Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Disgusting behavious by hams
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. -- Jim Pennino |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Disgusting behavious by hams
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Disgusting behavious by hams
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. 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. Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders support uuencode/uudecode. There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that leads too. -- Jim Pennino |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Disgusting behavious by hams
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/14/2015 7:57 PM, 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. Like 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. Not entirely. There was also the fact that many people were using slow modem connections and were being charged by the byte (which is still true in some parts of the world today). HTML unnecessarily increased download time and bytes transferred. As does not snipping previous diaglog... Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders support uuencode/uudecode. Not necessarily. Some news servers don't accept any attachments; others don't accept binary attachments. If an attachment is uuencoded, a news server doesn't know what the attachment is. The majority of the prohibitions against attachments were on a group basis and enforced by a UDP for blatant repeat offenders. There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that leads too. And many news servers don't cary many of the alt.* groups. They're not as well supported as the big eight. Which is but one of the effects of there being no "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" applied to the alt. groups. -- Jim Pennino |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/14/2015 9:22 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/14/2015 7:57 PM, 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. Like 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. Not entirely. There was also the fact that many people were using slow modem connections and were being charged by the byte (which is still true in some parts of the world today). HTML unnecessarily increased download time and bytes transferred. As does not snipping previous diaglog... I snipped what I deemed was appropriate. Sorry if that doesn't suit the trolls. Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders support uuencode/uudecode. Not necessarily. Some news servers don't accept any attachments; others don't accept binary attachments. If an attachment is uuencoded, a news server doesn't know what the attachment is. The majority of the prohibitions against attachments were on a group basis and enforced by a UDP for blatant repeat offenders. Once again you show your ignorance. There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that leads too. And many news servers don't cary many of the alt.* groups. They're not as well supported as the big eight. Which is but one of the effects of there being no "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" applied to the alt. groups. No, it's because most of the news servers don't want trolls creating thousands of newsgroups which aren't used. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Disgusting behavious by hams
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Disgusting behavious by hams
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". |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Disgusting behavious by hams
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 ================== |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Disgusting behavious by hams
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT Something truly disgusting in Election Advertising | Shortwave | |||
Get Thunderbird from Mozilla to take back this NG from the disgusting"JOHNSHITH"perverts! | Antenna | |||
Disgusting.. revolting.. repellant.. fetid | Shortwave | |||
Canada is disgusting | Policy | |||
Drudge Reports More Disgusting Photos | Shortwave |