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