🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr10.074920.7384@darkcube.radig.de> vhs@darkcube.radig.de  
(Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) writes:
 
> When will SEF finally appear in the NeXT FAQ?

When will the new newsgroups, where RTF posts *belong*, be
created?

--
Nathan Janette		"I'm a NeXTstep man,
Dept MB&B, Yale Univ	 I'm a NeXTcube guy"
New Haven, CT
nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (NeXT)

In article <1992Apr10.074920.7384@darkcube.radig.de> vhs@darkcube.radig.de  
(Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) writes:
<stuff about a Sean Eric Fagan mail bounce>

Just ignore him.  Pretend he doesn't exist.

Todd
--
!  "Finally, some good  ! Todd M. Swan (ADP-2 - MS P910)!
!  software for a PC."  ! tms@lanl.gov  (NeXTMail)      !
!  -- Steve Jobs on     ! Los Alamos National Laboratory!
!     NeXTstep '486     ! Los Alamos, NM  87545         !

In article <1992Apr10.183329.9445@newshost.lanl.gov> tms@twins.lanl.gov writes:
| In article <1992Apr10.074920.7384@darkcube.radig.de> vhs@darkcube.radig.de  
| (Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) writes:
| <stuff about a Sean Eric Fagan mail bounce>
| 
| Just ignore him.  Pretend he doesn't exist.
| 
| Todd
| --
| !  "Finally, some good  ! Todd M. Swan (ADP-2 - MS P910)!
| !  software for a PC."  ! tms@lanl.gov  (NeXTMail)      !
| !  -- Steve Jobs on     ! Los Alamos National Laboratory!
| !     NeXTstep '486     ! Los Alamos, NM  87545         !

	Who's SEF?    8^)

---

===========================================================================
Felix A. Lugo

E-Mail: (NeXTmail preferred)			Felix_A_Lugo@ATT.COM
						coco@ihcoco.att.com
     AT&T NeXT User Group			nug@ihcoco.att.com
     HOME NeXTcube				home@ihcoco.att.com
===========================================================================

In article <1992Apr10.074920.7384@darkcube.radig.de> vhs@darkcube.radig.de (Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) writes:
>This is to inform you that our dear member SEF, who we all love so
>much, just behaved like an idiot again. He mailed me the two icons
>back I posted a few days ago. He added some blabla about how the
>message looked like and that tens of thousands of systems have to
>pay for that.

Do you think that he hasn't been doing it all along?  By now everyone
should _know_ that Sean Fagan will be replying to your RTF post.  If
you cannot handle his replies, then don't post RTF.  That's the
point, after all.

But, other than that, why do you call it "blabla"?  Because for those
of us who chose not to run NewsGrazer (for our various good
reasons), the message had very little content.  A couple lines of
meaningless (without the images) text, I recall.  And it _was_ paid
for by tens of thousands of systems.

It's not a matter of being to stupid to decode it.  It's more a matter
of already having enough stuff to do without having to
periodically decode people's posts.  For the most part, when I
receive RTF posts with _anything_ wrong with them (weird
formatting or large sections of blankness where a graphic was) I
just delete them.

>I knew very well what I was doing, that's why I put (RTF) in the header
>line, and placeholders in the ASCII text so non-RTF readers could
>still find out what the posting was about and decide whether they
>want to extract the pictures manually.
>
>If SEF is too stupid to uudecode, uncompress and untar a posting, he
>should shut off and not play net.police? Most other people on
>usenet are intelligent enough for this task.
>
>I think many other people (even those without NeXTs) enjoyed the
>pictures.

You totally missed his point.  The point was that most people simply
don't read RTF files, and don't really care.  Admittedly, your
files were not all that large.  But, if you say that maybe 10% of the
readers could get the graphics portion of the post without extra
work (that 10% is probably not pessimistic, either), then you have
already limited the number of users who have access to your post,
without even considering that you'll take another hit from users
who weren't interested in the first place.  Usually, you just lose
those who aren't interested :-).

