Text 884, 240 rader
Skriven 2012-07-19 01:23:31 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Kommentar till text 874 av Nicholas Boel (10873.fidonews)
Ärende: .fidonet
================
> that's about as much of a bullshit argument as i've ever heard... you
> youths just don't know how the games are really played and so you make up
> our own damned rules and screw everyone else... a perfect example is all
> the internet software out there that is still using tech older than
> fidonet
> and still doesn't quote properly (for this particular argument)... why?
> because no one give a damn when they should and could and the entire thing
> could have been so much better than the sloppy shit we have now :/
NB> There is no "damned rules" saying to do otherwise, Mark. Just
NB> because the editor YOU use (as well as a few others) does this, it
NB> doesn't mean they all have to.
look, if you had been around when this stuff was being developed instead of
being a johnny come lately to the party full of ideas about what is and isn't,
then you might know these things... sadly, though, many others who have been
here longer also don't know and so things are not quite as they appear to be...
you or someone else in "your group" spouted off the other day about "software
being compliant with specs and not proposals" definitely showed that they
didn't understand things... for a proposal to become a spec it must be in
widespread use... that means that software must be coded to the proposals and
then when it becomes a specification, they can alter their docs to say that it
is conformant with the spec instead of being conformant to the proposal...
NB> If you want to push to make it a standard practice, I'm sure Rob
NB> will gladly oblidge. Until then, find something else to bitch and
NB> complain about.
awww... did that make you feel better? ;)
> i didn't start the thread... is your threading broken?
NB> No, you're right. I said Synchronet was 100% FTN compliant. Paul
NB> disagreed, ONE piece of software was brought up that apparantly
NB> doesn't work so far, which hasn't been proven yet and you've been
NB> whining this entire time.
you've not been keeping up then...
NB> Holy crap! I remembered who said what! See, Mark, it isn't that
NB> hard. :)
i know that made you feel better, didn't it? :)
> the MSGID is made of two parts... the origaddr and the unique-for-3-years
> serial number... the origaddr should not be parsed but if it is
> going to be
> used, it can and should be used as it is... what is so hard to understand
> about that? this is NOT the internet when any old crap is fine...
NB> The MSGID is still the damn MSGID. I don't care how many parts it
NB> has. It shouldn't be parsed, or used for sending netmail. If your
NB> editor is doing that, there's something wrong with your editor.
you are still missing the point... but then again, as a user and not a coder, i
guess this is to be expected <sigh>...
> properly written FTN software does look in more than one place... which
> address should be used if the others are not the same? how's about i pop
> over into SYNCHRONET and try to send you a private reply to one of your
> posts over there? will it end up on YOUR bbs where you originated the
> message i would be replying to or would it fall into a blackhole or
> require
> the operator of that system to manually forward it on to your real address
> in that othernet???
NB> The MSGID shouldn't be used at all for addressing anything to
NB> anyone. It's a message identifier. That is all.
wrong! if you had been here and/or would just listen to those who have been
here and know better, you would know this and understand the situation
better... sorry...
NB> As far as Dovenet is concerned, that issue probably should have
NB> been addressed when gating was allowed into Fidonet. Any software
NB> that is gating an othernet to Fidonet and back will do the same
NB> thing, and only produce one node number. If I'm wrong, please
NB> enlighten me.
hunh? there's no problem with having a gating system's node number in the
posts... what is a/the problem is the inability to make private replies back to
the originator of messages from the other side of the gateway... this applies
to those posts that may be gated even thru multipls gateways thru multiple
networks... any message should be able to be privately replied to and that
reply should traverse any and all gateways back to the originating system and
user...
NB> That still has nothing to do with the MSGID being exactly what it
NB> is, a message identifier. Not a means of netmail addressing.
and there you go not understanding how things really work :/
> right... but they do chainsaw quotes and loose characters and even whole
> words at times... proper reflowing of the quotes would be a big step
> forward... shirley this can be done in that javascript stuff? once that is
> done, adding the initials is child's play ;)
NB> Actually, both of them don't do that anymore. If you have them
NB> setup right. I've used Slyedit for some time now, and I am
NB> actually the one who requested the line wrapping so as to not cut
NB> off text at the end of a message. So don't think I haven't done
NB> anything around these parts, Mark!
i've been watching the developments and the discussions that are in the areas
gated to fidonet... and i've not said that you haven't done anything to help
make things better... but you are here attacking me on the one hand and
apparently trying to make these things better on the other hand... are you
talking out of both sides of your mouth?
NB> There is also an option in the external editor configuration of
NB> Synchronet to wrap quoted lines. I'm not sure how good that works
NB> as I requested it be built into the editor I was using. But it's
NB> definitely there, and if one doesn't know any better, they
NB> probably wouldn't enable that option when setting an editor up.
that doesn't make any sense... should i point the gun at my foot and pull the
trigger or not? of course one would select to wrap quoted text instead of
cutting off parts of that text... what id10t wouldn't??
