Ethernet Vendor Code
Wildstar
Commodore. Could someone tell me how can this actually be or am I somehow
imagining it.
008010 Commodore
Look for that at this link below
http://www.cavebear.com/CaveBear/Ethernet/vendor.html
Check this out, why the H*** don't we take that vendor code for all Ethernet
adapters for Commodore computers.
Scott McDonnell
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/9247/NIC/commodore.html
Seems that vendor code was for the Commodore brand PCs (Colts) and I would
imagine for the Amiga, since there were ethernet cards made for various
models of them.
You did know about THIS project, right?:
http://dunkels.com/adam/tfe/
Scott
"Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:um176fk...@corp.supernews.com...
MagerValp
W> It has appeared that I had found in the Ethernet Vendor code the
W> name Commodore. Could someone tell me how can this actually be or
W> am I somehow imagining it.
What's so strange about it? C= produced several Ethernet boards.
--
___ . . . . . + . . o
_|___|_ + . + . + . Per Olofsson, arkadspelare
o-o . . . o + Mage...@cling.gu.se
- + + . http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/
Wildstar
that code now.
Since I did see a Tulip listing and a Gateway listing. Amiga would be Amiga
or Commodore-Amiga.
We can always use the vendor code, perhaps.
"MagerValp" <Mage...@cling.gu.se> wrote in message
news:p14it27...@panini.cling.gu.se...
Anders Carlsson
> I didn't know they made ethernet adapters but what stops any of us
> using that code now. Since I did see a Tulip listing and a Gateway
> listing. Amiga would be Amiga or Commodore-Amiga. We can always use
> the vendor code, perhaps.
Wouldn't you need to control the brand name (here, have the rights to
the Commodore name) to do that? As the Basic (partitially) is made by
Microsoft, we could ask them to lend a few of the 16 millionน free
Ethernet numbers in their 44-45-53 series...
น) I know of 44-45-53-00-00-00 for Microsoft's PPP adapter and
44-45-53-00-00-01 for AOL's PPP adapter. Anyone else?
--
Anders Carlsson
Wildstar
like 65536, 64738 respectively.
"Anders Carlsson" <anders....@mds.mdh.se> wrote in message
news:k2gfzxa...@legolas.mdh.se...
lisp
> Perhaps we can get either FF-FF or FC-E2, which would decode to something
> like 65536, 64738 respectively.
Why not make it soft programmable? Tis on Suns.
As for the Commodore ethernet range - what is the probability of a genuine
Commodore ethernet adapter being with in MAC addressable space on a network?
Slim to none I would have thought, and therefore a pretty safe bet for
avoiding collisions.
--
(lisp) - http://www.thecommune.org.uk/~lisa
SBS#37(with oak leaf cluster) two#40 DOGMUK
Suzuki GS125ES
My other car's a cdr
Wildstar
Hardly ever a network is large enough to have that many. Nor did Commodore
make that many. I think we could have an ethernet with C= vendor code by
standard (perhaps) among others and have no problems. Certainly it would be
no problem on my network.
What I would need is TCP/IP and configuration settings predefined for
interfacing with Microsoft's stock Microsoft Network.
"lisp" <li...@thecommune.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ajt7ap$grc$1...@pump1.york.ac.uk...
Martijn van Buul
> Wildstar <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps we can get either FF-FF or FC-E2, which would decode to something
>> like 65536, 64738 respectively.
>
> Why not make it soft programmable? Tis on Suns.
Because that this is a Very Bad Idea (TM).
--
Martijn van Buul - Pi...@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
Geek code: G-- - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
Kees J. Bot: The sum of CPU power and user brain power is a constant.
Martijn van Buul
> The vendor code could be used
No, the vendor code could not be used, because you don't have the right
to use it - simply put.
> and would very likey not be of any problem.
It is - on a conceptional level.
> Hardly ever a network is large enough to have that many.
Which is of no relevance. Ethernet hardware addresses are supposed to be
*unique*. If I ever find a network card claiming to be 00:02:44:24:21:9e,
it's either mine, or it was stolen from me ;0
> Nor did Commodore make that many. I think we could have an ethernet with C=
> vendor code by standard (perhaps) among others and have no problems.
I think you are assuming that, because *you* don't have technical/moral
issues with it, nobody will. Using an alien vendor code for an Ethernet
device is *just* as bad/wrong/incorrect as just branding your products
with a name you don't own.
