Subj : Notice To : mark lewis From : Nicholas Boel Date : Thu Feb 20 2014 22:58:50 Hello mark, On 18 Feb 14 22:21, mark lewis wrote to Nicholas Boel: ml> no it does not... not when you TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT... you ml> specifically left out "the decision to attempt"... -=*that*=- is an ml> extremely important part of the statement... That I don't care much about, either. You'll see why below.. [long winded rants skipped] ml> no i did not... i kept replying because you never acknowledged the ml> basic points of the problem... the main one being SYSOP'S CHOICE to ml> wrap or not... you asked for the specs and i showed them to you... ml> those specs state no special formatting or centering and the like... ml> you only looked at the ascii character aspect and convienently left ml> out the no special formatting aspect of the spec... I'm surprised by now you didn't notice that I don't care that a few people want to hold everything to 80s standards. ml> this is another problem... others forcing their "advanced ways" down ml> others throats... just like morals, religion and penises, you can do ml> with them what you want but don't try to shove them down others ml> throats without a fight... I would hardly call "keeping up with the times" - "advanced ways". Noone's trying to shove it down your throat, either. You just need to deal with the fact that other people like to do things differently than you do, is all. ml> the technology hasn't changed in decades... it isn't advancing and it ml> isn't going back in time... it is, in fact, stagnant and not moving at ml> all... it is called "retro" for a reason ;) So you're admitting that being an FTSC member is just patting yourself on the back then? If nothing is advancing, then there is no need for the FTSC. ml> sorry but again, it is not the software and its operation... it is ml> sysop's choice #1... another aspect is other software out of our ml> control and how that software displays the results... You're right. It's the sysop's choice. And myself (as a sysop), I choose to do it the way I want to do it. ml> that's all fine and good but it still doesn't negate the fact that the ml> spec is being broken and all that is being sought is for the spec to ml> be honored... you say you honor it but apparently not all of it... ml> 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 ml>> trying to convey... If you want to talk about spec being broken, let's take a look at a recent filegate release, mmkay? ÉÍ[HWiNFO]ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ[v5.5.2]Í» º Hardware Info Program for DOS º ÇÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĶ º þ Recognizes CPUs, CPU details º º þ MultiCPU, P.I.ROM and Chipset info º º þ PnP, DMI, APM and ACPI information º º þ SDRAM,DDR,DDR2,DDR3,FB,RDRAM info º º þ ISA, EISA, MCA, PCI, AGP, PCI-Expr. º º þ ~1000 video chipsets, memory, clock º º þ VESA DDC monitor identification º º þ Sound card, CD-ROM, PCMCIA, Printer º º þ COM, LPT, HW key, Modem info; 8042 º º þ ASPI SCSI devices information º º þ IDE, ATAPI, S-ATA info º º þ CPU Errata Test, IRQ & DMA list º º þ Temperature, Voltage and FAN status º º ... and much, much more ... º ÇÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĶ º (c)1995-11 Martin Mal¡k, BA, SLOVAKIA º º http://www.hwinfo.com º ÈÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ[REALiX]ͼ Orig: 1:261/38 I'm pretty sure your argument just got shat on right there if the filegate originator also chooses to release .diz's in their original form. It will probably be mangled on your system since I translated to UTF-8 and the CP437 characters aren't mapped the same (even though it appears just fine on my BBS), but it's ASCII characters over 128, as well as the spacing issues you were complaining about. So uh, yeah.. herpty derp. NB>> How do you know what the spec is trying to convey? ml> because i was there when it came out, for one thing... i participated ml> in many discussions on several networks about things like it... i used ml> to be a user of several networks as well as being a node and sysop in ml> fidonet... NB>> All of a sudden you're an original author or attempt to speak NB>> for them? ml> someone has to... they're not here to defend themselves any more... ml> who better than someone who has been there on both sides of the ml> argument and knows the history?? Glad you had your moment this month of puffing your chest out about how long you've been around and all your vast accomplishments in the Fidonet community, but the fact still remains you're not the original author, so trying to speak on their behalf is completely redundant. They have most likely either moved on to bigger, better, and much more advanced things, or left this "retro" hobby for a good reason, much like the father of Fidonet did. ml> yes, and this particular problem has been complained about since the ml> first one appeared... granted, it has not been incessent bitching and ml> complaining like some things but the complaints have still been being ml> voiced... that you've not been where you can hear them or have chosen ml> to turn a deaf ear is a different problem... And the fact that you bring up stuff like this in which 99% of everyone else doesn't care about, is your choice. There hasn't been *any* discussion about it in 3 years. And if the above originator had any input on this ridiculous idea, then maybe people should start practicing what they preach. ml> and yet you never think about another sysop's choice to display the ml> descriptions how they want them displayed... are you expecting ever ml> system out there to display files in the same way that your system ml> does? i don't... i'm not that narrow minded or anal... Nope. I don't expect everyone else to do the same as I do. The fact that you sit here and say I don't think about the "sysop's choice", well, what about my own choice, Mark? I choose to display the descriptions the way I want them displayed, and in their original form the way they were created. Apparantly that part's going over your head with all this "sysop's choice" crap you're spewing at me. I don't force people to use software that works, but I also don't expect people to force me to go back to using 80s technology and standards. Things have evolved for a reason, and will always continue to do so. The people that choose to use software that cannot evolve, well, eventually they will either be left behind or have to deal with things breaking on their systems. ml> no, i was not... i added my voice after others brought it up... AND as ml> stated before, my posts on the topic in /this/ echo are only in ml> defense of robert's post AND attempting to explain the reasoning ml> behind the posted statement he made... That's nice. What's also nice is that it always seems to be you that gets involved in everyone else's business. Why is it always you who defends and attempts to explain what others apparantly don't care enough to do themselves? Does it go over your head when people say you can be quite annoying? Why are you in other's twit filters because of these actions? Do you enjoy it? ml> this has nothign to do with the FTSC so you can put that little ml> argument right back on the shelf where you got it from, mmmkay? The point was you're the only person that feels the NEED to get in everyone else's business. It's well known around Fidonet. It's also well known that quite a few people have told you to "F" off because of it, as well. I've seen it with my own eyes on more than one occasion. ml> you're not listening in the right places, then... i can't help that... ml> you might not even have access to those places... i don't know... it ml> isn't a problem that i have to deal with... sorry... If it's not a problem that you have to deal with, then don't. It seems you can't do that, though. ml> there is no "enforcer" so please stop being a dipwad about that... you ml> misread the statement i made and jumped way off into left field ml> =again= in the same way you did when you read robert's original post ml> and my replies to you trying to explain the problem... i'm still ml> trying to get you to come back out of left field and acknowledge the ml> problem... i don't know why but i am... i guess i care too damned ml> frackin' much :/ Heh. You can call me names all you want (I actually didn't think it would go there, but alas, I was proven wrong), but if I'm being a dipwad here, you're being just as much of one, if not more. I'm only enjoying my hobby as a sysop and making my own choices. I didn't jump off in left field because of Robert's post. I simply offered another means to hatch out people's information packs in a way that they wouldn't be altered from their original form. There is no problem, you're only trying to make it into one by nitpicking, and obviously pulling out context of my original post (which was not a reply to Robert, I might add. I'm pretty sure it was a post to "All." If Fidonet's own filegate originator can do it with no annoying howling from you, then piss off and leave everyone else alone about it. As far as this ridiculous argument is concerned, I'm done with it. Regards, Nick --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910 * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701) .