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