bat file help??
Kev
extention?
Example would be this?
Old file,
blabla.020.txt
Can you read the ".020" and address the extetion to that?
New file,
blabla.020
I want to strip the ".txt" and rename it to the same extention as the "020"
I know this does not make much sense so please forgive me, I just need to
rename and strip the txt extetion! I can do it manualy but I would rather
have
a bat file do it for me??
Thanks,
Kevin
Clay Calvert
Ren blabla.020.txt *.
Clay Calvert
Replace "W" with "L" in email.
William Allen
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 04:16:44 GMT, "Kev" wrote:
...snip
> >Old file,
> >blabla.020.txt
> >I want to strip the ".txt" and rename it to the same extention as the "020"
>
Assuming such files have been created accidentally
with Notepad, the following may also be of use:
1) You can save a file in Notepad with the extension of
your choice by putting "double-quotes" around the file name.
Then Notepad won't append a spurious TXT extension.
2) You can avoid the spurious TXT extension for registered
file types _only_ by saving as type "All files"
3) If you start Notepad with START, for example like this:
start notepad MYFILE.EXT
or directly, like this:
notepad MYFILE.EXT
then Notepad will not add a spurious TXT extension when
the file is saved.
--
William Allen
Note:
A "registered file type" is one for which actions are defined
in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT in the Windows registry.
Ted Davis
T.E.D. (tda...@gearbox.maem.umr.edu - e-mail must contain "batch" in the subject or my .sig in the body)
Ted Davis
Sorry about the missent empty message - a cat stepped on the keyboard.
Copy the files to an empty directory, then from a command prompt in
that directory,
ren *.*.txt *.*.
Note the trailing dot in the second wildcard pattern, it's what makes
it work.
Rik D'haveloose
> ...snip
> > >Old file,
> > >blabla.020.txt
> >
> > Ren blabla.020.txt *.
>
> Assuming such files have been created accidentally
> with Notepad, the following may also be of use:
You still seem not to be aware of wat batching really is ?
I do not want to prevent you from helping others, but please, do not
make it a windows or notepad or other NG here, and restrict to pure
batching as many as you
can (or not ?) (and follow common/general usenet etiquette)
KISS
Clay Calvert
<brol.d...@xs4all.be> wrote:
>William Allen wrote
>> ...snip
>> > >Old file,
>> > >blabla.020.txt
>> >
>> > Ren blabla.020.txt *.
>>
>> Assuming such files have been created accidentally
>> with Notepad, the following may also be of use:
>==8<
>
>You still seem not to be aware of wat batching really is ?
Well, he definitely provides dozens, if not hundreds, of times the
amount of batch solutions that you give us.
>I do not want to prevent you from helping others, but please, do not
>make it a windows or notepad or other NG here, and restrict to pure
>batching as many as you
>can (or not ?) (and follow common/general usenet etiquette)
>
>KISS
Another comment from a member of NEAANT.
The Northern European Alliance Against ....
Outsider
>
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:47:21 +0100, "Rik D'haveloose"
> <brol.d...@xs4all.be> wrote:
>
> >William Allen wrote
> >> ...snip
> >> > >Old file,
> >> > >blabla.020.txt
> >> >
> >> > Ren blabla.020.txt *.
> >>
> >> Assuming such files have been created accidentally
> >> with Notepad, the following may also be of use:
> >==8<
> >
> >You still seem not to be aware of wat batching really is ?
>
> Well, he definitely provides dozens, if not hundreds, of times the
> amount of batch solutions that you give us.
So the more 'batch solutions' that are posted, the more rights one
has to ignore the rules and policies? This is merely a very selfish
attitude, ie. "Let him do what he wants, because he posts many
batch solutions". Or, "Better not offend him or he might go away and
stop posting batch solutions" ? Do you think someone has more
"authority" than others in the group because they post more?
Since the usefulness of any posting is individual and subjective,
it would be only fair to count the number of messages posted and
the person who has posted the greatest number of messages "wins".
William has around 1,600 and I have around 3,900. So I guess by
your own standard, I must have a much greater authority, right?
Nope. Everyone is equal, including you.
Clay what you demonstrate here is a very common flaw. You think because
someone posts useful material, they are then excluded from observing proper
protocol, group charter and established usenet hierarchy and conventions.
Wrong! You also seem to forget that this group is alt.msdos.batch, not
alt.any.batch.
You also have vested interests for two reasons.
1) Your personal vendetta against me.
2) Your holy crusade for NT.
Bottom line is, you will support anyone who opposes any position I take.
It is precisely the same with Klaus Meinhard.
> >I do not want to prevent you from helping others, but please, do not
> >make it a windows or notepad or other NG here, and restrict to pure
> >batching as many as you
> >can (or not ?) (and follow common/general usenet etiquette)
Exactly right.
--
<!-Outsider//->
MS-DOS 6.22, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Netscape Communicator 4.08
Klaus Meinhard
> "authority" than others in the group because they post more?
Then what authority do you have to constantly harass others that post
solutions that you don´t like?
> William has around 1,600 and I have around 3,900.
Since I follow batch newsgroups, I have had the displeasure of following
your "career". What you write swings widely between the on-topic and
helpful, the plainly off-topic, the open incitement to riot, personal
harassment and libel, and simply trolling. That behaviour is either very
insidious or plainly pathological.
> Bottom line is, you will support anyone who opposes any position I
take.
> It is precisely the same with Klaus Meinhard.
No, I simply support a liberal position. You behave like a small child
that is constantly whining and crying and throwing things to get his
will. Everytime this newsgroup returns to some quiet and civility, you
start up again.
--
Viele Grüße, best regards,
*Klaus Meinhard*
07°36´57" East 53°07´52" North
Author of the 4XBTM batch collection at http://www.4xbtm.de
Outsider
>
> > stop posting batch solutions" ? Do you think someone has more
> > "authority" than others in the group because they post more?
>
> Then what authority do you have to constantly harass others that post
> solutions that you don´t like?
>
> > William has around 1,600 and I have around 3,900.
>
> Since I follow batch newsgroups, I have had the displeasure of following
> your "career". What you write swings widely between the on-topic and
> helpful, the plainly off-topic, the open incitement to riot, personal
> harassment and libel, and simply trolling. That behaviour is either very
> insidious or plainly pathological.
Couldn't you think of anymore insults?
> > Bottom line is, you will support anyone who opposes any position I
> take.
> > It is precisely the same with Klaus Meinhard.
>
> No, I simply support a liberal position. You behave like a small child
> that is constantly whining and crying and throwing things to get his
> will. Everytime this newsgroup returns to some quiet and civility, you
> start up again.
There you go <g>.
BTW, you were attacking me ever since you got here... no even before
you got here - in another group (I forgot which one) because you didn't
like my name.
Now, we have a definitive answer on the question I asked you on
2001-10-05.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BBDE2FA.C86C5B52%40yahoo.com
Klaus, can you actually say anything at all without insults, inuendos,
biting comments, false accusations, condescending remarks or sarcasm?
Is it at all possible for you to treat people decently? Have you ever
in your life been able to do so?
Next question. Since you obviously are very practiced at abusing people,
did you work hard at it or does it come naturally? Never mind.
I don't think I want to know, either way.
As for me...
I am a dynamic figure, often seen scaling walls and crushing ice. I have
been known to remodel train stations on my lunch breaks, making them more
efficient in the area of heat retention. I translate ethnic slurs for
Cuban refugees. I write award-winning operas, I manage time efficiently.
Occasionally, I tread water for three days in a row.
I woo women with my sensuous and godlike trombone playing, I can pilot
bicycles up severe inclines with unflagging speed, and I cook Thirty-Minute
Brownies in twenty minutes. I am an expert in stucco, a veteran of love,
and an outlaw in Peru.
Using only a hoe and a large glass of water, I once single-handedly defended
a small village in the Amazon Basin from a horde of ferocious army ants. I
play bluegrass cello, I bat .400. I was scouted by the Mets, I am the subject
of numerous documentaries. When I'm bored, I build large suspension bridges
in my yard. I enjoy urban hang gliding. On Wednesdays, after school, I repair
electrical appliances free of charge.
I am an abstract artist, a concrete analyst, and a ruthless bookie. Critics
worldwide swoon over my original line of corduroy evening wear. I don't
perspire. I am a private citizen, yet I receive fan mail. I have been caller
number nine and have won the weekend passes. Last summer I toured New Jersey
with a traveling centrifugal-force demonstration. My deft floral
arrangements have earned me fame in international botany circles. Children
trust me.
I can hurl tennis rackets at moving con-artists with deadly accuracy. I
once read Paradise Lost, Moby Dick, and David Copperfield in one day and
still had time to refurbish an entire dining room that evening. I know the
exact location of every food item in the supermarket. I have performed
several covert operations for the CIA. I sleep once a week; when I do sleep,
I sleep in a chair. While on vacation in Canada, I successfully negotiated
with a group of terrorists who had seized a small bakery. The laws of
physics do not apply to me as they do to most people.
I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On weekends,
to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years ago I discovered
the meaning of life but forgot to write it down. I have made extraordinary four
course meals using only a mouli and a toaster oven. I breed prize-winning clams.
I have won prizefights in San Juan, cliff-diving competitions in Sri Lanka, and
spelling bees at the Kremlin. I have played Hamlet, I have performed open-heart
surgery without instruments, and I have spoken with Elvis.
But I stopped doing all those things because I love DOS batch file programming.
