X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f From: Mateusz Viste Subject: Re: DOSBox? Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp References: <59d767c6$0$9406$426a74cc AT news DOT free DOT fr> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAMFBMVEUAAAAXFxcoKCg3NzdISEh 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 User-Agent: Pan/0.141 (Tarzan's Death; 168b179 git.gnome.org/pan2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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