FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-14-2011, 04:31 PM
Tero Pesonen
 
Default

On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 17:37 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 05:22 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> > You said saving bandwith was the entire justification for plain text; it
> > is not the justification for me, as my earlier reply explained. Nor is
> > to other users whom I know to prefer plaintext. So in case yours was
> > meant to be a universal statement, let me opine that that no, bandwith
> > restrictions are not the only justified reason to send plaintext.
>
> I can't tell if this is the straw man playing with fire or if this is
> just plain trolling either way, just because I state it's the
> justification means it's obviously about /only me/?

OK, sorry. Obviously when oy wrote that the entire justification for
plaintext is bandwith restrictions, you of course meant that this is the
universal truth and not just your case. Well, as I said in my earlier
message, no, it is not the sole justification for plaintext and that
yes, there are other reasons as well for preferring plaintext. For me,
for instance, bandwith plays no role what so ever.

So there you go. It is not the entire justification. It may be one
justification.

OK? Is this difficult? I hope not.

Tero


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-14-2011, 04:43 PM
Tero Pesonen
 
Default

On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 19:51 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 17:37 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> > On 08/13/2011 05:22 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> > > You said saving bandwith was the entire justification for plain text; it
> > > is not the justification for me, as my earlier reply explained. Nor is
> > > to other users whom I know to prefer plaintext. So in case yours was
> > > meant to be a universal statement, let me opine that that no, bandwith
> > > restrictions are not the only justified reason to send plaintext.
> >
> > I can't tell if this is the straw man playing with fire or if this is
> > just plain trolling either way, just because I state it's the
> > justification means it's obviously about /only me/?
>
> Heh, you can't win, Jordon, when the subject line of this thread started
> off empty. <chuckles> Tero, since Unix has been around since the dawn of
> time, old geeks are used to using plain text and for eons bandwidth has
> been a consideration.

Where does it state that? I am in favour of rejecting HTML here, but the
list code of conduct has opted not to do so. Nor did the sign up page
that I used do so. Or mention anything about top/bottom posting for that
matter.

And the whole thread originated from someone having posted a multipart
message with plaintext and HTML portions, as is common now, which I
commendted was OK, since that message did not force HTML on the receiver
by having also the plaintext part.

> So, as this list notes on the sign-up page, plain text is what is used
> here. So is bottom posting (or middle post) and trim. So, it is what
> it is, the list preference. No pink unicorns with sparklies allowed.
> Plus, a person can readily print out the summation (FIXED!) of the
> back and forth email exchange to a resolution in a case, for
> reference. On just about any printer, including a Teletype 33 or a
> Qume.
>
> Now you know, sin no more, you are absolved. And welcome to the list.

I welcome the absolution. But of which sin (breaking a list rule
perchance?) in particular was I absolved? I don't want to re-sin.

Thanks,
Tero


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-14-2011, 04:50 PM
Jordon Bedwell
 
Default

On 08/14/2011 11:31 AM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 17:37 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> OK, sorry. Obviously when oy wrote that the entire justification for
> plaintext is bandwith restrictions, you of course meant that this is the
> universal truth and not just your case. Well, as I said in my earlier
> message, no, it is not the sole justification for plaintext and that
> yes, there are other reasons as well for preferring plaintext. For me,
> for instance, bandwith plays no role what so ever.
>
> So there you go. It is not the entire justification. It may be one
> justification.
>
> OK? Is this difficult? I hope not.

And is it difficult for you to realise it's not just about /you/?

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-14-2011, 04:52 PM
Jordon Bedwell
 
Default

On 08/14/2011 11:43 AM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
>> Heh, you can't win, Jordon, when the subject line of this thread started
>> off empty. <chuckles> Tero, since Unix has been around since the dawn of
>> time, old geeks are used to using plain text and for eons bandwidth has
>> been a consideration.
>
> Where does it state that? I am in favour of rejecting HTML here, but the
> list code of conduct has opted not to do so. Nor did the sign up page
> that I used do so. Or mention anything about top/bottom posting for that
> matter.

