| From: | snake.eyes@***.net (Snake Eyes) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | SR Geek Code (was RE: Lurking Scrota) |
| Date: | Fri, 11 Oct 2002 05:54:21 -0700 |
>Ahem!!
>
>-----BEGIN GEEK CODE-----
>GAT/GIT d- s-: a24 C++++$ L+ !P W+++ N+ K? w M-- PS+ PE++ Y+ t--- 5? X
>R++>+$
>!tv b++ DI++ D++ G e^ h--- r++ x+++
>SR3++ h--- b++>++++ !B UB>+ IE+ RNLST++(DSF) !W dk++ ma- m+(o+++) gm+++ M-
>P++
>------END GEEK CODE------
>
>Is this correctly formatted?
Sorry, I must have missed that! :) I think it was originally intended
that the SR Geek Block would be separated from that of the "standard" Geek
Code, with it's own identifier & version declaration. See Logan's example
at the BKK site <http://www.intercom.net/user/logan1/bkk.htm>;. I believe
this was intended to facilitate future automated parsing & decoding of the
contents of the SR Geek Code block (Gee, there's a good weekend project!),
I don't recall having reached any consensus re: standardization. Besides
that, it all looks good to me.
I'm not sure whether there was ever any discussion regarding width of the
block. I know that some of the folks stuck using web-based email accounts
(Hotmail, Yahoo, etc.) have issues with line wrapping beyond a certain (but
currently unknown to me) point, and use of a variable-width display font
tends to screw things up as well.
Also, can I safely infer that DSF="Dumpshock Forum?"
~ Snake Eyes
-----Begin SRGC Block---------------------------
Version: 0.22
SR1+ SR2+ SR3+++ h+ b--(++)!B(---) UB++ IE-(+)
RN-(+)>+++ !W>++ dk-(+) sa+ ma- !sh ad+ ri->+
mc+(+++)!rk m-(+) e+ !t gm-(+)>+++ M--(++) P-
------End SRGC Block----------------------------
________________________________________________
"Hey, at least I'm not a troll!"
-- Slogan on T-shirt worn by
my ghoul/ex-merc PC.
________________________________________________
