Hello mark,

On 18 Feb 14 09:06, mark lewis wrote to Nicholas Boel:

 ml> sorry but no... this all started in another echo and then came here
 ml> when robert posted his message which you apparently took umbrage to...

Hmm...

 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...

"Enforcement again was made higher up than that." Now THAT explains 
EVERYTHING!

At least now I know what crappy software is having problems with it. Thanks 
for the heads up. :)

 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...

And I kept telling you that I wasn't going to change anything. Yet you 
continually replied like I gave a shit. If that means my infopack won't be 
hatched out on that FDN, so be it. I don't really look at that as my loss. :)

If the "enforcement" wants to hold Fidonet back from continuing
on into the 
future, that's their problem. Some of us want to make Fidonet better, rather 
than stick to '80s technology and ideas. Some of us are just sitting back and 
waiting patiently for the right time. :)

 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...

Somewhere we lost the fact that I only use currently maintained software, and 
just as well, most (if not all) of it is open source.

 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...

Maybe..

 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...

I don't agree with the request, and I'm not here to watch technology go back 
in time, either.

 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...

My system as well as other's I've pointed out that work fine are justification 
enough for me. That some people haven't moved on from the 90s and upgraded 
their systems, using newer, updated, and even some currently maintained 
software in the process where all these issues (amongst many others) could 
have been resolved years ago.

 ml> right... and those using spacing to format ascii characters to form a
 ml> type of logo drawn with ascii characters...

Looks good to me! You're explanations and requests are directed at the wrong 
guy here, Mark. I've been doing custom file_id.diz's for people since the 
early 90s, and have participated in many ANSI art groups in the past as well 
(even the most recent release a couple months ago).

This adds to my reasoning of why I completely disagree with you and/or "the 
enforcer." :/

 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...

How do you know what the spec is trying to convey? All of a sudden you're an 
original author or attempt to speak for them? The point is, these types of 
file_id.diz's have been created and used for just about as long as 
they have been available. The fact that one or two people are whining about 
it is definitely not a majority. Just the slim few that are anal retentive, 
is all.

 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...

Too bad for those systems. I just wont even visit them in that case. Most of 
the file descriptions I see are mostly legible, which is the complete opposite 
of what you're saying. With that, you can stay on your side, and I'll stay on 
mine.

 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...

You were the one to voice the complaint (which you seem to always be the one 
who rains on others' parades, yet as an FTSC member you're just supposed to 
document current practice).

This is the first time I've heard the complaint, and the way you're describing 
it, there's only a handful of people (or less) complaining about it. That's a 
minority, IMO.

Regardless, The file won't be hatched out in Fidonet anymore since I'm not 
changing anything (at least until "the enforcer(s)" step [or
fall] off their 
thrones).

Regards,
Nick

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910