Mike Jones
"Outsider" <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3BFBD44F...@yahoo.com...
[most, possibly drug-induced, self-agrandisment snipped]
I have performed open-heart
> surgery without instruments, and I have spoken with Elvis.
>
> But I stopped doing all those things because I love DOS batch file
programming.
>
Mmmm
Plonk
Outsider
...snip
> > I am a dynamic figure, often seen scaling walls and crushing ice. I
> have
>
> [most, possibly drug-induced, self-agrandisment snipped]
<LOL>
It was a joke, mike. Did you take it seriously!??
http://www.virtualmax.com/humor/files/colessay.html
Outsider
>
> Clay Calvert wrote:
> >
> > I was simply commenting on Rik's comment that William is "not aware of
> > what batching really is." It was not a statement of who has more
> > authority, it was just an observation that one of them has proven his
> > batch capabilities much more than the other.
>
> You just said the same thing again. I am sure what Rik meant was that
> William does not understand what DOS batch is in the context of this
> newsgroup. I agree.
PS. Having ability or knowledge does not mean a person knows right from
wrong, and neither does is make a person kind benevolent or caring.
Having ability or knowledge does not mean a person can't be selfserving,
manipulative, condescending, arrogant or deceptive.
Outsider
> what batching really is." It was not a statement of who has more
> authority, it was just an observation that one of them has proven his
> batch capabilities much more than the other.
You just said the same thing again. I am sure what Rik meant was that
William does not understand what DOS batch is in the context of this
newsgroup. I agree.
> >Clay what you demonstrate here is a very common flaw. You think because
> >someone posts useful material, they are then excluded from observing proper
> >protocol, group charter and established usenet hierarchy and conventions.
> >Wrong! You also seem to forget that this group is alt.msdos.batch, not
> >alt.any.batch.
>
> You think this group is alt.whatever.outsider.wants.to.talk.about
Hardly. And
> >You also have vested interests for two reasons.
> >
> >1) Your personal vendetta against me.
>
> Don't give yourself undue credit. I just have an intolerance for
> those that say fringe topics are forbidden, but feel they can talk
> about topics way of base with no problem. In case you have forgotten,
> here are some of the issues that you have originated in this group:
>
> - Ethernet
> - Job searches
> - DSL
> - HTML
> - Microsoft bashing
> - Political rhetoric
> - links to nude women
> - etc.
>
> I think you are trying to turn this place into a free-for-all.
Hardly, but if you continue posting off-topic messages, I might
give it some thought.
> >Bottom line is, you will support anyone who opposes any position I take.
> >It is precisely the same with Klaus Meinhard.
>
> The bottom line is, if we're going to be fair here, then let's be
> fair. Third-party binaries written by complete strangers are
> 'allowed' by you, yet a command-line tool written by Microsoft is not?
Read the charter. Read MSDOS. That means the MSDOS environment. It does
not mean an alternate environment.
> This group sees a lot of Unix port, Assembler, HTML, Microsoft bashing
> and other very, very fringe topics, if not beyond.
There is some variety in this group, but most of it is, in fact, on topic.
Since the traffic is so low, I think you are attempting to make a problem
out of everything you possibly can in your NT crusade, and your personal
vendetta.
> >> >I do not want to prevent you from helping others, but please, do not
> >> >make it a windows or notepad or other NG here, and restrict to pure
> >> >batching as many as you
> >> >can (or not ?) (and follow common/general usenet etiquette)
> >
> >Exactly right.
>
> There are different definitions of what constitutes batching. You
> have your opinions on what that constitutes, which varies (greatly)
> from others.
A great many definitions do not fall into the category of this group.
I am beginning to wonder, do you even know what DOS is, or did you start
your computer "career" with Win 4.0 (better known to you as Windows95Ž)
> I would really like to hear your explanation on how bare breasts fall
> into the DOS batch file category.
I think you'd better explain that one yourself <g>.
Todd Vargo
> Clay Calvert wrote:
<snip>
> > I would really like to hear your explanation on how bare breasts fall
> > into the DOS batch file category.
>
> I think you'd better explain that one yourself <g>.
IIRC, you (Outsider) was describing what was found on some lamer's sex
oriented, popup spam site that was posted here. If there is some other post
Clay was referring to, I must have over missed it (very doubtful), otherwise
he is just exploiting your commentary on that trash site in attempt to make
you look bad. In fact, I just searched amb for "bare breasts" with Google
and found zero matches.
Anyone who was reading this group when that post occurred knows exactly who
is hitting below the belt here. Shame on you Clay!
--
Todd Vargo (body of message must contain my name to reply by email)
Clay Calvert
wrote:
No, that isn't the post I'm referring to Here is the URL to the
message I'm referring to.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=38132128.CB765D7D%40aol.com
Now I'll ask again. What does this have to do to batch files, and why
is it OK for posts like this when others can't talk about a 'batch
tool' written by microsoft?
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Clay Calvert wrote:
>> >So the more 'batch solutions' that are posted, the more rights one
>> >has to ignore the rules and policies? This is merely a very selfish
>> >attitude, ie. "Let him do what he wants, because he posts many
>> >batch solutions". Or, "Better not offend him or he might go away and
>> >stop posting batch solutions" ? Do you think someone has more
>> >"authority" than others in the group because they post more?
>> >Since the usefulness of any posting is individual and subjective,
>> >it would be only fair to count the number of messages posted and
>> >the person who has posted the greatest number of messages "wins".
>> >William has around 1,600 and I have around 3,900. So I guess by
>> >your own standard, I must have a much greater authority, right?
>> >Nope. Everyone is equal, including you.
>>
>> I was simply commenting on Rik's comment that William is "not aware of
>> what batching really is." It was not a statement of who has more
>> authority, it was just an observation that one of them has proven his
>> batch capabilities much more than the other.
>
>You just said the same thing again. I am sure what Rik meant was that
>William does not understand what DOS batch is in the context of this
>newsgroup. I agree.
Well I, and others, disagree on what you and other members of NEAANT
have for your definiton of batching.
>> >Clay what you demonstrate here is a very common flaw. You think because
>> >someone posts useful material, they are then excluded from observing proper
>> >protocol, group charter and established usenet hierarchy and conventions.
>> >Wrong! You also seem to forget that this group is alt.msdos.batch, not
>> >alt.any.batch.
>>
>> You think this group is alt.whatever.outsider.wants.to.talk.about
>
>> There are different definitions of what constitutes batching. You
>> have your opinions on what that constitutes, which varies (greatly)
>> from others.
>
>A great many definitions do not fall into the category of this group.
>I am beginning to wonder, do you even know what DOS is, or did you start
>your computer "career" with Win 4.0 (better known to you as Windows95®)
I've told you before that I started with DOS 5, and supported hundreds
of users in that environment.
>> I would really like to hear your explanation on how bare breasts fall
>> into the DOS batch file category.
>
>I think you'd better explain that one yourself <g>.
Here you go. Please explain how this is topical.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=38132128.CB765D7D%40aol.com
Todd Vargo
news:iodtvtg4hqkmtmnnb...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:50:01 -0500, "Todd Vargo" <t...@birdlover.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Anyone who was reading this group when that post occurred knows exactly
who
> >is hitting below the belt here. Shame on you Clay!
>
> No, that isn't the post I'm referring to Here is the URL to the
> message I'm referring to.
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=38132128.CB765D7D%40a
ol.com
<grin> I forgot about that post (shame on me).
>
> Now I'll ask again. What does this have to do to batch files, and why
> is it OK for posts like this when others can't talk about a 'batch
> tool' written by microsoft?
Obviously it had nothing to do with batch. However, in Outsider's defense,
someone reading it can not possibly become confused with why FOR/F don't
work for them in a DOS batch file and waste a lot of time on their own
trying to solve it. Now that your question has been answered, in a polite
manor, I hope this line of reasoning is closed now.
NT batch and CP's that emulate it are for obvious reasons off topic here.
After all, that's why the NT group was formed. Please, let's not waste any
more bandwidth on this issue.
Outsider
>
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 07:56:59 +0100, Outsider
> <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Clay Calvert wrote:
> >> There are different definitions of what constitutes batching. You
> >> have your opinions on what that constitutes, which varies (greatly)
> >> from others.
> >A great many definitions do not fall into the category of this group.
> >I am beginning to wonder, do you even know what DOS is, or did you start
> >your computer "career" with Win 4.0 (better known to you as Windows95®)
> I've told you before that I started with DOS 5, and supported hundreds
> of users in that environment.
Did you? Have you?
> >> I would really like to hear your explanation on how bare breasts fall
> >> into the DOS batch file category.
> >
> >I think you'd better explain that one yourself <g>.
>
> Here you go. Please explain how this is topical.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=38132128.CB765D7D%40aol.com
>
Great! I had forgotten all about it.
It states clearly that it is not on topic. What's your point?
"Hey, life's a batch!
But not all the time. We all need a break every now and then."
I received many thanks for posting that message, both in the group
and privately.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d2rhrt0mptopdi5ef3jpvfjp8c55loqtqs%404ax.com
Clay Calvert:
I appreciate your off topic messages too (well at least some of them).
The majority of your messages in this group, Clay Calvert, are off topic.
In fact, generally all you do here is post off topic messages:
1) Attacking me is what you spend _most_ of your time on.
2) Trolling NT comes next.
Your DOS batch messages are almost non-existent, and even then
you are usually plugging NT.
I, however, RARELY post a message that is off topic.