It's official, you are the straw man. Also:

"Avoid sending emails in HTML format, if possible. Some people may find
it more difficult to read or reply to these emails. Also, HTML email
takes up more space, so people with restricted Internet access will be
happier to receive plain text emails." <
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists enough with your
trolling straw man.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-14-2011, 05:12 PM
Tero Pesonen
 
Default

On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 11:50 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On 08/14/2011 11:31 AM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 17:37 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> > OK, sorry. Obviously when oy wrote that the entire justification for
> > plaintext is bandwith restrictions, you of course meant that this is the
> > universal truth and not just your case. Well, as I said in my earlier
> > message, no, it is not the sole justification for plaintext and that
> > yes, there are other reasons as well for preferring plaintext. For me,
> > for instance, bandwith plays no role what so ever.
> >
> > So there you go. It is not the entire justification. It may be one
> > justification.
> >
> > OK? Is this difficult? I hope not.
>
> And is it difficult for you to realise it's not just about /you/?

Oh, here we go again...

Wasn't the entire point of my original comment that by opting to send
BOTH html and plaintext that person had respected *everyone's*
preferences, not just his or mine or yours, and without breaking list
rules, which, as far as I am aware, nowhere say anything about HTML or
plaintext? IF they do then I DO apologize. But please, direct me towards
those rules, then, because I have not seen them. They are not on the
sign-up page, nor in the code of conduct. I am in favour of letting the
receiver choose when nothing more specific is dictated, as was the case
here according to my best knowledge. He let that happen and I said that
was a good thing.

Then you go an say that no, it is not a good thing because HTML consumes
bandwith and that is the *sole* reason for preferring plaintext. I go an
say, no it is not.

Come on. Why do you need to try and make me look selfish and stupid?



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-14-2011, 05:16 PM
Tero Pesonen
 
Default

On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 11:52 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On 08/14/2011 11:43 AM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> >> Heh, you can't win, Jordon, when the subject line of this thread started
> >> off empty. <chuckles> Tero, since Unix has been around since the dawn of
> >> time, old geeks are used to using plain text and for eons bandwidth has
> >> been a consideration.
> >
> > Where does it state that? I am in favour of rejecting HTML here, but the
> > list code of conduct has opted not to do so. Nor did the sign up page
> > that I used do so. Or mention anything about top/bottom posting for that
> > matter.
>
> It's official, you are the straw man. Also:
>
> "Avoid sending emails in HTML format, if possible. Some people may find
> it more difficult to read or reply to these emails. Also, HTML email
> takes up more space, so people with restricted Internet access will be
> happier to receive plain text emails." <
> http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists enough with your
> trolling straw man.

I have not been aware of those rules. I have only been aware of the code
of conduct linked on the list signup page which I used. And had you not
provided that link, I would never have come across it either, since I
would not have known to look for one (since I have already read and
accepted one set of rules).

So, I apologize to you for not having known these rules. But may I also
suggest that the list rules are linked on the list signup page so that
they are actually found and read.



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-14-2011, 05:33 PM
Jordon Bedwell
 
Default

On 08/14/2011 12:12 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> Come on. Why do you need to try and make me look selfish and stupid?

Right, I'm not trying to make you look stupid, if I thought you were
stupid I would come out and say it. I don't know how somebody gathers
being implied as stupid from that statement anyhow, but there you have
it. On the previous subject I was just returning your favour in a more
blunt way

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-14-2011, 05:36 PM
Walter Hurry
 
Default

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:28:27 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:

> Adblock - leave the ads on the server where they belong. Unless they pay
> me to view their advertising they can just go and try reproduce with
> themselves.

Just to comment on a possible alternative approach:

I don't need any Firefox plugins to block unwanted advertising; I just
use a hosts file. I download the one from <http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/
hosts.zip> nightly, use dos2unix on it, and then merge it with my 'stub'
hosts file. Works very well indeed.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: j2912j$uud$1@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/j2912j$uud$1@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 08-14-2011, 06:06 PM
Scott Ferguson
 
Default

On 15/08/11 03:36, Walter Hurry wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:28:27 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:


Adblock - leave the ads on the server where they belong. Unless they pay
me to view their advertising they can just go and try reproduce with
themselves.


Just to comment on a possible alternative approach:

I don't need any Firefox plugins to block unwanted advertising; I just
use a hosts file. I download the one from<http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/
hosts.zip> nightly, use dos2unix on it, and then merge it with my 'stub'
hosts file. Works very well indeed.



