FAQ says no attachments - time to change ?

[Jerry Coffin]

Jerry Coffin wrote:
...

What did you do and what are your current set of objections.

It's clearly pointless to continue the thread when you refuse to even
bother reading what I've said.

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Jerry Coffin wrote:
....

It's clearly pointless to continue the thread when you refuse to even
bother reading what I've said.

Given that there has been alot of discussion here, and some objections
have been less founded than others, I don't know what they are any more.
It's not that I'm not bothered rather I no longer am sure.

Oh, as I mentioned to Brian, try to keep any "catch 22" or "I could not
be bothered" types of objections to yourself. I don't think they
qualify as you can probably figure out why.

 

[Default User]

I take it you think that it's an unreasonable request. I think
there's a clear point where someone is being unreasonable, I don't
think it's me.

Wow, what an ego. If I don't go look at a Google link to try and find
some meaning that you are too coy to state, I'm unreasonable?

Very cool. Humor me once more and try to join the dots from here and
now come up with your list of objections to the original proposition.
Reflect on them just a little ask are they truly reasonable.

The list of objections has been stated repeatedly.

I'll give you a hint, objecttions that are catch 22 are unresonable.
"My news server does not support attachments" IS unreasonable. News
servers can and so support attachments and it is only when the group
decides to change its policies that the administrators will change
theirs, not the other way around.

Nonsense. Oh, a news service might do so if there were an overwhelming
demand. This would not constitute it.

This is what I think a reasonable person in your position would do.

Perhaps, IF I THOUGHT IT WERE A GOOD THING! Attachments are
objectionable for many reasons beyond that fact that

I've already answered every objection and have agreed that there is
an unknown effect on only one. All other objections are a form of
the catch 22 which are simply cop-outs.

You have answered most of them by calling the person a luddite. That is
not an answer. You've become completely irrational. When you post a
suggestion to a group as large and diverse as this one, and NO ONE
supports you, at some point you need to understand that you were wrong.
Dead wrong.




Brian

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Default User wrote:
....

Wow, what an ego. If I don't go look at a Google link to try and find
some meaning that you are too coy to state, I'm unreasonable?

Misrepresenting the facts again ?

The list of objections has been stated repeatedly.

I'm asking for YOUR objections and now you're doing a SCO.

Nonsense. Oh, a news service might do so if there were an overwhelming
demand. This would not constitute it.

Be a little reasonable here. It's not the NNTP server administrator
that dictates the rules of attachments on the FAQ.

Perhaps, IF I THOUGHT IT WERE A GOOD THING! Attachments are
objectionable for many reasons beyond that fact that

I can only interpret this as, "If it were a good thing to do I'd be
reasonable" - is this not the arguments that were made in 1611?

You have answered most of them by calling the person a luddite. That is
not an answer.

Go reread that. I think I made a case for why objecting to a proposal
for fear of change to be a bad thing.

... You've become completely irrational. When you post a
suggestion to a group as large and diverse as this one, and NO ONE
supports you, at some point you need to understand that you were wrong.
Dead wrong.

About what exactly am I dead wrong?

 

[Default User]

Default User wrote:

I'm asking for YOUR objections and now you're doing a SCO.

Already posted.

I can only interpret this as, "If it were a good thing to do I'd be
reasonable" - is this not the arguments that were made in 1611?

I have no idea what you mean.

About what exactly am I dead wrong?

Pick something, you haven't hit yet.



Brian

 

[Gianni Mariani]

Already posted.

Do you work for SCO ?

I have no idea what you mean.


Pick something, you haven't hit yet.

Nice.

 

[Devon Null]

Ha. You call this a flame war? You've obviously never seen a real one.
This is a best a warm-blanket war.

Brian

Dunno, never been in one so I just took a stab at a name for it. But it
is still rather funny by now. I'll concede the warm blanket comment.

lmao
DN
--
[there are no x's in my email]

I have the right to remain silent
(and should probably use it as much as possible)
Anything I type can and will be used against me
in a court of idiocy
I have the right to be wrong
(and probably am)
If I can not furnish my own wrongness
I'm sure someone will provide it for me.

 

[Default User]

Gianni Mariani wrote:


I had a pithy reply to your latest (not this one), but my newsreader
twice refused to send it. Something about "line 4 too long" that I
can't figure out.

Apparently it thinks it's time to let this drop. Who am I to argue?




Brian

 

[Richard Herring]

I had a pithy reply to your latest (not this one), but my newsreader
twice refused to send it. Something about "line 4 too long" that I
can't figure out.

That'll be the References: line.

 

[Default User]

That'll be the References: line.

Yeah, it's pretty long. My newsreader hasn't complained about deeply
nested replies much before, but I see that some newsreaders (yours
apparently) separate the references with CRs or something.




Brian

 

[Richard Herring]

Yeah, it's pretty long. My newsreader hasn't complained about deeply
nested replies much before, but I see that some newsreaders (yours
apparently) separate the references with CRs or something.

RFC822 (which 1036 referencs) says that long header lines can be folded
by inserting CRLF before syntactic whitespace.

ObC++: There's probably a moral in there somewhere, about fixed-length
buffers versus extensible containers.