Posted by Peter Hucker on November 23, 2005, 8:17 pm
wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:54:23 -0000, John Fields
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:54:14 -0000, John Fields
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Well, I use Giganews and the attachment didn't come through,
>>>>
>>>> Then it didn't hurt you did it?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Assuming I cared anything about it, it would have. That is, since
>>> it would not have appeared I would have had to ask the poster to
>>> re-post it to abse or email it to me, when if he had posted to abse
>>> (or on the web somewhere and posted a link to it) in the first
>>> place, like he should have, there would have been nothing further
>>> required.
>>
>> If someone posts the text to one group and the binary to another, it's an
extra hassle to go get it.
> ---
> No it isn't. One merely posts a link to the article and with one
> click, there it is.
My newsreader won't do that. Anyway you still have to load something extra. If
the attachment is included, it's right there in front of you, without flipping
between two posts.
>> So I simply skip those messages.
> ---
> Not if you're at all interested in what's going to be posted, yous
> won't.
If I've read enough to know I'll be interested by that point.
>> A web link wouldn't be so bad I suppose, but for 5kB which is textpost sized,
I'd much prefer it >was sat right here!
> ---
> What you'd prefer is of little importance, you narcissistic twit;
> you'll get what you need.
Stop showing your stupidity. I can only laugh so much in one day.
>>> No it's keeping a text-only group text only, like it's supposed to
>>> be.
>>
>> Which is pedantic.
> ---
> You really ought to look up pedantic.
I did. Twice. What's your meaning then? But as you are a pedant, you will
have a meaning which is 0.0001% different to mine, so call mine completely wrong.
>>>>> Well, your demeanor certainly belies your professed experience,
>>>>> especially when you offer blanket permission to post binaries on
>>>>> text-only newsgroups with no authority behind your grandiose
>>>>> posturing.
>>>>
>>>> Authority should be illegal :-P
>>>
>>> ---
>>> If it were, it couldn't be.
>>
>> Hence the :-P
> ---
> So you're trying to be cute? It doesn't wash.
A pedant with no sense of humoUr. You're getting worse.
>>>> Your rules made sense back when everyone had a 1200 baud modem, but not now.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> They aren't _my_ rules, they're usenet rules,
>>
>> I was being imprecise again :-P
>> I meant the rules you quoted.
> ---
> The rules I quoted _are_ usenet rules. Text only newsgroups are not
> for posting binaries to.
Says who?
> Period. Simple.
Menstruation has nothing to do with it.
>>> and when everyone
>>> adheres to them things go smoothly. If you want to change them,
>>> then I suggest you start by reading:
>>>
>>> http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html
>>
>> They're guidelines, not rules.
> ---
> Oh, so _now_ you want to be precise?
Nope, I want to be vague. Rules are precise, guidelines are vague.
> Call them what you like, they're still meant to be followed.
As a general rule.
>> You don't appear to understand what bending the rules is. If there is a sign
saying no overtaking, and a queue of traffic stuck behind a tractor doing 2mph,
I suppose you'd call overtaking it breaking the law?
> ---
> Yes, of course, and if you decide to overtake the trailer then you
> have to be prepared to take the responsibility for having broken the
> law. Since it seems you've been raised in a civilized society, I
> find it difficult to understand your inability to realize the
> importance of rules and of the law.
The no overtaking sign would mean it is dangerous to overtake another car. When
a tractor or bicyle is involved, the speeds are much lower.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com
_.-"-._
_.-' `-._
_.-' `-,-"-._
|-._ _.-'" `-._
_.-"-._`-._ _.-' `-,-"-._
_.-' `-._`-._|-._ _.-'" `-._
_.-' `-._| `-._ _.-"-,-' `-._
"-._ _.-| _.-" "`-._ _.-"
`-._ _.-'_.-"-,-' `-._ _.-'
`-._ _.-'_.-' "`-._ _.-|_.-'
|_.-' `-._ _.-' "
"-._ _.-|_.-'
`-._ _.-' "
`-._ _.-'
"
Posted by John Fields on November 23, 2005, 3:01 pm
wrote:
wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:54:23 -0000, John Fields
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:54:14 -0000, John Fields
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Well, I use Giganews and the attachment didn't come through,
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it didn't hurt you did it?
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Assuming I cared anything about it, it would have. That is, since
>>>> it would not have appeared I would have had to ask the poster to
>>>> re-post it to abse or email it to me, when if he had posted to abse
>>>> (or on the web somewhere and posted a link to it) in the first
>>>> place, like he should have, there would have been nothing further
>>>> required.
>>>
>>> If someone posts the text to one group and the binary to another, it's an
extra hassle to go get it.
