Re: looking for hardware source

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:23:04 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and David Brown <david.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> instead
replied:

Ray Haddad wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:34:01 PST, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and
mojaveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Everett M. Greene) instead
replied:

Ray Haddad <rhaddad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
CBFalconer <cbfalconer@xxxxxxxxx> instead replied:
Ray Haddad wrote:
David Kelly <n4hhe@xxxxxxxxx> replied:

Failure to reply in the proper format will cause many to ignore
one's reply. If you want a reply then you will reply in the
format expected by those who are capable of answering.
This is just plain silly. In the early days of USENET, before it
was even called that, the norm was top posting to reply leaving
the balance of the message for reference only. Period.
Ridiculous misinformation. Read the rfcs. Read the following:
An RFC is not a rule. Good grief. Is that all you've got?
Do you know how many RFCs must be obeyed for you to have
Internet service (including this net news you are using)?

Must be obeyed? Look, my friend. Compliance is voluntary. There is
no "must be obeyed" about it. An RFC is a Request For Comments and
nothing more.

Without following the RFC's, there would be no such thing as the
Internet, or anything else based on IP networking, since the RFC's form
the definitions of all these protocols. Some of them are more
user-level, such as the ones mentioned about newsgroup posts, but the
fact that you can post and read this group is down to your newsreader
and your newsserver obeying the appropriate RFC's.

A REQUEST FOR COMMENT is not a set of guidelines or rules. It is
just what it states. A request for you to comment or offer your
opinion. Do you understand that? Please tell me you do.

Comments can go into the realm of an undoable thing, you know. They
can also go counter to your precious opinion of how things should be
done. In short, they are worthless in the grand scheme of making
USENET work. Don't take this as a personal attack but pay attention
to what you declare as sovereign rule. There's no such thing in the
anarchistic world of USENET. The only thing it has going for it is
the VOLUNTARY compliance to suggestions and nothing more.

If you want rules, start a private forum. Otherwise, simply exist
here and allow others to exist as they see fit. In short, shut up.
--
Ray
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Petraeus report next month
    ... here is part of the Usenet section from the IETF's RFC ... the IETF RFC's are THE authority on all things internet. ... How does an Request For Comment become a guideline or standard? ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: The Dacrons do Florida! (in flash)
    ... RFC is a Request For Comments document which usually become the ... standards for Usenet and the Web in general. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Questions About Moderators and Spam
    ... it violates usenet RfCs such as RfC1036. ... How does Google Groups violate RFC 1036? ... By mungling headers, i.e. castrating From: and Reply-To: and by not honoring ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: New question about stock photos
    ... sufficient specificity to satisfy their exacting standards for usenet ... You asked for recommendations for good stock photo ... but that's what you *want* when you make a request like that. ... close enough I can fake it. ...
    (alt.graphics.photoshop)
  • Re: Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids
    ... RFC 1855 page 4, applied to newsgroups by section 3.0. ... As I've already stated, three people with many, many, years of USENET ... original text was set to 80 characters or over. ... But even quoting you to a single level the lines are above 80 chars. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
Loading