X-No-Archive: Yes Hmm, normally I wouldn't respond to a message like this, but since I suspect a cultural divide I figured I'd make an exception. Most of what I'm about to write is more of a clarification attempt than anything else. I don't intend to respond again, but I will of course read anything you wish to say, at least in response to this post. But I won't likely be responding to that; if you're still offended, then there will be nothing I can do about it IMO.
I need to preface also with a confusion point: The thread is basically about sending someone an e-mail with an unannounced file format attachment which the recipient cannot read. If you consider the subject to have changed, then you really should have started a new thread for it. The original thread opened with: --------------- I use and prefer Openoffice.Org . Its an excellent program. However my correspondents use only MS Word and the command open with , does not work. How do we get around this problem ??? Regards Ron -------------- to which your response was a short tirade against MS followed by a proper recommendation to save as doc or rtf formats, again followed by your slide show link. From there on there was a slide sideways of several posts, some comedic, some based in reality, and finally we end up here with my response to your last post. If what you prefer is to actually have a debate, then simply saying so would likely draw some takers for you to choose from. Personally the only part of anything so far I see as debatable is the nuances and small details such as recipient's knowledge or not of the forthcoming unreadable attachment and related issues. The gist of the original query has quickly become lost. I believe in netiquette and that's why in my opinion your portion of the thread should have been a completely new post with its own title and an obvious intention to debate. But instead, the OP has been left with a long and tedious thread that has nothing to do with his query and to which he has never responded whether any of the responses satisfactorily solved his issue. M. Fioretti wrote: > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 16:31:55 PM -0400, Twayne wrote: > >> Off base: Recommendation was, The Sender doing the accomodating is >> exactly the opposite: Sending files in formats the other end CAN >> read. > > I had understood that very clearly, thank you. And I confirm that this > is a bad habit, in this case. There is a decades-old principle in > programming about this: "Be strict in what you send, but generous in > what you receive" > > Sending out files in proprietary formats (whether it happens by email > or publishing them on websites is irrelevant) is always bad period. > It only perpetuates the huge cultural problems and huge wastes of > money documented here: > > http://mfioretti.com/how-file-formats-can-be-used-favor-or-hamper-innovation-active-citizenship-and-really-free-markets > > (and if you continue to not bother to read references, please just > leave this thread now, if you want to maintain some credibility) > > The fact that very often, today, there still is no viable alternative > in many cases doesn't change the fact that sending out proprietary > formats is bad. It's still an unavoidable, necessary evil, but evil it > is. That's why I've been recommending for years that the only way to > go is to demand mandatory usage of ODF by Public Administrations. > > I as a private citizen have very little power, but if it becomes a law > that, at least in certain cases, closed formats can't be used, things > will go much better, much more quickly. > >> Nonsense. When I communicate with more than one person it's much >> better for ME to make the accomodations for THEM, period, in any >> case I can imagine or have ever come across. > > I see. So if I now told you that I very much prefer to receive email > encoded in EBCDIC format, you'd attach to each reply an EBCDIC > version, right? That's smart, indeed. > > From Merriam-Webster online: > > Communication... a process by which information is exchanged between > individuals through a COMMON system of symbols, signs, or behavior > > In any field, the less (open, of course) formats and protocols there > are, the more efficient communication becomes. > >> 1. A practical person wishing to keep good communications/ >> relationships will never push a new program or new technology on any >> other group. > > First of all, I did acknowledge from my first messages that there are > many cases where one is still forced to be "practical", as you call > it. I just added that in this case it's nothing to be happy about. I > hope I don't have to repeat it anymore. Above all, I only spoke of > file formats, not of programs or technology. If the difference isn't > clear, maybe you shouldn't engage in certain conversations, not with > this attitude anyway. > >> 2. Whoever told you the SUN ODF plug in will only work in the >> "newest" version lied to you, you misunderstood them, or they >> mis-spoke. > > that depends on how one defines "newest". I specifically mentioned > that many correspondants of that officer are stuck for whatever reason > to Office 97. > >> 3. I cannot help that your contacts are the "oldest" versions. > > I didn't say that _my_ contacts are the "oldest" version. Please read > messages more carefully before replying. > >> YOU should be accommodating THEM and as a sidelight educating them >> about the possibilities of OO.o, NOT trying to force it on them. > > I never force OO.o on anybody. Please read messages more carefully > before replying. I want the _universal_ adoption of ODF, not OO.o. And > if the difference isn't clear, maybe you shouldn't engage in > certain conversations, not with this attitude anyway. > > Marco Fioretti > http://mfioretti.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
