Dear group, how about some help?
Outsider
Do you think it's fair that I am turned into 'the bad guy' or scapegoat
because I speak out for what is right? Is this the appreciation I get for
posting my work and for helping so many?
It should be obvious by now that some NT users quickly develop the
"NT user's disease" shortly after beginning to use NT. Some symptoms
are: exaggerated self-importance, arrogance, abusiveness to non NT users,
denial that NT is not DOS and the NT group is the proper forum for NT
scripting discussions, refusal to include a pointer to
news:alt.msdos.batch.nt when answering NT questions, etc. Please be aware
of this problem, if you are not already.
DOS users (and this includes Win9x/ME):
Do you really want amb to turn into another NT group?
I speak for DOS batchers everywhere.
--
"I speak for the trees." --The Lorax
g...@infinet.com
: Dear group, how about some help in keeping news:alt.msdos.batch free of NT?
[snip]
: I speak for DOS batchers everywhere.
I'm not convinced that you speak for anyone but yourself. I do know that
both groups would be more pleasant if you'd stop the constant whining.
Complaints about off-topic posts are themselves off topic and tend to
generate more noise than a gentle redirection. The best response to a
post that you consider off-topic is no response at all. By remaining
silent you avoid becoming part of the problem.
--
Gary L. Smith g...@infinet.com
Columbus, Ohio
Outsider
Be silent and just let the NT abusers take over the DOS batch group??
"In Germany they first came for the Communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-The Reverend Martin Niemöller, a pastor in the German Confessing Church
who spent seven years in a concentration camp.
--
<!-Outsider//->
MS-DOS 6.22, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Netscape Navigator 4.08
MS-DOS 7.1, Windows 4.1 (a.k.a. 98), Netscape Navigator 4.74
Mike Jones
<g...@infinet.com> wrote in message
news:3b0e0b3a$0$88187$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
Simply killfile him, he just keeps arguing from his own corner. There is
insufficient traffic in either NG, and DOS batch as a required skill is
dying (though good entertainment).
Outsider
Be silent and just let the NT abusers take over the DOS batch group??
Lee Babcock
Regards, Lee
Clay Calvert
news:3B0E4DA3...@yahoo.com...
Oh please. You persecute only one item that is considered off-topic, yet
post many other off-topic questions and comments.
Clay Calvert
> Dear group, how about some help in keeping news:alt.msdos.batch free of
NT?
You are skirting around the issue. Why are only NT batch file questions the
only posts not allowed?
Outsider
>
> I certainly support you here!
> Regards, Lee
>
I thank you, and I believe The Lorax would also thank you :-).
Timo Salmi
<g...@infinet.com> wrote:
> In alt.msdos.batch.nt Outsider <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Dear group, how about some help in keeping news:alt.msdos.batch free of NT?
> I'm not convinced that you speak for anyone but yourself. I do know that
> Gary L. Smith g...@infinet.com
Dear Gary and other gentle readers,
Let me try to say this as constructively as I can. It is unfortunate
that the tone of voice in this issue sometimes gets heated. However,
the fact remains that the two newsgroups are for separate topic
areas. Officially
news:alt.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch programming
news:alt.msdos.batch.nt Windows NT batch programming
As has correctly been pointed out, the latter is not the best
possible name (although that does not change anything). A better one
would have been alt.nt.batch.
It has been stated that MS-DOS programming is a vanishing art. Maybe
so. That, however, does not mean that news:alt.msdos.batch should be
used for other than its valid purpose. If there is not enough MS-DOS
batch discussion and material, then the newsgroup should just
silently wither. That is what the proper way on Usenet news. The
improper, net-abuse approach is to try to take over the newsgroup
for a purpose that it is not intended for.
All the best, Timo
--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/> ; FIN-65101, Finland
Timo's FAQ materials at http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html
Timo Salmi
Clay Calvert <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote:
> You are skirting around the issue. Why are only NT batch file questions the
> only posts not allowed?
Dear Clay,
This, of course, is not the case. But the reason why NT batch file
questions tend to come the focus of attention in this particular
context, is that NT postings are often misplaced to
news:alt.msdos.batch
As you know
news:alt.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch programming
news:alt.msdos.batch.nt Windows NT batch programming
The NT postings should go to the latter newsgroup, not the former.
Raymond Zeitler
1. OT posts
2. Multiple scathing replies to NT posters.
Also, have you considered adjusting your newsreader to filter posts that
contain " NT ", " WinNT " or " Win 2000 " etc?
In article <3B0DF6E3...@yahoo.com>, nonvali...@yahoo.com
says...
Clay Calvert
> In article <9elmms$fg4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> Clay Calvert <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote:
> > You are skirting around the issue. Why are only NT batch file questions
the
> > only posts not allowed?
>
> Dear Clay,
>
> This, of course, is not the case. But the reason why NT batch file
> questions tend to come the focus of attention in this particular
> context, is that NT postings are often misplaced to
> news:alt.msdos.batch
>
> As you know
>
> news:alt.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch programming
> news:alt.msdos.batch.nt Windows NT batch programming
>
> The NT postings should go to the latter newsgroup, not the former.
>
> All the best, Timo
Timo,
I do not have a problem with that at all. I DO understand the delineation
of the groups, and I'm dissapointed that you think I don't understand the
difference between the two. What I do have a problem with is that this
group receives numerous posts that aren't related to any kind of batch file
writing at all, and those posts are "allowed". Singling out one particular
group is called, as I'm sure you know, "Profiling". If all off-topic posts
were met with the same vigor then there would be no problem, AFAIC.
Thanks,
Clay
Dr John Stockton
news:alt.msdos.batch, Outsider <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote at Fri,
25 May 2001 08:08:35 :-
No anonymous person speaks for me. The disease that you refer to is in
fact much like your own.
If/when there is a consensus about the degree to which each of the two
newsgroups should cover various systems, then the proper approach, after
rational discussion within the newsgroups, is to have a known, respected
person to express it in a regular informative posting.
Something expressed along the lines of
a.m.b is for posts relating to DOS and emulations, Win3, Win9x, ...
batches;
a.m.b.n is for posts relating to WinNT, ... batches;
c.o.m.m is for posts relating to ...
Please cross-post only when appropriate; and use Folloup-To.
might be suitable.