>>
>> ---
>> No it isn't. One merely posts a link to the article and with one
>> click, there it is.
>My newsreader won't do that.
---
A poor workman blames his tools. If it's not adequate for the job,
get one that is. Free Agent will do it if you don't want to spend
any money and will keep you from having to make excuses for your
inadequacy.
---
> Anyway you still have to load something extra.
> If the attachment is included, it's right there in
>front of you, without flipping between two posts.
---
The point, which you seem to have missed, is that if you send a post
with a binary attached to it to a text-only group the chances are
pretty good that the intended recipient will never see the
attachment whicfh will lead to a lot more hassle than if you'd
posted properly in the first place.
---
>> ---
>> What you'd prefer is of little importance, you narcissistic twit;
>> you'll get what you need.
>Stop showing your stupidity. I can only laugh so much in one day.
---
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one with a crippled newsreader and a
penchant for slovenly thought and communications.
---
>>>> No it's keeping a text-only group text only, like it's supposed to
>>>> be.
>>>
>>> Which is pedantic.
>>
>> ---
>> You really ought to look up pedantic.
>I did. Twice. What's your meaning then? But as you are a pedant, you will
have a meaning which is 0.0001% different to mine, so call mine completely wrong.
---
Well, since you've got it all figured out I guess I'll just leave
you there, hanging...
---
>>>>>> Well, your demeanor certainly belies your professed experience,
>>>>>> especially when you offer blanket permission to post binaries on
>>>>>> text-only newsgroups with no authority behind your grandiose
>>>>>> posturing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Authority should be illegal :-P
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> If it were, it couldn't be.
>>>
>>> Hence the :-P
>>
>> ---
>> So you're trying to be cute? It doesn't wash.
>A pedant with no sense of humoUr. You're getting worse.
>>>>> Your rules made sense back when everyone had a 1200 baud modem, but not
now.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> They aren't _my_ rules, they're usenet rules,
>>>
>>> I was being imprecise again :-P
>>> I meant the rules you quoted.
>>
>> ---
>> The rules I quoted _are_ usenet rules. Text only newsgroups are not
>> for posting binaries to.
>Says who?
---
Google "usenet rules" for a clue or read the link I sent you again.
---
>> Period. Simple.
>Menstruation has nothing to do with it.
---
What are you, in the sixth grade or something?
---
>>>> and when everyone
>>>> adheres to them things go smoothly. If you want to change them,
>>>> then I suggest you start by reading:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html
>>>
>>> They're guidelines, not rules.
>>
>> ---
>> Oh, so _now_ you want to be precise?
>Nope, I want to be vague. Rules are precise, guidelines are vague.
---
LOL... I see that even moderate subtlety is lost on you.
Here, let me explain.
When I say that something is a rule and you counter that it's a
guideline, not a rule, then you're narrowing the meaning down, i.e.
making it more precise.
Then when I comment by writing, "Oh, so _now_ you want to be
precise?" (which is a commentary on your hypocrisy, in that you
stated earlier that you preferred lack of precision in verbal
communications) You reply with, "Nope, I want to be vague" which
is quite precise, and then finish up with, "Rules are precise,
guidelines are vague." which is not at all vague.
Rather funny...
---
>> Call them what you like, they're still meant to be followed.
>As a general rule.
---
Is that _precisely_ what you meant to write?
---
>>> You don't appear to understand what bending the rules is. If there is a
sign saying no overtaking, and a queue of traffic stuck behind a tractor doing
2mph, I suppose you'd call overtaking it breaking the law?
>>
>> ---
>> Yes, of course, and if you decide to overtake the trailer then you
>> have to be prepared to take the responsibility for having broken the
>> law. Since it seems you've been raised in a civilized society, I
>> find it difficult to understand your inability to realize the
>> importance of rules and of the law.
>The no overtaking sign would mean it is dangerous to overtake another car.
When a tractor or bicyle is involved, the speeds are much lower.
---
Maybe I missed something, or your lack of textual precision caused a
misunderstanding, but from your earlier description of the sign, I
didn't read anything about it saying that it was OK to overtake
slow-moving vehicles or at what speed it would be OK to overtake
slow-moving vehicles. Conseqently, if the sign only said
"Overtaking Prohibited" (or however you word it over there), it
should be abundantly clear that overtaking another vehicle would be
against the law. How stupid do you have to be to not understand
that???
--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
Posted by Peter Hucker on November 23, 2005, 10:59 pm
wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:01:19 -0000, John Fields
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:54:23 -0000, John Fields
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Assuming I cared anything about it, it would have. That is, since
>>>>> it would not have appeared I would have had to ask the poster to
>>>>> re-post it to abse or email it to me, when if he had posted to abse
>>>>> (or on the web somewhere and posted a link to it) in the first
>>>>> place, like he should have, there would have been nothing further
>>>>> required.
