www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/2017/10/06/05:15:14

X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: Rod Pemberton <EmailNullFile AT voenflacbe DOT cpm>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: DOSBox?
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 05:02:47 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <or7gpa$jti$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <or6bl4$pdo$1 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org>
<xnshexxjpr DOT fsf AT delorie DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ZTD62cW/Uw8bymX5ok+0NA.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT aioe DOT org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Bytes: 7620
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Thread: Frames, NoFrames, TwoWindows

On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 19:23:28 -0400
DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> Rod Pemberton <EmailNullFile AT voenflacbe DOT cpm> writes:

> > Bottom posting is standard Usenet etiquette.  
> First off, it's not bottom posting, it's threaded posting, like I'm
> doing.  Bottom posting is discouraged as it makes the user page
> through reams of quoted message before getting to anything new.  Trim
> and inline is the norm - context, not copy.

Apparently, you can't read, nor comprehend.  I quoted the RFC for you
which plainly says otherwise.  You're making up rules which don't
exist except in your own mind.  I don't know why you've chosen to
intentionally incite an argument over this, when you're blatantly
wrong and even knew you were wrong before you replied.  I don't
understand why you're continuing to argue once you were publicly proven
wrong.  Ego?  Masochism?  What is wrong with you?  Seriously.  When
you're wrong, stay quiet or apologize.

> > Please don't attempt to tell any further lies  
> I object to your insults, and I was not lying.

I objected to you lying.  If you take that as an insult when you
clearly did not tell the truth, as was proven by the RFC quote, that's
on you and your psychologist.  If you didn't realize you were lying,
then you should've apologized once you were corrected.  E.g., "I'm
sorry.  I didn't mean to lie.  I thought I was telling the truth, but
clearly I was wrong.  I've never heard of that RFC before."  Not
difficult.  That's what mature people do.  Are you immature?

> I stated that *this* forum is not a dictatorship, and it's not.

That's true.

But, you also stated that "we" don't tell people how to compose
messages.  That was a lie.  The format is standardized for Usenet.
This group is on Usenet.  So, "we" do tell people how to properly
format messages for Usenet.  If you were familiar with any other Usenet
group, e.g., going back to the 1980's, as I am, then you'd also know
that it is the norm everywhere on Usenet to correct bottom-posted posts
when replying to them and inform the OP of the mistake, as I politely

> Lest you forget, the djgpp newsgroup is gatewayed (and always has
> been, as per its charter) to the djgpp mailing list, which means
> your assumption that only usenet rules apply is false.

No, it means that your bizarre assumption that anything goes in terms
of formatting simply because the messages are also distributed to
readers on various platforms is blatantly false.

> The messages you were replying to did not originate on usenet.

True.  (Well, I'm assuming that's true ...  And, we're in agreement.)
So, that was the point.  It was posted to Usenet from another service
without following Usenet standards by someone who probably didn't even
know they were posting to Usenet.  This was politely corrected.

> > as you know full well that bottom posting to Usenet was
> > standardized:  
> "Guidelines" are not requirements.  I agree that including minimal
> context is useful, but that doesn't give me or you the right to force
> someone else to obey those guidelines.

If that was true, then they wouldn't have gone to the trouble to create
a standard, now would they?  You're implying that they wasted their
time, were stupid to do so, failed to identify in-use rules or norms,
and that you're somehow superior to all of them.

> And certainly, the djgpp list has long encouraged people to be polite
> and civil, not contemptuous and demanding.

I was very polite and civil.  I flatly stated what was expected and
corrected the OP's obvious mistake.  How is that not polite and civil?
It would've been impolite and uncivil to everyone else on Usenet to
allow him to continue posting incorrectly formatted posts without
informing him that he was doing so.  That's what you're encouraging.

There was no smiley, no swearing, no capitals, no exclamation points,
i.e., nothing to indicate that I was being rude and uncivil or was
angry in any way.  The only reason it was uncivil was because you
assumed it was and deemed it to be.

You took offense to it, even though you were wrong about it.  So,
from my perspective, your personal interpretation of what I said was
completely fouled up and still is.  Why you took it hostilely is beyond
me.  There was nothing there for you to do that.  Perhaps, you're
actually angry about something else?

> Your rules are not everyone's rules.

They aren't my rules.  They're Usenet's standards.  That's what RFC's
are.  They apply here because this is a Usenet group.  Simple.  Are you
denying that this is a Usenet group?  No, of course, you aren't.
You're just being willfully blind to the fact that this is a Usenet
group.  The fact that you happen to also "spam" people through an email
relay is utterly irrelevant to his being a Usenet group.

> And your demand that the OP bottom post was itself top-posted,

Top posting is what the RFC says, as I quoted to you previously:
"summarize the original at the top of the message".  That's called
top-posting.  I don't know how that can be any more clear than it is.

> which I find amusingly ironic.

Anybody can find anything to be amusingly ironic.  It doesn't mean
that it is.  What I find to be amusingly ironic is that you found
something that you're wrong about to be amusingly ironic.

> You didn't even say "please" either.

Neither did you.  Since my statement was polite, it wasn't needed
either.  Who is being demanding now?  You.

> And you didn't trim the quoted text.

That's not required.  That's optional.  See the RFC where it says
"or".  So, why are you making up rules?  That's two rules now that
nobody knows since they aren't standard but were made up by you.

> And your signature block is two lines longer than the customary four.

"Two lines longer than the customary four" would be six lines ...

I'd like to criticize you on that wrongheadedness, but I seriously
can't tell if that was that an accidental typo or a counting mistake or
perhaps due to vision loss.  You'll need to clarify as to why you think
there are so many lines in my signature.

The standard Usenet line length is 72 chars per line.  The
Usenet "signature block" starts /after/ the line with two dashes and
space.  It looks like, maybe 3.5 lines.  You can count the characters,
if you wish.  The "signature block" starts with "If you're ...", in
case you failed to recognize that a Usenet "signature block" has
absolutely nothing to do with a person's name.

Rod Pemberton
If you're upset over excessive use of force by police, leave your
basketball court or football field, go down to your police station and
picket.  You can do that peacefully any day of the week without
disrespecting the American flag.

- Raw text -

  webmaster   donations   bookstore     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2014   by DJ Delorie     Updated Aug 2014