Again. What's your point?
Outsider
>
> "Clay Calvert" <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote in message
> news:iodtvtg4hqkmtmnnb...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:50:01 -0500, "Todd Vargo" <t...@birdlover.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >Anyone who was reading this group when that post occurred knows exactly
> who
> > >is hitting below the belt here. Shame on you Clay!
> >
> > No, that isn't the post I'm referring to Here is the URL to the
> > message I'm referring to.
> >
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=38132128.CB765D7D%40a
> ol.com
>
> <grin> I forgot about that post (shame on me).
No big deal. I forgot about it too. It just goes to show you, sometimes
people with malicious intent can do some inadvertent good. I'm glad
he found it. It's amazes me that Clay researches and catalogs everything
I say and spends more time figuring out ways to try and make me look bad.
I don't see what his posts have to do with DOS batch, or human decency for
that matter. Almost all of his posts are off topic.
> >
> > Now I'll ask again. What does this have to do to batch files, and why
> > is it OK for posts like this when others can't talk about a 'batch
> > tool' written by microsoft?
>
> Obviously it had nothing to do with batch.
Yes, obvious except to Clay who just had to ask ;).
> However, in Outsider's defense,
> someone reading it can not possibly become confused with why FOR/F don't
> work for them in a DOS batch file and waste a lot of time on their own
> trying to solve it. Now that your question has been answered, in a polite
> manor, I hope this line of reasoning is closed now.
>
> NT batch and CP's that emulate it are for obvious reasons off topic here.
> After all, that's why the NT group was formed. Please, let's not waste any
> more bandwidth on this issue.
Yes.
Clay Calvert
wrote:
>"Clay Calvert" <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote in message
>news:iodtvtg4hqkmtmnnb...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:50:01 -0500, "Todd Vargo" <t...@birdlover.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Anyone who was reading this group when that post occurred knows exactly
>who
>> >is hitting below the belt here. Shame on you Clay!
>>
>> No, that isn't the post I'm referring to Here is the URL to the
>> message I'm referring to.
>>
>>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=38132128.CB765D7D%40a
>ol.com
>
><grin> I forgot about that post (shame on me).
>
>>
>> Now I'll ask again. What does this have to do to batch files, and why
>> is it OK for posts like this when others can't talk about a 'batch
>> tool' written by microsoft?
>
>Obviously it had nothing to do with batch. However, in Outsider's defense,
>someone reading it can not possibly become confused with why FOR/F don't
>work for them in a DOS batch file and waste a lot of time on their own
>trying to solve it. Now that your question has been answered, in a polite
>manor, I hope this line of reasoning is closed now.
Oh, so is that the reason why certain things aren't to be mentioned?
Because they *confuse* people?
>NT batch and CP's that emulate it are for obvious reasons off topic here.
>After all, that's why the NT group was formed. Please, let's not waste any
>more bandwidth on this issue.
I'm absolutely fine with that, if the other off-topic posts were also
handled the same. That is why I mentioned the post that I did. It
isn't just bare breasts it is other way off-topic posts that get asked
in this group. That is what I have a problem with.
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Clay Calvert wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 07:56:59 +0100, Outsider
>> <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Clay Calvert wrote:
>
>
>...snipped
>> >> There are different definitions of what constitutes batching. You
>> >> have your opinions on what that constitutes, which varies (greatly)
>> >> from others.
>
>> >A great many definitions do not fall into the category of this group.
>> >I am beginning to wonder, do you even know what DOS is, or did you start
>> >your computer "career" with Win 4.0 (better known to you as Windows95®)
>
>
>> I've told you before that I started with DOS 5, and supported hundreds
>> of users in that environment.
>
>Did you? Have you?
Yes and yes.
>> >> I would really like to hear your explanation on how bare breasts fall
>> >> into the DOS batch file category.
>> >
>> >I think you'd better explain that one yourself <g>.
>>
>> Here you go. Please explain how this is topical.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=38132128.CB765D7D%40aol.com
>>
>
>Great! I had forgotten all about it.
>
>It states clearly that it is not on topic. What's your point?
>
> "Hey, life's a batch!
> But not all the time. We all need a break every now and then."
>
>I received many thanks for posting that message, both in the group
>and privately.
You also received some complaints about that post.
>1) Attacking me is what you spend _most_ of your time on.
>2) Trolling NT comes next.
No, I don't troll NT, and you are not the only who receives my
comments.
I'll explain again. It isn't fair for people to complain about fringe
topics when they post completely off-topic.
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Todd Vargo wrote:
>>
>> "Clay Calvert" <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote in message
>> news:iodtvtg4hqkmtmnnb...@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:50:01 -0500, "Todd Vargo" <t...@birdlover.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >Anyone who was reading this group when that post occurred knows exactly
>> who
>> > >is hitting below the belt here. Shame on you Clay!
>> >
>> > No, that isn't the post I'm referring to Here is the URL to the
>> > message I'm referring to.
>> >
>> >
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=38132128.CB765D7D%40a
>> ol.com
>>
>> <grin> I forgot about that post (shame on me).
>
>No big deal. I forgot about it too. It just goes to show you, sometimes
>people with malicious intent can do some inadvertent good. I'm glad
>he found it. It's amazes me that Clay researches and catalogs everything
>I say and spends more time figuring out ways to try and make me look bad.
>I don't see what his posts have to do with DOS batch, or human decency for
>that matter. Almost all of his posts are off topic.
I had completely forgotten about it also, until someone else brought
it up... and another person remembered the domain name: DOMAI, which
stands for Dirty Old Man Associates Incorporated.
>> > Now I'll ask again. What does this have to do to batch files, and why
>> > is it OK for posts like this when others can't talk about a 'batch
>> > tool' written by microsoft?
>>
>> Obviously it had nothing to do with batch.
>
>Yes, obvious except to Clay who just had to ask ;).
>
>> However, in Outsider's defense,
>> someone reading it can not possibly become confused with why FOR/F don't
>> work for them in a DOS batch file and waste a lot of time on their own
>> trying to solve it. Now that your question has been answered, in a polite
>> manor, I hope this line of reasoning is closed now.
>>
>> NT batch and CP's that emulate it are for obvious reasons off topic here.
>> After all, that's why the NT group was formed. Please, let's not waste any
>> more bandwidth on this issue.
>
>Yes.
What some see as a CP, others see as a batch tool. This isn't so off
topic.
Outsider
Outsider
Outsider
Outsider
_only_. I hope you will stop all you off topic postings NOW.
I don't feel like humoring you any longer.
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I read your messages anyway and decided to respond to this one
>_only_. I hope you will stop all you off topic postings NOW.
>I don't feel like humoring you any longer.
I don't initiate off-topic threads, as you do.
William Allen
...snip
> What some see as a CP, others see as a batch tool. This isn't so off
> topic.
Not off topic in alt.msdos.batch at all, of course. And not just a tool -
frankly Win95cmd has been a (free!) education here! I'm extremely
glad that you first drew my attention to it, Clay. I'm also glad I decided
to ignore the comments of those who alleged it didn't work at all, and
checked out what it can do for myself. It's been very useful indeed.
--
William Allen
Outsider
>
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:21:32 +0100, Outsider
> <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I read your messages anyway and decided to respond to this one
> >_only_. I hope you will stop all you off topic postings NOW.
> >I don't feel like humoring you any longer.
>
> I don't initiate off-topic threads, as you do.
>
ROTFL
Basically, all you do here is post off topic messages.
I rarely post a message that is completely off topic.
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Clay Calvert wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:21:32 +0100, Outsider
>> <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I read your messages anyway and decided to respond to this one
>> >_only_. I hope you will stop all you off topic postings NOW.
>> >I don't feel like humoring you any longer.
>>
>> I don't initiate off-topic threads, as you do.
>>
>
>ROTFL
I don't initiate off-topic threads.
>Basically, all you do here is post off topic messages.
>I rarely post a message that is completely off topic.
So you admit to posting completely off-topic messages. It amazes that
you have the hutzpuh to tell others that they can't post what many
feel is on topic.
Outsider
>
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:30:31 +0100, Outsider
> <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Clay Calvert wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:21:32 +0100, Outsider
> >> <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I read your messages anyway and decided to respond to this one
> >> >_only_. I hope you will stop all you off topic postings NOW.
> >> >I don't feel like humoring you any longer.
> >>
> >> I don't initiate off-topic threads, as you do.
> >>
> >
> >ROTFL
>
> I don't initiate off-topic threads.
>
> >Basically, all you do here is post off topic messages.
> >I rarely post a message that is completely off topic.
>
> So you admit to posting completely off-topic messages.
What's not to admit.
> It amazes that
> you have the hutzpuh to tell others that they can't post what many
> feel is on topic.
<LOL>
It amazes me that you post nothing but off-topic messages - also
messages that YOU claim are on-topic. I don't claim off-topic
messages are on-topic, you do.
And as I said I rarely post a message that is completely off-topic.
You rarely post a message that is NOT completely off-topic.
I don't initiate off-topic discussions, you do.
I hope this is clear enough now <g>.
To avoid any further confusion, here is a short list of
non-alt.msdos.batch topics:
news:alt.msdos.batch.nt
NT batch and the win95cmd.exe NT emulator. All versions of NT
including NT 5.x (a.k.a. 2000, XP) If your usenet provider does
not carry it, please ask them to. You can also use:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=alt.msdos.batch.nt
news://msnews.microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin
NT command prompt
news:comp.os.msdos.4dos
4DOS
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.scripting.wsh
WSH (Windows Script Host) and CSCRIPT.EXE
news:alt.lang.awk
AWK
The above topics are best discussed in their designated groups.
