Re: When you can't prove anything, just flame

[KILPATRICK@Tank.CYBERphile.co.uk (Richard)]

In article <4ts5ld$3gs@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, nathan@cco.caltech.edu (Nathan Mates) says:
>
>In article <4tress$bp5@agate.xara.net>, Richard <rtk@scotborders.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4tg90p$kf0@darla.visi.com>, nathan@mixer.visi.com (Nathan Mates) says:
>>>   When I talk about the Apple II line, I talk about the following:
>>>the IIGS, the //e, //c, IIc+, ][+, and Apple ][. Each based on what
>>>its name tends to appear as on the case and/or startup screen.
>
>>Normally I wouldn't follow this is up. But, for once, Hear Hear.
>
>>As a dedicated user of ][, // and II in the CORRECT place, I can only
>>agree with this.Exept I use lower case IIgs, as on the case :).
>
>   I beg to disagree. The case definitely has a capital G (unless that
>is one crack-smoking font) on the front. It's the _size_ that's
>different. [When I'm typing up something on a graphical word processor,
>I type 'IIGS' with II in 12 point font, and GS in 10 point font. Given
>that this is usenet, I can't do multiple font sizes without making it
>very hard for a lot of people to read. So, I stick with IIGS.
>
>   It's the bootup text screen that has IIgs.

OK! (Would you believe I checked all three of my IIgs systems, including
the one which Steve Wozniak has signed (thanks to C. Turley, and also 
thanks for returning the lid at your own expense Tom!)).

I still reckon IIgs looks nicer though. When WinVN supports small caps,
then I'll be really happy with IIGS, but not until then.

Why are we arguing about this anyway :)

So, does anyone write IIc Plus then, in Apple garamond (30% (I think) 
condensed)? And I can verify that - I have one in front of me now...

Regards,
Richard