All DOSsish systems should be listed, without reliance on abbreviations
which might not be well-enough known.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.
Outsider
But you do have a problem with it! You want to make your compliance with
the obvious rule of discussing NT scripting in the designated NT group
conditional on (your perceived) compliance of another (singled out) person
to another rule discouraging off-topic posting. The two are wholly and
completely unrelated. What is this nursery school? Monkey-see-monkey-do?
If someone makes an off-topic post in amb, does that give you the right
to post NT messages? What is it?: For each off topic post, you can retaliate
with an NT message, or what? This is right at the sandbox level. Please grow
up and get over it. This goes for Ted Davis, Clay Calvert, Raymond Zeitler,
and every other NT user (or abuser) who feels they have the right to discuss
NT in alt.msdos.batch . You don't. And it makes absolutely NO difference what
_another person_ does, it is up to YOU to act responsibly in this matter.
Many former DOS users now use NT, and some use both. The excuse that "We
have evolved from DOS to NT so we can just continue posting in the DOS
group as before" is bogus. The excuses Ted Davis has used about not wanting
to waste bandwidth, and ISP not carrying it are equally bogus.
Naturally, there is no harm in _answering_ an NT question in amb for, but
please include a gentle pointer to alt.msdos.batch.nt and if necessary
point follow-ups there too. Right Tom? ;-).
Outsider
>
> JRS: In article <3B0DF6E3...@yahoo.com>, seen in
> news:alt.msdos.batch, Outsider <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote at Fri,
> 25 May 2001 08:08:35 :-
> >Dear group, how about some help in keeping news:alt.msdos.batch free of NT?
> >
> >Do you think it's fair that I am turned into 'the bad guy' or scapegoat
> >because I speak out for what is right? Is this the appreciation I get for
> >posting my work and for helping so many?
> >
> >It should be obvious by now that some NT users quickly develop the
> >"NT user's disease" shortly after beginning to use NT. Some symptoms
> >are: exaggerated self-importance, arrogance, abusiveness to non NT users,
> >denial that NT is not DOS and the NT group is the proper forum for NT
> >scripting discussions, refusal to include a pointer to
> >news:alt.msdos.batch.nt when answering NT questions, etc. Please be aware
> >of this problem, if you are not already.
> >
> >DOS users (and this includes Win9x/ME):
> >Do you really want amb to turn into another NT group?
> >
> >I speak for DOS batchers everywhere.
>
> No anonymous person speaks for me.
<ROTFLOL>
> The disease that you refer to is in
> fact much like your own.
Oh, and what disease would that be, pray tell? <g>
You're just mad because you can't do batch programming <g>.
> If/when there is a consensus about the degree to which each of the two
> newsgroups should cover various systems, then the proper approach, after
> rational discussion within the newsgroups, is to have a known, respected
> person to express it in a regular informative posting.
There was a concensus long before you starting participating here, in fact,
the NT group was born of that concensus.
[snipped]
Kent Dyer
ago:
<quote>
This is something that I stumbled across while asking for the ability to
debug/test NT/2K batch scripts while at home in the alt.msdos.batch.nt
newsgroup. I did see this available at -
http://www.robvanderwoude.com/batutils.html and has a link of -
http://www.robvanderwoude.com/files/win95cmd.zip
So, this started me thinking that there is something else going on here.. I
did find the page where you can get different versions of this even for XP!
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/unversioned/consize/index
.html
It has four flavors: The latest from Whistler SDK, Whistler SDK, Windows
2000 SDK, and the NT 4.0 SDK.
</quote>
So, does this qualify as an NT or DOS question?
Please advise...
--
Thanks,
- Kent
Moderator/Admin
Get/Post Scripts at: http://www.win-scripts.com
"Outsider" <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B0DF6E3...@yahoo.com...
Dr. Outsider Jones
>
> I have a dumb question as I posted this in the nt newsgroup a week or so
> ago:
Yes I noticed you brought up this topic in alt.msdos.batch.nt on
May 13th and the topic was discussed by you, Phil Robyn, Clay Calvert,
and Gary L. Smith. You posted 8 of the 16 messages yourself, so yes,
it is dumb to ask the question. Questions pertaining to an NT emulator
which runs under DOS should naturally be asked in alt.msdos.batch.nt.
Timo Salmi
> Timo Salmi <t...@UWasa.Fi> wrote in message news:9elr77$f...@poiju.uwasa.fi...
> > news:alt.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch programming
> > news:alt.msdos.batch.nt Windows NT batch programming
> I do not have a problem with that at all. I DO understand the delineation
> of the groups, and I'm dissapointed that you think I don't understand the
> difference between the two. What I do have a problem with is that this
Perhaps I should have used more clearly the passive voice, since
this was not intended as any personal criticism but rather as
revisited general information of where we start from.
> group is called, as I'm sure you know, "Profiling". If all off-topic posts
> were met with the same vigor then there would be no problem, AFAIC.
To recount, while true, the problem with NT postings is a bit more
endemic than with the other potential off-topic postings because of
the nature of this newsgroup. The difference is both in frequency
and in difficulty of knowing where the line is. Furthermore, the
accessibility issue of the NT groups seems occasionally to make the
situation even more complicated.
It is obvious that we have somewhat of a problem at our hands. The
sad part of it that it has led to tensions between a few of the
regulars.
Timo Salmi
Raymond Zeitler <ra...@phonon.com.invalid> wrote:
> I will agree to honor your request if you agree to refrain from:
> 1. OT posts
> 2. Multiple scathing replies to NT posters.
Dear Raymond,
Those are very reasonable suggestions. On the latter in particular,
a few general words e.g. at http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/police.html
> Also, have you considered adjusting your newsreader to filter posts that
> contain " NT ", " WinNT " or " Win 2000 " etc?
This suggestion is not quite as reasonable, since it could be interpreted
as a tacit acceptance of misplacing topics in news:alt.msdos.batch
Clay Calvert
You are confused, I've never inititiated an NT post in this group, so
this conditional statement is unwarranted.
>The two are wholly and
>completely unrelated. What is this nursery school? Monkey-see-monkey-do?