> What I would need is TCP/IP and configuration settings predefined for
> interfacing with Microsoft's stock Microsoft Network.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.
PS: Learn to quote.
Wildstar
there vendor still own by Commodore or is it own by Tulip Computers now.
That's the question. If it is own by anyone, still, of course I wouldn't
take it.
How much would it be for the vendor code ????
Now I don't see one listed as FF-FF or FC-E2.
Meanwhile it would be interesting to know who has that vendor code, still or
is it just a vendor code that hasn't been updated. Oh well, besides who
cares. FF-FF and FC-E2 hasn't been gotten from what I can tell.
"Martijn van Buul" <pie...@c64.org> wrote in message
news:slrnam5djb....@mud.stack.nl...
> Which is of no relevance. Ethernet hardware addresses are supposed to be
> *unique*. If I ever find a network card claiming to be 00:02:44:24:21:9e,
> it's either mine, or it was stolen from me ;0
>
> I think you are assuming that, because *you* don't have technical/moral
> issues with it, nobody will. Using an alien vendor code for an Ethernet
> device is *just* as bad/wrong/incorrect as just branding your products
> with a name you don't own.
>
lisp
> I think you are assuming that, because *you* don't have technical/moral
> issues with it, nobody will. Using an alien vendor code for an Ethernet
> device is *just* as bad/wrong/incorrect as just branding your products
> with a name you don't own.
Then make the MAC addresses programmable. tbh, I can't really see how any
one could have a problem with that - after all they only need to be unique
for your network. The liklihood of a C64 being on any network where
collision may occur is miniscule, and easily correctible.
As for the "theft" thing - that's putting it a bit strongly. First of all,
sorry to tell you this, but Commodore - they're dead, finito. Secondly,
it's not as if they put a lot of effort into their vendor code, unlike
their IP, firmware (which 99.95% of people have no problem with ripping
off now they're gone), and the like.
lisp
Why? You can't make a statement like that without an explanation.
Why is it a bad idea? Because it might collide with another MAC
address out there?
SO WHAT!
The probability of a MAC addressing collision is very small even if
two NICs share the same MAC address, and the probability of there
being a MAC addressing collision between two machines that are owned
by two complete strangers would probably need all the paper in the
world to fit all the zeros on if you wrote it down!
Wildstar
is ALL the other parts of the code, the card's ID. So we are looking at
close to a Trillion possible codes really. Not 16 Million. Its IP addresses
that are limited much further. Not the MAC address. As a matter of fact
Commodore Only produce maybe 100,000 NICs maybe 500,000 tops. They were not
that popular when CBM produced it. Besides Tulip, uses there own.
So it doesn't hurt Tulip or CBM. CBM as a corporation doesn't exist. Tulip
does but they'll likely take a second code later for it. Like a few take
two.
"lisp" <li...@thecommune.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ajvfso$9ki$2...@pump1.york.ac.uk...
Martijn van Buul
> So it doesn't hurt Tulip or CBM. CBM as a corporation doesn't exist. Tulip
> does but they'll likely take a second code later for it. Like a few take
> two.
So me stealing $10.000 is no problem, as long as I steal it from a very
very rich person? It probably wouldn't hurt him/her, anyway.
MagerValp
l> As for the "theft" thing - that's putting it a bit strongly. First
l> of all, sorry to tell you this, but Commodore - they're dead,
l> finito.
Chances are they never owned it in the first place, they probably paid
a license fee to Xerox granting them the right to use it.
Either way, this is totally not an issue, Wildstar is just fantasizing
as usual.
Wildstar
Note, vendor codes don't say CBM or Commodore persay, but can be used to
identify a Commodore Ethernet adapter.
All it is is numbers, not trademarks, or even copyrights, as long as the
rest of the digits are not the same. It will not conflict. The question here
isn't necassarily to do it or not. If no one currently is operating with
that vendor code, thus Commodore. Then could it be used and provide an easy
means to develop private networks within perhaps larger networks to
communicate providing that only card with that section of the MAC address be
communicating with each other or something of that nature or other
applicible use.
I am not saying do it or not do it. If it is available to be used or can be
used and of course if they are not in business then perhaps we could use it.
All ethernet adapters being made are required to have MAC address. If its
technically programmable. Someone could establish 3 other vendor codes and
possibly see it that one is available.
Besides, you don't make money on vendor codes. Ethernet cards don't sell on
that.
"Martijn van Buul" <pie...@c64.org> wrote in message
news:slrnam6m6s...@mud.stack.nl...
