Re: SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE
  By: Michel Samson to Rob Swindell on Wed Oct 13 2004 03:31 am

 >      About "SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE" Of October 12:
 > 
 > MK> I've seen an example of his work.  He doesn't worry me.
 > RS> And what does this have to do with Kermit?
 > MS> ...allow me to point at this explanation:  SABOTAGE!
 > RS> Are you suggesting I'm attempting to "sabotage" something?
 > 
 >      Hummm...  Since you must insist lets just verify the records again:
 > 
 >           http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/Vert-801.QWK.ZIP  (284 Kb)

You keep mentioning this file. Why?

 >      On July 24 (2003) i warned you against using `Hyper-Terminal' while
 > i was writing to you, on your BBS and EchoMail NetWork;  the reply i got
 > from you concured the next day.  Then, in the present echo where you may
 > have been lurking around for a while, i commented on September 28 (2004)
 > that `Hyper-Terminal' would have been OKay, euh...  before 1985!

HyperTerminal didn't exist until the 1990's.

 > And to
 > top it all, i repeated in the `FdN_Util' area where you also interveined
 > lately...  well, i commented on October 5 about the frustration `Kermit'
 > people must endure because of SoftWare like `Hyper-Terminal'.  Who fails
 > to notice the contradiction between your position of July 25, 2003 and a
 > fresh statement you made - on October 12, 2004 - in the `FdN_Util' echo?

I uploaded files succesfully to to both MS-Kermit (running on vert.synchro.net)
and gkermit (running on cvs.synchro.net) using both HyperTerminal and
Kermit-95. 

 > RS> HyperTerminal uploads just fine...
 > 
 >      Tell me, are you stretching your definition of "good
throughput" or
 > isn't it sounding quite a bit like you've decided to undermine my effort
 > to continue the aborted, ahummm...  "cooperation" work? 
Put this on the
 > account of a misunderstanding or weak memory if you will, i don't buy!!!

I didn't say anything about "throughput", good or otherwise.

 > RS> I said that if he had any suggested changes, I'm all ears, but
 > RS> apparently he'd rather just say "they don't work"...
 > 
 >      Really?  Then it's just a severely distorted perception of reality:
 > 
 > RS> If Michael would remove all the extraneous kruft from his
 > RS> configuration file, basically high-lighting the exact settings that
 > RS> are different from mine that are required for "success"...
 >                        ^^^^
 >      In other words, i should fix YOUR OWN SETUP instead of repeating my
 > arguments over more complete solutions?!  Well, you understood that part
 > of my reply well enough:  it won't happen even in your dreams!  I did my
 > share as a user, the records are there and i won't have a change of mind
 > simply because you moved the debate from `FdN_Util' to here...  Too bad.

Your suggested "complete solution" is only for MS-Kermit (for
Synchronet-Win32)
Mine includes both gkermit for Synchronet-Unix and MS-Kermit for
Synchronet-Win32. I would say *my* "solution" is the more
"complete" one.

 > RS> What, exactly?
 > 
 >      Making eventual newbies try `Hyper-Terminal' or any other pieces of
 > SoftWare with 3rd-party pre-1985/archaic `Kermit' support will only make
 > them believe `Kermit' is of no use over ~TelNet~.  It *IS* SABOTAGE and,
 > yes, your action is exactly what i'd do myself if i were to attempt some
 > form of undermining (i don't see grey areas here, i use black on white)!

Either you're being sarcastic, or you're paranoid. I personally don't care if
people believe is 'Kermit' is of any use or not. Of couse, I know it is, at
least of *some* use and can and does work under Synchronet (for *both* Win32
and Unix).

I don't care enough about your 'Kermit' crusade to even imagine ways of
undermining it.

 >      As i wrote when i contacted you the 1st time, i'll do what i'm good
 > at and i also expect any cooperator do to the same with his own field of
 > expertise...  You're trying to re-invent the wheel and i won't be a part
 > of your experiment, get ~TelNet~ to work like it should or let it drown!

Huh? Telnet works fine, it's swimming just fine.

 >      You wonder where the SABOTAGE is!?  Consider that our
"cooperation"
 > aborted prematurely before issues such as False Message-Pointer UpDates,
 > Batch-Mode and Recovery Transfers, Long File Name handling, Remote Setup
 > and cps Statistic Logs, etc., euh...  had a chance to be discussed.  So,
 > all this is SABOTAGE;  it's not enough to launch protocol-drivers and to
 > pray, intimate integration to the BBS SoftWare *CAN* and should be done!

"Discussing" anything with you is an exercise in futility. Do you
actually talk
in real-life in the same manner that you post messages? You throw some much
extraneous crap in the content of the message, it's very hard to take you
seriously.

                                                  digital man

Snapple "Real Fact" #116:
The largest fish is the whale shark - it can be over 50 feet long and weigh 2 tons. 
--- SBBSecho 2.10-Win32