>If someone makes an off-topic post in amb, does that give you the right
>to post NT messages? What is it?: For each off topic post, you can retaliate
>with an NT message, or what? This is right at the sandbox level. Please grow
>up and get over it. This goes for Ted Davis, Clay Calvert, Raymond Zeitler,
>and every other NT user (or abuser) who feels they have the right to discuss
>NT in alt.msdos.batch . You don't. And it makes absolutely NO difference what
>_another person_ does, it is up to YOU to act responsibly in this matter.
You still haven't answered the question of why it is OK to post
completely off topic.
>Many former DOS users now use NT, and some use both. The excuse that "We
>have evolved from DOS to NT so we can just continue posting in the DOS
>group as before" is bogus. The excuses Ted Davis has used about not wanting
>to waste bandwidth, and ISP not carrying it are equally bogus.
>
>Naturally, there is no harm in _answering_ an NT question in amb for, but
>please include a gentle pointer to alt.msdos.batch.nt and if necessary
>point follow-ups there too. Right Tom? ;-).
I don't have a problem with "gentle" pointers, but I don't consider
"Wrong NewsGroup" to be gentle.
Clay Calvert
CCal...@Wanguru.com
Replace "W" with "L"
Clay Calvert
>Clay Calvert <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote:
>> Timo Salmi <t...@UWasa.Fi> wrote in message news:9elr77$f...@poiju.uwasa.fi...
>> > As you know
>> > news:alt.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch programming
>> > news:alt.msdos.batch.nt Windows NT batch programming
>
>> I do not have a problem with that at all. I DO understand the delineation
>> of the groups, and I'm dissapointed that you think I don't understand the
>> difference between the two. What I do have a problem with is that this
>
>Perhaps I should have used more clearly the passive voice, since
>this was not intended as any personal criticism but rather as
>revisited general information of where we start from.
>
>> group is called, as I'm sure you know, "Profiling". If all off-topic posts
>> were met with the same vigor then there would be no problem, AFAIC.
>
>To recount, while true, the problem with NT postings is a bit more
>endemic than with the other potential off-topic postings because of
>the nature of this newsgroup. The difference is both in frequency
I don't understand how the frequency issue makes one OK and not the
other?
What is the real problem with off-topic posts anyway? Is it
bandwidth? Convenience?
>and in difficulty of knowing where the line is. Furthermore, the
>accessibility issue of the NT groups seems occasionally to make the
>situation even more complicated.
>
>It is obvious that we have somewhat of a problem at our hands. The
>sad part of it that it has led to tensions between a few of the
>regulars.
>
> All the best, Timo
Clay Calvert
Kent Dyer
Since the post pertains to both NT and DOS/Windows, I am wrong? I don't
think so! I mean, come on.. It runs under Windows 9x and uses NT commands.
But, to that end, it will run DOS commands too.. So, it fits both worlds.
As a Developer, I would want to know if people from both worlds can run it
and to what level of success.
Rather than taking an "us and them" approach, wouldn't it be prudent to work
together? I do understand and agree with you that topics posted should be
based per environment... Like Timo said, "DOS programming is a vanishing
art." I would have to agree with the advancement of VBS, WSH, ADS, etc.
However, someone maybe new to the newsgroups "arena" and should not be
chastised for posting in the wrong area. A gentle reminder should do. If
there is a reference to point someone for newsgroup ettiquette, maybe a link
for that too.
Personally, there have been times where I have gone back to my "DOS Roots"
or programming skills and reference something in a post that maybe
irrelevant to the newsgroup. Call me dumb, flaky, whatever, but this
approach has helped me succeed in Business.
> Yes I noticed you brought up this topic in alt.msdos.batch.nt on
> May 13th and the topic was discussed by you, Phil Robyn, Clay Calvert,
> and Gary L. Smith. You posted 8 of the 16 messages yourself, so yes,
> it is dumb to ask the question. Questions pertaining to an NT emulator
> which runs under DOS should naturally be asked in alt.msdos.batch.nt.
Lee Babcock
Mike Jones wrote:
is
> insufficient traffic in either NG, and DOS batch as a required skill is
> dying (though good entertainment).
Yes, a dying skill but a necessary one! I teach and A+ level hardware
course at college and students are required to write batch files as part
of the curriculum. They are usually third and fourth semester
programming majors, and prospective employers want this skill. Five
years ago, this was no problem, but now, a simple batch file brings most
of them to their knees. I blame this on Visual Basic et al where they
can make 'a burning logo' or 'a spinning logo' but they can't use basic
logic.
I haven't posted before although I'm here almost daily and use
information gleaned to help in my classes.
I think the group is excellent and agree that constant off-topic
messages are detrimental to the group. This is based on what is now
over thirty years in participated on groups, forums, conferences and
everything else they have been called over the years.
Keep up the good work, keep batch file programming alive and well, and
my thanks to all of the participants here.
Regards,
Lee Babcock
Toronto in the GWN
Timo Salmi
Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote:
> I don't understand how the frequency issue makes one OK and not the
> other?
Clay would you please. Kindly do not twist what I wrote. I have not
indicated that either is ok.
> What is the real problem with off-topic posts anyway? Is it
Why Usenet news is divided into into different newsgroups with
assigned topics? Too obvious and too basic for a further comment.
Dr. Outsider Jones
[snipped]
My advice is Mr. Calvert be permanently shunned from alt.msdos.batch .
Dr. Outsider Jones
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 20:09:47 +0200, Outsider
> <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >There was a concensus long before you starting participating here, in fact,
> >the NT group was born of that concensus.
>
> alt.msdos.batch.dos group and disolve the vague and confusing
> alt.msdos.batch group. If you are going to get picky, then you
> really should create balanced group subsets so posters won't get
> beatup posting in the "wrong" group. It would be pretty easy to
> send the control: newgroup control message and create the
> alt.msdos.batch.outsider newsgroup. Then, by your rules, that
> would be the only place you could post. ;-)
So you just keep on trying to make me a scapegoat. How nice.
Dr. Outsider Jones
>
> This appears to be big political "hot potato!"
No. YOU are a big potato.
> Since the post pertains to both NT and DOS/Windows, I am wrong?
Absolutely wrong! You are not fooling anyone Kent. So clever are you not.
Your motives are very clear, along with Clay Calvert.
> I don't
> think so! I mean, come on.. It runs under Windows 9x and uses NT commands.
> But, to that end, it will run DOS commands too.. So, it fits both worlds.
