Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

I snipped what I deemed was appropriate. Sorry if that doesn't suit the
trolls.

And he is off and running...

snip

No, it's because most of the news servers don't want trolls creating
thousands of newsgroups which aren't used.

Point totally missed as usual as Jerry Stuckle the magnificent climbs
atop his high horse off to tilt at "trolls".



--
Jim Pennino

wrote:
Rob wrote:
wrote:
Rob wrote:

snip

(who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of
newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms)

If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't
be asking such questions.

I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should
be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough.

Only since 1994; a newbee then.

Do you really think you should start a ****ing contest to win an argument?
Lame...

When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow
attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those
that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene
in disgust. Pity.

The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be
usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII
only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers
to interact with USENET.

I already told you that I have seen the debate more than often enough.
It is like the hams who think that only CW should be used because it
is the best mode for weak signal work and they have all the equipment.
They have focussed so strongly on that, that they did not see the world
around them has changed. They keep hammering out the same thing even
when it is no longer true.

Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders
support uuencode/uudecode.

What I mean is that charters and server policies explicitly disallow
them, and that there are active "guardians" on groups, and even robots,
that go after those that post them.

This meant that a discussion that requires a simple drawing or schematic
for clarification could not be held on usenet, and people went to places
where it was no problem. In the first stage, those were the webforums.

This was very unfortunate because it fragmented the community, now you
had to look on a specific forum instead of "on usenet" which was more
like a network of forums. The usenet people failed to see that and
stubbornly held to their sacred 80-character fixed font paradigm, while
the rest of the world moved on to flowed paragraphs, inline illustrations,
simple markup, etc. But they lost the common communication platform
in that process.
(had the usenet guardians not be so stubborn, the web forums could have
used usenet as their underlying message store and forward layer)

There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups
and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that
leads too.

There are always pros and cons to "there should be law and order".

"jta" wrote in message
...

Your first sentence sums up the problem: You are too immature to rise
above it or ignore those posts. Thus, you become the problem.
There is no reason to reply. All you do is toss petrol on the fire.
Stop feeding the trolls!

Another hypocrite with an holier-than-thou stance who resorts
to the very abuse that he sought to proscribe.

On 2/15/2015 4:31 AM, Rob wrote:
wrote:
Rob wrote:
wrote:
Rob wrote:

snip

(who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of
newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms)

If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't
be asking such questions.

I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should
be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough.

Only since 1994; a newbee then.

Do you really think you should start a ****ing contest to win an argument?
Lame...


That's trolls for you...

When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow
attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those
that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene
in disgust. Pity.

The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be
usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII
only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers
to interact with USENET.

I already told you that I have seen the debate more than often enough.
It is like the hams who think that only CW should be used because it
is the best mode for weak signal work and they have all the equipment.
They have focussed so strongly on that, that they did not see the world
around them has changed. They keep hammering out the same thing even
when it is no longer true.


There is nothing wrong with CW. However, I have, in over 47 years of
being a ham, seen ANYONE say "only CW should be used...". Lame.

Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders
support uuencode/uudecode.

What I mean is that charters and server policies explicitly disallow
them, and that there are active "guardians" on groups, and even robots,
that go after those that post them.


It's up to the people who proposed the newsgroup as to whether they
allow attachments or not. And if attachments are banned, I see no
reason why the ban should not be enforced.

This meant that a discussion that requires a simple drawing or schematic
for clarification could not be held on usenet, and people went to places
where it was no problem. In the first stage, those were the webforums.


So? There never was a problem with uploading the image to a server and
pointing people to it. We did that back in the early 80's. We even did
it in the 70's when we use mail lists as the precursor to usenet.

This was very unfortunate because it fragmented the community, now you
had to look on a specific forum instead of "on usenet" which was more
like a network of forums. The usenet people failed to see that and
stubbornly held to their sacred 80-character fixed font paradigm, while
the rest of the world moved on to flowed paragraphs, inline illustrations,
simple markup, etc. But they lost the common communication platform
in that process.
(had the usenet guardians not be so stubborn, the web forums could have
used usenet as their underlying message store and forward layer)


No, Usenet was designed as a text-based network, and nothing has changed
that. It still has its purpose. And if you don't like it, there are
always web-based forums.

What HAS killed usenet is the trolls driving people away. At least with
web-based forums you can ban trolls. Not possible on usenet.

There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups
and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that
leads too.

There are always pros and cons to "there should be law and order".