> software gives a shit???? gimme a break, eh? this is truely a very sad
> state of affairs... really...
NB> Only for you, Mark. Most people are here for fun and good
NB> conversation. Not to critique every little thing that comes
NB> around, and whine about it for extended periods of time. That,
NB> actually, pushes people away.
wrong... most people are here for communications and that includes all aspects
of the network's communications methods...
> [truthful sarcasm]
> when you grow up, maybe you'll see the difference and realize how crappy
> chainsaw quoting and no quote initials really is...
> [/truthful sarcasm]
NB> Bah! Humbug! Get off my lawn! :(
your lawn? right... i'm on my lawn on my property... it is a two way street, ya
know? ;)
> i wasn't being sarcastic... that's part of the problem, too...
> "you"'re too
> busy being a smartass and sarcastic to pay attention to the real problem
> and see the arguments from others' points of view... "you" sound just like
> my kids before they grew up and learned these things or got killed...
NB> I'm only a smartass to the people that truly believe they know
NB> everything and try to push a "my way or the highway" point of view
NB> on others. There is no problem here, Mark. It's only a figment of
NB> your imagination.
and so you know me and how i work but you've been here how long? sure, you and
others in "your crew" may know when each is being sarcastic but you cannot
expect to walk into a whole new place and have everyone see and understand when
you are being sarcastic... ESPECIALLY in a text only environment AND when you
do not supply any indication of such... yes, others in here and i carry on and
seem to be whining and bitching at each other but you do not know us as we know
us... you have no history with us like we do with each other... many times we
can tell when the other is being sarcastic or just yanking someone's leg but
you and others are new here... not to the network (but that does come into
play) but to this area and to the participation of our existing/ongoing
conversations...
> your sarcasm is bullshit and you definitely read "mine" wrong... there is
> no one in fidonet that i consider to be in my circle of "me and
> mine"... so
> why you ever thought that anyone else was involved is beyond me... perhaps
> you should drop the sarcasm shit in the trash and try to follow along
> instead of stiring the shit? you are at least 15 years too late... you'd
> have fit in perfectly back in the 90's...
NB> You really flip your lid when you're not getting your way, eh?
nope... why would you think that? again, you don't know me and if you think my
resent stuff was "flipping my lid" then you really don't have a clue... you've
not seen me "flip out"... and actually, there may be only one or two times in
the last 10 years that i have... if this was me "flipping out" then i really
hate to see what you think if/when i really do let go...
NB> Whether or not I would have fit perfectly back in the 90s, I was
NB> busy chasing women and all-in-all just having fun. I'm guessing
NB> you were *right here* bitching and whining then, too?
ahh... the youth... chasing women... why chase them if you do things right and
they just come to you? you are funny, ya know? your youth is showing :P
> who says that things haven't been said to janis about this? not everything
> is done out in the open... most of the time when it get to that
> point it is
> because everything else has failed in private and it all just boils
> over...
> then we get st00pid sarcastic shit that has only the purpose of keeping
> things stirred up...
NB> Paul took his concerns to netmail. Why didn't you? Nothing failed
NB> between you and I in private, because nothing was done in private.
NB> You wanted to make a mockery of me in public, and I'm basically
NB> telling you to shove it where the sun don't shine. :)
i'm not trying to make a mockery of anyone... the discussion started in public
and that's where i am responding... wouldn't it be rather courious if we were
bitching in public and then all of a sudden it went quiet between us? there are
way too many conspiracy nuts around who would take that and run with it to the
ends of the earth... you'd rather that? for that matter, why should *i* have to
take that step to go private when you have the option as well? you could easily
have approached me in private but you didn't... you swung and i swung back...
NB> Show us spec references telling Rob his way is wrong, and you might
NB> get somewhere. As of right now, it's not wrong (except in your
NB> eyes). So shaddup about it already!
awww gee... have i stepped on yer willtle toes? see above or previous... specs
do not become specs without support... that means coding to proposals so as to
get them in widespread use... this isn't rocket science, shirley ;)
> many bugs aren't seen until someone else points them out... i've yet to
> meet an ostrich that is unhappy with their head in the sand where they
> can't see what's really going on... most users don't have a clue
> what their
> software is doing or why it is doing it... thanks m$, apple and xerox for
> hiding everything behind the pretty stuff... ooohhh! it is so pretty! i
> don't know how it works or care but it is so pretty!!
NB> When it's not a bug, it doesn't need to be pointed out. Sometimes
NB> when YOU think it's a bug, it's not a bug.
and then again, sometime they are and they result in gobs of personal data
being swiped and made public... ask linkedin, yahoo, m$ and many others about
their supposed non-bugs in their code, eh...
NB> I don't have that problem with the pretty stuff. The only time I
NB> boot into Windows is to play a game, and that's few and far in
NB> between these days.
i didn't specifically point to windows... i said pretty... that goes for
command line tools, too ;)
)\/(ark
* Origin: (1:3634/12)
|