>The inevitable flame wars SEF keeps causing usually outscale the
>size of the RTF postings.

I don't know how many people remember when RTF posting first came to
NewsGrazer, but in the week or two after we had a number of very,
_very_ large posts.  I know because I had to abort a couple sessions
where my machine attempted to download many megabytes of
information over a 2400 baud line calling long distance.  All for a
couple stupid color pictures.  I can tell you I enjoyed that.  I
already was paying high enough phone bills for just the basic fluff
on comp.sys.next* without having to also pay for someone else to
have loads of fun posting huge binaries.

Perhaps that activity would have squelched of it's own accord.  I
can help but think that having the specter of Sean Fagan in your
future doesn't help squelch things even more.

I'm not certain which flame wars you are referring to as being so
huge.  There simply haven't been any Sean Fagan RTF flame wars for
many months.  Also, remember that it takes two to make a flame war.  So
far there's you, and now there's me.  This will be my last post in the
thread, which just leaves you.

>I mailed SEF, too, but recently he did the most impolite thing
>possible during a discussion: He set an automatic mail bouncer so I
>couldn't reach him. I assume the bouncer is still in effect.

He reads the mail.  The bounced message basically indicates that
he's no longer interested in replying to your messages.  It's
self-preservation.  I periodically have to cut people off because
they are taking too much of my time in email conversations.  It
seldom happens - and it shows (because I never seem to have any time
:-).  Sean's just automated this.

The point?  Put sounds and images on an archive site and post a
pointer to the information.  The text in most netnews posting is
barely worth the "paper" it's printed on, and that "paper" has the
lovely property that when you put images on it, they are worth ten
thousand words.  Quite literally.  If the information isn't worth
your time to put on an archive, then it's not worth the rest of us
paying to get it.

Later,
--
scott hess <scott@gac.edu>   <A GUI is to a command-line as a TV is to a book>
12901 Upton Avenue South, #326  Burnsville, MN  55337  (612) 895-1208 Anytime!

In article <SCOTT.92Apr11024138@nic.gac.edu> scott@nic.gac.edu (Scott Hess)
writes:
>
>You totally missed his point.  The point was that most people simply
>don't read RTF files, and don't really care. 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call your bluff, here.  Where you you draw the
authority to speak for "most" people.  What survey is it based on?

>
>
>I don't know how many people remember when RTF posting first came to
>NewsGrazer, but in the week or two after we had a number of very,
>_very_ large posts.  I know because I had to abort a couple sessions
>where my machine attempted to download many megabytes of
>information over a 2400 baud line calling long distance.  All for a
>couple stupid color pictures.  I can tell you I enjoyed that.  I
>already was paying high enough phone bills for just the basic fluff
>on comp.sys.next* without having to also pay for someone else to
>have loads of fun posting huge binaries.
>

I also grow tired of hearing complaints about tranfer rates and long distance
costs.  You choose the method you wanted to use to connect, in this case, you
picked a method that has a high per byte cost, and want the rest of us to make
your decision the right one.  I pay $8000+ a year for my connection, and don't
really want my throughput throttled to such a LCD level.  I believe rtf has
it's place (NOT in a seperate forum, that defeats it's purpose) just as much as
lower/upper case, punctuation, etc. enhance postings.  

Thank GOD we at least had moved on to ascii by the time usenet got going,
otherwise, we'd still be stuck at baudot, and listening to grumbling about
those upstarts wasting our paper tape using lowercase! ;-)

>scott hess <scott@gac.edu>   <A GUI is to a command-line as a TV is to a book>
>12901 Upton Avenue South, #326  Burnsville, MN  55337  (612) 895-1208 Anytime!
>

This is not a defense of this particular RTF posting, I haven't even seen it,
but I think the 'right' to reasonable RTF postings should not be denied, any
more than the 'right' to post the multi-line advertising .signatures should
be denied.  I'll take anyone's odd that the sumtotal of redundant .signatures
FAR exceeds the sum total of RTF postings, and hence cost you pay-per-byters
much more.

