[Dixonary] Round 2369 -- HYPOCORISM -- Results

[EnDash@aol.com]

The big winner and next dealer is Millie Morgan, who blew the field away
with 6 natural points.

The "real winner" is Judy Madnick, who amassed 4 points for her creative
fake definition which attracted the votes of four players.

Once again, although the real def eluded all the voting players, Johnny
Barrs knew this obscure term and was a DQ.

1: diminished sense of taste
Voted for by: Matthew Grieco, Glen Boswell, Jim Hart , Scott Croms
FROM Judy Madnick who voted 2 and 7, and scores 4 + 0 = 4

2: an inability to produce tears
Voted for by: Judy Madnick, Efrem Mallach, Keith Hale, Jim Hart , Tony
Abell, Scott Croms
FROM Millie Morgan who voted 6 and 20, and scores 6 + 0 = 6

3: a type of Paleolithic figure depicting horses found in the caves at
Lascaux in southwestern France
Voted for by nobody
FROM Steve Graham who voted 7 and 13, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

4: a name of endearment; a pet name
Voted for by nobody
FROM AHD4 which can't vote, and scores D0

5: having an abnormally small heart
Voted for by: Tim Bourne, Dodi Schultz, Tony Abell
FROM Tim Lodge who voted 7 and 18, and scores 3 + 0 = 3

6: the belief that the human condition will inevitably decline
Voted for by: Millie Morgan
FROM Chris Carson who didn't vote, and scores 2dp + 1 + 0 = 3

7: a complete lack of empathy
Voted for by: Judy Madnick, Steve Graham, Tim Lodge
FROM Matthew Grieco who voted 1 and 11, and scores 3 + 0 = 3

8: underdevelopment of the large muscles of the torso
Voted for by: Guerri Stevens, Tim Bourne
FROM Efrem Mallach who voted 2 and 11, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

9: wide-eyed: med. an illness of the eye where the pupil is overly
dilated; cosm. caused by topical application of atropine [Gr. _'upo+ _kors_ =
girl, doll, pupil of the eye]
Voted for by nobody
FROM Johnny Barrs who DQ'ed, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

10: a belief that there is an extremely unstable subterranean flaw in the
earth that will eventually cause such massive earthquakes and volcanic
activity that the planet will be destroyed
Voted for by: Dodi Schultz
FROM Guerri Stevens who voted 8 and 15, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

11: the philosophical or religious idea, practised by several monastic
orders, that salvation is only possible through extreme poverty
Voted for by: Matthew Grieco, Efrem Mallach, Mike Shefler
FROM Glen Boswell who voted 1 and 17, and scores 3 + 0 = 3

12: acting
Voted for by: Mike Shefler
FROM Keith Hale who voted 2 and 15, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

13: a disease of sheep similar to glanders
Voted for by: Steve Graham, Frances Wetzstein
FROM Chuck Emery who didn't vote, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

14: the condition of being a runt
Voted for by nobody
FROM Nancy Shepherdson who didn't vote, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

15: attenuation or dulling of the senses caused by prolonged exposure to
certain drugs or toxins
Voted for by: Guerri Stevens, Keith Hale, Frances Wetzstein
FROM Mike Shefler who voted 11 and 12, and scores 3 + 0 = 3

16: intense mistrust or hatred of outsiders; jingoism
Voted for by nobody
FROM Steve Dixon who didn't vote, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

17: a philosophy that states that there are no fundamental principles of
ethics
Voted for by: Glen Boswell
FROM Tim Bourne who voted 5 and 8, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

18: a seemingly meaningless comment; also a _sotto voce_ remark
Voted for by: Tim Lodge
FROM Jim Hart who voted 1 and 2, and scores 1dp + 1 + 0 = 2

19: _Med._ cardiac insufficiency
Voted for by nobody
FROM Dodi Schultz who voted 5 and 10, and scores 2dp + 0 + 0 = 2

20: a diminished emotional response; blunted affect
Voted for by: Millie Morgan
FROM Tony Abell who voted 2 and 5, and scores 1dp + 1 + 0 = 2

No def
FROM Frances Wetzstein who voted 13 and 15, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

No def
FROM Scott Croms who voted 1 and 2, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

This was a particularly mistake-ridden round, all the mistakes being of my
making, for which I apologize.