Wildstar
fantasized). Second researched.
Third - Do.
I am not Doing until Research is on the issue could prove achievable without
any "real" problems.
"MagerValp" <Mage...@cling.gu.se> wrote in message
news:p14elcs...@panini.cling.gu.se...
lisp
> very rich person? It probably wouldn't hurt him/her, anyway.
No, it's more akin to grave robbery.
The question in this case - is grave robbery of a non existant entity from
a non coporeal form illegal?
It's not as if MAC vendor codes are legally mandated - it's just a number.
Wildstar
Since I am certainly not
likely to make money because of MAC code but using a vendor code used by
commodore and new cards
for Commodore would be perhaps logical, if not illegal. Of course we would
like to find out all the cards that
Commodore produced for the full MAC codes and not make new ones that are
"Absolutely" the same code.
Since I am sure that there are plenty of code numbers available within that
code left. We can make special private virtual networks within existing
networks that would send special packets encapsulated in a TCP/IP packet
(over the web or a mixed platform network using TCP/IP) to computers with
cards using the 80-10- in the section for vendor code in a MAC address.
Its not where we make money on but where we make software easier to
segregate. We the Commodore scene become Commodore. Since we are Commodore
now basically. If it doesn't cost much, we could take over, I could take
over the MAC code and make it licenensable (free) to use for any ethernet
card for use on a Commodore, specifically.
"lisp" <li...@thecommune.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ak1uu5$l62$1...@pump1.york.ac.uk...
Wildstar
Type in the first Text box, Commodore and yep, guess what the familiar
street address.
http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/index.shtml
This is Commodore alright.
1200 Wilson Drive
West Chester, PA 19380
its non other than Commodore International
its refers strictly to them, not Escom,Gateway,Tulip or any other.
MagerValp
MV> Either way, this is totally not an issue, Wildstar is just
MV> fantasizing as usual.
W> Oh well, ok - For dreams to come true, it must be dreamed First
W> (you can say fantasized). Second researched. Third - Do.
W> I am not Doing until Research is on the issue could prove
W> achievable without any "real" problems.
These last few days you've commited to making an ethernet card, an IDE
interface, a multitasking OS, a VR/3D GUI, several games, and a bunch
of C=1 applications. Just one of those projects is months of work, so
yes, I think you're just fantasizing. Have you actually produced *any-
thing* at all?
Martijn van Buul
>> Because that this is a Very Bad Idea (TM).
>
> Why? You can't make a statement like that without an explanation.
I already explained why. Too much relies on MAC addresses to be unique. ARP
relies on it. Many cable modems use it for authentication. rtadvd uses
it to generate IPv6 addresses.
MAC addresses are supposed to be unique. Making it programmable defies
that idea, and will only generate problems. People aren't capable of
reading documentation anyway.
Wildstar
in the future. (Does that say I will).
Note: One thing at a time.
The OS + VR/3D GUI is part of one project. That one indeed is a very
sophisticated project.
C=1 applications can be short period of time or a long period of time. The
list is of project. Keep in mind that some
requires certain requirements to be met. One, the OS has to be made for apps
for the OS to be built.
Meanwhile there are smaller projects set aside.
Also there is only three projects that besides "games" that are solidly
committed projects: the OS+VR/3D GUI, HTML/BBS+Webserver + client/user-end
software, and a Hardware dongle card.
The others are negotiable and are not absolutely the top of my priority list
at this moment. In some cases, if someone else makes a good project (like an
Ethernet card - which somebody already did) and they intend to mass produce
it.
The terms of anti-competitive terms could be negotiated for a given period
of time say 2-3 years. Though in such terms, research on projects that can
be competitive are not confine to the terms, just producing to market.
"MagerValp" <Mage...@cling.gu.se> wrote in message
news:p14bs7v...@panini.cling.gu.se...
Wildstar
00-80-10-33-DD-AB as far as computers are concern. Note: I made these
particular numbers up but could be numbers of actual C= ethernet adapters
but I am not sure.
There can be 16 Million uniques codes for vendor code 00-80-10-xx-xx-xx.
(Where xx-xx-xx is the unique card ID). I am quite sure C= didn't produce
that many devices using MAC.
"Martijn van Buul" <pie...@c64.org> wrote in message
news:slrnam9mi5....@mud.stack.nl...