My opinions, only.  I speak for no one but me.

Jim De Arras

In article <SCOTT.92Apr11024138@nic.gac.edu> scott@nic.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes:

   <A GUI is to a command-line as a TV is to a book>

Take this anti-NeXT propaganda to comp.editors.ed!  :)

In article <FOX.92Apr11090050@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>In article <SCOTT.92Apr11024138@nic.gac.edu> scott@nic.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes:
>
>   <A GUI is to a command-line as a TV is to a book>
>
>Take this anti-NeXT propaganda to comp.editors.ed!  :)

Think about the line.  Would the world really be a better place
without _any_ televisions?  Doesn't television have a lot of
potential (whether that is realized isn't part of my point :-)?
Would anyone in their right mind suggest that since we've got
television we can just get rid of books?

People suggest all of the time that "we've got a GUI, let's get rid of
command lines".  I'd love to see those people find all of the files in
the current directory which contain the word "custom".  Sure, you
can whip up a quick GUI program to do it, no problem.  OK, now find the
words in a case insensitive manner - again, you could modify the
program.  Now exclude files ending with .o or that are executable.
Then take all of the files that end with .Z and run them through zcat
before searching.  If you've still kept up, apply the things
mentioned recursively to subdirectories.  OK, then add the
ability to do a regex search, put filenames and line numbers in
front of matching lines, and mail the result to a list of people.

GUI's let any old user do many things on a computer.  They also let a
very advanced user do the same things - but it doesn't give the
advanced user much more access than the novice!

Sorry if it sounds like I jumped on you.  I just chose to take your
reply seriously :-).

Later,
--
scott hess <scott@gac.edu>   <A GUI is to a command-line as a TV is to a book>
12901 Upton Avenue South, #326  Burnsville, MN  55337  (612) 895-1208 Anytime!

In article <SCOTT.92Apr11141947@nic.gac.edu> scott@nic.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes:

   In article <FOX.92Apr11090050@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
   >In article <SCOTT.92Apr11024138@nic.gac.edu> scott@nic.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes:
   >
   >   <A GUI is to a command-line as a TV is to a book>
   >
   >Take this anti-NeXT propaganda to comp.editors.ed!  :)

   Think about the line.  Would the world really be a better place
   without _any_ televisions?  Doesn't television have a lot of
   potential (whether that is realized isn't part of my point :-)?
   Would anyone in their right mind suggest that since we've got
   television we can just get rid of books?

   [Stuff supporting the co-existance of GNU and command line deleted.]

I agree with you about GUI's and command lines, but I think that *on
the balance* the world *would* be a better place without TV.  By TV I
don't mean video monitors, and I don't mean video monitors attached to
VCRs, and I don't mean video monitors attached to a digital video
database.  I mean TV as we know it, programmed to maximize advertizing
revenues from millions of simultaneous viewers.  I couldn't live
without video monitors, but I'd like to try living without TV.  (And I
haven't gotten up the will power to try.  Yet.)

-david

In article <1992Apr10.074920.7384@darkcube.radig.de> vhs@darkcube.radig.de  
(Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) writes:
|> When will SEF finally appear in the NeXT FAQ?
No! This is *EXACTLY* what he wants! He'd print the FAQ out, frame it, and
hang it on his wall. And every time he'd glance at it his dick would get hard.

And it's a know behavioral pattern that people in pain tend to act even more  
irrationally. After SEF wound up with "blue balls" from staring at the FAQ
he'd be even *more* unpleasant. And I don't think we'd want that.

I guess you could say that not FAQing SEF would be for his benefit as well. :)

BTW, those were excellent icons!

Scotty

In article <1992Apr13.070739.1716@gagetalker.com>
scotty@gagetalker.com (Scott Turner) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.074920.7384@darkcube.radig.de>
>vhs@darkcube.radig.de (Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) writes:

>>When will SEF finally appear in the NeXT FAQ?