First off, I misspelled the word in the original posting, omitting the
second "O" so that it read HYPOCRISM -- which is also a real word. Chris Carson
responded immediately, apparently thinking that the mistaken word was
close enough to the word I intended that its definition would be a good lure
for votes.

So, he sent as his fake definition the real definition to the word that I
meant to post but had misspelled. Thus, my mistaken spelling had caused him
to be a DQ inadvertently, and his submitted "fake" was really not a fake at
all. For this -- and because his prompt submission enabled me to correct
the word before very many people had made their submissions, I offered, and
gave, 2 dealer points.

The second error was my failure to include three submissions in the
published fake def list: those sent in a timely manner by Hart, Schultz, and
Abell. Although I did include their submissions in a corrected list, I offered
each 2 dealer points or the actual score earned by votes for them, whichever
turned out to be higher, because their chances for vote-getting were
diminished by the publication of their submissions as "additions" to the list
originally compiled, where the real def had obviously been included.

Thus, Dodi Schultz has been granted 2 dealer points; and 1 dealer point
apiece was awarded to Hart and Abell to bring their score totals up to 2.

Whew! Should I become dealer again sometime, I will try to be a lot more
careful.

Meanwhile, congratulations to Millie, and good luck with the new deal.

[Judy Madnick]

Thanks goodness! (Sorry Millie...)

Judy Madnick
Jacksonville, FL




Original message
From: EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com
To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com;
Dated: 1/3/2013 5:15:35 PM
Subject: [Dixonary] Round 2369 -- HYPOCORISM -- Results



The big winner and next dealer is Millie Morgan, who blew the field away with 6 natural points.

The "real winner" is Judy Madnick, who amassed 4 points for her creative fake definition which attracted the votes of four players.

[Efrem Mallach]

I got this, but not the results. Anyone else in the same boat?

(And Happy New Year to all.)

Efrem

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Jan 3, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Judy Madnick wrote:

> Thanks goodness! (Sorry Millie...)
>
> Judy Madnick
> Jacksonville, FL
>
>
> Original message
>> From: EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com
>> To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com;
>> Dated: 1/3/2013 5:15:35 PM
>> Subject: [Dixonary] Round 2369 -- HYPOCORISM -- Results
>>
>>
>> The big winner and next dealer is Millie Morgan, who blew the field away with 6 natural points.
>>
>> The "real winner" is Judy Madnick, who amassed 4 points for her creative fake definition which attracted the votes of four players.

[Efrem Mallach]

Please ignore my previous message. This just showed up, a few minutes AFTER Judy's reply to it. Go figure.
Efrem

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Jan 3, 2013, at 5:15 PM, EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:

>
> The big winner and next dealer is Millie Morgan, who blew the field away with 6 natural points.
>
> The "real winner" is Judy Madnick, who amassed 4 points for her creative fake definition which attracted the votes of four players.
>
> Once again, although the real def eluded all the voting players, Johnny Barrs knew this obscure term and was a DQ.
>
> 1: diminished sense of taste
> Voted for by: Matthew Grieco, Glen Boswell, Jim Hart , Scott Croms
> FROM Judy Madnick who voted 2 and 7, and scores 4 + 0 = 4
>
> 2: an inability to produce tears
> Voted for by: Judy Madnick, Efrem Mallach, Keith Hale, Jim Hart , Tony Abell, Scott Croms
> FROM Millie Morgan who voted 6 and 20, and scores 6 + 0 = 6
>
> 3: a type of Paleolithic figure depicting horses found in the caves at Lascaux in southwestern France
> Voted for by nobody
> FROM Steve Graham who voted 7 and 13, and scores 0 + 0 = 0
>
> 4: a name of endearment; a pet name
> Voted for by nobody
> FROM AHD4 which can't vote, and scores D0
>
> 5: having an abnormally small heart
> Voted for by: Tim Bourne, Dodi Schultz, Tony Abell
> FROM Tim Lodge who voted 7 and 18, and scores 3 + 0 = 3
>
> 6: the belief that the human condition will inevitably decline
> Voted for by: Millie Morgan
> FROM Chris Carson who didn't vote, and scores 2dp + 1 + 0 = 3
>
> 7: a complete lack of empathy
> Voted for by: Judy Madnick, Steve Graham, Tim Lodge
> FROM Matthew Grieco who voted 1 and 11, and scores 3 + 0 = 3
>
> 8: underdevelopment of the large muscles of the torso
> Voted for by: Guerri Stevens, Tim Bourne
> FROM Efrem Mallach who voted 2 and 11, and scores 2 + 0 = 2
>
> 9: wide-eyed: med. an illness of the eye where the pupil is overly dilated; cosm. caused by topical application of atropine [Gr. _'upo+ _kors_ = girl, doll, pupil of the eye]
> Voted for by nobody
> FROM Johnny Barrs who DQ'ed, and scores 0 + 0 = 0
>
> 10: a belief that there is an extremely unstable subterranean flaw in the earth that will eventually cause such massive earthquakes and volcanic activity that the planet will be destroyed
> Voted for by: Dodi Schultz
> FROM Guerri Stevens who voted 8 and 15, and scores 1 + 0 = 1
>
> 11: the philosophical or religious idea, practised by several monastic orders, that salvation is only possible through extreme poverty
> Voted for by: Matthew Grieco, Efrem Mallach, Mike Shefler
> FROM Glen Boswell who voted 1 and 17, and scores 3 + 0 = 3
>
> 12: acting
> Voted for by: Mike Shefler
> FROM Keith Hale who voted 2 and 15, and scores 1 + 0 = 1
>
> 13: a disease of sheep similar to glanders
> Voted for by: Steve Graham, Frances Wetzstein
> FROM Chuck Emery who didn't vote, and scores 2 + 0 = 2
>
> 14: the condition of being a runt
> Voted for by nobody
> FROM Nancy Shepherdson who didn't vote, and scores 0 + 0 = 0
>
> 15: attenuation or dulling of the senses caused by prolonged exposure to certain drugs or toxins
> Voted for by: Guerri Stevens, Keith Hale, Frances Wetzstein
> FROM Mike Shefler who voted 11 and 12, and scores 3 + 0 = 3
>
> 16: intense mistrust or hatred of outsiders; jingoism
> Voted for by nobody
> FROM Steve Dixon who didn't vote, and scores 0 + 0 = 0
>
> 17: a philosophy that states that there are no fundamental principles of ethics
> Voted for by: Glen Boswell
> FROM Tim Bourne who voted 5 and 8, and scores 1 + 0 = 1
>
> 18: a seemingly meaningless comment; also a _sotto voce_ remark
> Voted for by: Tim Lodge
> FROM Jim Hart who voted 1 and 2, and scores 1dp + 1 + 0 = 2
>
> 19: _Med._ cardiac insufficiency
> Voted for by nobody
> FROM Dodi Schultz who voted 5 and 10, and scores 2dp + 0 + 0 = 2
>
> 20: a diminished emotional response; blunted affect
> Voted for by: Millie Morgan
> FROM Tony Abell who voted 2 and 5, and scores 1dp + 1 + 0 = 2
>
> No def
> FROM Frances Wetzstein who voted 13 and 15, and scores 0 + 0 = 0
>
> No def
> FROM Scott Croms who voted 1 and 2, and scores 0 + 0 = 0
>
> This was a particularly mistake-ridden round, all the mistakes being of my making, for which I apologize.
>
> First off, I misspelled the word in the original posting, omitting the second "O" so that it read HYPOCRISM -- which is also a real word. Chris Carson responded immediately, apparently thinking that the mistaken word was close enough to the word I intended that its definition would be a good lure for votes.
>
> So, he sent as his fake definition the real definition to the word that I meant to post but had misspelled. Thus, my mistaken spelling had caused him to be a DQ inadvertently, and his submitted "fake" was really not a fake at all. For this -- and because his prompt submission enabled me to correct the word before very many people had made their submissions, I offered, and gave, 2 dealer points.
>
> The second error was my failure to include three submissions in the published fake def list: those sent in a timely manner by Hart, Schultz, and Abell. Although I did include their submissions in a corrected list, I offered each 2 dealer points or the actual score earned by votes for them, whichever turned out to be higher, because their chances for vote-getting were diminished by the publication of their submissions as "additions" to the list originally compiled, where the real def had obviously been included.
>
> Thus, Dodi Schultz has been granted 2 dealer points; and 1 dealer point apiece was awarded to Hart and Abell to bring their score totals up to 2.
>
> Whew! Should I become dealer again sometime, I will try to be a lot more careful.
>
> Meanwhile, congratulations to Millie, and good luck with the new deal.
>
>
>
>

[Dodi Schultz]

Congratulations on the D0, Dick!

GOOD word.

[Judy Madnick]

Ditto!

