🚀 go-pugleaf

os2-l@mistik.express.net (Mustafa Soysal MS57) writes:
>In article <gergDE5v9G.9My@netcom.com>, Greg Andrews <gerg@netcom.com> wrote:
>>os2-l@mistik.express.net (Mustafa Soysal MS57) writes:
>>>In article <gergDDwprH.Arw@netcom.com>, Greg Andrews <gerg@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>msoysal@mistik.express.net (Mustafa Soysal MS57) writes:
>>>>
>>>>No sympathy from me, Mustafa.
>>>
>>>Do you still lie about the RS232 Standard?
>>>
>>
>>No, Mustafa.  I've never lied about the RS232C/D, nor the CCITT/ITU V.24
>>standards.
>
>Yes you did Greg.  Get on the ITU and see it for yourself, besides you
>lied about the v.23, nice try.
>

I quoted the relevant passage of V.24 to you when we debated this before.
I couldn't find an authoritative source for RS232C/D, and said so.  I asked
you for your source, and you didn't produce it.  You couldn't even quote
it.  Strange, because you were the one who claimed the Telebit modems
didn't conform to RS232 or V.24 in the first place.  When I asked you to
name and quote your source, you switched to saying the modem didn't follow
its own manual.

I'm not sure what V.23 has to do with the RI pin on the RS232 connector.
V.23 is a modulation, not the RS232 interface spec.

The debate we had whether V.23 is an asymmetric (as the spec says) or
half-duplex modulation has nothing to do with the RS232 issue.  Blowing
smoke again, Mustafa?

>
>v.24 is not RS232 C,D etc
>

Er, bullshit?  It's the CCITT/ITU equivalent to RS232C/D.  Have you
forgotten this already?


>>
>>You still haven't produced any portions of the spec that contradict
>>my arguments.  I didn't think you would.  I don't think you can.
>
>Hey, you still didn't address what was printed in the Telebit Manual. 
>"RI follows the ring voltage cadence...." or similar.  I am too lazy to
>open the manual again.
>

And too lazy to find the spec you claim to quote.

V.24 doesn't say "cadence".  It just says "ring voltage".

>
>The standard sound about the same.
>

Prove it.

>>
>>Show me where I'm wrong and I'll shut up, but not until then.
>
>The problem is, it has been shown to you several times, but you choose
>to live in denial.  See a doctor.
>

You've shown nothing more than what you have in this discussion.
Just your word that the RS232 spec is violated.  No source for
the spec, not quote.  My word alone isn't sufficient as proof, so 
I've quoted from the authoritative sources that are available to me.
Your word isn't any more sufficient than mine, but you haven't
quoted your sources.  You've just given your word.  Not enough.

I've quoted V.24 to you, showing how the wording is vague enough to
allow Telebits to behave the way they do, and other folks on
comp.dcom.modems confirmed my quote was accurate and agreed with me.
(that was when you stopped claiming violation of V.24, BTW)
You haven't quoted any sources at all.  If you're sure the RS232
description has different wording than V.24, then name your source
and quote it.

Instead, you shift your argument to the modem documentation, and insults.
I would think you would leap eagerly at the chance to rub my nose in my
error, but you don't.  Why is that?  Why won't you take advantage of the
chance to prove I'm wrong and you're right?

The reason is that no such proof exists, and you know it.


  -Greg
-- 
:::::::::::::::::::  Greg Andrews  gerg@netcom.com  :::::::::::::::::::
ObGuindon:  The fad of throwing tofu, Japanese bean curd, at the
            ceilings of restaurants to see how long it will stick
            has really gotten out of hand in some cities.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::