>>>>
>>>> If someone posts the text to one group and the binary to another, it's an
extra hassle to go get it.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> No it isn't. One merely posts a link to the article and with one
>>> click, there it is.
>>
>> My newsreader won't do that.
> ---
> A poor workman blames his tools. If it's not adequate for the job,
> get one that is. Free Agent will do it if you don't want to spend
> any money and will keep you from having to make excuses for your
> inadequacy.
I used to use Agent (full version), but changed to Opera because Agent has other
things missing. I've yet to see a program that does everything.
>> Anyway you still have to load something extra.
>> If the attachment is included, it's right there in
>> front of you, without flipping between two posts.
> ---
> The point, which you seem to have missed, is that if you send a post
> with a binary attached to it to a text-only group the chances are
> pretty good that the intended recipient will never see the
> attachment whicfh will lead to a lot more hassle than if you'd
> posted properly in the first place.
Granted, you may diminish your audience slightly. But from what I've seen the
number of people who ignore messages with attachments are few and far between.
Plus you get a good argument for free.
>>> What you'd prefer is of little importance, you narcissistic twit;
>>> you'll get what you need.
>>
>> Stop showing your stupidity. I can only laugh so much in one day.
> ---
> Hey, asshole, I'm not the one with a crippled newsreader and a
> penchant for slovenly thought and communications.
And I'm not the one who makes at least 5 childish insults in every reply.
>>>>> No it's keeping a text-only group text only, like it's supposed to
>>>>> be.
>>>>
>>>> Which is pedantic.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> You really ought to look up pedantic.
>>
>> I did. Twice. What's your meaning then? But as you are a pedant, you will
have a meaning which is 0.0001% different to mine, so call mine completely wrong.
> ---
> Well, since you've got it all figured out I guess I'll just leave
> you there, hanging...
Stop being slippery and answer the question. I'll set Jeremy Paxman onto you.
>>>>> They aren't _my_ rules, they're usenet rules,
>>>>
>>>> I was being imprecise again :-P
>>>> I meant the rules you quoted.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> The rules I quoted _are_ usenet rules. Text only newsgroups are not
>>> for posting binaries to.
>>
>> Says who?
> ---
> Google "usenet rules" for a clue or read the link I sent you again.
I told you they are GUIDELINES, and I'm not a sheep.
>>> Period. Simple.
>>
>> Menstruation has nothing to do with it.
> ---
> What are you, in the sixth grade or something?
Just pointing out you Americans have got your words mixed up. I believe the
term you were looking for was "fullstop".
>>>>> and when everyone
>>>>> adheres to them things go smoothly. If you want to change them,
>>>>> then I suggest you start by reading:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html
>>>>
>>>> They're guidelines, not rules.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Oh, so _now_ you want to be precise?
>>
>> Nope, I want to be vague. Rules are precise, guidelines are vague.
> ---
> LOL... I see that even moderate subtlety is lost on you.
> Here, let me explain.
> When I say that something is a rule and you counter that it's a
> guideline, not a rule, then you're narrowing the meaning down, i.e.
> making it more precise.
Since when is a guideline more precise than a rule? It's like saying an apple
is more precise than a banana. They are just different.
> Then when I comment by writing, "Oh, so _now_ you want to be
> precise?" (which is a commentary on your hypocrisy, in that you
> stated earlier that you preferred lack of precision in verbal
> communications) You reply with, "Nope, I want to be vague" which
> is quite precise, and then finish up with, "Rules are precise,
> guidelines are vague." which is not at all vague.
> Rather funny...
I observed your poor attempt at misguided humoUr.
>>> Call them what you like, they're still meant to be followed.
>>
>> As a general rule.
> ---
> Is that _precisely_ what you meant to write?
Don't be absurd.
>>>> You don't appear to understand what bending the rules is. If there is a
sign saying no overtaking, and a queue of traffic stuck behind a tractor doing
2mph, I suppose you'd call overtaking it breaking the law?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Yes, of course, and if you decide to overtake the trailer then you
>>> have to be prepared to take the responsibility for having broken the
>>> law. Since it seems you've been raised in a civilized society, I
>>> find it difficult to understand your inability to realize the
>>> importance of rules and of the law.
>>
>> The no overtaking sign would mean it is dangerous to overtake another car.
When a tractor or bicyle is involved, the speeds are much lower.
