Subj : Notice To : Nicholas Boel From : mark lewis Date : Fri Feb 21 2014 14:38:18 On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Nicholas Boel wrote to mark lewis: 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... NB> I would hardly call "keeping up with the times" - "advanced ways". NB> Noone's trying to shove it down your throat, either. You just need NB> to deal with the fact that other people like to do things NB> differently than you do, is all. *I* don't have a problem with it... others do... 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 ;) NB> So you're admitting that being an FTSC member is just patting NB> yourself on the back then? If nothing is advancing, then there is NB> no need for the FTSC. no... again, you've taken something the wrong way and run off into left field with it :( this was never about fidonet or fidonet technology... the technology used, file_id.diz didn't even originate in fidonet... so again, you can put that argument right back in your pocket or where ever yuo pulled it out of... 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... NB> You're right. It's the sysop's choice. And myself (as a sysop), I NB> choose to do it the way I want to do it. agreed... but you and others putting logos and drawings in the DIZ files are forcing other sysops to 1. have to edit the file descriptions to clean them up. or 2. have crappy looking file descriptions or 3. delete the files hell, i spent 12 hours the other day having to edit file descriptions on my system because so many came in with bad or truncated descriptions... i still have several thousand more to do and just thinking about it pisses me off... 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... NB> Nope. I don't expect everyone else to do the same as I do. The fact NB> that you sit here and say I don't think about the "sysop's NB> choice", well, what about my own choice, Mark? I choose to display NB> the descriptions the way I want them displayed, and in their NB> original form the way they were created. Apparantly that part's NB> going over your head with all this "sysop's choice" crap you're NB> spewing at me. no sir, it is not... but i'm also not talking about your choice in that... i'm talking about your choice when creating the DIZ files and the descriptions you use when you hatch files into the distribution stream(s)... what you do on your bbs is fine and good... it is what others are forced to have to do to deal with the mess that i'm trying to point out and clarify for you and others lurking in gallery... NB> I don't force people to use software that works, but I also don't NB> expect people to force me to go back to using 80s technology and NB> standards. Things have evolved for a reason, and will always NB> continue to do so. The people that choose to use software that NB> cannot evolve, well, eventually they will either be left behind or NB> have to deal with things breaking on their systems. making a choice to wrap descriptions is not having an 80's POV nor is it using software that has not evolved... those are poor arguments... 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... NB> That's nice. What's also nice is that it always seems to be you NB> that gets involved in everyone else's business. Why is it always NB> you who defends and attempts to explain what others apparantly NB> don't care enough to do themselves? Does it go over your head when NB> people say you can be quite annoying? Why are you in other's twit NB> filters because of these actions? Do you enjoy it? i don't know who may have me in some twit list and i really don't care... that's their problem and they deal with it as they see fit... 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? NB> The point was you're the only person that feels the NEED to get in NB> everyone else's business. then why the hell did you try to bring the FTSC into the discussion??? NB> It's well known around Fidonet. It's also well known that quite a NB> few people have told you to "F" off because of it, as well. I've NB> seen it with my own eyes on more than one occasion. yeah, and it worked, didn't it... i'm still here and i'm still helping others... i'm even helping you with some things concerning your system's operation... 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... NB> If it's not a problem that you have to deal with, then don't. It NB> seems you can't do that, though. sorry but i'm not going to just stand by and watch others get run over... i never have and i never will... 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 :/ NB> Heh. You can call me names all you want (I actually didn't think it NB> would go there, but alas, I was proven wrong), i didn't call you an name... i called you an item... NB> but if I'm being a dipwad here, you're being just as much of one, NB> if not more. possibly... NB> I'm only enjoying my hobby as a sysop and making my own choices. no problem with that.. only when it affects others is when problems come about... NB> I didn't jump off in left field because of Robert's post. I simply NB> offered another means to hatch out people's information packs in a NB> way that they wouldn't be altered from their original form. There NB> is no problem, you're only trying to make it into one by NB> nitpicking, and obviously pulling out context of my original post NB> (which was not a reply to Robert, I might add. I'm pretty sure it NB> was a post to "All." it quoted robert's post and as such, it was a reply to robert's post... i never tried to make it a problem and i certainly didn't want the shit to go on as long as it has... once again, i only tried to explain why the posted request was made... you bounced back in defense instead of looking at the situation from other's points of view and acknowledging the problem... NB> If Fidonet's own filegate originator can do it with no annoying NB> howling from you, then piss off and leave everyone else alone NB> about it. As far as this ridiculous argument is concerned, I'm NB> done with it. BTW: your system seems to be down again... web site is inaccessible and so is your mailer... traceroutes reach your system IP, though... i hope it isn't anything serious... )\/(ark One of the great tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts. --Benjamin Franklin --- FMail/Win32 1.60 * Origin: (1:3634/12.71) .