:-) Sometimes referred to as the APK approach (a famous troll) who
devoted his life to promoting the hosts file as a cure for everything -
more than just a filter - it's a firewall - it's an antivirus - it stops
spyware, fixes your car, and makes you look thin! Last I heard *his*
hosts files were around the 12MB mark!
Hosts files work fine I guess (they certainly keep you busy!) - though
they lack the fine grain control (wildcards, selected fileextensions,
regular expressions) of AdBlock Plus, protection against cross-site
scripting, element hiding, the ability to block flash and java elements
- and the reporting ability. And it's easy to write new extensions for it.
You could probably import the basis of a host block list from an AdBlock
subscription.
NoScript combined with AdBlock (they're both in the repositories) allow
you to remove the mouse-overs and the embedded (javascript writen) ads
as well. Host files will only remove some ads, and they can't do squat
about floating divs or javascript document writes.
I haven't seen any ads in some years - it's always a wake up when I see
other peoples screens. :-(
I prefer to keep my hosts files as small, simple static DNS lists. But
another weapon against unwanted ads is a good thing. I certainly used
them for many years to block sites ads - I still use them to stop people
from loading sites the networks have banned (saves the
desktop/network/firewall department wars). It's a constant war of
escalation between Adblock and the advertisers - the outcome is certain,
so I'm just going to enjoy it while I can.


Cheers

--
“We gotta come to some new ideas about life folks ok? I'm not being
blase about abortion, it might be a real issue, it might not, doesn't
matter to me. What matters is that if you believe in the sanctity of
life then you believe it for life of all ages. That's what I hate about
this child-worship syndrome going on. "Save the children! They're
killing children! How many children were at Waco? They're killing
children!" What does that mean? They reach a certain age and they're off
your [beep] love-list? [beep] your children, if that's the way you think
then [beep] you too. You either love all people of all ages or you shut
the [beep] up.”

~ Bill Hicks


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4E480EB8.4090103@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4E480EB8.4090103@gmail.com
 
Old 08-14-2011, 06:08 PM
Scott Ferguson
 
Default

On 15/08/11 03:36, Walter Hurry wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:28:27 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:


Adblock - leave the ads on the server where they belong. Unless they pay
me to view their advertising they can just go and try reproduce with
themselves.


Just to comment on a possible alternative approach:

I don't need any Firefox plugins to block unwanted advertising; I just
use a hosts file. I download the one from<http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/
hosts.zip> nightly, use dos2unix on it, and then merge it with my 'stub'
hosts file. Works very well indeed.



:-) Sometimes referred to as the APK approach (a famous troll) who
devoted his life to promoting the hosts file as a cure for everything -
more than just a filter - it's a firewall - it's an antivirus - it stops
spyware, fixes your car, and makes you look thin! Last I heard *his*
hosts files were around the 12MB mark!
Hosts files work fine I guess (they certainly keep you busy!) - though
they lack the fine grain control (wildcards, selected fileextensions,
regular expressions) of AdBlock Plus, protection against cross-site
scripting, element hiding, the ability to block flash and java elements
- and the reporting ability. And it's easy to write new extensions for it.
You could probably import the basis of a host block list from an AdBlock
subscription.
NoScript combined with AdBlock (they're both in the repositories) allow
you to remove the mouse-overs and the embedded (javascript written) ads
as well. Host files will only remove some ads, and they can't do squat
about floating divs or javascript document writes.
I haven't seen any ads in some years - it's always a wake up when I see
other peoples screens. :-(
I prefer to keep my hosts files as small, simple static DNS lists. But
another weapon against unwanted ads is a good thing. I certainly used
them for many years to block sites ads - I still use them to stop people
from loading sites the networks have banned (saves the
desktop/network/firewall department wars). It's a constant war of
escalation between Adblock and the advertisers - the outcome is certain,
so I'm just going to enjoy it while I can - there may come a time when a
hosts file may be my only choice.


Cheers

--
“We gotta come to some new ideas about life folks ok? I'm not being
blase about abortion, it might be a real issue, it might not, doesn't
matter to me. What matters is that if you believe in the sanctity of
life then you believe it for life of all ages. That's what I hate about
this child-worship syndrome going on. "Save the children! They're
killing children! How many children were at Waco? They're killing
children!" What does that mean? They reach a certain age and they're off
your [beep] love-list? [beep] your children, if that's the way you think
then [beep] you too. You either love all people of all ages or you shut
the [beep] up.”

~ Bill Hicks


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4E480F2E.9070500@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4E480F2E.9070500@gmail.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:49 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org