Hello Dan,

On Monday February 24 2025 08:12, you wrote to me:

Nevermind "better", totally ignoring everything FTS-5003 has to
say about anything it supposedly covers is the "best" idea.

If totally ignoring the FTSC is te "best" idea, why bother to
have an FTSC at all?

Since you're very "detail-oriented", I thought I'd point out that he didn't say the FTSC should be ignored. He said FTS-5003 should be ignored. Pretty big difference there, no?

It is indeed not the same. I jumped two steps ahead. So let me help you by filling in the missing steps:

1) If totally ignoring FTS-5003 is the "best" idea, what is stopping us from totally ignoring any other FTSC standard that one does not agree with?

2) If totally ignoring any FTSC standard that one does not agree with is the "best", what stops us from totally ignoring anything that the FTSC does or produces?

3) if nothing stops us from totally ignoring the FTSC why bother to have an FTSC at all?

Hope this helps.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111
* Origin: Klein Schnøørd (2:280/5555.1)

Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-

Nevermind "better", totally ignoring everything FTS-5003 has to
say about anything it supposedly covers is the "best" idea.

If totally ignoring the FTSC is te "best" idea, why bother to
have an FTSC at all?

Since you're very "detail-oriented", I thought I'd point out that he didn't say the FTSC should be ignored. He said FTS-5003 should be ignored. Pretty big difference there, no?

It is indeed not the same. I jumped two steps ahead. So let me help you by filling in the missing steps:

1) If totally ignoring FTS-5003 is the "best" idea, what is stopping us from totally ignoring any other FTSC standard that one does not agree with?

2) If totally ignoring any FTSC standard that one does not agree with
is the "best", what stops us from totally ignoring anything that the
FTSC does or produces?

3) if nothing stops us from totally ignoring the FTSC why bother to
have an FTSC at all?

Sorry, debate doesn't work that way. You can't just continually use
"If... if... if..., then".

I'll counter your questions with something equally irrelevant:

If pigs had wings, could they fly?

Hope this helps.

It didn't. It just continued to illustrate your petty-ness.



... I'd love to help you out. Which way did you come in?
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

Hello Dan,

On Tuesday February 25 2025 07:49, you wrote to me:

3) if nothing stops us from totally ignoring the FTSC why bother
to have an FTSC at all?

Sorry, debate doesn't work that way.

Correction: debate with /you/ does not work. Period.

Actually... since you consequently oppose whatever I say, it might work if I just say the opposite of what I mean. Then you would oppose that and defend my point. But ... I have better things to do than try that...

You can't just continually use "If... if... if..., then".

The fact that I just did proves otherwise.

I'll counter your questions with something equally irrelevant:

If pigs had wings, could they fly?

Yes. (Elementary logic)

If the moon is made of green cheese, does two plus two equal five?

Hope this helps.

It didn't.

Pity. Then this is where our "debate" ends. Live long and prosper.


Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: Nieuw Schnøørd (2:280/5555)

Hey Michiel!

1) If totally ignoring FTS-5003 is the "best" idea, what is stopping
us from totally ignoring any other FTSC standard that one does not
agree with?

That depends on which document we're talking about. Near as I can tell the only document that matters has never made it past the proposal stage which has led to much fts-0001.016 compliant software incapable of getting their packed MSGs to propogate beyond their own node(s).

If totally ignoring any FTSC standard that one does not agree with
is the "best", what stops us from totally ignoring anything that
the FTSC does or produces?

Given the current situation then the only limitation is whatever works to successfully propagate one's packed MSG(s) across the network.

3) if nothing stops us from totally ignoring the FTSC why bother to
have an FTSC at all?

Good question. From this angle it appears we need the elections in order to attract postings. The increase in traffic is always much higher when there is a FTSC election despite the lack of any meaningful interactions once the election is over.

Life is good,
Maurice

-o o- o- -o
(\ /) /) (\
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
... Ongiet georne hwæt sy god oþþe yfel, ond toscead simle.
Keenly perceive what is good or evil, and always distinguish them.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.37(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)

//Hello Michiel,//

on *23.02.2025* at *16:50:36* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
to *August Abolins* about *"when a practice does it better."*.

Ok.. so, why would Tim's "better idea" be a violation if it may indeed
be a BETTER idea? Why not incorportate it into an existing standard as
BETTER?

MvdV> It is not better.

Because you say so?

MvdV> Read FTS-5003 par 5 about Obsolete Identifiers and see for yourself why
MvdV> the use of "CHRS: IBMPC 2" was deprecated over a decade ago and
MvdV> therefore is not "better". .

Hardly an argument given given that for more than a decade nobody cared. Maybe thats a message from reality?

MvdV> Also note the "must not" in the first line of that paragraph.