> ---
> Maybe I missed something, or your lack of textual precision caused a
> misunderstanding, but from your earlier description of the sign, I
> didn't read anything about it saying that it was OK to overtake
> slow-moving vehicles or at what speed it would be OK to overtake
> slow-moving vehicles. Conseqently, if the sign only said
> "Overtaking Prohibited" (or however you word it over there), it
> should be abundantly clear that overtaking another vehicle would be
> against the law. How stupid do you have to be to not understand
> that???
The signs have no words, it's a picture.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign048.htm
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com
Caller: "Can you give me the telephone number for Jack?"
Operator: "I'm sorry, sir, I don't understand who you are talking about".
Caller: "On page 1, section 5, of the user guide it clearly states that I need
to unplug the fax machine from the AC wall socket and telephone Jack before
cleaning. Now, can you give me the number for Jack?"
Posted by John Fields on November 24, 2005, 6:54 am
wrote:
wrote:
>> ---
>> The point, which you seem to have missed, is that if you send a post
>> with a binary attached to it to a text-only group the chances are
>> pretty good that the intended recipient will never see the
>> attachment whicfh will lead to a lot more hassle than if you'd
>> posted properly in the first place.
>Granted, you may diminish your audience slightly. But from what I've seen the
number of people who ignore messages with attachments are few and far between.
Plus you get a good argument for free.
---
Unbelievably, you either missed the point again or you're trying to
get some mileage out of this thread at the expense of making it look
like you have very close to _no_ reading comprehension.
The point was, and is, that the attachment intended for a single
person, if attached to a plaintext post in a text-only newsgroup,
most likely won't be posted to that newsgroup, so the intended
recipient won't get the attachnment. That will result in additional
dialogue having to be exchanged and time wasted, all of which could
have been avoided by posting properly in the first place.
---
>> ---
>> Hey, asshole, I'm not the one with a crippled newsreader and a
>> penchant for slovenly thought and communications.
>And I'm not the one who makes at least 5 childish insults in every reply.
---
True, but neither am I, so what's your point?
---
>> ---
>> Well, since you've got it all figured out I guess I'll just leave
>> you there, hanging...
>Stop being slippery and answer the question. I'll set Jeremy Paxman onto you.
---
I'll do what I please, and right now that's letting you hang...
---
>I told you they are GUIDELINES, and I'm not a sheep.
---
So your Dad used to beat you, huh? Tough break.
It shows in your hatred of any kind of authority and in your not
wanting to be "herded".
---
>> ---
>> What are you, in the sixth grade or something?
>Just pointing out you Americans have got your words mixed up. I believe the
term you were looking for was "fullstop".
---
Now there's a pretty good example of your egotism. (Which, BTW, you
said you didn't have) You could easily have made the wording
non-offensive, but no, you try to add fuel to the fire with your
America-bashing. You are truly an offensive, mean-spirited person.
---
>>>>>> and when everyone
>>>>>> adheres to them things go smoothly. If you want to change them,
>>>>>> then I suggest you start by reading:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html
>>>>>
>>>>> They're guidelines, not rules.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Oh, so _now_ you want to be precise?
>>>
>>> Nope, I want to be vague. Rules are precise, guidelines are vague.
>>
>> ---
>> LOL... I see that even moderate subtlety is lost on you.
>>
>> Here, let me explain.
>>
>> When I say that something is a rule and you counter that it's a
>> guideline, not a rule, then you're narrowing the meaning down, i.e.
>> making it more precise.
>Since when is a guideline more precise than a rule? It's like saying an apple
is more precise than a banana. They are just different.
---
<Sigh> Never mind...
---
>> Is that _precisely_ what you meant to write?
>Don't be absurd.
---
Gotcha!
---
>> Maybe I missed something, or your lack of textual precision caused a
>> misunderstanding, but from your earlier description of the sign, I
>> didn't read anything about it saying that it was OK to overtake
>> slow-moving vehicles or at what speed it would be OK to overtake
>> slow-moving vehicles. Conseqently, if the sign only said
>> "Overtaking Prohibited" (or however you word it over there), it
>> should be abundantly clear that overtaking another vehicle would be
>> against the law. How stupid do you have to be to not understand
>> that???
>The signs have no words, it's a picture.
>http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign048.htm
---
Fine. So even the illiterate know that it's illegal to pass another
vehicle when they see that sign. (Spare me the attempt at humor
with any scatological "jokes" you may feel compelled to post.)
And, BTW, why don't you knock off that bandwidth-wasting crap you
incessantly add to the end of your posts, OK?