Charles Dye
Fact: Nobody has yet discovered the charter for alt.msdos.batch, and
it is quite possible that there never was one.
Fact: This is an unmoderated group; there is "no controlling legal
authority" to decide what is and is not on-topic.
Conclusion: Each poster must decide for his/her own self what is
and is not appropriate. This is called exercising one's own God-given
judgment. Others may want to exercise it for you, but they cannot.
As far as I am concerned, from this day forward all topicality
arguments in alt.msdos.batch are off-topic and I will not participate,
** UNLESS ** they are part of the Usenet RFD/CFV procedure to convert
alt.msdos.batch to a moderated format and specify a clear moderation
policy, or to spin off a separate group with a clearly defined policy.
In other words, put your money where your mouth is, or shut up. The
group is only "about" what people make it about by their posts. If
you want it to be about a certain style of batch or a certain kind of
technique, post examples of those. If you want it to be a flamefest,
post flames. I'm interested in the use of third-party utilities to
extend the batch "vocabulary" so that's the kind of thing I intend to
post. And you?
"No longer talk at all about the kind of man that a good man ought to
be, but be such." -- a dead Italian druggie
--
Charles Dye ras...@highfiber.com
Rik D'haveloose
> Outsider wrote:
> > Clay Calvert wrote:
> > > I was simply commenting on Rik's comment that William is "not
aware of
> > > what batching really is." It was not a statement of who has more
> > > authority, it was just an observation that one of them has proven
his
> > > batch capabilities much more than the other.
Clay: please reread, without prejudice, my reply and what you write.
At least, imho, yours has some weird thread: first, one need to
understand what batching is, before one can evaluate batching
capabilities. (and i'm not referring to any helping/educating
capabilities)
> > You just said the same thing again. I am sure what Rik meant was
that
> > William does not understand what DOS batch is in the context of this
> > newsgroup. I agree.
indeed, i even would say that some people here do not grasp usenet at
all. Writing is to be seen as NG concerned and not to any other thing.
> PS. Having ability or knowledge does not mean a person knows right
from
> wrong, and neither does is make a person kind benevolent or caring.
>
> Having ability or knowledge does not mean a person can't be
selfserving,
> manipulative, condescending, arrogant or deceptive.
or having knowledge and ability (in batching?, or other field), means
one does understand usenet,
understand what binaries/assembler are about, and understand that
lengthy postings, with many same copy/pasted info is not preferred by
slow connection-metered-users, or impact on reading time from users,
etc.
ANyway, i'm amased my reply has this much reactions from others, and not
from William (which is very good, i assume), which never say his message
was about batching... (only about some peculiarities of the win-prog
notepad)
It stays amazing how hard it is to stay on-topic for some in here.
KISS
Outsider
>
...snipped
> it is quite possible that there never was one.
Sorry Charlie, here is the charter.
# unmoderated group comp.os.msdos.batch
#
#Newsgroups line:
#comp.os.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch related problems, DOSKEY macros.
#
#Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 27 Jun 1995.
#
#This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. For voting
#questions only contact Jim Davis <j...@primenet.com>. For questions
#about the proposed group contact Edwin Schwartz <Edwin.S...@dlr.de>.
#
#RATIONALE (Submitted by the proponent)
#
#During the last weeks I noticed that there is (still) a surprisingly high
#number of batch-related postings. Since there is no single group dedicated
#to discussion of batch problems, many (if not all) questions and answers
#are (cross)posted to various groups. For readers interested in batch
#solutions it's difficult to follow the discussions, for all others it's
#annoying to deal with this stuff. Thus, comp.os.msdos.batch should be of
#general interest.
#
#CHARTER
#
# - general batch questions,
# - environment problems,
# - I/O redirection
# - ready-to-run solutions,
# - batch enhancers,
# - batch tools (short binaries)
# - DOSKEY macros
#
This means all these topics are sub-topics under MSDOS and MSDOS
batch, with the emphasis on batch file programming, which is the
reason for this groups existence. 'batch enhancers' obviously
refers to MSDOS batch enhancers, not MSWindows enhancers.
Since the above group failed, alt.msdos.batch was created.
#
# From hw4...@vub.ac.be Tue Jul 18 04:47:32 1995
# Path: uunet!in1.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!Belgium.EU.net!chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be!news.vub.ac.be!is1e!hw41652
# From: hw4...@vub.ac.be (Van Deun Dirk)
# Newsgroups: alt.config
# Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.msdos.batch
# Control: newgroup alt.msdos.batch
# Date: 18 Jul 1995 08:32:21 GMT
# Organization: Brussels Free Universities (VUB/ULB), Belgium
# Lines: 9
# Approved: hw4...@is1.vub.ac.be
# Message-ID: <3ufril$h...@rc1.vub.ac.be>
# NNTP-Posting-Host: is1e.bfu.vub.ac.be.
# X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
# Xref: uunet control:2279332
#
# This group was proposed on alt.config as an ersatz for
# comp.os.msdos.batch, which failed with just a few votes short.
# There were no comments on my proposal. As so many people had
# already voted yes on comp.os.msdos.batch, I am now creating it.
#
# Dirk van Deun.
#
# For your newsgroups file:
# alt.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch files
MS-DOS batch files, not Windows batch, not Windows batch enhancers,
not 4DOS, not VBscript, not NT emulators, etc...
> Fact: This is an unmoderated group; there is "no controlling legal
> authority" to decide what is and is not on-topic.
This is unfortunately true. However, besides the obviouness of the
group name and intentions, checking some of the other DOS groups will
also show that the people here who think any type of batch is ok, are
wrong.
> Conclusion: Each poster must decide for his/her own self what is
> and is not appropriate. This is called exercising one's own God-given
> judgment. Others may want to exercise it for you, but they cannot.
No. That is not correct. This group is about MSDOS batch.
> I'm interested in the use of third-party utilities to
> extend the batch "vocabulary" so that's the kind of thing I intend to
> post.
Of course you do. That's because you are not a DOS batch file programmer
and have no desire to learn it. You may be a good problem solver, and
to your credit, you do occasionally contribute some interesting
information -when you stay on topic.
> And you?
I do DOS batch file programming.
Outsider
>
Fact:
> # This group was proposed on alt.config as an ersatz for
> # comp.os.msdos.batch, which failed with just a few votes short.
--
Clay Calvert
... not ethernet, not DSL, not bare-breasted women...
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Clay Calvert wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:30:31 +0100, Outsider
>> <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Clay Calvert wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:21:32 +0100, Outsider
>> >> <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I read your messages anyway and decided to respond to this one
>> >> >_only_. I hope you will stop all you off topic postings NOW.
>> >> >I don't feel like humoring you any longer.
>> >>
>> >> I don't initiate off-topic threads, as you do.
>> >>
>> >
>> >ROTFL
>>
>> I don't initiate off-topic threads.
>>
>> >Basically, all you do here is post off topic messages.
>> >I rarely post a message that is completely off topic.
>>
>> So you admit to posting completely off-topic messages.
>
>What's not to admit.
Well, you are always trying to get everybody else to behave. How come
you feel it is OK for you to post whatever you want? There is a
technical term for that.
>> It amazes that
>> you have the hutzpuh to tell others that they can't post what many
>> feel is on topic.
>
><LOL>
>It amazes me that you post nothing but off-topic messages - also
>messages that YOU claim are on-topic. I don't claim off-topic
>messages are on-topic, you do.
Nothing but off-topic??? You haven't been paying attention.
>And as I said I rarely post a message that is completely off-topic.
>You rarely post a message that is NOT completely off-topic.
>I don't initiate off-topic discussions, you do.
My, you've really twisted this statement. You even contradicted
yourself on the line above.
I've never initiated an off-topic thread in this group.
>I hope this is clear enough now <g>.
>
>To avoid any further confusion, here is a short list of
>non-alt.msdos.batch topics:
>
>news:alt.msdos.batch.nt
>NT batch and the win95cmd.exe NT emulator. All versions of NT
>including NT 5.x (a.k.a. 2000, XP) If your usenet provider does
>not carry it, please ask them to. You can also use:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=alt.msdos.batch.nt
win95CMD is on topic here.
>news://msnews.microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin
>NT command prompt
>
>news:comp.os.msdos.4dos
>4DOS
>
>news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.scripting.wsh
>WSH (Windows Script Host) and CSCRIPT.EXE
>
>news:alt.lang.awk
>AWK
>
>The above topics are best discussed in their designated groups.
You didn't list any ethernet, DSL, Windows9x GUI sites, nor any nudity
groups.
Outsider
>
Here is the group charter for alt.msdos.batch .
> #
> #CHARTER
> #
> # - general batch questions,
> # - environment problems,
> # - I/O redirection
> # - ready-to-run solutions,
> # - batch enhancers,
> # - batch tools (short binaries)
> # - DOSKEY macros
> #
>
> This means all these topics are sub-topics under MSDOS and MSDOS
> batch, with the emphasis on batch file programming, which is the
> reason for this groups existence. 'batch enhancers' obviously
> refers to MSDOS batch enhancers, not MSWindows enhancers.
>
> Since the above group failed, alt.msdos.batch was created.
>
> #
> # This group was proposed on alt.config as an ersatz for
> # comp.os.msdos.batch, which failed with just a few votes short.
