X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From:	Mateusz Viste <mateusz AT wont DOT tell>
Subject:	Re: DOSBox?
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References:	<or6bl4$pdo$1 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org> <xnshexxjpr DOT fsf AT delorie DOT com>
	<or7gpa$jti$1 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org> <59d767c6$0$9406$426a74cc AT news DOT free DOT fr>
	<or9k8d$b7j$2 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org>
Face:
	iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAMFBMVEUAAAAXFxcoKCg3NzdISEh
	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
User-Agent:	Pan/0.141 (Tarzan's Death; 168b179 git.gnome.org/pan2)
MIME-Version:	1.0
Date:	07 Oct 2017 06:44:39 GMT
Lines:	67
Message-ID:	<59d877d7$0$4816$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Organization:	Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date:	07 Oct 2017 08:44:39 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host:	82.64.0.151
X-Trace:	1507358679 news-2.free.fr 4816 82.64.0.151:65096
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT proxad DOT net
Bytes:	4806
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 00:14:17 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> At least, I'm not being hostile, inciting unnecessary arguments,
> responding off-topic, spamming the group, nor lying, as Dj did.  :)

This (DJ doing such things) I know nothing about. Surely I miss some 
historical context, but it's certainly unrelated to this topic.

> Where did I tell the OP something in a "harsh" way?  The question is why
> did you take it to be harsh?

Truth being, this all is not about your answer to the OP, but rather the 
overall escalation:

OP:   top posting (surely in good faith)

You (slightly harsh):
     "This is not a Google Group.  We bottom post on Usenet, as it's
      difficult to follow longer posts when top posted."

DJ (answers with an equal level of /slight/ harshness):
     "This is not a dictatorship.  We don't tell people how to compose
      messages."

You (harsh level+++):
   "Please don't attempt to tell any further lies by claiming that
    it's not, as you know full well that bottom posting to Usenet was
    standardized:"

>> The fact that Rugxulo obviously answered from outside of the Usenet
>> calls for an even higher dose of tolerance.
> 
> I'm confused by that.  Why?  He follows Usenet etiquette and standards.

I'm sorry, I blacked out for a moment (getting old and confused I guess - 
still I prefer that to getting old and ranty, even if the latter also 
does happen to me more often as time passes)
I meant "the OP", but my fingers typed "Rugxulo" because that's what my 
eyes were looking at somewhere above the thread.

>> 1. RFC are no standards, otherwise they wouldn't be called "RFCs" in
>> the first place
> 
> Please feel free to point out the Internet standards which are NOT
> titled as RFCs.  (I.e., there are none because RFCs are the standards.)

That's oversimplification I think. The fact that (nearly) every internet 
standard is based on an RFC doesn't mean that every RFC is a standard.

>> Even if the RFCs were any kind of golden rule that everyone has to
>> follow (which they are not!), this particular RFC makes itself optional
>> anyway.
>> 
> It's still the norm to bottom-post to Usenet groups.

It is the common thing to do, yes. But I still prefer seeing some 
occasional top-post rather than seeing the Usenet burning in flames :)

> Yes, exactly.  So, why don't you ask Dj to stop initiating such divisive
> conflict?  I simply informed the OP of the truth of the matter.  Dj
> wrongly took offense to that and incited an argument.

I stand by my point that in this very specific topic, the divisive 
conflict was initiated... by you, through unnecessary escalation of 
verbal violence. I really appeal to everyone here to keep the violence 
for the real world. It's so much more fun there than it is here.

Mateusz

- Raw text -