Hi there,
CA> My entire website is dedicated to support of legacy... The one
CA> person, who shall remain nameless, that is way over the top has
CA> personal problems I will not put on display here for ridicule.
Fear of ridicule? That's new. You never needed to be setup to get
your image tarnished before, that's not my idea of a wealthy behavior to
suddenly begin to use significant words like "friend" and then to forget
their meaning when there's a possibility to stand under the "spotlight"!
~ 8-o
It sounded so funny when you first felt a bond because we were both
LEGACY guys and you certainly surprized me by using "friend" in private;
only, it got worst... You finally let your agressive feelings interfere
more and more with our topics, your venimous characterizations of others
became so intertwined with the rest of our discussions it embarrassed me
and i grew tired of offering exits in hope that you'd behave better. It
was only a matter of time before my turn came (i failed to see it in due
time since my so-called friend was only angry)! Then, i got sick of it;
the worst error i had ever made being that i got associated to you since
i felt obligated to follow this friend in his never-ending crusades. :(
Don't blame me if your mind gets lured by the mirage of spotlights,
or when all you see thru your window is the image of desperate, solitary
serial killers; that's _your_ vision of the world and not everyone will
share it. Try stop self-congratulating yourself, the ones who listen at
your songs today are most likely to regret it later so i must leave them
a few warnings! And even if you've left a lot of ugly material already:
***************************************************[ November 1, 2002 ]*
GH> ...2.5 for Windows was released in 1996. ...died in April of 2000.
CA> I have the distinct impression the alcohol was making the decisions.
CA> I cannot say that I was moved to tears when Katz ended his own life.
Would supposedly wise elder men dare judge a defunct like this? Do
you feel you owned the right to mock over lifestyles and tragic ends?...
What need is that to add such details here? Where's the dignity?!!
**************************************************[ November 10, 2002 ]*
CA> I have no idea what flame-fest... If you mean the two lesbos that
CA> caused me to unsubscribe... ...it was more of a feasting...
A sharp tongue and chearful manners! Little to "feast" on, though.
%-b,
Now, in a different section (switching from bigotry to white lies):
***********************************************[ October 4 & 10, 2001 ]*
CA> Will try to get that online now at my daughter's server... ...
CA> Got tired of them... My daughter... She arranged for two more
CA> within the week and I am now comfortably situated on one of those.
******************************************************[ March 1, 2003 ]*
CA> My sponsor can arrange rates like $8 US per month if I remember...
Spoken like a true American (guess who's got a rebate)! That's for
the "house of mirrors" file, so... Is your "sponsor" family or what?...
Why is it so hard to remember how much for ~WEB~ hosting?! 8,-D ))
CA> I don't steal other people's source code and put my name on it...
Public Domain or FreeWare `MTerm', `TDsk' and `ATP' source-code was
no cause for concern but yet you never dared show your re-work. It made
me conclude, with reason, that you could be worried what an accomplished
programmer would have thought of it but now i see a wider picture: your
taste for credit is the key!!! You value it so much it should have been
obvious (you put so much time in undermining that of others, after all)!
%-b,
It's clear, i suspect you simply feared that *I* would steal yours,
or more likely, that i was a potential leak - a threat to your prestige!
CA> ...written in Spainish (which I do not speak)...
Ha yes, the Spanish thing!!! `TDsk v2.3+', right... Anything else
than North-American English is a problem (understandable). Even when my
goal was expressed in plain English and you had a diskette-image with an
explicit example of what it was for you still didn't pay much attention,
right... Well, i didn't force you to OFFER help! Anyway, it was more a
waste of my time - and yours! Indeed, source-code mnemonics and Spanish
side-comments should suffice to excuse most people but yet YOU insisted.
You also ignored clear mentions i made in your own native language,
that no disk writes were allowed! Yet, `TDsk+' did need disk writes and
you even modified a flag incorrectly, which forced me to edit the batch-
file where it was meant to be a "DROP-IN"! Had you focussed elsewhere!?
8-o
My theory is that Charles Brag&Flare Angelich was so concerned with
flaring up his own image he shouldn't brag at all - still understandable
when you learned to know the guy through a few thousands of lines!!! :(
The latest version of `TDsk' defines a DOS environment variable and
never needs to write to disk ever. Charles, guess what, it works great.
CA> ...when it seemed hopeless after 3 years he became abusive...
CA> His 'problem' is in no way related... the man simply has problems.
Yeah, shure - lets stretch months into years! Charles, why would i
have lost three years when i had my own solution at hand?! I even based
my last `PPPD330f' Bootable BBS/INet 720 Kb diskette image-file on this!
Let me refresh your memory: three years later gets us to now! You
had made me waste my time at the end of 1999 - a time i valued more than
the ordinary because i knew i'd ask the phone company to cut the service
around mid-February, euh... But you were a "budy" and i trusted you, my
fault was to tolerate you until September 2001. Oh, and lets talk about
coincidence: you were ready for terrorism yourself when i brought a few
SysOps and the author of `IVT' together, in our `FidoNet' echo! :( You
only saw your own selfish agenda: no one mattered, not even a "friend".
Our guest could have explained how he built the one DOS application
i could ever try that made ~TelNet~/`ZMoDem' work so well, so that a few
SysOps who were there could have aided in having some answers. It would
have helped BBSing but instead of jumping on a rare opportunity you just
couldn't accept that someone else was about to get a result! You simply
wanted to be under this famous "spotlight" of yours again and this tells
me why you were so quick to question Ruurd Beerstra's programmer skills,
in ~E-Mail~ from the very begining... Your systematic obstructions came
and little was added to your years long whinning which preceeded this...