> # There were no comments on my proposal. As so many people had
> # already voted yes on comp.os.msdos.batch, I am now creating it.
> #
> # Dirk van Deun.
> #
> # For your newsgroups file:
> # alt.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch files
In case anyone missed it, that makes it official.
This is the official charter of alt.msdos.batch
> MS-DOS batch files, not Windows batch, not Windows batch enhancers,
> not 4DOS, not VBscript, not NT emulators, etc...
Outsider
> I've never initiated an off-topic thread in this group.
>
> >I hope this is clear enough now <g>.
> >
> >To avoid any further confusion, here is a short list of
> >non-alt.msdos.batch topics:
> >
> >news:alt.msdos.batch.nt
> >NT batch and the win95cmd.exe NT emulator. All versions of NT
> >including NT 5.x (a.k.a. 2000, XP) If your usenet provider does
> >not carry it, please ask them to. You can also use:
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=alt.msdos.batch.nt
>
> win95CMD is on topic here.
win95cmd is NOT on topic here.
> >news://msnews.microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin
> >NT command prompt
> >
> >news:comp.os.msdos.4dos
> >4DOS
> >
> >news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.scripting.wsh
> >WSH (Windows Script Host) and CSCRIPT.EXE
> >
> >news:alt.lang.awk
> >AWK
> >
> >The above topics are best discussed in their designated groups.
>
> You didn't list any ethernet, DSL, Windows9x GUI sites, nor any nudity
> groups.
Not necessary, no one but you seems to be in confusion about them.
Outsider
...snipped
> >I hope this is clear enough now <g>.
> >
> >To avoid any further confusion, here is a short list of
> >non-alt.msdos.batch topics:
> >
> >news:alt.msdos.batch.nt
> >NT batch and the win95cmd.exe NT emulator. All versions of NT
> >including NT 5.x (a.k.a. 2000, XP) If your usenet provider does
> >not carry it, please ask them to. You can also use:
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=alt.msdos.batch.nt
>
> win95CMD is on topic here.
win95CMD is NOT on topic here.
> >news://msnews.microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin
> >NT command prompt
> >
> >news:comp.os.msdos.4dos
> >4DOS
> >
> >news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.scripting.wsh
> >WSH (Windows Script Host) and CSCRIPT.EXE
> >
> >news:alt.lang.awk
> >AWK
> >
> >The above topics are best discussed in their designated groups.
>
> You didn't list any ethernet, DSL, Windows9x GUI sites, nor any nudity
> groups.
Not necessary, no one but you seems to be in confusion about them.
Bryan Price
> Charles Dye wrote:
>>
> ...snipped
>> Fact: Nobody has yet discovered the charter for alt.msdos.batch, and
>> it is quite possible that there never was one.
> Sorry Charlie, here is the charter.
> # unmoderated group comp.os.msdos.batch
> #
> #Newsgroups line:
> #comp.os.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch related problems, DOSKEY macros.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is alt.msdos.batch NOT COMP.OS.MSDOS.BATCH!
alt.* groups are not even Usenet newsgroups. They are not administrated
by Usenet standards. Anybody, and I do mean anybody that knows how can
create an alt.* group.
Your incessant prattling on about win95cmd.exe only lowers the signal to
noise ration in a newsgroup that really doesn't need it lowered any more
than it already is.
There is no charter for alt.msdos.batch. Nobody died and made you God
over alt.msdos.batch.
If you don't like somebody, killfile them. Period.
It's nice that you have a piece of history about alt.msdos.batch.
Unfortunately, it's not relevant to anything current.
Bryan
Bryan Price
> Outsider wrote:
> In case anyone missed it, that makes it official.
> This is the official charter of alt.msdos.batch
Hmmm. We have somebody following up their own post.
Then, they decide that a charter created for a Usenet group is the
charter for a non-Usenet group.
Outsider, you are an ass.
Bryan
Mike Jones
"Bryan Price" <byte...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:3c012f82$0$35566$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> Outsider <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Charles Dye wrote:
> >>
> > ...snipped
> >> Fact: Nobody has yet discovered the charter for alt.msdos.batch,
and
> >> it is quite possible that there never was one.
>
> > Sorry Charlie, here is the charter.
>
>
> > # unmoderated group comp.os.msdos.batch
> > #
>
>
> Your incessant prattling
[]
>
> If you don't like somebody, killfile them. Period.
>
that's what I've done. Suggest you do the same.
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> win95CMD is on topic here.
>
>win95cmd is NOT on topic here.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>> >news://msnews.microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin
>> >NT command prompt
>> >
>> >news:comp.os.msdos.4dos
>> >4DOS
>> >
>> >news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.scripting.wsh
>> >WSH (Windows Script Host) and CSCRIPT.EXE
>> >
>> >news:alt.lang.awk
>> >AWK
>> >
>> >The above topics are best discussed in their designated groups.
>>
>> You didn't list any ethernet, DSL, Windows9x GUI sites, nor any nudity
>> groups.
>
>Not necessary, no one but you seems to be in confusion about them.
Oh, I'm not confused by the topicality of these subjects. I'm just
fascinated that you feel you have the right to bring up any completely
off-the-wall topic, but you are so quick to persecute those that bring
up fringe topics.
Clay Calvert
Where di you get this charter?
>> MS-DOS batch files, not Windows batch, not Windows batch enhancers,
>> not 4DOS, not VBscript, not NT emulators, etc...
Bryan Price
> "Bryan Price" <byte...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
> news:3c012f82$0$35566$272e...@news.execpc.com...
>> If you don't like somebody, killfile them. Period.
>>
> that's what I've done. Suggest you do the same.
That's what is going to happen. I'm just wondering if Outsider will
actually come to his/her senses. If not, then I'll just ignore him
for good.
Bryan
Todd Vargo
"Clay Calvert" <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote in message
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:38:38 +0100, Outsider
> <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> win95CMD is on topic here.
> >
> >win95cmd is NOT on topic here.
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Duh! Now can we agree to just drop it and move on already? Please?
(Wishful thinking)
--
Todd Vargo (body of message must contain my name to reply by email)
Todd Vargo
"Clay Calvert" <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote in message
>
> ... not ethernet, not DSL, not bare-breasted women...
Please, give this childish behavior a rest.
Todd Vargo
"Clay Calvert" <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote in message
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 00:14:12 -0500, "Todd Vargo" <t...@birdlover.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
> >NT batch and CP's that emulate it are for obvious reasons off topic here.
> >After all, that's why the NT group was formed. Please, let's not waste
any
> >more bandwidth on this issue.
>
> I'm absolutely fine with that, if the other off-topic posts were also
> handled the same. That is why I mentioned the post that I did. It
> isn't just bare breasts it is other way off-topic posts that get asked
> in this group. That is what I have a problem with.
Then please, address them directly on a per post basis. These long, on
going, back and forth rant and rehash bouts need to stop. For the benefit of
everyone reading amb, _please_ let it go (this applies to Outsider, and
everyone else too).
Outsider
> I've never initiated an off-topic thread in this group.
You do it constantly and continuously.
You just try to hide it by waiting for someone else to be the
first one to post a message so your message will not _appear_ to
be 'initiating'. You are also careful not to change the subject
for the same reason. When you initiate off topic discussions, it
does not matter what the thread position is. Messages also appear
very differently depending on how the newsreader is configured.
Outsider
That is an age old trick; shooting the messenger.
I remember when a bishop spoke out publicly against racism, including
racism by the goverment and local authorities. His speach was moving,
inspiring and very accurate. All the newspapers did for the following
two weeks is debate whether the bishop had the "right" to speak out.
Needless to say, his message was basically "lost", because it
"threatened" the beliefs of many people.
Outsider
>
> Outsider <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Charles Dye wrote:
> >>
> > ...snipped
> >> Fact: Nobody has yet discovered the charter for alt.msdos.batch, and
> >> it is quite possible that there never was one.
>
> > Sorry Charlie, here is the charter.
>
> > # unmoderated group comp.os.msdos.batch
> > #
> > #Newsgroups line:
> > #comp.os.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch related problems, DOSKEY macros.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This is alt.msdos.batch NOT COMP.OS.MSDOS.BATCH!
====> Look here, and read below. <====
# From hw4...@vub.ac.be Tue Jul 18 04:47:32 1995
# Path: uunet!in1.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!Belgium.EU.net!chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be!news.vub.ac.be!is1e!hw41652
# From: hw4...@vub.ac.be (Van Deun Dirk)
# Newsgroups: alt.config
# Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.msdos.batch
# Control: newgroup alt.msdos.batch
# Date: 18 Jul 1995 08:32:21 GMT
# Organization: Brussels Free Universities (VUB/ULB), Belgium
# Lines: 9
# Approved: hw4...@is1.vub.ac.be
# Message-ID: <3ufril$h...@rc1.vub.ac.be>
# NNTP-Posting-Host: is1e.bfu.vub.ac.be.
# X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
# Xref: uunet control:2279332
#
# This group was proposed on alt.config as an ersatz for
# comp.os.msdos.batch, which failed with just a few votes short.
# There were no comments on my proposal. As so many people had
# already voted yes on comp.os.msdos.batch, I am now creating it.
#
# Dirk van Deun.
#
# For your newsgroups file:
# alt.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch files
In other words, alt.msdos.batch was created because the attempt for
comp.os.msdos.batch failed. There was no need to repeat the charter.
