Re: Usenet is not an ASCII network.

[Ulrich Eckhardt]

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> <blockquote cite="mid:elmr87-...@satorlaser.homedns.org" type="cite">
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <p>Please learn about Usenet, and about the <em>actual</em>
> distinction, between text and <em>binaries</em>, that it has.&nbsp; Then
> learn what the 'T' in "HTML" stands for.</p>
> </blockquote>
> <p>Usenet is the thing with the humans, as opposed to the one with
> the tubes, right? ;)</p>
> </blockquote>
> <p>Humans are capable of looking at hypertext and recognizing it as
> text.&nbsp;

Naja, dann kannst Du ja auch "google translator" benutzen um zu verstehen
was ich hier schreibe, oder? Klar kannst Du, aber es ist eine Zumutung.

> And there are large parts of Usenet dedicated to posts that aren't
> directly read by humans.&nbsp; So you might want to think harder about
> that question than you have.&nbsp; As I said: The actual distinction
> on Usenet is between text and binaries.<br>

...oder zwischen Leuten die verstehen was ein Smiley ist und denen die es
nicht tun?

> </p>
> <blockquote cite="mid:elmr87-...@satorlaser.homedns.org" type="cite">
> <p>Sorry, but I really don't understand [...]</p>
> </blockquote>
> <p>That's because you don't know enough about Usenet.&nbsp;

Ich poste seit >10 Jahren hier, ich glaube ich kenne mich recht gut mit der
Kultur hier.

> The distinction on Usenet is between <em>text</em> and <em>binaries</em>,
> with hyper<em>text</em> falling on the text side of that divide.&nbsp;

Sieh mal, genau das ist das wo meine Meinung eine andere ist. HT ist einfach
nicht nur Text, genauso koennte ich Dir irgendetwas base64-kodiertes
vorwerfen, das ist ja auch nur Text.

> One of the long-since-learned lessons of Usenet (and many other discussion
> networks), moreover, is that markup and metadata are necessary, with
> anything less being unreliable at best.&nbsp; This is, of course, one of
> the reasons that they were invented in the first place.&nbsp; <br> </p>

Du kannst Text sehr wohl formatieren ohne auf HTML zurueckzugreifen. Es gibt
da ein paar Gepflogenheiten z.B. fuer /kursiv/ oder *fett* gedruckte
Woerter, wie z.B. von vielen Wikis verwendet.

> <blockquote cite="mid:elmr87-...@satorlaser.homedns.org" type="cite">
> <p>Deliberately violating best practices isn't helpful, it will only
> get you ignored or flamed.</p>
> </blockquote>
> <p>So why then did you deliberately violate the best practice of moving
> a thread to the newsgroups where it is on-topic and out of the
> newsgroups where it isn't?&nbsp; Did you want to be ignored or flamed for
> being unhelpful to the people who subscribed to the newsgroups for
> discussions of reading Usenet expecting that such discussions would be
> found there?</p>

It's meta-topic and thus indeed belongs here. In any case, I have conducted
a websearch on you and found that it is completely useless arguing with
you, as others have found out the hard way before. You're boring and a
nuisance, i.e. best ignored.

Uli

[Phil Hibbs]

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> So why then did you deliberately violate the best practice
> of moving a thread to the newsgroups where it is on-topic

> and out of the newsgroups where it isn't?  Did you want to

> be ignored or flamed for being unhelpful to the people who
> subscribed to the newsgroups for discussions of reading
> Usenet expecting that such discussions would be found there?

I agree, but hey you're doing it as well! I nearly missed a couple of
replies to this post because of the name change (although that may be
Google's fault). Then again, the reply that I missed was no use to me
as it still was insisting that I don't want to do what I want to do.
Oh, it was you, oops.

Phil Hibbs.