BlackJack
>>>>>> "W" == Wildstar <wilds...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> These last few days you've commited to making an ethernet card, an IDE
> interface, a multitasking OS, a VR/3D GUI, several games, and a bunch of
> C=1 applications. Just one of those projects is months of work, so yes,
> I think you're just fantasizing. Have you actually produced *any- thing*
> at all?
Give him a little time. When he finally has gained some knowledge about
VisualBasic he'll prove to be a worthy successor of Joseph Rose ;-)
(and maybe even learns how to qoute)
SCNR,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
J. Robertson
wrote:
Hi Blackjack,
>Give him a little time. When he finally has gained some knowledge about
>VisualBasic he'll prove to be a worthy successor of Joseph Rose ;-)
Heh, Rose = "I could create..." ;-)
Jason
--
E-mail #1: jkr[at]westol.com
E-mail #2: jk...@juno.com
(Use E-mail #1 for a quicker response.)
Web site : http://www.westol.com/~jkr/
--
Wildstar
BTW: I had written some stuff for Visual BASIC.
The projects that I had noted here are not for Visual BASIC.
First off, why post VB code here ??? As a matter of fact, I know about
TrueView and about the ActiveX and the ADO blah,blah,blah...
I'll post a demo presentation of a VB program on a website sometime late
next summer after it suprise all those people who are taking Microcomputer
Programming classes. Just relax.
For C= stuff, it isn't like we have to Absolutely Positively have all the
projects done today. Kind of sounds like the city of Astoria here in Oregon,
USA. So hey, support of any new computer that does come to being would
likely be supported for 10-15 maybe 20 years or more. CommodoreOne is likely
to gain the continued support of Commodore users who buy them for as long as
they want to. For that sake, you are going to have loyal users.
Ones who would continue to keep it, like they did the C64/128.
"J. Robertson" <jk...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:idiamu02tl6mckhgt...@4ax.com...
MagerValp
W> For C= stuff, it isn't like we have to Absolutely Positively have
W> all the projects done today.
No, but talking less and doing more would help. What you do is
infinitely more interesting than what you imagine you could do.
And learn how to quote.
Wildstar
MV="MagerValp" <Mage...@cling.gu.se> wrote in message
news:p147kih...@panini.cling.gu.se...
MV= No, but talking less and doing more would help. What you do is
infinitely more interesting than what you imagine you could do.
And learn how to quote.
WS= How's this quote format, Now if your last name started with "S" then I
might be hesitant on putting that second
letter. Yes, doing more is infidentely more interesting.
BlackJack
Why don't you just quote "normal"!? Delete quoted text that isn't
neccesary to understand your answer and put your text *below* the quoted
part. It's much easier to read and not that hard to do.
Your fullquotes with just some lines of text *above* the quoted
stuff are quite annoying.
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Wildstar
"BlackJack" <blac...@civitas64.de> wrote in message
news:ak63ib$1fv4mq$1...@fu-berlin.de...
> Why don't you just quote "normal"!? Delete quoted text that isn't
> neccesary to understand your answer and put your text *below* the quoted
To Black Jack et all,
about quotes....
I done that and got complaints. I used as many methods as possible. No one
method pleases everyone.
In your message, I might as well not quote it since its so short.
Certainly why should we need to quote at all ??? So people who haven't been
following the thread, can
understand what is being said. Then others would say, why do they need to
know. If they want to figure something out they could just simply ask a
question on something or just simply read the old postings.
Oh, well... Either we all stick with one standard of quoting or don't quote
period. (Thats the hard part, if I quote, one method I get complaints, if I
quote another method then I get complaints, if I don't quote then people ask
me a bunch of questions about what am I refering to on top of that,
complaints that I don't quote).
Yes, some messages I don't snip because they are short. Even your message
Black Jack is so short, that I really shouldn't quote or quote it all.
There are times when one message has as many as 5 or more different aspects
to answer to. Sometimes its the whole d*** message that I am referencing.
Aspect by aspect. So should I bother to quote it or not. Sometimes is just
as easy to quote it because that is part of the default configuration of the
email reader (online or offline) and by default it quotes and quotes it all.
Yes my messages can be long. I think it isn't the quotes because, I append
it to the end and why would you read pass the end of my message. In many
cases in the past, I end it with a line of dashes.
If you had a nice program that can snip at the dotted line then great.
Sam Gillett
Wildstar wrote ...
>There are times when one message has as many as 5 or more different
>aspects to answer to. Sometimes its the whole d*** message that I am
>referencing. Aspect by aspect. So should I bother to quote it or not.