> alt.* groups are not even Usenet newsgroups. They are not administrated
> by Usenet standards. Anybody, and I do mean anybody that knows how can
> create an alt.* group.
This is usenet, like it or not.
> Your incessant prattling on about win95cmd.exe only lowers the signal to
> noise ration in a newsgroup that really doesn't need it lowered any more
> than it already is.
There is a group for NT batch, scripting, coding and syntax:
alt.msdos.batch.nt. Win95cmd.exe is not on topic in _any_ DOS group,
it has nothing to do with DOS and it is not a DOS program.
> There is no charter for alt.msdos.batch. Nobody died and made you God
> over alt.msdos.batch.
Yes, I just showed it to you. I respect the charter. Please do the
same.
> If you don't like somebody, killfile them. Period.
That is self-censorship and bad advice as I pointed out earlier.
> It's nice that you have a piece of history about alt.msdos.batch.
> Unfortunately, it's not relevant to anything current.
I think the group charter is relevant.
Interesting that lurkers (who contribute nothing to the group) suddenly
come out of their hiding places when their beliefs are threatened.
Outsider
> Outsider <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Charles Dye wrote:
> >>
> > ...snipped
> >> Fact: Nobody has yet discovered the charter for alt.msdos.batch, and
> >> it is quite possible that there never was one.
>
> > Sorry Charlie, here is the charter.
>
> > # unmoderated group comp.os.msdos.batch
> > #
> > #Newsgroups line:
> > #comp.os.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch related problems, DOSKEY macros.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This is alt.msdos.batch NOT COMP.OS.MSDOS.BATCH!
====> Look here, and read below. <====
# From hw4...@vub.ac.be Tue Jul 18 04:47:32 1995
# Path: uunet!in1.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!Belgium.EU.net!chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be!news.vub.ac.be!is1e!hw41652
# From: hw4...@vub.ac.be (Van Deun Dirk)
# Newsgroups: alt.config
# Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.msdos.batch
# Control: newgroup alt.msdos.batch
# Date: 18 Jul 1995 08:32:21 GMT
# Organization: Brussels Free Universities (VUB/ULB), Belgium
# Lines: 9
# Approved: hw4...@is1.vub.ac.be
# Message-ID: <3ufril$h...@rc1.vub.ac.be>
# NNTP-Posting-Host: is1e.bfu.vub.ac.be.
# X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
# Xref: uunet control:2279332
#
# This group was proposed on alt.config as an ersatz for
# comp.os.msdos.batch, which failed with just a few votes short.
# There were no comments on my proposal. As so many people had
# already voted yes on comp.os.msdos.batch, I am now creating it.
#
# Dirk van Deun.
#
# For your newsgroups file:
# alt.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch files
In other words, alt.msdos.batch was created because the attempt for
comp.os.msdos.batch failed. There was no need to repeat the charter.
> alt.* groups are not even Usenet newsgroups. They are not administrated
> by Usenet standards. Anybody, and I do mean anybody that knows how can
> create an alt.* group.
This is usenet, like it or not.
> Your incessant prattling on about win95cmd.exe only lowers the signal to
> noise ration in a newsgroup that really doesn't need it lowered any more
> than it already is.
There is a group for NT batch, scripting, coding and syntax:
alt.msdos.batch.nt. Win95cmd.exe is not on topic in _any_ DOS group,
it has nothing to do with DOS and it is not a DOS program.
> There is no charter for alt.msdos.batch. Nobody died and made you God
> over alt.msdos.batch.
Yes, I just showed it to you.
> If you don't like somebody, killfile them. Period.
That is self-censorship and bad advice as I pointed out earlier.
> It's nice that you have a piece of history about alt.msdos.batch.
> Unfortunately, it's not relevant to anything current.
I think the group charter is relevant.
Interesting that lurkers (who contribute nothing to the group) suddenly
come out of their hiding places when their beliefs are threatened.
Outsider
>
>
> alt.* groups are not even Usenet newsgroups. They are not administrated
> by Usenet standards. Anybody, and I do mean anybody that knows how can
> create an alt.* group.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2/
Usenet (or netnews) was about newsgroups (or groups). Not bboards,
not LISTSERV, not areas, not conferences, not mailing lists, they're
groups. If someone called them something else they were not looking
at things from a Usenet perspective. That's not to say that they were
"incorrect" -- who is to say what is the right way of viewing the
past? -- just that it was not the Net Way. In particular, if they
read Usenet news all mixed in with their important every day mail
(like reminders of who to go to lunch with Thursday) they were not
seeing netnews the way most people saw netnews. Some newsgroups
were also (or "really") Fidonet echoes (alt.bbs.allsysop), BITNET
LISTSERV groups (bit.listserv.pacs-l), or even both at once!
(misc.handicap). So there were some violent culture clashes
when someone referred to you favorite net.hangout as a "board".
Newsgroups had names. These names were both very arbitrary and very
meaningful. People fought for months or years about what to name
a newsgroup. If a newsgroup didn't have a name (even a dumb one like
misc.misc) it wasn't a newsgroup. In particular newsgroup names had
dots in them, and people abbreviated them by taking the first letters
of the names (so alt.folklore.urban was afu, and soc.culture.china was
scc).
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c_altgroups_812088029%40uunet.uu.net
+ alt.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch files.
That is MS-DOS batch files, not MS-Windows batch, not NT emulators, not
4DOS, not VBscript, etc...
Ted Davis
wrote:
>These long, on going, back and forth rant and rehash bouts need to stop.
*Something* is needed to keep the traffic above most ISP's cutoffs -
if it isn't proper traffic, then it should be something at least this
easily ignored. What would you suggest as replacements?
T.E.D. (tda...@gearbox.maem.umr.edu)
SPAM filter: Messages to this address *must* contain "T.E.D."
somewhere in the body or they will be automatically rejected.
Charles Dye
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:19:40 -0500, "Todd Vargo" <t...@birdlover.com>
> wrote:
>
> >These long, on going, back and forth rant and rehash bouts need to stop.
>
> *Something* is needed to keep the traffic above most ISP's cutoffs -
> if it isn't proper traffic, then it should be something at least this
> easily ignored. What would you suggest as replacements?
Discussion of the use of temporal paradoxes in the short
fiction of Jorge Luis Borges?
--
Charles Dye ras...@highfiber.com
"Like all the men of Babylon, I have been proconsul; like
all, a slave...."
Clay Calvert
wrote:
>
>"Clay Calvert" <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote in message
>news:avr10us2jofavg8ha...@4ax.com...
>>
>> ... not ethernet, not DSL, not bare-breasted women...
>
>Please, give this childish behavior a rest.
I think you are speaking to the wrong person.
Clay Calvert
wrote:
>
>"Clay Calvert" <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote in message
>news:3p9vvtgc0a0id2ncg...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 00:14:12 -0500, "Todd Vargo" <t...@birdlover.com>
>> wrote:
><snip>
>> >NT batch and CP's that emulate it are for obvious reasons off topic here.
>> >After all, that's why the NT group was formed. Please, let's not waste
>any
>> >more bandwidth on this issue.
>>
>> I'm absolutely fine with that, if the other off-topic posts were also
>> handled the same. That is why I mentioned the post that I did. It
>> isn't just bare breasts it is other way off-topic posts that get asked
>> in this group. That is what I have a problem with.
>
>Then please, address them directly on a per post basis. These long, on
>going, back and forth rant and rehash bouts need to stop. For the benefit of
>everyone reading amb, _please_ let it go (this applies to Outsider, and
>everyone else too).
Todd. I don't complain unless others do.
debs
On 26 Nov 2001 13:16:43 -0800, Charles Dye spake thus:
>> *Something* is needed to keep the traffic above most ISP's cutoffs -
>> if it isn't proper traffic, then it should be something at least this
>> easily ignored. What would you suggest as replacements?
>
>Discussion of the use of temporal paradoxes in the short
>fiction of Jorge Luis Borges?
Whoever he is, that subject sounds more interesting than some I've
seen here recently :) To keep on topic (well, not quite, but you could
put it into a batch file....) :
::----
ECHO. Temporal paradoxes used to happen all over the place in
ECHO. contemporary sci-fi (just think about anomalies in the
ECHO. star dates used in the Star Trek TOS, according to some
ECHO. of them they had 3 adventures in different solar systems
ECHO. on consectuive days!).
PAUSE
CLS
::----
debs
de...@dwiles.nospam.demon.co.uk
----
If you can smile when things go wrong, you have someone in mind to blame.
Phil Robyn
>
> Ted Davis <tda...@gearbox.maem.umr.edu> wrote in message news:<i0j40u00cvefmfj2f...@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:19:40 -0500, "Todd Vargo" <t...@birdlover.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >These long, on going, back and forth rant and rehash bouts need to stop.
> >
> > *Something* is needed to keep the traffic above most ISP's cutoffs -
> > if it isn't proper traffic, then it should be something at least this
> > easily ignored. What would you suggest as replacements?
>
> Discussion of the use of temporal paradoxes in the short
> fiction of Jorge Luis Borges?
Or maybe differences/similarities of the Internet and JLB's "The Library"?
Phil Robyn
Univ. of California, Berkeley
--
u n z i p m y a d d r e s s t o s e n d e - m a i l
Bryan Price
> Bryan Price wrote:
>
>> Outsider <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Charles Dye wrote:
>> >>
>> > ...snipped
>> >> Fact: Nobody has yet discovered the charter for alt.msdos.batch, and
>> >> it is quite possible that there never was one.