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 2/15/2015 2:21 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

I snipped what I deemed was appropriate. Sorry if that doesn't suit the
trolls.

And he is off and running...

snip

No, it's because most of the news servers don't want trolls creating
thousands of newsgroups which aren't used.

Point totally missed as usual as Jerry Stuckle the magnificent climbs
atop his high horse off to tilt at "trolls".




The shoe fits...

But then trolls don't like me. And I really don't care.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Ahhh, you prove my point! You cannot see the truth when it's right at the end of your own nose.

You want the flames to end? Then stop the flaming! You have the power to do so.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/15/2015 2:21 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

I snipped what I deemed was appropriate. Sorry if that doesn't suit the
trolls.

And he is off and running...

snip

No, it's because most of the news servers don't want trolls creating
thousands of newsgroups which aren't used.

Point totally missed as usual as Jerry Stuckle the magnificent climbs
atop his high horse off to tilt at "trolls".




The shoe fits...

Non sequitur.


But then trolls don't like me. And I really don't care.


Not everything is about you.


--
Jim Pennino

Rob wrote:
wrote:
Rob wrote:
wrote:
Rob wrote:

snip

(who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of
newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms)

If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't
be asking such questions.

I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should
be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough.

Only since 1994; a newbee then.

Do you really think you should start a ****ing contest to win an argument?
Lame...

What argument?


When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow
attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those
that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene
in disgust. Pity.

The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be
usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII
only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers
to interact with USENET.

I already told you that I have seen the debate more than often enough.

Yep, but you had three points so I addressed three points.

It is like the hams who think that only CW should be used because it
is the best mode for weak signal work and they have all the equipment.
They have focussed so strongly on that, that they did not see the world
around them has changed. They keep hammering out the same thing even
when it is no longer true.

Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders
support uuencode/uudecode.

What I mean is that charters and server policies explicitly disallow
them, and that there are active "guardians" on groups, and even robots,
that go after those that post them.

This meant that a discussion that requires a simple drawing or schematic
for clarification could not be held on usenet, and people went to places
where it was no problem. In the first stage, those were the webforums.

Again, it has always been allowed on groups where it was appropriate.

This was very unfortunate because it fragmented the community, now you
had to look on a specific forum instead of "on usenet" which was more
like a network of forums. The usenet people failed to see that and
stubbornly held to their sacred 80-character fixed font paradigm, while
the rest of the world moved on to flowed paragraphs, inline illustrations,
simple markup, etc. But they lost the common communication platform
in that process.
(had the usenet guardians not be so stubborn, the web forums could have
used usenet as their underlying message store and forward layer)

There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups
and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that
leads too.

There are always pros and cons to "there should be law and order".

--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

That's trolls for you...

Trolls to the left of him.
Trolls to the right of him.
Into the valley of flames...

--
Jim Pennino

On 2/15/2015 1:28 PM, wrote:
Rob wrote:
wrote:
Rob wrote:
wrote:
Rob wrote:

snip

(who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of
newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms)

If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't
be asking such questions.

I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should
be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough.

Only since 1994; a newbee then.

Do you really think you should start a ****ing contest to win an argument?
Lame...

What argument?


When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow
attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those
that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene
in disgust. Pity.

The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be
usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII
only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers
to interact with USENET.

I already told you that I have seen the debate more than often enough.

Yep, but you had three points so I addressed three points.

It is like the hams who think that only CW should be used because it
is the best mode for weak signal work and they have all the equipment.
They have focussed so strongly on that, that they did not see the world
around them has changed. They keep hammering out the same thing even
when it is no longer true.

Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders
support uuencode/uudecode.

What I mean is that charters and server policies explicitly disallow
them, and that there are active "guardians" on groups, and even robots,
that go after those that post them.

This meant that a discussion that requires a simple drawing or schematic
for clarification could not be held on usenet, and people went to places
where it was no problem. In the first stage, those were the webforums.

Again, it has always been allowed on groups where it was appropriate.

This was very unfortunate because it fragmented the community, now you
had to look on a specific forum instead of "on usenet" which was more
like a network of forums. The usenet people failed to see that and
stubbornly held to their sacred 80-character fixed font paradigm, while
the rest of the world moved on to flowed paragraphs, inline illustrations,
simple markup, etc. But they lost the common communication platform
in that process.
(had the usenet guardians not be so stubborn, the web forums could have
used usenet as their underlying message store and forward layer)

There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups
and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that
leads too.

There are always pros and cons to "there should be law and order".


Ask not for whom the bell trolls. It trolls for thee...