>Sometimes is just as easy to quote it because that is part of the default
>configuration of the email reader (online or offline) and by default it
>quotes and quotes it all.
Simply highlight the quoted portions that are not needed to make your reply
clear. Then touch the delete key.
>Yes my messages can be long. I think it isn't the quotes because, I append
>it to the end and why would you read pass the end of my message. In many
>cases in the past, I end it with a line of dashes.
If you have time to type a long message, then you also have time to edit it
a little before posting it.
>If you had a nice program that can snip at the dotted line then great.
Don't blame the newsreader. You are using a later version of the same one
that I use. Microsoft has done some stupid things in the past... but
surely even they would not remove the ability to edit messages before
sending from their newsreader!
P.S. Don't top post. That gets a lot of people in this group hacked off.
(Top posting is placing your reply _over_ the quoted text rather than
_below_ it, where it belongs according to Usenet protocol. Remember,
Usenet, or for that matter Fidonet, protocol is _not_ the same as accepted
protocol for corporate email.)
Regards,
Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area. Commodore lives!
Wildstar
"Sam Gillett" <samgi...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ixD99.5162$3V5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Simply highlight the quoted portions that are not needed to make your
reply
> clear. Then touch the delete key.
<<< Snip >>>
> Don't blame the newsreader. You are using a later version of the same one
<<< Snip >>>
> P.S. Don't top post. That gets a lot of people in this group hacked off.
> (Top posting is placing your reply _over_ the quoted text rather than
> _below_ it, where it belongs according to Usenet protocol. Remember,
> Usenet, or for that matter Fidonet, protocol is _not_ the same as accepted
> protocol for corporate email.)
>
By the way you do read the <<< Snip >>> (That identifies that I snipped a
section - Is that another violation here)
Ok, not even my newsreader snips at the dotted line but maybe it does. That
was a thought not that any newsreader has that feature. Of course my message
is below. I don't have control if it puts some message at top like
"My Name"<myemail(AT)host.com> wrote in message news:bunch of
numbers,letters,symbols(AT)nwrddc02.gnilink.net. Fot this strange sake,
don't click on the highlighted blue link (it don't work and it shouldn't)
Martijn van Buul
> period.
Coming from someone who keeps refusing to "go by the rules", that's a very
strange sentence.
Wildstar
Martijn van Buul wrote:
>
> Coming from someone who keeps refusing to "go by the rules", that's a very
> strange sentence.
He**, this time I take out the <<< Snip >>> but still snip the message. Yet
the part
I snip is the signature.
Ok, I this better. I see people use 2-3 methods here so what "single" method
?
By the way, I tend to do that with Microsoft all the time. I never keep to
there method unless
it suits well with the program. Anyway, who cares... I used several methods
here, but which one.
Everyone, seems to get complaints. By the way, I didn't get some fancy page
telling me the "rules".
Kelli Halliburton
news:ixD99.5162$3V5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> P.S. Don't top post. That gets a lot of people in this group hacked off.
> (Top posting is placing your reply _over_ the quoted text rather than
> _below_ it, where it belongs according to Usenet protocol. Remember,
> Usenet, or for that matter Fidonet, protocol is _not_ the same as accepted
> protocol for corporate email.)
I found an excellent illustration of the confusion created by top-posting;
it goes something like this:
Q: Because it reverses the usual way we read information.
A: Why is top-posting considered bad?
BlackJack
> "Sam Gillett" <samgi...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ixD99.5162$3V5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > [...]
>
> [...]
>
> That was a thought not that any newsreader has that feature. Of course
> my message is below. I don't have control if it puts some message at top
> like "My Name"<myemail(AT)host.com> wrote in message news:bunch of
> numbers,letters,symbols(AT)nwrddc02.gnilink.net. Fot this strange sake,
> don't click on the highlighted blue link (it don't work and it
> shouldn't)
If you are talking about the "news:..." text then it works for me. Why
shouldn't it work? And I can't imagine that Outlook Express doesn't let
you customize this text.
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
BlackJack
> "BlackJack" <blac...@civitas64.de> wrote in message
> news:ak63ib$1fv4mq$1...@fu-berlin.de...
>> Why don't you just quote "normal"!? Delete quoted text that isn't
>> neccesary to understand your answer and put your text *below* the
>> quoted
>
> [...]
>
> I done that and got complaints. I used as many methods as possible. No
> one method pleases everyone.
