Hi Rob,

     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)

     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!  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?

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!!!

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.

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)!

     When people like Maurice Kinal can get confused about `BBBS-Kermit'
and `MS-Kermit' run as an external `SBBS' file-transfer protocol-driver,
it should be easy to understand what might happen with an inexperimented
BBSer.  Demolition artists have little to do but use their own weight...

     Which brings focuss on another way to do SABOTAGE:  disabling a few
`Kermit' features and Wayne Warthen's `Kermit for Windows' as well.  I'd
leave it as is if i didn't care that a vast majority of BBSers are still
`Windows' users (why should i, my DOS configuration has `MS-Kermit' work
well enough for use with yours)!  But, as Maurice Kinal would point out,
DOS isn't exactly widespread among ~TelNet~ BBSers (hence the need for a
free client, since that's only a hobby, after all)!  %-o  SABOTAGE, yes.

     Last year, when you pointed at `DSZ.DOC' after i asked about fields
#29 and #43 in `Protocol.LOG' that was another form of SABOTAGE, quite a
bit passive here but tiresome, nonetheless.  One more diversion strategy
just like that which you attempted to create lately by argueing that the
problem is on the sending side:  it transfers your burden on the BBSer's
shoulders!  What can a user do when SysOps ask for your help and turn to
me for a quick fix?!  And the examples *WILL* accumulate at that rate...

     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!

     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!

     I'll now repeat my warning to the attention of your audience again:
          ____________________________________________________________
          No reasonable SysOp should agree to expose his BBS by giving
          credit to *FLAWED* setups like yours and i must warn BBSers
          against it as well, `Kermit' is *NOT* ready on `SynchroNet'!
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     Any SysOp or BBSer who won't get satisfaction from `Kermit' because
of you will refuse to ever use it again once his mind is set.  I'm sorry
but that's SABOTAGE to me - or some work sure does remain to be done!...

                                                           Salutations,

                                                           Michel Samson
                                                           a/s Bicephale


... `MS-DOS v7.10a'+`LSPPP v0.8'+`RLFossil v1.23'+`MS-Kermit v3.15 Med.'
___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Trying to make TelNet OLMR BBSing UNIVERSAL

--- Maximus/2 3.01