> As a Developer, I would want to know if people from both worlds can run it
> and to what level of success.
[more rubbish snipped]
Todd Vargo
"Dr. Outsider Jones" <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B0F51C3...@yahoo.com...
> Si Ballenger wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 25 May 2001 20:09:47 +0200, Outsider
> > <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >There was a concensus long before you starting participating here, in
fact,
> > >the NT group was born of that concensus.
> >
> > What the "concensus" failed to do is also create a
> > alt.msdos.batch.dos group and disolve the vague and confusing
> > alt.msdos.batch group. If you are going to get picky, then you
> > really should create balanced group subsets so posters won't get
> > beatup posting in the "wrong" group. It would be pretty easy to
> > send the control: newgroup control message and create the
> > alt.msdos.batch.outsider newsgroup. Then, by your rules, that
> > would be the only place you could post. ;-)
>
>
> So you just keep on trying to make me a scapegoat. How nice.
I bet the "consensus" would say your new name needs revised. Some people
really enjoy long subject lines. Why not give'em a long name too, just as a
matter of netiquette.
"Self-Proclaimed *Dr.* Outsider Jones" <g>
--
Todd Vargo (body of message must contain my name to reply by email)
Kent Dyer
> No. YOU are a big potato.
Can I ask why you are calling me that? I have never done anything like that
to you. Building fences instead bridges is wrong. In fact, I have not come
to the newsgroup until about month ago.
> [more rubbish snipped]
If we can't help each other..
With these kinds of posts and things going on, I (as well as others) may
feel like never coming back here again. But, since I work in Technical
Support and am not easily swayed...
Outsider
> > So you just keep on trying to make me a scapegoat. How nice.
>
> I bet the "consensus" would say your new name needs revised. Some people
> really enjoy long subject lines. Why not give'em a long name too, just as a
> matter of netiquette.
>
> "Self-Proclaimed *Dr.* Outsider Jones" <g>
Thanks for the bit of humor! That helps.
If you can think of some really good titles I can append to my name,
let me know.
l...@bounceit.net
>
> Dear group, how about some help in keeping news:alt.msdos.batch free of NT?
>
> because I speak out for what is right? Is this the appreciation I get for
> posting my work and for helping so many?
>
> It should be obvious by now that some NT users quickly develop the
> "NT user's disease" shortly after beginning to use NT. Some symptoms
> are: exaggerated self-importance, arrogance, abusiveness to non NT users,
> denial that NT is not DOS and the NT group is the proper forum for NT
> scripting discussions, refusal to include a pointer to
> news:alt.msdos.batch.nt when answering NT questions, etc. Please be aware
> of this problem, if you are not already.
>
> DOS users (and this includes Win9x/ME):
> Do you really want amb to turn into another NT group?
>
> I speak for DOS batchers everywhere.
>
> "I speak for the trees." --The Lorax
Outsider:
When I saw your post I thought to myself 'this is going to generate a
lot of noise'. I was right.
I have read a few posts, but since the thread is not providing
information I will not read any more - I do not have time.
I would suggest that "correcting" the un-informed can be done by a very
simple canned response. "You would be better served by using
alt.msdos.batch.nt". That would be doing the poster a favor - because
the real NT experts are in AMBNT. Is it worth getting excited about?
NO - the groups are not huge and the results of a few extra posts will
not do much "damage".
BTW I have experience in this area since the netscape new server has a
similar "problem" with Mac users in Windows groups. The solution was
exactly as given - we simply re-direct the poster.
LB
Charles Dye
> [snip]
>
>-The Reverend Martin Niemöller, a pastor in the German Confessing Church
>who spent seven years in a concentration camp.
... under the Nazis, of course. Godwin's Law applies.
Rik D'haveloose
>
> I will agree to honor your request if you agree to refrain from:
>
> 1. OT posts
> 2. Multiple scathing replies to NT posters.
Above is in itself, incorrect (net-etiquette) behaviour, IMVHO.
It is not because some other is considered to behave wrong (not
following net-etiquette), that this justifies wrong behaviour by
yourself.
about scatching: informing inattentive or first-users of the existance
of an amb-NT group is not scatching at all, imho. If regulars and
experienced usenet-users also consider this information as scatching,
they have the wrong behaviour, imvho.
> Also, have you considered adjusting your newsreader to filter posts that
> contain " NT ", " WinNT " or " Win 2000 " etc?
Again, IMVHO, filtering such messages out, may also filter out perfectly
valid requests, as it may be some request to build some overall-batch
(as far as that is possible ofcourse).
> In article <3B0DF6E3...@yahoo.com>, nonvali...@yahoo.com
> says...
> > Dear group, how about some help in keeping news:alt.msdos.batch free of NT?
===8<
> > I speak for DOS batchers everywhere.
I can only speak for myself, and what i think/assume
non-NT-using-dos-batchers will like the most.
And concerning Outsider: although i (as dos-batcher-only) also
experience that many NT-new-users seem to have none or very few
batch/scripting knowledge (or even real intrest in learning it, and just
seek fast solutions), hence frequently ask faq-questions, i would not
use 'NT-disease' to describe that publicly. I can only ask to regulars
and Outsider to behave more friendly (in the wording). Hey, we know him,
it's intended well, but he cannot phrase it better, so we ignore that,
and stick to real batching, and consider he is helping his imperfect
way. (as is mine)
Sorry if i can mostly only give some 'opinion', and not helping more
about real batch-problems, due to my way of connecting here, and my
insufficient knowledge.
And as Timo says: future will decide on the vanishing of batch (and AMB)
(imvho only if user-automation is possible with better generic
(user-)tools)
--
Lieve - Ri(n)ksken(s)
TUF Greetings from Rumbeke, Belgium
Please use only 1 e-mail adress if reply !
Outsider
>
> Outsider:
>
> When I saw your post I thought to myself 'this is going to generate a
> lot of noise'. I was right.
> I have read a few posts, but since the thread is not providing
> information I will not read any more - I do not have time.
> I would suggest that "correcting" the un-informed can be done by a very
> simple canned response. "You would be better served by using
> alt.msdos.batch.nt". That would be doing the poster a favor - because
> the real NT experts are in AMBNT. Is it worth getting excited about?
> NO - the groups are not huge and the results of a few extra posts will
> not do much "damage".