Judy Madnick
Jacksonville, FL




Original message
From: "Dodi Schultz" <DodiSchultz (AT) verizon (DOT) net>
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com;
Dated: 1/3/2013 6:17:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Round 2369 -- HYPOCORISM -- Results

Congratulations on the D0, Dick!

GOOD word.

[John Barrs]

congrats on the D0

JohnnyB

On 3 January 2013 22:15, <EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:

> **
>
> The big winner and next dealer is Millie Morgan, who blew the field away
> with 6 natural points.
>
> The "real winner" is Judy Madnick, who amassed 4 points for her creative
> fake definition which attracted the votes of four players.
>
> Once again, although the real def eluded all the voting players, Johnny
> Barrs knew this obscure term and was a DQ.
>
> 1: diminished sense of taste
> Voted for by: Matthew Grieco, Glen Boswell, Jim Hart , Scott Croms
> FROM Judy Madnick who voted 2 and 7, and scores 4 + 0 = 4
>
> 2: an inability to produce tears
> Voted for by: Judy Madnick, Efrem Mallach, Keith Hale, Jim Hart , Tony
> Abell, Scott Croms
> FROM Millie Morgan who voted 6 and 20, and scores 6 + 0 = 6
>
> 3: a type of Paleolithic figure depicting horses found in the caves at
> Lascaux in southwestern France
> Voted for by nobody
> FROM Steve Graham who voted 7 and 13, and scores 0 + 0 = 0
>
> 4: a name of endearment; a pet name
> Voted for by nobody
> FROM AHD4 which can't vote, and scores D0
>
> 5: having an abnormally small heart
> Voted for by: Tim Bourne, Dodi Schultz, Tony Abell
> FROM Tim Lodge who voted 7 and 18, and scores 3 + 0 = 3
>
> 6: the belief that the human condition will inevitably decline
> Voted for by: Millie Morgan
> FROM Chris Carson who didn't vote, and scores 2dp + 1 + 0 = 3
>
> 7: a complete lack of empathy
> Voted for by: Judy Madnick, Steve Graham, Tim Lodge
> FROM Matthew Grieco who voted 1 and 11, and scores 3 + 0 = 3
>
> 8: underdevelopment of the large muscles of the torso
> Voted for by: Guerri Stevens, Tim Bourne
> FROM Efrem Mallach who voted 2 and 11, and scores 2 + 0 = 2
>
> 9: wide-eyed: med. an illness of the eye where the pupil is overly
> dilated; cosm. caused by topical application of atropine [Gr. _'upo+
> _kors_ = girl, doll, pupil of the eye]
> Voted for by nobody
> FROM Johnny Barrs who DQ'ed, and scores 0 + 0 = 0
>
> 10: a belief that there is an extremely unstable subterranean flaw in the
> earth that will eventually cause such massive earthquakes and volcanic
> activity that the planet will be destroyed
> Voted for by: Dodi Schultz
> FROM Guerri Stevens who voted 8 and 15, and scores 1 + 0 = 1
>
> 11: the philosophical or religious idea, practised by several monastic
> orders, that salvation is only possible through extreme poverty
> Voted for by: Matthew Grieco, Efrem Mallach, Mike Shefler
> FROM Glen Boswell who voted 1 and 17, and scores 3 + 0 = 3
>
> 12: acting
> Voted for by: Mike Shefler
> FROM Keith Hale who voted 2 and 15, and scores 1 + 0 = 1
>
> 13: a disease of sheep similar to glanders
> Voted for by: Steve Graham, Frances Wetzstein
> FROM Chuck Emery who didn't vote, and scores 2 + 0 = 2
>
> 14: the condition of being a runt
> Voted for by nobody
> FROM Nancy Shepherdson who didn't vote, and scores 0 + 0 = 0
>
> 15: attenuation or dulling of the senses caused by prolonged exposure to
> certain drugs or toxins
> Voted for by: Guerri Stevens, Keith Hale, Frances Wetzstein
> FROM Mike Shefler who voted 11 and 12, and scores 3 + 0 = 3
>
> 16: intense mistrust or hatred of outsiders; jingoism
> Voted for by nobody
> FROM Steve Dixon who didn't vote, and scores 0 + 0 = 0
>
> 17: a philosophy that states that there are no fundamental principles of
> ethics
> Voted for by: Glen Boswell
> FROM Tim Bourne who voted 5 and 8, and scores 1 + 0 = 1
>
> 18: a seemingly meaningless comment; also a _sotto voce_ remark
> Voted for by: Tim Lodge
> FROM Jim Hart who voted 1 and 2, and scores 1dp + 1 + 0 = 2
>
> 19: _Med._ cardiac insufficiency
> Voted for by nobody
> FROM Dodi Schultz who voted 5 and 10, and scores 2dp + 0 + 0 = 2
>
> 20: a diminished emotional response; blunted affect
> Voted for by: Millie Morgan
> FROM Tony Abell who voted 2 and 5, and scores 1dp + 1 + 0 = 2
>
> No def
> FROM Frances Wetzstein who voted 13 and 15, and scores 0 + 0 = 0
>
> No def
> FROM Scott Croms who voted 1 and 2, and scores 0 + 0 = 0
>
> This was a particularly mistake-ridden round, all the mistakes being of my
> making, for which I apologize.
>
> First off, I misspelled the word in the original posting, omitting the
> second "O" so that it read HYPOCRISM -- which is also a real word. Chris
> Carson responded immediately, apparently thinking that the mistaken word
> was close enough to the word I intended that its definition would be a good
> lure for votes.
>
> So, he sent as his fake definition the real definition to the word that I
> meant to post but had misspelled. Thus, my mistaken spelling had caused him
> to be a DQ inadvertently, and his submitted "fake" was really not a fake at
> all. For this -- and because his prompt submission enabled me to correct
> the word before very many people had made their submissions, I offered, and
> gave, 2 dealer points.
>
> The second error was my failure to include three submissions in the
> published fake def list: those sent in a timely manner by Hart, Schultz,
> and Abell. Although I did include their submissions in a corrected list, I
> offered each 2 dealer points or the actual score earned by votes for them,
> whichever turned out to be higher, because their chances for vote-getting
> were diminished by the publication of their submissions as "additions" to
> the list originally compiled, where the real def had obviously been
> included.
>
> Thus, Dodi Schultz has been granted 2 dealer points; and 1 dealer point
> apiece was awarded to Hart and Abell to bring their score totals up to 2.
>
> Whew! Should I become dealer again sometime, I will try to be a lot more
> careful.
>
> Meanwhile, congratulations to Millie, and good luck with the new deal.
>
>
>
>
>

