Text 5936, 234 rader
Skriven 2013-01-23 11:24:00 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.42)
Kommentar till text 5909 av Nicholas Boel (17109.fidonews)
Ärende: Z4
==========
NB>> Agreed. Do you agree with that as well?
ML> did i not write it to someone else to point it out to them
ML> specifically??
NB> You of all people I can actually believe in this aspect, Mark.
thank you... i think...
NB>> And just as many have shows the opposite. Even more, probably.
ML> sounds like they might have a problem, then... they shouldn't play
ML> the lottery in any case...
NB> Who has the problem, exactly? You blame it on 10 sysops, when
NB> there's only one place to blame it on.
no... i'm blaming all the shit and arguing on those "10" (your number, not
mine) who have been in denial, stirring the shit about this and are now
completely silent... where'd THEY go and why?
NB> We've uncovered an IP changing situation where his DNS doesn't get
NB> updated. Can you now throw Michiel or Ward or Bjorn under the bus
NB> now? No. They were just pointing out facts as they saw them.
i never wanted to throw anyone under the bus but when explanations and examples
are not accepted or even considered as possibilities, well, then, off the
fucking bus ya go... iffn' ya gets runned over, too, oh well... karma's
driving, ya know...
NB> I know you were all looking to do so. That's how this works,
NB> right? :(
that's how what works??
ML> i was referencing your reins of being guided alone by others... as
ML> for who started what, you'll have to be more specific if you want
ML> to continue... me? i'm tired of it... you just hit things the
ML> wrong way tonight in here and at least one other echo... we've
ML> been doing very well in other places, though... why the ass had to
ML> come out again i do not know...
NB> Mark, I'm a grown man. I don't take any initiative from anyone. I
NB> agreed with some of the posts here, and look! Now everyone's silent
NB> and we're arguing.
yes, i know... the question is why are they silent and what are they doing...
NB> I'm no psycology major, but I'm smart enough to see when someone
NB> is playing games. In this case, I'm only asking questions.. I got
NB> attacked from the side by Janis, and replied in the same demeanor.
NB> That is how I work, and noone will change that.
again, i didn't see janis attack you or get frustrated with you until after
your language got derogatory and insulting with her... smartass comments and
such... i'm just saying...
NB> Reasons for stopping arguing with Roy at times, were because I'm
NB> much like him. I don't take shit from anybody, and if I know what
NB> the hell I'm talking about, I will fight it till the end.
believe it or not, many of us who are left and active in these areas are very
much alike... some moreso than others but still pretty much alike...
ML> obviously someone has misread something... i jumped because you
ML> were being insulting... i didn't see anyone insult you before you
ML> started it... perhaps your messages arrive in a different order
ML> but the quotes flowed smoothly in order over here...
NB> You should really check as to who was insulting first.
i already have... several times...
NB> This also isn't the first time this has happened between Janis and
NB> I. The last time was also an issue of who started it first. Both
NB> times, you've seemed to take her side,
i take most anyone's side when i see them being treated and spoken to unfairly
or unjustly... "most anyone" because some do deserve what they have sown in the
past... but that's going down a trail we don't really want to travel, right?
NB> even though both times she jumped into a conversation that had
NB> nothing to do with her and insulted me in the process.
these are public areas just like newsgroups... if you don't want any input from
others in the same room, then take the conversation private... otherwise, don't
complain about input from others in public places... but you already know
this...
NB> Anyway, AGAIN, I'm already over it. I've sent Janis a (hopefully)
NB> somewhat respecful netmail (isn't that how it's supposed to be
NB> handled?), but to her adverts, have switched all my file feeds
NB> elsewhere. No problemo.
hopefully things will cool off more, now...
ML> you saw and accepted my posts when it came to the technical
ML> configuration or certain software and the explanations of why it
ML> was done that way... i'm not talking about the posts in here where
ML> we were arguing... the later ones... damn, talk about arrogance
ML> [SMH] look in the mirror some time, eh?
NB> Sometimes, yes. You have some very good technical FTN (and even
NB> otherwise at times) qualities. But when I'm in an argument, and you
NB> butt in and go off on a tangeant.. I can assure you, it's not read
NB> unless I reply to it.
NB> One example: In a Synchronet related echo you went of on a
NB> ridiculous tirade about how things shoudl be done, etc, when
NB> joining fidonet.
that wasn't a tirade, nick... i do wish you'd stop putting someone else's
emotions on my writings :(
what i wrote was no where near a tirade... it was factual and complete... not
some halfassed "just enough to get it done without the reasons why"
explanation...