FTSC standards are meant to be revised. Many things have never been adpoted. Get used to it.

I woud like to point out that in sharp contrast to Michiels statements, I spent hundreds of hours during the last years to give WinPoint the most complete and robust charset support of any point packet I know. So claiming that WP completely ignores FTS-5003 is maliciously false. I am not sure, if Michiel is that unedicated or just a bad person that loves defamation.

Why the heck is he so interested in keeping people who actually work on Fidonet software away from the FTSC?

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:2/29)

Hello Tim,

On Thursday February 27 2025 03:39, you wrote to me:

Ok.. so, why would Tim's "better idea" be a violation if it may
indeed be a BETTER idea? Why not incorportate it into an
existing standard as BETTER?

MvdV>> It is not better.

Because you say so?

No because FTS-5003 says so and explains why. IBMPC has evolved to mean ANY IBM PC character set. CP437, CP850, CP1252 or even CP866. So nobody knows what it actually means. There is a reason "IBMPC" was depricated by the FTSC. Keeping iy alive by using it is not "bettter".

Using a deprecated form is not progress, it is regress.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: Nieuw Schnøørd (2:280/5555)

//Hello Michiel,//

on *27.02.2025* at *13:09:16* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"when a practice does it better."*.

Because you say so?

MvdV> No because FTS-5003 says so and explains why.

When FTS-5003 was written, people where expecting an alive software culture where it is easy to adopt such changes. However, that didnt happen.

Start thinking: Since FTS-5003 itself suggests that systems implementing the standard should process IBMPC as CP437, the standard itself says that using IBMPC for outgoing messages is just the same as using CP437 minus compatibility.

Since we talk charsets standards: nearly half of what was written in any of the older charset standards in the past was plain nonsense from todays perspective. Much of it was always broken. Think of those funny ideas about character sizes. So why think the standard where everybody just stopped working is so much better?

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:2/29)

Hello Tim,

On Thursday February 27 2025 15:42, you wrote to me:

Start thinking: Since FTS-5003 itself suggests that systems
implementing the standard should process IBMPC as CP437,

That is NOT what FTS-5003 says. You are reading things that are not there.

This is what is says:

> Since the "IBMPC" identifier, initially used to indicate IBM
> codepage 437, eventually evolved into identifying "any IBM
> codepage"

the standard itself says that using IBMPC for outgoing messages is
just the same as using CP437 minus compatibility.

Negative. What is says is that IBMPC can actually mean any CPxxx. IBMPC is NOT equivalent to CP437. It can just as well mean CP850. Or CP1252. THAT is what FTS-5003 says.

Since we talk charsets standards: nearly half of what was written in
any of the older charset standards in the past was plain nonsense from todays perspective.

Really? I say it has evolved. Many character sets in use - many to conform to 7 bit limitations - are no longer in use. The level 1 sets, are no longer in use. But saying they were plain nonsense is eh.. nonsense.

Level 1 sets became obsolete when it was realised that Fidonet is fully 8 bit complient. And so level 2 sets became popular. I may add that this area is not representative for Fidonet as a whole. Presenly most messages are written in Cyrillic usinp CP866. LATIN-1 and CP850. Are a good second. UTF-8 is growing. CP437 has become a minority.

Much of it was always broken.

Broken? What was broken? Broken in what way?

Think of those funny ideas about character sizes.

What about it?

So why think the standard where everybody just stopped working is so
much better?

???? Please write the above in German, maybe I will understand what you mean.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: Nieuw Schnøørd (2:280/5555)

Hey Michiel!

IBMPC is NOT equivalent to CP437. It can just as well mean CP850.
Or CP1252. THAT is what FTS-5003 says.

More reasons to get rid of FTS-5003 given that CP1252 isn't an IBM codepage. Any search I have done regarding IBMPC has yeilded nothing but pure speculation and zero as far as any credible source might have to say about it. If you know better I'd appreciate hearing about it if for no other reason than to shed light on what appears to be a hoax.

LATIN-1

Another hoax? The only listings I can find for the above alias at IANA are ISO-8859-1-Windows-3.0-Latin-1 and ISO-8859-1-Windows-3.1-Latin-1, neither of which list LATIN-1 as an alias. As for ISO-8859-1, LATIN1 is the proper alias, and not LATIN-1. I did run across an email from some gov't email address that claims he has it on good source that ISO-8859-1-Windows-3.1-Latin-1 uses CP1252 for it's character map which is not the same as ISO-8859-1.

The same holds true for many other LATIN-* aliases whcih only serves to add fuel to the idea that FTS-5003 is pure garbage.

Life is good,
Maurice

o- o- o- -o
/) /) /) (\
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
... Mon sceal... gebidan þæs he gebædan ne mæg.
One must wait for what cannot be hastened.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.37(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)