:(
Three years later, you brag around in the `DOS-INet' area, claiming
that you finally uncovered an error in `WatTCP' which prevented `ZMoDem'
to work. Of course, there's not the least bit of evidence this is real!
%-b,
Well, it's time now to see who's "hopeless" and "abusive", no? I'm
not the one who uses a ~WEB~ site to gain control over discussions while
i try to convince people they must avoid using SoftWare which happens to
be the best available, actually. Yes, `PC/TCP' can be costly or hard to
find but the fact remains, `PC/TCP'+`IVT' simply makes ~TelNet~/`ZMoDem'
work where EVERY OTHER DOS APPLICATIONS you can think of would fail. Is
it supposed to be LEGACY friendly to state the contrary?... Let me have
my doubts! :( "The use of older DOS dialup terminal software to telnet
to BBS and do zmodem transfers is a futile effort"?... Really?! Euh...
Oh, you mean on a 8088 4.77 Mhz PC, i guess??? Well, for someone who'll
argue relentlessly that these machines are going to disapear completely,
lets say your definition of being LEGACY friendly is variable! You see,
while you were destroying the chances that anyone would ever want to ask
Ruurd Beerstra that he adds support for free ~ODI~/Class-1 stacks in his
`IVT' program, i was successfully transfering .QWK/.REP mail packets via
~TelNet~/`ZMoDem' - for so long i begin to forget when i started... 8-o
~RLFossil~+`{Commo}' does the job fine but yes, that's for 386+ PCs
only... Big deal! Since the `MS-Kermit' file transfers work on a 8088,
since `IVT DOS v11.3e' works on 386+ PCs... i find it's enough doubt to
question your sacro-saint dogma that `ZMoDem' transfers will fail for 99
percent of the time. 1st of all, where's that statistic from? 2nd, did
you ever let programmers believe that they could make it work better?...
8-o
Then, last but not least: "use of RLFOSSIL, TELAPI, ODI, and other
oddball drivers is not recommended unless you have time to kill and need
a challenge". Well, there's some truth to it; it took me some time and
now i finally have an external dialer which takes care of `RLFossil'; i
don't think there's much of a challenge left, though... Since my dialer
macro happens to be run on `{Commo}', the later also works as a terminal
emulator thru ~RLFossil~ (a Virtual ~TelNet~ MoDem "shim" - the one i've
been testing `ZMoDem' on, with selected BBSes, for so long i can't say)!
Oh, and this: "the fossil driver was overkill and remains overkill
for general telecom use". Yeah, shure... You done the testing with the
`COM/IP'+`MS-Kermit' combination, i suppose? Well, it has reached rates
comparable to those of `ZMoDem' in a 100 % `Win 32' environment and it's
free for all to try - not much of a challenge neither... Of course, you
"avoid" to mention to your visitors that the ~FOSSIL~ speed limit of the
`COM/IP' and `MS-Kermit' duo becomes 115K2 bps instead of 19K2 bps! I'm
not surprized, you've campained to no end againts this BBS STANDARD too.
You also vicously opposed your voice against some genuine concept i
had, that of an `RLFossil' replacement based on a trimed-down version of
`IVT' where the users would benefit from the excellent internal `ZMoDem'
support of `IVT' while they keep the option of using their own favourite
terminal emulator thru its yet to come ~FOSSIL~ interface. There really
is no reason why this configuration shouldn't work since no interference
due to the ~FOSSIL~ protocol would affect the `ZMoDem' transfers and the
slower data stream of a remote session - the rest of the time - would be
easily handled by the external ~FOSSIL~ compatible applications as well.
You tried memory limitations, need for processing power, name it...
About `COM/IP', yes it's for `Win 32'; thanks to you, it's next to
impossible to convince anyone that a replacement for `RLFossil' would be
nice and that's the reason why, if a person must test the true limits of
this ~FOSSIL~ interface you despise so much, there's only `COM/IP' left!
:(
In a house of mirrors it can be hard to find out which is which, it
certainly seems puzzling to read: "...ignore the zealots, lunatics, and
egomaniacs...", "the recent rant about IVT DOS telnet avoids any mention
that it requires PC/TCP" and tra-la-la! Your choice of words speaks all
by itself: PROPAGANDA. I'm afraid you're no more than a bad looser and
a lie doesn't cost you since i DO give the details about `PC/TCP' when i
get a chance and i don't need to "avoid" anything, really! It was quite
regrettable when you stated i was wrong to use ~RLFossil~+`MS-Kermit' as
it happened to work even better than just `MS-Kermit' alone!!! This was
one of your late judgment errors: you couldn't care to check before you
began your demolition work! Seems all your mirrors start to crack, hey?
:-<
Isn't it another familiar pattern? Yes but yet, it invariably gets
fogged by your own auto-congratulations so that you can look better than
life!... Perhaps you got therapist names to suggest yourself? I recall
you argueing i couldn't appreciate a programmer's time but now it's YOU.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Salutations,
Michel Samson
a/s Bicephale
http://www.iquebec.com/dos-inet
Access meant for humans only...
P.S.: About pumping... According to calculations, 230 visitors instead
of 160 means an error of over 43 %, not bad!... Maybe you should
stop watching Sci-Fi, pump as many search engines as you once did
with your ~WEB~ site address again: they helped you, apparently.
-*- Today's lesson: not everyone gets scared away like little children.
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