> BTW I have experience in this area since the netscape new server has a
> similar "problem" with Mac users in Windows groups. The solution was
> exactly as given - we simply re-direct the poster.
>
Thanks for your response. That would be fine if people would cooperate.
The problem is most NT users (that I know from their DOS participation
in alt.msdos.batch) are mildy to strongly uncooperative and some are rude
and antagonistic, and their numbers seem to be growing. One Mr. Ted Davis
is even encouraging NT posts and discussions in alt.msdos.batch!!
--
Outsider, HB, BFP
Outsider
l...@bounceit.net
The only solution I can see is to ignore the NT posters if they only
post in AMB. But I wonder if all posters can get AMBN reliably.
LB
Frank-Peter Schultze
> g...@infinet.com wrote:
> > In alt.msdos.batch.nt Outsider <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > : Dear group, how about some help in keeping news:alt.msdos.batch free of NT?
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > : I speak for DOS batchers everywhere.
> >
> > I'm not convinced that you speak for anyone but yourself. I do know that
> > both groups would be more pleasant if you'd stop the constant whining.
> Be silent and just let the NT abusers take over the DOS batch group??
>
> "In Germany they first came for the Communists
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
> Then they came for the Jews,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
> Then they came for the trade unionists
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
> Then they came for the Catholics
> and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
> Then they came for me
> and by that time no one was left to speak up."
>
> -The Reverend Martin Niemöller, a pastor in the German Confessing Church
> who spent seven years in a concentration camp.
Outsider! Who wants others to get out of this group to keep it
'clean', who entitles others as poison?!
PLEASE stop. You are wasting hundreds of people's time and nerves. Go
and write some MS-DOS batch files...
--
__ _ _
|_ |_)(__ http://www.fpschultze.de
___| | ____)chultze_________________________________________________
I am logged in, therefore I am.
Charles Dye
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Cute. I found this:
>http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html
Yep, that's it. Don't take it personally. It just means that when
you're mad enough to start seeing folks who disagree with you as
being Truly Evil, you're probably too upset to think (talk, post)
straight. Relax, take a break, forget about it for awhile.
I'd like to make a few points as discussion material:
First, many news servers don't carry alt.msdos.batch.nt. You know and
I know that that's easily correctable. Most ISPs will bend over
backwards and gnaw on their own ankles for your $20 a month; a polite
request to add a small newsgroup will almost always be honored. The
problem is that many newcomers to Usenet think that the list of groups
they see on their server is ALL THERE IS -- the idea that there may be
thousands more groups that their ISP doesn't carry simply does not
occur to them. So, don't ascribe to malice that which can be
adequately explained by stupidity. (Or even honest nescience.)
Remember, it's *always* September somewhere on the Net!
Second, too many computer users use the term DOS to refer to any
command shell -- any text-based program, for that matter. I've had
bright, normal people comment on my use of "DOS" when I was using
the NT command shell, or running bash over a Telnet connection, or
even a text editor, for God's sake. It's incorrect, it's annoying,
and it's far too widespread to get apoplectic about. That newbie
writing his first batch file for NT may honestly believe that he's
"using MS-DOS."
Third: You're correct in saying that NT is not an MS-DOS-based
system, as Win95/98/Me is. But the bulk of batch-file writing really
has very little to do with the underlying OS. Actually, you're
concerned with the behavior of the shell, and various other little
programs; "batch files" is just the Microsoft-world term for what Unix
people call "shell scripts." DOS and NT are deeply different systems,
but the command shells are really pretty similar: similar commands,
similar syntax, similar concepts. No surprise -- they were written by
the same company, for similar purposes, and with backwards
compatibility as at least a minor design goal. The answer to many
common questions such as "How can I save a list of the contents of my
folder to a file?" will be the same in both operating systems. Even
where you do find a difference, that difference may have nothing
to do with the actual OS. For example, you might think of FOR /F as
purely an NT thing; but FOR /F does not use any unique feature of
Windows NT, and indeed it's quite legal under, say, MS-DOS 6.22 if
you're running 4DOS. It's a feature of the shell, not of the OS.
Would you jump on somebody who posted a 4DOS question to
alt.msdos.batch? I wouldn't ... though I'd probably include a gentle
pointer to comp.os.msdos.4dos along with my reply.
Fourth: Where there are real differences between operating systems,
of course the question needs to be directed to the correct group. But
cross-posting to the other group is harmless, and maybe even
instructive. Learning about the differences will not only tell you
something about the other guy's OS, it may teach you something about
your own. "That command from Dan Gookin's MS-DOS book does not work
on your computer because pipes are handled differently under NT than
under MS-DOS...."
Fifth: Generalizations like " ... most NT users ... are mildly to
strongly uncooperative ... " are not just impolite; they're also quite
possibly self-fulfilling prophecies. Think about it.
Have you visited talk.origins lately? Or talk.abortion, or
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh? Fun, in an unendingly violent sort of way, but
I don't think you'd want to turn alt.msdos.batch into the same kind of
place.
Peace. Please.
DR DOS 7.03, 4DOS 6.02B (registered)
MS-DOS 7.1, Windows 4.1 (a.k.a. 98), 4DOS 7.00A beta build 43
Bob Watson
>
> In article <d1ntgtch1kl1k449h...@4ax.com>,
> Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote:
> > I don't understand how the frequency issue makes one OK and not the
> > other?
>
> Clay would you please. Kindly do not twist what I wrote. I have not
> indicated that either is ok.
>
Outsider is abrupt to the point of rudeness to anyone who should dare to mention
"NT" in a message to a.m.b but has no qualms whatever with posting messages to
the group on anything (including "Why won't anyone hire me", links to porn
sites,
political rants, and, most recently, Win98 error messages). If anyone should
point out that these messages are off-topic, they are abused for being
narrow-minded, ungrateful, and/or an idiot.
I know, I know. Usenet is free and unregulated. Anyone can write just about
anything
without fear of any real consequences. However, Usenet works largely because
correspondents voluntarily observe the established rules. These "rules" include
due respect for differing opinions as well as, of course, making an effort to
post in an appropriate newsgroup.
Most groups to which I subscribe have suffered from troll attacks and it seems
that the nastiest generally only last a week or two. In a.m.b this NT business
seems to have dragged on for years without much sign of anyone getting bored -
more's the pity.