[Guerri Stevens]

Dick, Off the subject, but... what font are you using in your messages?
As I see them, forwarded from the group to my Email, and using
Thunderbird to read them, they are in a very tiny, sans serif font.
There is someone else whose messages appear the same way.

It might be something in my Thunderbird settings, I suppose.

Guerri

On 1/3/2013 5:15 PM, EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:
>
> The big winner and next dealer is Millie Morgan, who blew the field
> away with 6 natural points.
> The "real winner" is Judy Madnick, who amassed 4 points for her
> creative fake definition which attracted the votes of four players.

[Efrem Mallach]

Guerri,

The HTML code behind his messages says they're in 10-point Arial. I agree: it's a tad small.

Perhaps Dick's e-mail software has a plain text option? Alternatively, mine has an option to view a message in plain text. That would do the job in this case, since the HTML isn't doing anything important for the content.

Efrem

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Jan 4, 2013, at 7:06 AM, Guerri Stevens wrote:

> Dick, Off the subject, but... what font are you using in your messages? As I see them, forwarded from the group to my Email, and using Thunderbird to read them, they are in a very tiny, sans serif font. There is someone else whose messages appear the same way.
>
> It might be something in my Thunderbird settings, I suppose.
>
> Guerri
>
> On 1/3/2013 5:15 PM, EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:
>>
>> The big winner and next dealer is Millie Morgan, who blew the field away with 6 natural points.
>> The "real winner" is Judy Madnick, who amassed 4 points for her creative fake definition which attracted the votes of four players.
>

[EnDash@aol.com]

It may be the settings in your email client. I send them, according to AOL,
in 10-point Arial. Sometimes, though, I send myself a message to one of
the other browsers I use; and I find in those cases that the typestyle and
size tends to be controlled by he settings at the receiving end.

This line is set for sending in 14-point Times Roman, Does it arrive
differently at your end?

-- Dick



In a message dated 1/4/2013 7:06:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
guerri (AT) guerristevens (DOT) com writes:

Dick, Off the subject, but... what font are you using in your messages?
As I see them, forwarded from the group to my Email, and using
Thunderbird to read them, they are in a very tiny, sans serif font.
There is someone else whose messages appear the same way.

