Subj : Notice To : mark lewis From : Nicholas Boel Date : Tue Feb 18 2014 19:43:40 Hello mark, On 18 Feb 14 09:06, mark lewis wrote to Nicholas Boel: ml> sorry but no... this all started in another echo and then came here ml> when robert posted his message which you apparently took umbrage to... Hmm... ml> no one person moderating one FDN threatened anyone... the decision to ml> attempt enforcement again was made higher up than that my concensus of ml> the members of the network doing the distributing... it was not one ml> FDN area person... "Enforcement again was made higher up than that." Now THAT explains EVERYTHING! At least now I know what crappy software is having problems with it. Thanks for the heads up. :) ml> i did not jump your case, nick... as i stated before, all i've tried ml> to do was to explain robert's post and the whys behind it... nothing ml> more... anything else read into that is a huge misunderstanding and ml> misreading of my post(s) on this subject... And I kept telling you that I wasn't going to change anything. Yet you continually replied like I gave a shit. If that means my infopack won't be hatched out on that FDN, so be it. I don't really look at that as my loss. :) If the "enforcement" wants to hold Fidonet back from continuing on into the future, that's their problem. Some of us want to make Fidonet better, rather than stick to '80s technology and ideas. Some of us are just sitting back and waiting patiently for the right time. :) NB>> If Allfix had a Linux version, I'm sure I would have used it by NB>> now. ml> do you not run any DOS doors on your system? allfix should be able to ml> run just like they are... all it needs is access to the PKTs or MSG ml> netmail area as well as the files areas... Somewhere we lost the fact that I only use currently maintained software, and just as well, most (if not all) of it is open source. NB>> My BBS seems to display all of these file_id.diz's just fine over NB>> here as well. I'm definitely not seeing the same issue you are. ml> then maybe you or your software have figured out how to handle CP437 ml> characters without them being translated when other CPs are being ml> used... Maybe.. ml> i never targetted you, nick... i replied to your reply because you ml> didn't seem to understand the original request and why it was made in ml> the first place... nothing more... I don't agree with the request, and I'm not here to watch technology go back in time, either. ml> hell no... as i've stated several times, i am/was trying to explain ml> the problem to you but all you seem to want to do is look at your ml> system and use it to justify causing others' systems' files areas to ml> look like crap because someone wants to draw fancy stuff in their file ml> descriptions... My system as well as other's I've pointed out that work fine are justification enough for me. That some people haven't moved on from the 90s and upgraded their systems, using newer, updated, and even some currently maintained software in the process where all these issues (amongst many others) could have been resolved years ago. ml> right... and those using spacing to format ascii characters to form a ml> type of logo drawn with ascii characters... Looks good to me! You're explanations and requests are directed at the wrong guy here, Mark. I've been doing custom file_id.diz's for people since the early 90s, and have participated in many ANSI art groups in the past as well (even the most recent release a couple months ago). This adds to my reasoning of why I completely disagree with you and/or "the enforcer." :/ ml> other than the spaced out formatting, the characters used are ok ml> although not specifically within the realm of what the spec was trying ml> to convey... How do you know what the spec is trying to convey? All of a sudden you're an original author or attempt to speak for them? The point is, these types of file_id.diz's have been created and used for just about as long as they have been available. The fact that one or two people are whining about it is definitely not a majority. Just the slim few that are anal retentive, is all. ml> that's beside the point, nick... i, too, like looking at the logos and ml> drawings but not in file descriptions where they are mostly illegible ml> and end up mashed together on systems that don't have the capabilities ml> of your system or mine... Too bad for those systems. I just wont even visit them in that case. Most of the file descriptions I see are mostly legible, which is the complete opposite of what you're saying. With that, you can stay on your side, and I'll stay on mine. ml> i'm not the only one, nick... you certainly have a way of flipping ml> things around and seeing them in a way not intended... *I* didn't ml> originate the complaints this time... the complaints have been made ml> numerous times over the last three decades... each time, things get ml> cleaned up and are better for a while and then they slide again... You were the one to voice the complaint (which you seem to always be the one who rains on others' parades, yet as an FTSC member you're just supposed to document current practice). This is the first time I've heard the complaint, and the way you're describing it, there's only a handful of people (or less) complaining about it. That's a minority, IMO. Regardless, The file won't be hatched out in Fidonet anymore since I'm not changing anything (at least until "the enforcer(s)" step [or fall] off their thrones). Regards, Nick --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910 * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701) .