All the best,
Bob Watson
Charles Dye
>Would you jump on somebody who posted a 4DOS question to
>alt.msdos.batch? I wouldn't ... though I'd probably include a gentle
>pointer to comp.os.msdos.4dos along with my reply.
Parenthetical side note: comp.os.msdos.4dos has a similar
problem to alt.msdos.batch.nt. That "msdos" in the name
misleads folks; we get posts along the lines of "How do I make
my CD-ROM work in DOS?" or "How do I boot MS-DOS from a
Zip disk?" and no doubt it scares off some users of other JP shells
like 4NT or Take Command for OS/2.... But the bad name is
established. C'est la vie.
ttu...@ecn.ab.ca
: "Outsider" <nonvali...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3B0E4DA3...@yahoo.com...
: > g...@infinet.com wrote:
: > > In alt.msdos.batch.nt Outsider <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > > : Dear group, how about some help in keeping news:alt.msdos.batch free of NT?
: > >
: > > [snip]
: > >
: > > : I speak for DOS batchers everywhere.
: > >
: > > I'm not convinced that you speak for anyone but yourself. I do know that
: > > both groups would be more pleasant if you'd stop the constant whining.
<snip>
--> So we're agreed that OT posting is annoying if;
(A) it happens a lot.
(B) it's extremely off topic.
(C) both.
Since it _IS_ an alt. NG, it's not surprising
that OT posts happen.
Since this is to be expected; then perhaps being
tolerant of the occasional OT post would ease some
frustrations.
Since OT posts happen - either ignoring them or
re-directing them, could perhaps ease frustrations.
No one really likes to see noise in the NGs and no one
likes OT posts; but unless it's really bad, why get
so bent out of shape over it? No, don't answer that,
it's only rhetorical. Textual gnashing of one's teeth
over OT posts cause just as much noise as the OT post
did/does/will, in the first place . . .
<hypocrisy> Of course it's ENTIRELY DIFFERENT; when some
numbnut dork posts OT crap in `The Prisoner' NG or the
`Geoworks' NG. That's different! ;-> </hypocrisy>
Sure, I'd like to see just MSDOS BATch files and related DOS
concerns posted here; but I guess I'm not that much of a
purist that it bothers me that much. I guess I just don't
see it being a big deal. But that may just be me. I know
my `buttons' get pressed when I see someone post asking how
to delete/reformat a HDD when one can see they just want to
be mean, nasty and stupid (especially when one can tell they've
just woken-up to the fact - probably in class - that there's
this `old' way to automate tasks and it's just occured to their
immature sense of morality that they can do jerky things). So
it's not like I'm unaware of the temptation to growl - I just
choose different things to growl about!
--
E.A.G.L.E Librarian A3 BBS:403/481-3133 email:ttu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Outsider
>
>
> The only solution I can see is to ignore the NT posters if they only
> post in AMB. But I wonder if all posters can get AMBN reliably.
>
Of course they can!
Everyone can get it, if not through their onw ISP's newsserver,
through a known free newsserver, or several web-based newsservers.
Regardless, nonaccess to the right newsgroup does not give the
right to use the wrong newsgroup.
Outsider
>
> Timo Salmi wrote:
> >
> > In article <d1ntgtch1kl1k449h...@4ax.com>,
> > Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote:
> > > I don't understand how the frequency issue makes one OK and not the
> > > other?
> >
> > Clay would you please. Kindly do not twist what I wrote. I have not
> > indicated that either is ok.
> >
> I rather think that Clay might be expressing the irritation that I feel when
> Outsider is abrupt to the point of rudeness to anyone who should dare to mention
> "NT" in a message to a.m.b but has no qualms whatever with posting messages to
> the group on anything (including "Why won't anyone hire me", links to porn
> sites,
I never posted a link to a porn site.
[rest snipped]
Rik D'haveloose
>
> This appears to be big political "hot potato!"
a sentence i would not write. This not a political NG, and less some
potato NG :-))
> Since the post pertains to both NT and DOS/Windows, I am wrong? I don't
> think so! I mean, come on.. It runs under Windows 9x and uses NT commands.
> But, to that end, it will run DOS commands too.. So, it fits both worlds.
> As a Developer, I would want to know if people from both worlds can run it
> and to what level of success.
My answer, in contrast to Outsiders, would be:
If one wants discuss NT/W2000 abilities, then ask in AMB.NT, otherwise,
here should be OK, at least if also mentioned that one uses that
'emulator' (and as long as no specific NG for that emulator is
existing), and that is needed in both NG's, as one cannot expect that
the emulator has same behaviour/problems as original OS, so responders
can take that into account (IMHO some basic rule to have correct
helping: provide enough info, and not mix things).
> Rather than taking an "us and them" approach, wouldn't it be prudent to work
> together?
exactly, and what is the best way to achieve that ?
Provide enough info etc....
==8<
ps. originally, and still now, i did not get at full the meaning of your
original (reposted) question here. I base me on Outsiders reply which
mentions emulator, which, imho, implies that it belongs nowhere, and
needs analysing to what answer one expects (NT directed, or dos/w9x
directed), and should be handled as any other external program.
ps2. i fail to see any purpose to create such (cros-platform??) emulator
? (as direct, original OS solutions will mostly be faster and less time
consuming ??)
Dirk van Deun
: in alt.msdos.batch) are mildy to strongly uncooperative and some are rude
: and antagonistic, and their numbers seem to be growing. One Mr. Ted Davis
: is even encouraging NT posts and discussions in alt.msdos.batch!!
Peace, brothers. Let's all switch to linux to avoid the problem altogether.
Dirk van Deun
--
Ceterum censeo Redmond delendum
Timo Salmi
interconnected issues have come to the fore in the MS-DOS and NT
postings debate
1) The manner of giving redirections (I would strongly advocate
friendly and constructive instead of hostile. The latter only
aggravates matters.)
2) The availability of news:alt.msdos.batch.nt (The lack of
availability is not a sufficient rationalization).
3) The name of the NT newsgroup. Obviously misnamed and should have
been news:alt.nt.batch. (I think that news:alt.msdos.batch.nt was
rather a hasty mishap than based on any disagreement about the
naming).
4) Is it proper to advocate asking NT questions in
news:alt.msdos.batch (No, since newsgroups have their topic areas.