--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
Posted by Peter Hucker on November 24, 2005, 5:58 pm
wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:01:45 -0000, John Fields
>>> ---
>>> The point, which you seem to have missed, is that if you send a post
>>> with a binary attached to it to a text-only group the chances are
>>> pretty good that the intended recipient will never see the
>>> attachment whicfh will lead to a lot more hassle than if you'd
>>> posted properly in the first place.
>>
>> Granted, you may diminish your audience slightly. But from what I've seen
the number of people who ignore messages with attachments are few and far
between. Plus you get a good argument for free.
> ---
> Unbelievably, you either missed the point again or you're trying to
> get some mileage out of this thread at the expense of making it look
> like you have very close to _no_ reading comprehension.
> The point was, and is, that the attachment intended for a single
> person, if attached to a plaintext post in a text-only newsgroup,
> most likely won't be posted to that newsgroup, so the intended
> recipient won't get the attachnment. That will result in additional
> dialogue having to be exchanged and time wasted, all of which could
> have been avoided by posting properly in the first place.
There aren't many ISPs that block attachments. This has been experimented in a
text chat group.
>>> Hey, asshole, I'm not the one with a crippled newsreader and a
>>> penchant for slovenly thought and communications.
>>
>> And I'm not the one who makes at least 5 childish insults in every reply.
> ---
> True, but neither am I, so what's your point?
Statistics show otherwise. Go back through this thread and count the number of
insults you have made.
>>> Well, since you've got it all figured out I guess I'll just leave
>>> you there, hanging...
>>
>> Stop being slippery and answer the question. I'll set Jeremy Paxman onto you.
> ---
> I'll do what I please, and right now that's letting you hang...
This does not tie in with your rule-based life.
>> I told you they are GUIDELINES, and I'm not a sheep.
> ---
> So your Dad used to beat you, huh? Tough break.
Explain.
> It shows in your hatred of any kind of authority and in your not
> wanting to be "herded".
I don't hate authority, I hate silly rules.
>>> What are you, in the sixth grade or something?
>>
>> Just pointing out you Americans have got your words mixed up. I believe the
term you were looking for was "fullstop".
> ---
> Now there's a pretty good example of your egotism. (Which, BTW, you
> said you didn't have) You could easily have made the wording
> non-offensive, but no, you try to add fuel to the fire with your
> America-bashing.
It may come as a surprise to you that an awful lot of Brits (and other
countries) feel the same way. America like to think they rule the world, and
constantly try to remind everyone of this.
> You are truly an offensive, mean-spirited person.
"Hey, asshole, I'm not the one with a crippled newsreader and a penchant for
slovenly thought and communications."
>>> Is that _precisely_ what you meant to write?
>>
>> Don't be absurd.
> ---
> Gotcha!
You did not. I am imprecise, I keep telling you this. So what exactly have I
done wrong above? (When I say above, you've snipped it....)
>>> Maybe I missed something, or your lack of textual precision caused a
>>> misunderstanding, but from your earlier description of the sign, I
>>> didn't read anything about it saying that it was OK to overtake
>>> slow-moving vehicles or at what speed it would be OK to overtake
>>> slow-moving vehicles. Conseqently, if the sign only said
>>> "Overtaking Prohibited" (or however you word it over there), it
>>> should be abundantly clear that overtaking another vehicle would be
>>> against the law. How stupid do you have to be to not understand
>>> that???
>>
>> The signs have no words, it's a picture.
>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign048.htm
> ---
> Fine. So even the illiterate know that it's illegal to pass another
> vehicle when they see that sign.
Red means illegal does it?
> (Spare me the attempt at humor
> with any scatological "jokes" you may feel compelled to post.)
I hadn't thought of it that way until you said so. Looks like you're the
disgusting one.
> And, BTW, why don't you knock off that bandwidth-wasting crap you
> incessantly add to the end of your posts, OK?
Text is not "bandwidth wasting" - please scrap your 1200 baud modem.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com
A blonde was playing Trivial Pursuit one night. It was her turn. She rolled the
dice and she Landed on Science & Nature.
Her question was "If you are in a vacuum and someone calls your name, can you
hear it?"
She thought for a time and then asked, "Is it on or off?"
Re: 18 volt charger
Re: 18 volt charger
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:54:23 -0000, John Fields
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:54:14 -0000, John Fields
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Well, I use Giganews and the attachment didn't come through,
>>>>
>>>> Then it didn't hurt you did it?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Assuming I cared anything about it, it would have. That is, since
>>> it would not have appeared I would have had to ask the poster to
>>> re-post it to abse or email it to me, when if he had posted to abse
>>> (or on the web somewhere and posted a link to it) in the first
>>> place, like he should have, there would have been nothing further
>>> required.
>>
>> If someone posts the text to one group and the binary to another, it's an