I wonder if I am in a small minority of the regular readers
(not necessarily the most vocal ones) who wishes the
nonsense about Sean Fagan, and RTF, and a number of other
such topics would finally make its exit from csnm.

There isn't anything anyone who finds it increasingly silly,
as I do, can do to deter the perpetrators, if they are not
willing to restrain themselves.  

But though probably Scott is a nice person, there is in his
posting a kind of overt malice coupled with pseudo-macho,
pseudo-tough-guy, sex images.  I mean, now really: is that
what people want here?  Look at this, and try to forget for
a moment all the past stuff we've had on all this:

>No!  This is *EXACTLY* what he wants!  He'd print the FAQ
>out, frame it, and hang it on his wall.  And every time he'd
>glance at it his dick would get hard.

At the level of fantasy, this is a mighty peculiar remark.
It's pretty difficult to connect that with *any* reality.
So it's the sort of thing high-school kids say to and about
each other, sexualizing anything and everything.  Though I
think maturity is one of the most highly overrated concepts
on earth, surely there is *some* level of ideation, beneath
which "immature" is an appropriate criticism.

So I wonder about the rest of you.  I *know* there are a few
people who would agree that this sort of Sean-bashing and
our recurring flame-fests over RTF postings are completely
ridiculous.  Some other faction would aggressively disagree,
another faction would advise simply n-ing past the nonsense,
and finally possibly the largest sector would be too bored
with it all to bother commenting.

>And it's a know behavioral pattern that people in pain tend
>to act even more irrationally.  After SEF wound up with
>"blue balls" from staring at the FAQ he'd be even *more*
>unpleasant.  And I don't think we'd want that.

This has all the charm of picking your nose in public.  It's
hard to imagine a remark more irrational than that one, so
it's odd Scott brought that idea up.  And I wonder, therefore,
what "we" he has in mind; surely not me, because this stuff
is too dumb *even* for Usenet.

It's a cooperative venture, in the long run, and something
more like genuine cooperation -- it's perfectly possible to
disagree and still cooperate -- would be a real boon to this
precinct.  It's not like there were no subjects of genuine
interest to us here.  So how about it?  Can't "we" -- each
of us, individually -- give that up now, for the general
welfare?

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888

I almost wish the rtf group had passed.  Not for posting of rtf files,
but so that I wouldn't have to deal with all the stupid arguments
about it.  I think the rtf arguments belong in some news.* group
and the other comments about Mime probably belong in comp.mail.*.  I
really don't care where they belong, I am just tired of the constant
arguments about them.

Love,
-Randy

------
 _ __
' )  )              /
 /--' __.  ____  __/ __  ,
/  \_(_/|_/ / <_(_/_/ (_/_
Randy McCaskill        /
rmccask@seas.gwu.edu  '

In article <FOX.92Apr12092603@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

   I agree with you about GUI's and command lines, but I think that *on
   the balance* the world *would* be a better place without TV.  By TV I
   don't mean video monitors, and I don't mean video monitors attached to
   VCRs, and I don't mean video monitors attached to a digital video
   database.  I mean TV as we know it, programmed to maximize advertizing
   revenues from millions of simultaneous viewers.  I couldn't live
   without video monitors, but I'd like to try living without TV.  (And I
   haven't gotten up the will power to try.  Yet.)

   -david

Just think:  Without TV "as we know it", there wouldn't be all these
nice raster-graphics monitors at such low cost.  Ever wonder why
vector-graphics displays never made it big?  Mass production.

I'm not claiming that what's on TV is generally useful (unless you
watch the Monitor Channel) but the technology was indeed very
important to our industry.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vivek Khera, Gradual Student/Systems Guy  Department of Computer Science
Internet:   khera@cs.duke.edu             Duke University
            (MIME mail accepted)          Durham, NC 27706     (919) 660-6528