That's the texture of Usenet news.)
That's about it. One and four would be easily remedied *IF* the
posters are willing and able to reconsider their approaches.
Two is up to the readers. There are major two options for those left
out of the loop: asking one's ISP and using news repositories.
Three is the most difficult, since it would require a considerable
investment of time and effort from someone. Besides it would leave
an orphaned news:alt.msdos.batch.nt in existence.
That, dear fellow readers, is about the size of what we have at our
hands.
Clay Calvert
I'm assuming number one's scope is not limited to NT batch file
questions?
Clay Calvert
CCal...@Wanguru.com
Replace "W" with "L"
Outsider
>
> It is now more or less clear that these separate but yet
> interconnected issues have come to the fore in the MS-DOS and NT
> postings debate
>
> 1) The manner of giving redirections (I would strongly advocate
> friendly and constructive instead of hostile. The latter only
> aggravates matters.)
>
> 2) The availability of news:alt.msdos.batch.nt (The lack of
> availability is not a sufficient rationalization).
>
> 3) The name of the NT newsgroup. Obviously misnamed and should have
> been news:alt.nt.batch. (I think that news:alt.msdos.batch.nt was
> rather a hasty mishap than based on any disagreement about the
> naming).
At the time, it was thought that it would be much easier to get ISP's
to carry a group that is an extension of an existing group, and this
factor weighed more heavily than the name. In any case, hindsight is
always 20-20. Personally, I think the name should be
news:alt.nt.scripting in order to completely separate NT from this group
so there is absolutely NO chance for confusion: both "dos" and "batch"
should be omitted.
> 4) Is it proper to advocate asking NT questions in
> news:alt.msdos.batch (No, since newsgroups have their topic areas.
> That's the texture of Usenet news.)
Let's hope Ted hasn't already filtered your messages, and let's hope
he and the other NT users will comply.
> That's about it. One and four would be easily remedied *IF* the
> posters are willing and able to reconsider their approaches.
One:
NT users should _themselves_ point the NT questioner to the NT group,
and redirect the follow-up there or repost there as appropriate, whether
they answer the question or not. Naturally, this redirection should be
done in a friendly and constructive manner. And if someone redirects the
questioner before an NT users does, the NT user must not attack that someone.
Four:
Is non-negotiable.
> Two is up to the readers. There are major two options for those left
> out of the loop: asking one's ISP and using news repositories.
>
> Three is the most difficult, since it would require a considerable
> investment of time and effort from someone. Besides it would leave
> an orphaned news:alt.msdos.batch.nt in existence.
Perhaps comp.os.nt.scripting would be the best possible name, since
comp names seem to not have the same problem getting carried by ISP's
newsservers.
> That, dear fellow readers, is about the size of what we have at our
> hands.
>
Thank-you once again Timo for putting the situation is concise perspective.
--
Outsider, HB BFP
Outsider
>
> I rather think that Clay might be expressing the irritation that I feel when
> Outsider is abrupt to the point of rudeness to anyone who should dare to mention
> "NT" in a message to a.m.b but has no qualms whatever with posting messages to
> the group on anything (including "Why won't anyone hire me", links to porn
> sites,
> political rants, and, most recently, Win98 error messages). If anyone should
> point out that these messages are off-topic, they are abused for being
> narrow-minded, ungrateful, and/or an idiot.
You are a liar Mr. Watson (and an idiot<g>).
--
Outsider, HB BFP
MS-DOS 6.22, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Netscape Navigator 4.08
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it
from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal
Timo Salmi
> On 28 May 2001 07:00:05 +0300, t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
> >1) The manner of giving redirections (I would strongly advocate
> >friendly and constructive instead of hostile. The latter only
> >aggravates matters.)
(The excessive quoting deleted)
> I'm assuming number one's scope is not limited to NT batch file
> questions?
Right! E.g. like this:
Dear Clay,
You might find it useful to take a look at the advice in the item
Of proper quoting
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html
Clay Calvert
>Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote:
>> On 28 May 2001 07:00:05 +0300, t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
>
>> >1) The manner of giving redirections (I would strongly advocate
>> >friendly and constructive instead of hostile. The latter only
>> >aggravates matters.)
>
>(The excessive quoting deleted)
>
>> I'm assuming number one's scope is not limited to NT batch file
>> questions?
>
>Right! E.g. like this:
>
>Dear Clay,
>
>You might find it useful to take a look at the advice in the item
>
> Of proper quoting
> http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html
>
> All the best, Timo
Is that what you call a redirection?
Clay Calvert
>In article <d1ntgtch1kl1k449h...@4ax.com>,
>Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote:
>> I don't understand how the frequency issue makes one OK and not the
>> other?
>
>Clay would you please. Kindly do not twist what I wrote. I have not
>indicated that either is ok.
Sorry, I should have said; I don't understand how the frequency makes
one type of off-topic posts enforcable, and not others."
>> What is the real problem with off-topic posts anyway? Is it
>
>Why Usenet news is divided into into different newsgroups with
>assigned topics? Too obvious and too basic for a further comment.
Now you are trying to twist my words. The question was; "What is the
real problem with off-topic posts?", not why there are different
newsgroups.
Thanks in advance,
Timo Salmi
(Again deliberately demonstrative, excessive quoting deleted)
> Is that what you call a redirection?
Dear Clay,
Would you kindly at least consider curbing the playacting. To help
you in that, I promise that this response was the last personal one
you will ever get from me.
Clay Calvert
>Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote:
>(Again deliberately demonstrative, excessive quoting deleted)
The quoting was not excessive. I read my response before I sent it
and, IMHO, what was in there was necessary to understand my simple one
line question. Having enough information to understand the question
is part of the requirements listed in that URL that you "redirected"
me to on quoting etiquette.
>> Is that what you call a redirection?
>
>Dear Clay,
>
>Would you kindly at least consider curbing the playacting.
If playacting is what you call trying to get a straight answer out of
someone then I guess I'm guilty. I've tried to ask you two straight
questions and you keep sidestepping them. Now it seems you have done
a permanent sidestep to avoid answering altogether.
Applying "the rules" whenever convenient for ones cause, but letting
the same rules "slide" for other causes is, quite simply put, not
fair.
