Text 324, 110 rader
Skriven 2004-11-06 10:01:00 av MICHEL SAMSON (1:10/345)
     Kommentar till en text av STEPHEN HURD
Ärende: SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE
================================
Hi Stephen (what now?...),

     About "SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE" of November 5:

MS> ...the `MS-Kermit' terminal is OK on `SBBS'...  ...`MS-Kermit' is
MS> free but few newbies would know how to use it...  Wayne Warthen's
MS} `Kermit for Win-16/32' is free too but there was a major issue...
SH} ...MS-Kermit comes without any documentation whatsoever...
MS> This text is taken from the .INI you managed not to read all along:
MS> "ftp://kermit.columbia.edu/kermit/archives/msk314.zip (677 Kb,
MS} November 7, 2002 - updated documentation)"  ...information, directly
MS> from the source, gets distorted even when it's put under your nose!
SH} ...MS-Kermit doesn't run on ANY of the systems comprising my BBS...
MS> Perhaps if you had read `MSK.INI' and paid attention to my 1st line
MS} you would have noticed that it says:  "`SBBS/W32' support...
MS> It's been tested with Kermit95, C-Kermit and G-Kermit.

     I'm the one who'll do misinformation?  And topic steering perhaps?!

     Refrain from using absolutes when memory fails!!!  You're unable to
comment over free `Windows' SoftWare with suitable `Kermit' support just
because you didn't test any.  *I* did, yet here you are!  You read about
how rare the FREE and suitable `Windows' clients happen to be, long ago:
             ^^^^              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
___________________________ [ "Kermit preconceptions" - July 24, 2003 ]_
SH> There is a Windows version...  I think (but am not sure) that
SH} the Windows version is not available without paying for it.

     `K95' (Columbia's *OFFICIAL* `Kermit' SoftWare for `W32' platforms)
is available for a 21 days free trial period, `C-Kermit' is no `Windows'
product and `G-Kermit' much less!  Was this a topic-steering attempt?...

                                  8-7

SH> I'm fairly certain that even you have managed to transfer files
SH> using that setup and MS-Kermit...  ...This is based on memory...

     The following is based on FACTS I'VE OBSERVED MYSELF:  "...the `MS-
Kermit' terminal is OK on `SBBS'...", how could you forget my statement?
        ^^^^^^^^
     THIS APPEARED ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT WHEN YOU WERE POSTING THE REPLY!
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                  %-b,

     Time-travel tourism isn't for you, it makes one dizzy after a time!

                                8,-D  ))

     Seriously, what words or language must i use to prevent distortions
and topic-steering?  Go to the records, i already suggested you read it.

SH> I'm *positive* that Winston Smith...  another MS-Kermit user, has
SH> managed to transfer files using the Kermit protocol as included...

     I'm very well aware of the situation since i contacted Rob Swindell
on Winston's advice and submitted my .INI, as a result.  `Windows' tests
failed, `Kermit.INI' lacked clarity, Swindell became irrational and then
many SysOps managed to disable `Kermit' (user UpLoads) somewhat later...

SH> I'm still waiting to hear exactly what "$hareWare" Rob is "forcing"
SH} sysops to use.

     Forcing who!?  You're another 80 years old senile man or something?

                                  %->

     Talk about misinformation accidently or purposely posted!  Lets see
what was on the menu lately (and which you carefully ignored, actually):

SH> I am interested however in pointing out and correcting any
SH> misinformation you accidently or purposely post.
MS> ...you and your guru remain consistently silent relatively to the
MS} VERY WEAK INTERFACE between `SynchroNet' and `MS-Kermit'
MS> (on `SBBS/W32' BBS systems, mind you)!  ...misinformation?  Like
MS> when you argue i'm expecting hours of work from you and I ASKED FOR
MS} LESS INTERFERENCE?  I have ignored Rob Swindell's `Kermit' SABOTAGE
MS> for over a year...  I couldn't avoid the need for an UpDate since at
MS> least two SysOps complained about Rob's setup lately, not to mention
MS> the BBSers who are completely mystified by this SABOTAGE.
SH> I still fail to see how including a setup that happens to do the
SH> job (ie:  transfer files) using Kermit is a form of sabotage.

     I still fail to see what justifies your obvious voluntary blindness
when i return to some posts you published on `DoveNet', not so long ago:

________________________________ [ "SBBS & MS-Kermit" - July 23, 2003 ]_
SH> Most other protocols are designed to work only on certain kinds or
SH> qualities of connections, and/or between certain kinds of computers,
SH> and therefore work poorly (or not at all) elsewhere and offer few if
SH> any methods to adapt to unplanned-for situations.  Kermit, on the
SH> other hand, allows you to achieve successful file transfer and the
SH> highest possible performance on any given connection.  HyperTerminal
SH> supports Kermit.  Haven't tried it with HyperTerminal though...

     I already explained where the sabotage is:  `Hyper-Terminal' (which
is included in `Win-32') can make `Kermit' transfers at least twenty-six
times slower than they should be while Wayne Warthen's `Kermit for `Win-
16/32' (which is FreeWare) just hangs the session and reveals how *WEAK*
`SBBS's *INTERFACE* to external (`Kermit') protocol drivers can be!  So,
`Kermit.INI' by Swindell does the job:  a `SynchroNet/W32' SABOTAGE job.
                                                      ^^^
                                                           Salutations,

                                                           Michel Samson
                                                           a/s Bicephale


... Rob's SBBS/Kermit:  spend spare-time to discover a form of SABOTAGE!
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Who will make TelNet OLMR BBSing UNIVERSAL?
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)