Subj : Notice To : Nicholas Boel From : mark lewis Date : Tue Feb 18 2014 22:21:56 On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Nicholas Boel wrote to mark lewis: 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... NB> "Enforcement again was made higher up than that." Now THAT explains NB> EVERYTHING! no it does not... not when you TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT... you specifically left out "the decision to attempt"... -=*that*=- is an extremely important part of the statement... NB> At least now I know what crappy software is having problems with NB> it. Thanks for the heads up. :) you do?? what software would you be thinking of? remember, we've talked about several DIFFERNT aspects of files' descriptions... 1. descriptions from TICs' DESC line used in announcement posts 2. descriptions from TICs' LDESC lines used in announcement posts 3. descriptions from files' FILE_ID.DIZ used in announcement posts 4. descriptions from TICs' DESC line used in file area databases 5. descriptions from TICs' LDESC lines used in file area databases 6. descriptions from files' FILE_ID.DIZ used in file area databases AND we must also consider the SYSOPS CHOICE TO WRAP OR NOT... 1. the DIZ creator cannot force sysops to not wrap the DIZ contents... 2. the archive creator cannot force sysops to not wrap the DIZ contents... 3. the hatcher cannot force sysops to not wrap the DESC, LDESC or DIZ contents... 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... NB> And I kept telling you that I wasn't going to change anything. Yet NB> you continually replied like I gave a shit. no i did not... i kept replying because you never acknowledged the basic points of the problem... the main one being SYSOP'S CHOICE to wrap or not... you asked for the specs and i showed them to you... those specs state no special formatting or centering and the like... you only looked at the ascii character aspect and convienently left out the no special formatting aspect of the spec... NB> If that means my infopack won't be hatched out on that FDN, so be NB> it. I don't really look at that as my loss. :) :shrug: NB> If the "enforcement" wants to hold Fidonet back from continuing on NB> into the future, that's their problem. Some of us want to make NB> Fidonet better, rather than stick to '80s technology and ideas. NB> Some of us are just sitting back and waiting patiently for the NB> right time. :) this is another problem... others forcing their "advanced ways" down others throats... just like morals, religion and penises, you can do with them what you want but don't try to shove them down others throats without a fight... 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... NB> Somewhere we lost the fact that I only use currently maintained NB> software, and just as well, most (if not all) of it is open NB> source. allfix is currently maintained... it isn't open source, though... and what you or i use has not been part of the discussion of the problem... the discussion of the problem is file descriptions that turn into shit when they get wrapped or displayed by some sysop's software of choice... all the rest has been diversionary and only taken away from the discussion of the actual problem... 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... NB> Maybe.. no maybe about it... i peeked under the hood of your (and similar) site(s) and discovered at least one aspect of the secret... too bad it may not work in the future when support for it is dropped by the masses... but for now it works... when support is dropped, you'll be in the same boat as those who have been dealing with the problem for the last several decades and nothing your software can do will fix it without a major change that appears to be a long way off... 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... NB> I don't agree with the request, and I'm not here to watch NB> technology go back in time, either. the technology hasn't changed in decades... it isn't advancing and it isn't going back in time... it is, in fact, stagnant and not moving at all... it is called "retro" for a reason ;) 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... NB> My system as well as other's I've pointed out that work fine are NB> justification enough for me. That some people haven't moved on NB> from the 90s and upgraded their systems, using newer, updated, and NB> even some currently maintained software in the process where all NB> these issues (amongst many others) could have been resolved years NB> ago. sorry but again, it is not the software and its operation... it is sysop's choice #1... another aspect is other software out of our control and how that software displays the results... ml> right... and those using spacing to format ascii characters to form a ml> type of logo drawn with ascii characters... NB> Looks good to me! You're explanations and requests are directed at NB> the wrong guy here, Mark. I've been doing custom file_id.diz's for NB> people since the early 90s, and have participated in many ANSI art NB> groups in the past as well (even the most recent release a couple NB> months ago). that's all fine and good but it still doesn't negate the fact that the spec is being broken and all that is being sought is for the spec to be honored... you say you honor it but apparently not all of it... that statement is not aimed directly at you, personally, either... 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... NB> How do you know what the spec is trying to convey? because i was there when it came out, for one thing... i participated in many discussions on several networks about things like it... i used to be a user of several networks as well as being a node and sysop in fidonet... NB> All of a sudden you're an original author or attempt to speak for NB> them? someone has to... they're not here to defend themselves any more... who better than someone who has been there on both sides of the argument and knows the history?? NB> The point is, these types of file_id.diz's have been created and NB> used for just about as long as they have been available. yes, and this particular problem has been complained about since the first one appeared... granted, it has not been incessent bitching and complaining like some things but the complaints have still been being voiced... that you've not been where you can hear them or have chosen to turn a deaf ear is a different problem... NB> The fact that one or two people are whining about it is NB> definitely not a majority. Just the slim few that are anal NB> retentive, is all. bullshit... what was that you said about opinions earlier? 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... NB> Too bad for those systems. I just wont even visit them in that NB> case. Most of the file descriptions I see are mostly legible, NB> which is the complete opposite of what you're saying. With that, NB> you can stay on your side, and I'll stay on mine. and yet you never think about another sysop's choice to display the descriptions how they want them displayed... are you expecting ever system out there to display files in the same way that your system does? i don't... i'm not that narrow minded or anal... 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... NB> You were the one to voice the complaint (which you seem to always NB> be the one who rains on others' parades, no, i was not... i added my voice after others brought it up... AND as stated before, my posts on the topic in /this/ echo are only in defense of robert's post AND attempting to explain the reasoning behind the posted statement he made... NB> yet as an FTSC member you're just supposed to document current NB> practice). this has nothign to do with the FTSC so you can put that little argument right back on the shelf where you got it from, mmmkay? NB> This is the first time I've heard the complaint, and the way you're NB> describing it, there's only a handful of people (or less) NB> complaining about it. That's a minority, IMO. you're not listening in the right places, then... i can't help that... you might not even have access to those places... i don't know... it isn't a problem that i have to deal with... sorry... NB> Regardless, The file won't be hatched out in Fidonet anymore since NB> I'm not changing anything (at least until "the enforcer(s)" step NB> [or fall] off their thrones). there is no "enforcer" so please stop being a dipwad about that... you misread the statement i made and jumped way off into left field =again= in the same way you did when you read robert's original post and my replies to you trying to explain the problem... i'm still trying to get you to come back out of left field and acknowledge the problem... i don't know why but i am... i guess i care too damned frackin' much :/ )\/(ark * Origin: (1:3634/12) SEEN-BY: 229/426 103/17 705 102/401 103/1 218/215 810 840 850 301/1 218/860 SEEN-BY: 218/880 214/22 218/900 910 870 930 601 940 124/5016 218/700 1 10/1 SEEN-BY: 218/0 10/0 .