But it's possible to please most of the readers. It simply makes your
message and the whole thread easier to read and understand.
> In your message, I might as well not quote it since its so short.
But then your sentence "I done that..." doesn't make sense without knowing
my previous posting. It's not about how long it is, it's about importance
for understanding the answer.
> Certainly why should we need to quote at all ??? So people who haven't
> been following the thread, can
> understand what is being said. Then others would say, why do they need
> to know. If they want to figure something out they could just simply ask
> a question on something or just simply read the old postings.
It's easier to follow a thread if you have both - the original text and
the reply. In threads with more then 2 or 3 posters it would become
difficult to tell which posting you are answering without quoted text. And
usenet is sometimes a little bit unreliable and messages are dropped on
some servers. With quotes it's possible to follow the discussion even if a
posting got lost.
And it helps when using a search engine if the question and the answer you
are searching for are in one message.
> There are times when one message has as many as 5 or more different
> aspects to answer to. Sometimes its the whole d*** message that I am
> referencing. Aspect by aspect. So should I bother to quote it or not.
> Sometimes is just as easy to quote it because that is part of the
> default configuration of the email reader (online or offline) and by
> default it quotes and quotes it all.
In other words it offers you the complete quoted text to go through it and
answer it aspect for aspect, each of your thoughts directly after the
relevant text of the quoted message, and delete the unneccesary stuff you
don't reference. Right?
> Yes my messages can be long. I
> think it isn't the quotes because, I append it to the end and why would
> you read pass the end of my message.
Because it happened to me at least twice that I haven't noticed your very
short message above the quoted text and scrolled to the end expecting to
find the reply there as it's common practise to reply *below* the
quotet text.
> In many cases in the past, I end it
> with a line of dashes.
>
> If you had a nice program that can snip at the dotted line then great.
While possible I fail to see why someone should hack something like this
into a newsreader just for your messages!?
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
BlackJack
> By the way, I didn't get some fancy
> page telling me the "rules".
Try "usenet quoting" on google.
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Wildstar
>
> If you are talking about the "news:..." text then it works for me. Why
> shouldn't it work? And I can't imagine that Outlook Express doesn't let
Because I wasn't trying to put a real link like
news:ak8158$1gqpg1$1...@fu-berlin.de...
which I believe would lead you to your message. I was trying to simply put a
fake address
because notice my link in the last message I posted, I used (AT) not @ to
signify a link but for a stranger
sake it only highlighted news:bunch on your return message. (Don't click on
that last one) The link is active but there is no newsgroup called bunch. I
tested that. So that is what I meant in don't work and it shouldn't. So take
my word
for it, do not click the link.
The newsreader automatically highlights news:what...@wherever.com (Again
don't click this link either.)
This I don't know where it would lead you to so its best not to click it.
Wildstar
"Kelli Halliburton" <kell...@crosswinds.not> wrote in message
news:AKP99.531
> I found an excellent illustration of the confusion created by top-posting;
> it goes something like this:
>
> Q: Because it reverses the usual way we read information.
> A: Why is top-posting considered bad?
Sure, if its a question, I bet you would do it like so
OS (Original Sender):
RS (Responding Sender):
OS: Why is posting consider bad ?
RS: Because it reverses the usual way we read information ?
Great point,on responding to questions: My example would be better for the
most part where Q&A wouldn't.
So it depends on the message.
So if a user formats it like my example, why complain. Make sure if your
using QA format. Answer always follows the Question. I happen to did that in
the past in all my messages but I got complaints. So what format are we
going to have that all of you can stop complaining on the quote method.
Wildstar
BlackJack: But it's possible to please most of the readers. It simply
makes your
message and the whole thread easier to read and understand.
But then your sentence "I done that..." doesn't make sense without knowing
my previous posting. It's not about how long it is, it's about importance
for understanding the answer.
<<< Snip >>>
In this case I'll snip most of the messages. So why not format it more like
a Interview like the below.
BJ=Black Jack
WS=Wildstar
BJ: But it's possible to please most of the readers....
WS: Sure I can please most. So is this format exceptable to read if I keep
track of who I am responding to and
put an initial or some identification method. Like I did. Adjust according
to the method. I must keep in mind who's initial is who. Plus make identity.
So if Matthew Montchalin wrote a message, he would get something like MM.
In case of multiple Readers with same initials then perhaps I can go with
Handle.
I usually don't respond to 3 people in on thread in one message. If that the
case, I'll say heck with quoting.