>>
>> > Sorry Charlie, here is the charter.
>>
>> > # unmoderated group comp.os.msdos.batch
>> > #
>> > #Newsgroups line:
>> > #comp.os.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch related problems, DOSKEY macros.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> This is alt.msdos.batch NOT COMP.OS.MSDOS.BATCH!
> ====> Look here, and read below. <====
Outsider, you need a clue.
First off, alt.* groups don't have a charter. Period.
comp.os.msdos.batch failed to be created, for whatever reason.
Somebody did a newgroup of alt.msdos.batch. Pretty much anybody could have.
It probably would have helped c.o.m.b if there HAD been an alt group in
place. Just because a.m.b was created because c.o.m.b does NOT mean that
a.m.b "inherited" the charter.
<SNIP of point about a.b.m being created instead of c.o.m.b>
> In other words, alt.msdos.batch was created because the attempt for
> comp.os.msdos.batch failed. There was no need to repeat the charter.
There IS NO CHARTER! NOBODY VOTED FOR A CHARTER FOR A.M.B!
>> alt.* groups are not even Usenet newsgroups. They are not administrated
>> by Usenet standards. Anybody, and I do mean anybody that knows how can
>> create an alt.* group.
> This is usenet, like it or not.
THis is NOT Usenet. Something your pathetic little mind can't seem to grasp.
I'm too tired at this point to try to point to any relevant FAQ's about the
situation. But I'll try to put it in a netshell for you. Usenet groups are
administered by a governing body. What's why c.o.m.b failed, the body didn't
receive enough yes votes to create the group. Every Usenet newsgroup must
have a charter that they follow. And the charter can be changed, after the
group is created. newgroup and rmgroup commands must be authorized.
alt.* groups APPEAR to be Usenet. The groups use the very same technology
as Usenet newsgroups. This has a tendency to confuse newbies that they are
the one and the same. They are not the same. There is no governing body
that says this group is good, and this group is bad. Anyone (and I do mean
ANYONE) can create a newgroup command at any time. They can create a
rmgroup command at any time. NOBODY has control over ANY alt.* group.
Under Usenet, a group CAN be killed for not following its charter.
You want to continue to equate alt.* and Usenet, fine. Keep it to yourself,
othewise, you might want to use your favorite search engine(s) and see what
you can find that will either convince you, or convince me of what the
"truth" is.
>> Your incessant prattling on about win95cmd.exe only lowers the signal to
>> noise ration in a newsgroup that really doesn't need it lowered any more
>> than it already is.
> There is a group for NT batch, scripting, coding and syntax:
> alt.msdos.batch.nt. Win95cmd.exe is not on topic in _any_ DOS group,
> it has nothing to do with DOS and it is not a DOS program.
It IS a DOS program. Otherwise it wouldn't run, and then it wouldn't
be an issue.
I have a question. Is FORLFN a valid item to discuss according to YOUR
standards?
>> There is no charter for alt.msdos.batch. Nobody died and made you God
>> over alt.msdos.batch.
> Yes, I just showed it to you.
That's funny, I didn't read one word in there about how Outsider was the
true arbiter of what was kosher in either a.m.b or c.o.m.b. You have a
charter to a failed newsgroup. That is all. And it certainly didn't
appoint you god, since that message was created 3 years before you
discovered "Usenet" (newsgroups).
And I'd really like to know how you are going to figure out how to
update that charter when the time comes that it needs to be updated.
>> If you don't like somebody, killfile them. Period.
> That is self-censorship and bad advice as I pointed out earlier.
No, it's not. And I've self-censored myself on this point.
>> It's nice that you have a piece of history about alt.msdos.batch.
>> Unfortunately, it's not relevant to anything current.
> I think the group charter is relevant.
What you think about the charter is irrelevant.
> Interesting that lurkers (who contribute nothing to the group) suddenly
> come out of their hiding places when their beliefs are threatened.
Actually, I just discovered both a.m.b and a.m.b.n recently. And I have
contributed to the a.m.b.n. I've been monitoring this one, and have been
amazed at either your stubborness or stupidity. You've only been on
newsgroups for 3 years, and you think you know it all. I've been on
Usenet for 12 years at least now. I certainly don't know it all.
Your bitching causes more noise than if you just shut up about what you
consider to be off topic. It's an argument you cannot win. There is no
moderator. And if there were, don't think that you would be the moderator.
Bryan
Bryan Price
> These long, on
> going, back and forth rant and rehash bouts need to stop. For the benefit of
> everyone reading amb, _please_ let it go (this applies to Outsider, and
> everyone else too).
Too late. Sorry.
Bryan
Bryan Price
This really doesn't explain it.
Why did c.o.m.b need a vote?
Why did a.m.b NOT need a vote?
Think about it. Obviously SOMETHING has to be different.
Bryan
Outsider
> >
...snipped
> Somebody did a newgroup of alt.msdos.batch. Pretty much anybody could have.
> It probably would have helped c.o.m.b if there HAD been an alt group in
> place. Just because a.m.b was created because c.o.m.b does NOT mean that
> a.m.b "inherited" the charter.
>
> <SNIP of point about a.b.m being created instead of c.o.m.b>
>
> > In other words, alt.msdos.batch was created because the attempt for
> > comp.os.msdos.batch failed. There was no need to repeat the charter.
>
> There IS NO CHARTER! NOBODY VOTED FOR A CHARTER FOR A.M.B!
...snipped
> > This is usenet, like it or not.
...snipped
> alt.* groups APPEAR to be Usenet. The groups use the very same technology
> as Usenet newsgroups. This has a tendency to confuse newbies that they are
> the one and the same. They are not the same. There is no governing body
> that says this group is good, and this group is bad. Anyone (and I do mean
> ANYONE) can create a newgroup command at any time. They can create a
> rmgroup command at any time. NOBODY has control over ANY alt.* group.
> Under Usenet, a group CAN be killed for not following its charter.
>
> You want to continue to equate alt.* and Usenet, fine. Keep it to yourself,
> othewise, you might want to use your favorite search engine(s) and see what
> you can find that will either convince you, or convince me of what the
> "truth" is.
You are entitled to your opinion. There are many different opinions as
to what usenet is.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2/
> > There is a group for NT batch, scripting, coding and syntax:
> > alt.msdos.batch.nt. Win95cmd.exe is not on topic in _any_ DOS group,
> > it has nothing to do with DOS and it is not a DOS program.
>
> It IS a DOS program. Otherwise it wouldn't run, and then it wouldn't
> be an issue.
It is a Windows program. It will only run when Windows is running.
...snipped
> > I think the group charter is relevant.
>
> What you think about the charter is irrelevant.
> > Interesting that lurkers (who contribute nothing to the group) suddenly
> > come out of their hiding places when their beliefs are threatened.
...snipped
> You've only been on
> newsgroups for 3 years, and you think you know it all. I've been on
> Usenet for 12 years at least now. I certainly don't know it all.
Sure and maybe you've been driving a car for 30 years and still drive
like shit. You obviously know little about this group or DOS batch
file programming.
> It's an argument you cannot win. There is no moderator.
I hope that by appealing to the better nature of people
and their sense of honor, they will understand that this group
is for MS-DOS batch file's, not MSWindows batch or NT emulators,
and respect the charter. You like to quibble about whether it is
technically legally binding, but it is obviously intended.
I think common sense and respect for the intentions behind this
group are more important than quibbling about technicalities.
Outsider
>
> Outsider <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Bryan Price wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >> alt.* groups are not even Usenet newsgroups. They are not administrated
> >> by Usenet standards. Anybody, and I do mean anybody that knows how can
> >> create an alt.* group.
>
> > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2/
...snipped
> This really doesn't explain it.
>
> Why did c.o.m.b need a vote?
>
> Why did a.m.b NOT need a vote?
>
> Think about it. Obviously SOMETHING has to be different.
I know something is different. Be that as it may, the intention behind
the creation of this group has been made crystal clear to everyone.
Voluntary compliance requires integrity and honor. People without these
qualities will only comply by force, and as you pointed out, there is no
way to force anything in this group because it is unmoderated.
alt.msdos.batch was created as a *replacement* for comp.os.msdos.batch
solely because the attempt at creating that group failed. Excluding
technical arguments about usenet, this is the same group with a different
name. The purpose and intention are the same and the charter applies,
even if not enforcible, or even if you refuse to recognize it as a
charter. Whether it is _called_ a charter or not matters not at all.
It is obvious to EVERYONE.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c_altgroups_812088029%40uunet.uu.net
+ alt.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch files.
If you have NT emulators, you have NT code and NT batch files.
In which case, there would be no point of having a NT group at all!
NT has nothing to do with DOS.
Given the capricious nature of most regulars here and considering
the _typical_ computer geek mentality that is so prevalent in this
group, it seems to be a waste of time trying to convince anyone of
anything... especially the crystal clear or obvious :D.
If I said the sky was blue, Clay Calvert would say, "Define blue." <g>
Rik D'haveloose
> Clay Calvert wrote
==8<
> Fact: Nobody has yet discovered the charter for alt.msdos.batch, and
> it is quite possible that there never was one.
>
> authority" to decide what is and is not on-topic.
>
> Conclusion: Each poster must decide for his/her own self what is
> and is not appropriate. This is called exercising one's own God-given
> judgment. Others may want to exercise it for you, but they cannot.
