Text 886, 68 rader
Skriven 2012-07-19 02:02:54 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
    Kommentar till text 873 av Nicholas Boel (10875.fidonews)
Ärende: Netmail to you not sent!                   was: .fidonet
================================================================
 >  NB> Every statement you're making by saying that the MSGID should only
 >  NB> contain the  node number of said network
 > 
 > i've never said it should only contain the node number of the machine in
 > the network... you are not reading and following along properly :(

 NB> But there's where your senility comes in. You've said on plenty of
 NB> occasions  that there should only be two parts, the node number,
 NB> and the reference  number. I'm reading and following along just
 NB> fine, Mark. You're just  forgetting what you're saying!
 NB>  

no... i never said there should be only two parts, i said there are two
parts... you aren't keeping up...

 > read the spec... it SHOULD be a proper return address for the 
 > ORIGINATING NETWORK...

 NB> Like Rob said. "Should" is not "must" or "required". Maybe you
 NB> should request  a revision?

i don't need to... it is not my problem if your software doesn't allow others
to reply privately you any of your posts... it is your problem, for one, and
the networks' problem for another...

 > i'm not trying to cover a god damned thing... neither am i trying to
 > backpedal out of anything... and truth be known, this is also exactly why
 > the problem still exists... folk get sick and tired of pointing the
 > contrary flaws and the broken interaction that they give up and let the
 > id10ts go one being the ignorant id10ts they apparently want to
 > be... sorry
 > you don't get that or understand it...

 NB> You're running me in circles, Mark. This is getting real old, real
 NB> fast. 

i've been telling you that you haven't been keeping up... sorry... no i'm
not... yes i am... no, no... i'm really not... i try and try but there's only
so many words... even resorting to emphatic construction worker or sailor talk
doesn't seem to work... sorry... no, i'm not ;) :P

 NB> Tell  you what, I'm going to be the ignorant id10t that wants
 NB> fun and good  conversation out of this whole ordeal. I'm not going
 NB> to nitpick, and I'm not  going to bitch and moan about every little
 NB> aspect of this hobby, either. Going  back and forth with you the
 NB> past few days is making me feel like my life is  being slowly
 NB> drained out of me for no apparant reason. Do you see the affect 
 NB> you have on people, Mark? Thanks for that.

thankyou! now you know how i feel when attempting to point out and explain how
things have worked for years and why certain software isn't up to snuff in the
recently discussed aspects of being a good network citizen... that's another
point that i guess has (finally) been made...

 NB> Now until you change some wording in your fuckin' standards, or
 NB> prove to me  where Synchronet is not compliant with specs, OUTSIDE
 NB> of your own stupid  opinion.. Noone's going to listen to your
 NB> opinions, because right now that's  all they are. Opinions.

again, you are not keeping up... you have to code to proposals before they can
become specs... i dare say that someone else should have found FSC-0035 long
before now... it may very well be the answer to the private replies problem, ya
know? that's really rhetorical... i don't expect you to try to find a solution
to problems like this and you've done very well at that ;)

)\/(ark 

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)