It might be something in my Thunderbird settings, I suppose.

[Efrem Mallach]

Dick,

The HTML for the line in "14-point Times Roman" says it's HTML size 4, not 14 points. HTML size 4 is the midpoint of the 1-7 range, and is the default size in one's e-mail reader. For me, that's 12 points, not 14. The font is Times NEW Roman, not just Times Roman, but that was probably a finger slip in the message.

Does AOL give you an option to send plain text? That will show up in the default size and font our e-mail readers are set to display. In most cases we will have chosen those for something that works for us on the computers we use. Nothing in what we do requires the special formatting that HTML is capable of.

Efrem

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Jan 4, 2013, at 9:18 AM, EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:

> It may be the settings in your email client. I send them, according to AOL, in 10-point Arial. Sometimes, though, I send myself a message to one of the other browsers I use; and I find in those cases that the typestyle and size tends to be controlled by he settings at the receiving end.
>
> This line is set for sending in 14-point Times Roman, Does it arrive differently at your end?
>
> -- Dick
>
>
> In a message dated 1/4/2013 7:06:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, guerri (AT) guerristevens (DOT) com writes:
> Dick, Off the subject, but... what font are you using in your messages?
> As I see them, forwarded from the group to my Email, and using
> Thunderbird to read them, they are in a very tiny, sans serif font.
> There is someone else whose messages appear the same way.
>
> It might be something in my Thunderbird settings, I suppose.

[EnDash@aol.com]

The AOL "desktop" software allows specification of the font and size in
email composition. I've never seen any option to select plain text, and no
HTML coding is displayed. I have been using AOL for many years and, as a
former typographic executive and consultant, find this just dandy, as I easily
understand what a given point size looks like. Plus, the mail compose
feature allows easy use of such refinements as bold, italic, underscore, etc. --
just like in real typesetting or word processing.

Nobody has ever complained. As I mentioned, though, I do note that when I
send mail to myself or receive others' at a non-AOL browser (e.g. ATT or
Verizon), their default face and size seems to control.





In a message dated 1/4/2013 9:25:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
emallach (AT) umassd (DOT) edu writes:

Dick,


The HTML for the line in "14-point Times Roman" says it's HTML size 4, not
14 points. HTML size 4 is the midpoint of the 1-7 range, and is the
default size in one's e-mail reader. For me, that's 12 points, not 14. The font
is Times NEW Roman, not just Times Roman, but that was probably a finger
slip in the message.


Does AOL give you an option to send plain text? That will show up in the
default size and font our e-mail readers are set to display. In most cases we
will have chosen those for something that works for us on the computers we
use. Nothing in what we do requires the special formatting that HTML is
capable of.


Efrem

[Dodi Schultz]

Guerri, if something's uncomfortably small, you can always use Ctrl-+ to
bump it up to comfortable size.

[Guerri Stevens]

Yes, the line with 14-point Times Roman does arrive differently at my
end. Larger and more easily readable. So evidently your message text is
not converted on my end.

10-point Arial in my word processor looks a lot bigger than what I see
in the Emails. Odd.

Guerri
On 1/4/2013 9:18 AM, EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:
> It may be the settings in your email client. I send them, according to
> AOL, in 10-point Arial. Sometimes, though, I send myself a message to
> one of the other browsers I use; and I find in those cases that the
> typestyle and size tends to be controlled by he settings at the
> receiving end.
> This line is set for sending in 14-point Times Roman, Does it arrive
> differently at your end?
> -- Dick
> In a message dated 1/4/2013 7:06:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> guerri (AT) guerristevens (DOT) com writes:
>
> Dick, Off the subject, but... what font are you using in your
> messages?
> As I see them, forwarded from the group to my Email, and using
> Thunderbird to read them, they are in a very tiny, sans serif font.
> There is someone else whose messages appear the same way.
>
> It might be something in my Thunderbird settings, I suppose.
>

[EnDash@aol.com]

If it's a problem, I could start using 12-point Arial for Dixonary
messages -- like this example.

-- Dick


In a message dated 1/4/2013 12:08:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
guerri (AT) guerristevens (DOT) com writes:

Yes, the line with 14-point Times Roman does arrive differently at my
end. Larger and more easily readable. So evidently your message text is
not converted on my end.

10-point Arial in my word processor looks a lot bigger than what I see
in the Emails. Odd.