NB> Here -- if the applicant is willing to apply, and pay attnetion, it
NB> takes 1/4th the time it does to go through someone that follows the
NB> way it was done 20 years ago. Maybe people should rethink this,
NB> but.. who the fuck am I to get involved with what people have been
NB> fuckin' up for 10+ years.
what??
ML> sorry but i know i'm not always right... hell, i thought i was
ML> wrong about something one time but found out i was wrong about
ML> being wrong... others in here, however, are always right and they
ML> never admit when they are wrong...
NB> If I'm wrong, I will definitely admit it. Especially when it comes
NB> to technical issues.
yes, you do and have... our conversations in other areas are a whole lot
different than they are in here or other non-technical areas... i don't really
kow why, either... maybe i'm more like sheldon than leonard at times? :/
NB> I may be a newbie here in Fidonet, but I know my shit. AND I
NB> probably know my shit better than half of the *C staff here.
well, it is your shit so i would hope that you would know it better than anyone
else ;) :LOL:
NB> You can talk Fidonet all you want, but I've been dealing with, and
NB> supporting FTN tecnnology (without fidonet) for about as many
NB> years as people here like to brag about. So please don't think I'm
NB> a newbie. I just avoided "fight-o-net" as long as I could.
using FTN technology is one thing... knowing and understanding why it is the
way it is is a whole 'nother matter...
NB>> And I guess you're going to say that I was out of control first
NB>> again, right
ML> you jumped on janis with no prodding or provocation that i saw...
NB> HAHA. Perfect. I figured you would say that. Even after a rescan of
NB> your logs, you might even say that again.
logs?? i simply read the messages...
NB> I was talking to someone else. Janis replied to a public message to
NB> me with an insult..
either i'm missing that message or one of us misread it... that or maybe one of
us projected some emotion onto it that wasn't put there by the writer?
NB> If you don't see this, go away, because I'm not going to continue
NB> the conversation, as it's not worth it. It's here in public,
NB> though, so your blinders can be ignored for a few.
you've had as much chance to take it private as anyone else... frankly, i don't
care if it is public or private... i state things as i see them either way and
i will call a spade a spade if it is one...
ML> "we" as in everyone who has been here since at least y2k and
ML> everyone who is still here from the 80's and 90's have all enabled
ML> the network to exist... without it, you wouldn't be here and
ML> neither would anyone else... THAT's the enabling i mean... "we"
ML> enabled the politicos to use the network... "we" enabled the
ML> technicians to create the software that "we" needed... "we"
ML> allowed the users to abuse our systems to "get their mail" and
ML> "get their files"... yes sir... "we" are enablers...
NB> Don't care. Most outsiders take this as you've fucked it up for
NB> everyone. The fact that you still require so many things in order
NB> to accept a new member is kinda ridiculous.
what "so many things"?? send in the application via netmail... what else is
required?? netmail HAS to work... it is the backbone of fidonet... everything
travels via netmail of some sort... yes, even the file distribution stuff...
NB> Make sure netmail works. If they can handle that, they can handle
NB> damn near anything!
pretty much...
NB> I have a new point now, even though I never wanted points. But one
NB> oddball dickhead RC didn't want to accept him, seeing as though he
NB> (the RC) couldn't sent netmail back to a TEMP node he setup for
NB> him.
gotta wonder why that is? you do know you can't send a netmail to an applying
node's new address when their mailer is not flying the new address they don't
even know they have, right?? and polling using the temp address when there's
more than one new node using that address is also a problem because mail for
the one applicant may be picked up by the other applicant when both are flying
the same temp address... so, how would you do it??
NB> Oddly enough, I set this guy up in about 15 minutes as a point
NB> here, which goes to show that the mentioned RC didn't have a proper
NB> configuration for his "temporary" node.
using only fidonet technology and netmail??
NB> Stupid is as stupid does. And everyone here seems to promote it.
yes and no...
NB> Mark, of all people, I'm surprised you weren't disgusted YEARS ago.
NB> You have so much knowledge and experience.. :(
i HAVE been disgusted for years... but rather than leave and let it all rot
like others have done, i decided to stay and fight for fidonet to try to keep
others from ruining it... i'm still here, too ;)
BTW: why do yo think i spend so much time correcting others and educating new
folks??
)\/(ark
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.42)
|