I'll use a different method.
Sam Gillett
Wildstar wrote ...
>By the way you do read the <<< Snip >>> (That identifies that I snipped a
>section - Is that another violation here)
As far as I know, placing something like <snip> or [snip] where you deleted
part of the quoted text is optional. If it helps make your message clearer
to the reader, then by all means use it. If a [snip] adds nothing to your
message, then don't bother. It is just extra typing.
>Ok, not even my newsreader snips at the dotted line but maybe it does.
>That was a thought not that any newsreader has that feature. Of course my
>message is below. I don't have control if it puts some message at top like
>"My Name"<myemail(AT)host.com> wrote in message news:bunch of
>numbers,letters,symbols(AT)nwrddc02.gnilink.net. Fot this strange sake,
>don't click on the highlighted blue link (it don't work and it shouldn't)
You can edit that. (Or else your copy of Outlook Express is broken!)
Whether or not you do is entirely optional.
I don't think anyone expects everyone to follow a firm and rigid set of
rules. I believe what is expected, is that everyone should at least
loosely observe the protocol which has been established by other users of
the group over the years.
Does this sound a little more reasonable?
Best regards,
Wildstar
"Sam Gillett" <samgi...@msn.com> wrote:
<<< Snip >>>
> I don't think anyone expects everyone to follow a firm and rigid set of
> rules. I believe what is expected, is that everyone should at least
> loosely observe the protocol which has been established by other users of
> the group over the years.
>
> Does this sound a little more reasonable?
Sure... Is this message follow the general standard and acceptable ??
I hate being stuck to a firm and rigid set of rules. I must be sort of the
free eagle. I do what I feel. If I'm handcuffed to a rigid set of rules
I tend to be a tid bit a rebel. ;-)
I do still perfer to make my writing easier and would accept any method
that would make it easier to read even for myself. ( So you don't think I'm
that much of an ***hole and never attempt to make my writing easier, unless
provoked to do so. ;-P )
Sam Gillett
>"Sam Gillett" <samgi...@msn.com> wrote:
>> I don't think anyone expects everyone to follow a firm and rigid set of
>> rules. I believe what is expected, is that everyone should at least
>> loosely observe the protocol which has been established by other users
>> of the group over the years.
>>
>> Does this sound a little more reasonable?
>
>Sure... Is this message follow the general standard and acceptable ??
>I hate being stuck to a firm and rigid set of rules. I must be sort of the
>free eagle. I do what I feel. If I'm handcuffed to a rigid set of rules
>I tend to be a tid bit a rebel. ;-)
Yes. That message looked fine. Sometimes it takes a little more effort to
format an outgoing message for the reader, but it can be done. The idea is
to make the message easier for the reader to follow, remembering that
hunderds of people will read the message.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this is an international newsgroup.
Many people in this group do not use English as a primary language. I'm
afraid that I use words at times that will be difficult to translate. Or
that will not carry the intended meaning when translated.
And for that, I apologize to those affected.
Wildstar
> Yes. That message looked fine. Sometimes it takes a little more effort
to
> format an outgoing message for the reader, but it can be done. The idea
is
> to make the message easier for the reader to follow, remembering that
> hunderds of people will read the message.
>
> Another thing to keep in mind is that this is an international newsgroup.
<<< Snip >>>
Yep, I agree. This being international, some of the long words don't
translate well.
Especially with the translator program. Since I didn't make the translator
programs.
I can not be completely liable on how the words translate. That is perhaps
the limitations
of the translator program. I seen a few translators that take Dutch/German
to English.
The online ones can be more limiting on what it can do, like grammer
reconstruction.
Like some words are flipped around in languages like French or German from
English.
It would help if the translator recontructs the sentence for better
readibility at both ends.
So its probably best to not go into technical information unless the
individual can understand your language
well, or you understand theirs well.
BlackJack
> [...] So why not format it more
> like a Interview like the below.
>
> BJ=Black Jack
> WS=Wildstar
>
> BJ: But it's possible to please most of the readers....
>
> WS: Sure I can please most. So is this format exceptable to read if I
> keep track of who I am responding to and put an initial or some
> identification method. Like I did. Adjust according to the method. I
> must keep in mind who's initial is who. Plus make identity. So if
> Matthew Montchalin wrote a message, he would get something like MM.
Oh my...
