some stuff that Fox news host Laura Ingraham   
   >>>>> said o= n her show.  At one point, it says/shows, (for lack of a better   
   >>>>> way of sayi= ng it), and this next little bit is a direct quote from the   
   >>>>> news piece:  "[= U]nless the legal situation changes in a dramatic and   
   >>>>> unlikely manner, Joe = Biden will be inaugurated on January 20."  There   
   >>>>> more stuff before and afte= r the part that I quoted, but my question is   
   >>>>> only about something in the qu= oted part.  Here's my question.  Why is   
   >>>>> the "U" in the word unless in brack= ets and what is the point of putting   
   >>>>> it in the brackets?  The "U" is in bra= ckets in the printed news piece,   
   I   
   >>>>> didn't do it only by myself.  Thanks eve= ryone in advance!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The big problem is why are you reading a right-wing nutjob propaganda site   
   >>>> like Breitfart?  That stuff is going to rot your mind, if it hasn't   
   >>>> already.   Of course, Fox is little better.   
   >>>   
   >>> Of course a response like that is going to make everyone move to   
   >>> left-wing sources.   
   >>   
   >> Not so much left-wing sources as reality-based sources.   
   >   
   >You have indubiatebly swayed many folk.   
      
   You ascribe motives that don't exist.   
      
      
   >>>> The second problem is using Goo-goo groups [spit]   
   >>>> to post to Usenet, with its   
   >>>> execrable "flowed text" format.  (I've left it unchanged above.)  Doesn't   
   >>>> anyone believe in line breaks anymore?   
   >>>   
   >>> It's a conciousness-raising thing, and I think rroger is using   
   >>> different equipment than we're used to for his posts, so gentle hints   
   >>> may be appropriate.   
   >>   
   >> I don't know who has done more damage to Usenet -- Elliot Spitzer or Google.   
   >   
   >Well, since your own superiority is unquestioned, we can absolve you.   
      
   Given the discussion context and the facts, that reply makes no sense.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)