==8<
> As far as I am concerned, from this day forward all topicality
> arguments in alt.msdos.batch are off-topic
==8<
result: everything is on-topic
what you are considering, is of no importance (as fact 2 and conclusion
says)
Hence, nobody posts off-topic messages, and thus discussions about
posting so called off-topic messages is de-facto spreading false
information, etc....
Thank you for you co-operation.
Kiss ??
Todd Vargo
It's never too late to promote peace and harmony!
Todd Vargo
"Outsider" <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C0351FC...@yahoo.com...
> Bryan Price wrote:
<snip>
> > Why did c.o.m.b need a vote?
> >
> > Why did a.m.b NOT need a vote?
> >
> > Think about it. Obviously SOMETHING has to be different.
>
>
> I know something is different. Be that as it may, the intention behind
> the creation of this group has been made crystal clear to everyone.
> Voluntary compliance requires integrity and honor. People without these
> qualities will only comply by force, and as you pointed out, there is no
> way to force anything in this group because it is unmoderated.
Really? Then where do the binaries go that get posted here from time to
time? (Rhetorical question) Don't reply, just think about it people.
<snip>
> If I said the sky was blue, Clay Calvert would say, "Define blue." <g>
What has this to do with bare breasts? <g>
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>If you have NT emulators, you have NT code and NT batch files.
>In which case, there would be no point of having a NT group at all!
>NT has nothing to do with DOS.
NT has quite a bit to do with DOS. NT was written to handle the vast
majority of MS-DOS 5 commands.
>Given the capricious nature of most regulars here and considering
>the _typical_ computer geek mentality that is so prevalent in this
>group, it seems to be a waste of time trying to convince anyone of
>anything... especially the crystal clear or obvious :D.
Exactly! Such as, off-topic is off-topic. Not off-topic only when it
suits your needs.
>If I said the sky was blue, Clay Calvert would say, "Define blue." <g>
I'm sure you would give an answer that met your needs.
Clay Calvert
wrote:
>
>"Bryan Price" <byte...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
>news:3c033e1a$0$35567$272e...@news.execpc.com...
>> Todd Vargo <t...@birdlover.com> wrote:
>>
>> > These long, on
>> > going, back and forth rant and rehash bouts need to stop. For the
>benefit of
>> > everyone reading amb, _please_ let it go (this applies to Outsider, and
>> > everyone else too).
>>
>> Too late. Sorry.
>
>It's never too late to promote peace and harmony!
That is exactly what I'm trying to promote in this group.
Outsider
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:40:13 -0500, "Todd Vargo" <t...@birdlover.com>
> wrote:
>
...snipped
> >It's never too late to promote peace and harmony!
>
> That is exactly what I'm trying to promote in this group.
<ROTFLOLUTS>
Rolling On The Floor Laughing Out Loud Unable To Stop
!!!
Dirk van Deun
:> it is quite possible that there never was one.
Fact: there never was one. The creation of an alt.-group requires no
procedure, only some adherence to etiquette. This etiquette prescribes
that you discuss your idea for a group on alt.config and don't create
it if there is violent opposition to it. That idea was to give a group
based on the comp.os.msdos.batch charter another chance in .alt.
Dirk van Deun
--
Ceterum censeo Redmond delendum
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Clay Calvert wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:40:13 -0500, "Todd Vargo" <t...@birdlover.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>...snipped
>> >It's never too late to promote peace and harmony!
>>
>> That is exactly what I'm trying to promote in this group.
>
><ROTFLOLUTS>
>
>Rolling On The Floor Laughing Out Loud Unable To Stop
>!!!
I'm glad you find this humorous, but the truth is that if you played
by your own rules and didn't post erroneous information about topics
you know next to nothing about, then this group would be MUCH, MUCH
more peaceful... and that is no laughing matter.
Cheers,
Charles Dye
Thank you; I could not have phrased it better myself.
Perhaps you'd like also to give an opinion on the appropriateness of
some of the issues which have given rise to endless bickerments in
this group for the past ... um, years. (Or not; it's ugly.)
>Ceterum censeo Redmond delendum
Not Bill's biggest fan, I take it.
--
Charles Dye ras...@highfiber.com
Outsider
I am glad you took the time to clarify the obvious. Thanks :).
Dirk van Deun
: be ingenuous in. In my own view, it was not meant as a support group,
Ingenious people should mind their spelling. *blush*
Dirk van Deun
: some of the issues which have given rise to endless bickerments in
: this group for the past ... um, years. (Or not; it's ugly.)
<grandpa Simpson>
For me this group was meant to be about doing cool things with standard
utilities that can be found on any dos-like system. Some of the
original inhabitants, among whom I myself, liked to push command.com to
its extremes and write ingenuous scripts in a language not meant to
be ingenuous in. In my own view, it was not meant as a support group,
but primarily as a place to discuss cool scripting tricks, not
necessarily useful ones.
</grandpa Simpson>
Nowadays I mainly hack linux, but the unix shells make scripting far
too easy. Where's the challenge ? :-)
Dr John Stockton
news:alt.msdos.batch, Dirk van Deun <dvan...@vub.ac.be> wrote at Thu,
29 Nov 2001 19:02:03 :-
>
>For me this group was meant to be about doing cool things with standard
>utilities that can be found on any dos-like system. Some of the
>original inhabitants, among whom I myself, liked to push command.com to
>its extremes and write ingenuous scripts in a language not meant to
>be ingenuous in. In my own view, it was not meant as a support group,
>but primarily as a place to discuss cool scripting tricks, not
>necessarily useful ones.
Possibly so; but there is an evident need for a support group, and this
is the most appropriately named one.
If the original idea was to create a playground for esoterica, then the
group should have been named appropriately; AIUI, it should be possible
to create another one.
Those with apparently simple tasks to automate will want comparatively
simple solutions. They *may* be willing to import auxiliary programs;
but they are unlikely to be able to comprehend the finest works of WA &
HK. They will generally want something which allows them subsequently
to perform tasks similar to the original one.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.
Charles Dye
>: its extremes and write ingenuous scripts in a language not meant to
>: be ingenuous in. In my own view, it was not meant as a support group,
>
>Ingenious people should mind their spelling. *blush*
Far better than being disingenuous, I would say!
--
Charles Dye ras...@highfiber.com
Ted Davis
<sp...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> In my own view, it was not meant as a support group,
>>but primarily as a place to discuss cool scripting tricks, not
>>necessarily useful ones.
>
>Possibly so; but there is an evident need for a support group, and this
>is the most appropriately named one.
>
>If the original idea was to create a playground for esoterica, then the
>group should have been named appropriately; AIUI, it should be possible
>to create another one.
>
alt.msdos.batch.esoterica.except-nt-and-w95cmd
<snip>
Rik D'haveloose
> Dr John Stockton wrote:
> <snip>
> > In my own view, it was not meant as a support group,
> >>but primarily as a place to discuss cool scripting tricks, not
> >>necessarily useful ones.
> >
> >Possibly so; but there is an evident need for a support group, and
this
> >is the most appropriately named one.
> alt.msdos.batch.esoterica.except-nt-and-w95cmd
disappointed by this reaction from you here..., unless i misinterpret
that below the belt knocking ? (or the intended humor ?)
is it still not clear that (esoteric) differences are too many between
the 'standard basis' where normal (or esoteric) batching is working on,
that some (avoiding confusion) splitting is needed (and hence the
unfortunately needed redirection for unaware (or worse; aware and ...)
users (to their own benefit (as they mostly, imho, only seek fast
solutions, and are allmost not interested in older quircks (unless maybe
the usefull general mind-setting to find solutions, as far as it still
is needed, due to available easier(?) syntax and tools. Yes, i do not
want to burden users of more recent systems to study workarounds which
are unneeded in their system, unless temselves want this, but in return
i also expect some understanding that users like me have not enough
knowledge (or weird language use) of their system etc...
TUF KISS
Ted Davis
Inclusion of the word "esoterica" indicates that it is for discussion
of topics of no interest whatever except to the few people who delve
deeply into the inner workings of the command processor. The
"except ..." tag is meant at least partly as humor and partly to
dinicate that ritual purity is required in choice of topics. The rest
of us could get on with business elsewhere.
Rik D'haveloose
insertion of bad reader :-(
Ted Davis wrote
> >==8<
> >> alt.msdos.batch.esoterica.except-nt-and-w95cmd
>
> Inclusion of the word "esoterica" indicates that it is for discussion
> of topics of no interest whatever except to the few people who delve
> deeply into the inner workings of the command processor.
no interest, ?? few people ??
Is that really your (narrow) view ?
I hope this NG is for more than that only (as i.e. also for helping
starters, at least those who want to learn (and even the fast solution
seekers, if they remain in the topic of the NG).
--
TUF Greetings from Rumbeke
Belgium
Ted Davis
Few as in a tiny percentage of the thousands who read this group from
time to time. Few as an about ten regulars and maybe ten times that
many lurkers (orders of magnitude, not exact numbers). Compare the
number of people who come here who are interested in the inner
workings and misworkings of one or more versions of a command
processor with the number that don't even know what a command
processor is and certainly not which version of which one they are
using.
Based on recent postings, I conclude that this group appears to be
first for arguing about what it's for, second for answering questions
from people who are almost clueless, and only third for discussion of
COMMAND.COM and DOS utility inner workings.
T.E.D. (tda...@gearbox.maem.umr.edu - e-mail must contain "batch" in the subject or my .sig in the body)