First off all two character initials can be ambiguous. And what do you do
if it's neccesary to quote text of your previous post again? Why the heck
can't you just use the "standard" way!? Your newsreader even helps you
with putting a '>' infront of the quoted lines. This way it's clear that
it's quoted text and even how "old" it is as the '>' are nested. And every
decent newsreader colors the quoted levels (or at least the quoted text as
a whole) to make it very easy to see who wrote what.
The "standard" is not a rigid set of rules with no purpose but some sound
guidelines to make the communication in usenet easier for all and to
avoid misunderstandings. Well IMHO at least.
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Wildstar
BlackJack wrote:
> BJ=Black Jack
> WS=Wildstar
>
> BJ: But it's possible to please most of the readers....
>
> WS: Sure I can please most. So is this format exceptable to read if I
> keep track of who I am responding to and put an initial or some
<<< Snip >>>
Oh my...
First off all two character initials can be ambiguous. And what do you do
if it's neccesary to quote text of your previous post again? Why the heck
can't you just use the "standard" way!? Your newsreader even helps you
<<< Snip >>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
I leave in the ">" on messages older message in the thread. I don't go back
more then two threads
in posting. Otherwise, I would write something like, I wrote a few threads
back..... (If they want to
find that message and think its that important then they can go through the
thread. If it goes back so far
that it expired then why. Its probably recorded somewhere in ancient
archives.
So the idea is, I wouldn't requote my old quotes unless its part of what you
quoted. As you see, I don't usually keep my quotations unless its important.
Quoting back more then two message sessions ago is pretty much "bad
practice". I am good enough in english that I should be able to requote
myself without ">>" being necassary."
If I was to have my last response in then I would remove the ">" from your
message and remove one of the two ">" from my message like I did here. You
can see it gets ugly, but I can try to format it. If this newsgroups support
HTML. I can then color code it, but that won't make everyone happy would it
??
Notice the dashes can help in separating content, if it works with your eye.
Mostly the dash was used so people can quicky separate two ambiguously yet
contigous text. I do that when that occurs. I try not to use one specific
method. Change methods depending on the situation. I rather not post my old
text. I rather have the unknowing user simply just read the old text by just
simply selecting the older message in the thread.
Sam Gillett
Wildstar wrote ...
>So its probably best to not go into technical information unless the
>individual can understand your language
>well, or you understand theirs well.
You are correct in guessing that some of the European users have no problem
with English. Several of the German and Dutch users have a better grasp of
English grammar than some Americans, Canadians, Britons, etc. Most that do
have difficulty with English seem to have more difficulty writing it than
reading it.
Wildstar
Sam Gillett wrote
> You are correct in guessing that some of the European users have no
problem
> with English. Several of the German and Dutch users have a better grasp
of
> English grammar than some Americans, Canadians, Britons, etc. Most that
do
> have difficulty with English seem to have more difficulty writing it than
> reading it.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. I hope you know that I am not writing
formal english.
I am just simply stating thoughts. I could write in formal english but then
I sound more
like an instructor in a college, and less conversational. Oh, by the way we
been off topic
for awhile.
I'll consider what has been said.
Nele Abels
>
> BlackJack wrote:
>
> > BJ=Black Jack
> > WS=Wildstar
> >
> > BJ: But it's possible to please most of the readers....
> >
> > WS: Sure I can please most. So is this format exceptable to read if I
> > keep track of who I am responding to and put an initial or some
> <<< Snip >>>
> Oh my...
>
> First off all two character initials can be ambiguous. And what do you do
> if it's neccesary to quote text of your previous post again? Why the heck
> can't you just use the "standard" way!? Your newsreader even helps you
> <<< Snip >>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------
>
> I leave in the ">" on messages older message in the thread. I don't go back
> more then two threads
Your post is completely unreadable for me... At least as long as I don't take
the trouble to decipher your quoting method of the day.
What the heck is wrong with the ">>>" standard??
Nele
--
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' -
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.
Wildstar
"Nele Abels" <nele....@t-online.de> wrote:
> Your post is completely unreadable for me... At least as long as I don't
take
> the trouble to decipher your quoting method of the day.
>
> What the heck is wrong with the ">>>" standard??
I was expecting that answer from that post. I was showing different message.
Is this message easier to read. ?
I was noting also flaws in many methods depending on the use. I rather not
quote, period. Then I will get a complaint for not quoting at all.
As a matter of fact, I won't re-quote my old messages unless I am directly
responding to a part of my message. I only do that for correction purposes
or extending a thought further that came to my mind after I sent the message
out.