[Guerri Stevens]

Thanks, that works!

Guerri


On 1/4/2013 10:25 AM, Dodi Schultz wrote:
> Guerri, if something's uncomfortably small, you can always use Ctrl-+
> to bump it up to comfortable size.
>
>
>

[John Barrs]

Guerri

actually your evidence is that the message text *is* converted at your end
- converted to what is sent

a) check your TB Menu:View->Message Body and play with the options
b) things that are too small (or too big) can be casually changed with
<CTRL> + or <CTRL> -

JohnnyB

On 4 January 2013 17:08, Guerri Stevens <guerri (AT) guerristevens (DOT) com> wrote:

> Yes, the line with 14-point Times Roman does arrive differently at my end.
> Larger and more easily readable. So evidently your message text is not
> converted on my end.
>
> 10-point Arial in my word processor looks a lot bigger than what I see in
> the Emails. Odd.
>
> Guerri
>
> On 1/4/2013 9:18 AM, EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:
>
>> It may be the settings in your email client. I send them, according to
>> AOL, in 10-point Arial. Sometimes, though, I send myself a message to one
>> of the other browsers I use; and I find in those cases that the typestyle
>> and size tends to be controlled by he settings at the receiving end.
>> This line is set for sending in 14-point Times Roman, Does it arrive
>> differently at your end?
>> -- Dick
>> In a message dated 1/4/2013 7:06:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> guerri (AT) guerristevens (DOT) com writes:
>>
>> Dick, Off the subject, but... what font are you using in your
>> messages?
>> As I see them, forwarded from the group to my Email, and using
>> Thunderbird to read them, they are in a very tiny, sans serif font.
>> There is someone else whose messages appear the same way.
>>
>> It might be something in my Thunderbird settings, I suppose.
>>
>>
>

[Guerri Stevens]

I happen to like your 12 point better, but Dodi told me an easy way to
make Thunderbird enlarge the 10 point. I don't know whether others have
a problem with 10-point or not. I mentioned it only because your
messages and someone else's displayed with very small type, and I
wondered why.

Guerri

On 1/4/2013 12:32 PM, EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:
> If it's a problem, I could start using 12-point Arial for Dixonary
> messages -- like this example.
> -- Dick

[Guerri Stevens]

I looked at View|Message Body and it is set as Original HTML. I tried
both Simple HTML and Plain Text, and both converted the 10-point Arial
to a larger size, and to what looks to me like Courier.

Guerri

On 1/4/2013 12:46 PM, John Barrs wrote:
> Guerri
>
> actually your evidence is that the message text *is* converted at your
> end - converted to what is sent
>
> a) check your TB Menu:View->Message Body and play with the options
> b) things that are too small (or too big) can be casually changed with
> <CTRL> + or <CTRL> -
>
> JohnnyB

[Steve Graham]

Outlook says 12-point Calibri here



Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results. Albert Einstein



From: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com [mailto:dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com] On Behalf
Of EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 9:32 AM
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Round 2369 -- HYPOCORISM -- Results



If it's a problem, I could start using 12-point Arial for Dixonary messages
-- like this example.



-- Dick



In a message dated 1/4/2013 12:08:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
guerri (AT) guerristevens (DOT) com writes:

Yes, the line with 14-point Times Roman does arrive differently at my
end. Larger and more easily readable. So evidently your message text is
not converted on my end.

10-point Arial in my word processor looks a lot bigger than what I see
in the Emails. Odd.

[Steve Graham]

Nope ... well Outlook says 13.5, but why quibble?



Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results. Albert Einstein



From: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com [mailto:dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com] On Behalf
Of EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 6:18 AM
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Round 2369 -- HYPOCORISM -- Results



It may be the settings in your email client. I send them, according to AOL,
in 10-point Arial. Sometimes, though, I send myself a message to one of the
other browsers I use; and I find in those cases that the typestyle and size
tends to be controlled by he settings at the receiving end.



This line is set for sending in 14-point Times Roman, Does it arrive
differently at your end?



-- Dick





In a message dated 1/4/2013 7:06:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
guerri (AT) guerristevens (DOT) com writes:

Dick, Off the subject, but... what font are you using in your messages?
As I see them, forwarded from the group to my Email, and using
Thunderbird to read them, they are in a very tiny, sans serif font.
There is someone else whose messages appear the same way.

It might be something in my Thunderbird settings, I suppose.