tanix wrote:
In article <lKGdnWijGeJ8VqHWnZ2dnUVZ8sydnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk>, Andy Champ
<no.way@nospam.invalid> wrote:
tanix wrote:
My humble friend, I understand Usenet better than you,
probably an order of magnitude better.
James has been providing useful replies on this group for at least three
years.
So what? What does it have to do with ANYTHING, even remotely
related to the subject of this thread or even group for that matter?
Goes to claims of understanding.
<snip>
You see, what you have done is to strip the ENTIRE context
and left a SINGLE statement. Why did you do that?
Good manners, common courtesy, spirit of cooperation, demonstration of
understanding, etc ...
Nope.
One more time: VAST majority of article views happen via web,
where all that people see is a single article, just like you see
it via google. You do not even have a thread to look at.
The claim is simply wrong. It's not a vast or even a simple
majority. With a typical newsreader it's possible to simply filter out
every post from the big web portals. Besides losing a vast amount of
spam you improve the signal to noise greatly and you lose nothing like
a vast majority of posts.
Now if you count all the spam sent through google then you might
approach half of some groups, but if you disregard spambots the
numbers are more realistic.
First of all RFC are NOT "standards".
They literally mean Request For Comment or Clarification.
Do you understand?
Why do you ask? Do you claim understanding of the organization and
governance of usenet?
They are NOT ANY kind of "standard". Yes, when there is some real
RFC, where a group a people worked for years on some technical
system and designed something that works and reconciles, that is a
different matter. The other people simply decide to go with it and
it becomes a "standard" by implication.
But to have THIS kind of obsenity and to even conceive of an idea to
use it as some kind of argument, trying to make someone GUILTY of
something, that is not only ugly, not only PROFOUNDLY dishonest, but
is simply rotten to the bone and marrow.
How many people besides you have to disagree to prevent something from
becoming standard? Are you that powerful by yourself or is there some
minimum number of others required?
For the RFC's that existed before you discovered the internet, can you
invalidate those by simple disagreement too or is there a time limit
to your power?
<snip>
Do you understand the BASIC human rights, as signed by VAST majority
of countries in the world?
Again with the "vast"; your understanding of the state of human rights
in the international context is underwhelming. It's hard to find a
topic with more fundamental disagreement globally.
< snip>
There is such a right as freedom of expression. Do you understand?
Rights never stand alone, they are paired with responsibility.
Freedom of expression comes with responsibility and limits. There is a
clear limit that prevents expression that causes harm to others. You
can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater or knowingly say false
things to harm another. Those limits derive from the burden to act
responsibly and consequences based on civil law.
It does not say "you have freedom of expression" if you sit on some
group for more than 3 years and you do NOT have such freedom if you
are there for onoy a month.
Where did you read or hear this? I can't find anything that promises
freedom of expression on usenet with or without qualifications.
Do I have to chew things like THESE to the software developers,
and not only software developers but LANGUAGE developers?
Is there someone there threatening you? Do you need help?