Here is an example. "The rule" states that no one can swim when a
lifeguard is not present. Whenever the lifeguard is gone, there are
some people that continue swim. Each time, however, only the red
haired people are told to get out of the pool while the others are
allowed to stay.
Those red-headed swimmers don't stay quiet for long, and they want to
why they are singled out. If "the rule" was enforced for everyone
then there would be no problem.
>To help you in that, I promise that this response was the last
>personal one you will ever get from me.
I never expected this from a man of your stature. I have other
questions for you, but I guess it would be futile to ask. If you
would like to continue this conversation off line, feel free to send
me an e-mail.
Timo Salmi
Dear Clay,
It is entirely my own fault, and I'll take all the blame for it, but
the unfortunate fact is that for some reason you keep managing to
rub me the wrong way with the digging, posting after posting. Since
I have this flaw in my character that I don't enjoy such exchanges,
it is much better that I will keep my distance from you. Simple as
that. No hard feelings, just a decision to have one less tricky
situation.
Raymond Zeitler
have been a porn site, but the image itself could be considered
pornography, or at least something that should not be viewed by minors
here in the US.
In article <3B10A94D...@yahoo.com>, nonvali...@yahoo.com
says...
Raymond Zeitler
> Raymond Zeitler wrote:
> >
> > I will agree to honor your request if you agree to refrain from:
> >
> > 1. OT posts
> > 2. Multiple scathing replies to NT posters.
>
> Above is in itself, incorrect (net-etiquette) behaviour, IMVHO.
> It is not because some other is considered to behave wrong (not
> following net-etiquette), that this justifies wrong behaviour by
> yourself.
We're in the process of deciding what's wrong. Myself, I don't consider
_briefly_ answering an NT question in AMB to be wrong, especially if the
solution is valid for plain DOS as well, so long as there are so many
other OT posts.
> about scatching: informing inattentive or first-users of the existance
> of an amb-NT group is not scatching at all, imho. If regulars and
> experienced usenet-users also consider this information as scatching,
> they have the wrong behaviour, imvho.
>
> > Also, have you considered adjusting your newsreader to filter posts that
> > contain " NT ", " WinNT " or " Win 2000 " etc?
>
> Again, IMVHO, filtering such messages out, may also filter out perfectly
> valid requests, as it may be some request to build some overall-batch
> (as far as that is possible ofcourse).
That's what's being done now in the heads of Those Opposed To Seeing Any
Reference to NT in AMB. Except that "Do not post here" responses follow.
It would be a much cleaner group, IMVHO, if TOTSARN (see above) filtered
the messages and made no replies whatsoever.
Note that we see these "Do not post here" responses regardless of whether
the information is useful to non-NTers.
And even if someone asks, "I need a batch file to do such and such in
NT," it should be perfectly acceptable to answer with a pure DOS
solution.
IMVHO, this thread more offensively OT than every NT message ever posted
since the beginning of AMBN.
Raymond Zeitler
work in pure DOS without being "reminded" that it's off topic. There's
nothing wrong with this. And I do refer the poster to AMBN.
But I'm willing to discontinue this practice if you will also tone down
your militant opposition to the mere mention of NT.
I do not feel this is juvenial behavior.
In article <3B0E9E98...@yahoo.com>, nonvali...@yahoo.com
says...
> Clay Calvert wrote:
> >
> > Timo Salmi <t...@UWasa.Fi> wrote in message news:9elr77$f...@poiju.uwasa.fi...
> > > In article <9elmms$fg4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> > > Clay Calvert <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote:
> > > > You are skirting around the issue. Why are only NT batch file questions
> > > > the only posts not allowed?
> > >
> > > Dear Clay,
> > >
> > > This, of course, is not the case. But the reason why NT batch file
> > > questions tend to come the focus of attention in this particular
> > > context, is that NT postings are often misplaced to
> > > news:alt.msdos.batch
> > >
> > > As you know
> > >
> > > news:alt.msdos.batch MS-DOS batch programming
> > > news:alt.msdos.batch.nt Windows NT batch programming
> > >
> > > The NT postings should go to the latter newsgroup, not the former.
> > >
> > > All the best, Timo
> >
> > Timo,
> >
> > I do not have a problem with that at all. I DO understand the delineation
> > of the groups, and I'm dissapointed that you think I don't understand the
> > difference between the two. What I do have a problem with is that this
> > group receives numerous posts that aren't related to any kind of batch file
> > writing at all, and those posts are "allowed". Singling out one particular
> > group is called, as I'm sure you know, "Profiling". If all off-topic posts
> > were met with the same vigor then there would be no problem, AFAIC.
> >
>
> But you do have a problem with it! You want to make your compliance with
> the obvious rule of discussing NT scripting in the designated NT group
> conditional on (your perceived) compliance of another (singled out) person
> to another rule discouraging off-topic posting. The two are wholly and
> completely unrelated. What is this nursery school? Monkey-see-monkey-do?
> If someone makes an off-topic post in amb, does that give you the right
> to post NT messages? What is it?: For each off topic post, you can retaliate
> with an NT message, or what? This is right at the sandbox level. Please grow
> up and get over it. This goes for Ted Davis, Clay Calvert, Raymond Zeitler,
> and every other NT user (or abuser) who feels they have the right to discuss
> NT in alt.msdos.batch . You don't. And it makes absolutely NO difference what
> _another person_ does, it is up to YOU to act responsibly in this matter.
[snip]
ttu...@ecn.ab.ca
: He was refering to the picture of the partly clothed woman. It might not
: pornography, or at least something that should not be viewed by minors
: here in the US.
--> I recall some mention being made of DOMAI. I'd never heard
of that site until it was mentioned. Though the enthusiastic
noting of this site may have been mis-directed; that's no call
for painting that individual with the `porno' brush. Making
mention of this, is nitpicking due to already being annoyed by
someone and is un-called for, unfair and irresponsible.
I still check out the `pic-of-the-day'; as beauty, for the mere
sake of beauty, is a positive thing - in general.
Yes, the over-reaction to things `NT' is, at times, unpleasant;
but that hardly calls for pointing a finger and pronouncing the
sentence of `porno' on them, in this particular case . . .
(I don't even recall who mentioned DOMAI; I just appreciate it,
in the same spirit it was offered/intended/meant and contrary
to what some may think - intentions _do_ count.)