alt.certification.cisco - Regarding the length of lines in a posting...

Author

Regarding the length of lines in a posting...

Richard Steiner

2004-01-30, 3:26 pm

Here in rec.travel.air, nobody <nobody@nobody.com> spake unto us, saying:

> Binary articles contain information which is in a form not directly
> readable by humans, usually

Nice line length, Nobody. You might want to consider:

(1) Posting with lines that are 80 or fewer characters in length, or

(2) Refraining from adding any hard EOLs at all and letting the reader
wrap your postings smoothly to their own viewpoint size.

With your current method (lines > 80 characters with hard EOLs), you
seem to be ensuring a messy presentation just about anywhere. :-)

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.

Walter Roberson

2004-01-30, 3:26 pm

In article <h8qGApHpv6VC092yn@visi.com>,
Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
:Nice line length, Nobody. You might want to consider:

: (2) Refraining from adding any hard EOLs at all and letting the reader
: wrap your postings smoothly to their own viewpoint size.

nntp standards say the maximum is 255 characters per line, as I recall.
--
csh is bad drugs.

Bernie

2004-01-30, 4:25 pm

On 30 Jan 2004 19:58:45 GMT, roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
Roberson) wrote:

>In article <h8qGApHpv6VC092yn@visi.com>,
>Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
>:Nice line length, Nobody. You might want to consider:
>
>: (2) Refraining from adding any hard EOLs at all and letting the reader
>: wrap your postings smoothly to their own viewpoint size.
>
>nntp standards say the maximum is 255 characters per line, as I recall.

[I'll take your word for it for the moment] Yes, but this discussion
can go both ways. On one hand some are saying that the RFC's are
obsolete (though they aren't except in the realm of opinion), and
instead we need to comply to the self elected GNSKA. If that is the
case, 80 characters is the max line length. If on the other hand
someone else wants to champion the RFCs (I assume that is what you are
referring to) to allow 255 characters per line, then you also allow
HTML and MIME to the chagrin of the GNSKA supporters.

You can't cobble together only certain portions of each "standard" (I
use the term loosely here) and remain consistent. I know you
personally haven't commented on the GNSKA discussion, but I am taking
the opportunity to point out that any side can and has proven that
they can provide some semblance of *official* (however loosely that
may be defined) support or repudiation (as the case may be) for the
use of <insert-irritating-Usenet-behavior-here>. We have even seen
someone speak out about HTML, claim that violators of GNSKA should
rightfully be flamed, and yet silently let other GNSKA violations go
by.

And this further splintering of the thread simply serves to prove that
so much of this topic of what is proper and/or considerate and/or
irritating is in the eyes of the beholder (just like manners). It
also further proves that if we were to contest everything we perceive
as a violation (according to whatever document we each hold sacred),
entire Usenet groups quickly descend into a throng of bickering and
complaining instead of discussing on-topic things. Yes I have played
my part in this, but on this point I have been consistent from the
very beginning: A policy of respecting differences and keeping
complaints to oneself (i.e. learning to deal/cope with irritating
people) except in clear cut cases of violations of charters such as
spam (etc.), in the long run is better for everyone and for the group
than taking the group down the toilet of haggling over manners and
personal preferences.

I think the other thing going on in this thread (started by Richard)
is that the only thing people resent more than a cop is a cop that
disregards the law himself (e.g. speeding to get to the donut shop,
etc). If one is going to direct where and what people post according
to a certain set of common conventions, then they should at least
follow the other common conventions themselves. I am sure that is at
least one bit of common ground we can all stand on!

--Bernie

nobody

2004-01-31, 3:26 am

Richard Steiner wrote:
> Nice line length, Nobody. You might want to consider:
>
> (1) Posting with lines that are 80 or fewer characters in length, or
>
> (2) Refraining from adding any hard EOLs at all and letting the reader
> wrap your postings smoothly to their own viewpoint size.

That particular message was sent with a right margin at 75 charaters per line
and, as per RFCs for text messages, the recomended CR-LF sequence at the end
of each LINE.

Software, such as Microsoft which, by default, sends a CR-LF at the end of a
paragraph instead of terminating each line don't technically break the RFCs
as long as a paragraph doesn't extend beyond about 1000 characters. (roughly
13 lines of text at 80 characters per line). But the minute you write a long
paragraph, you will break the RFCs.

You need to consider how programs deal with text windows: the program is given
one long string containing all your text. Simpler programs (such as Microsoft)
just write that raw data. More adherant programs will insert cr-lf sequences
inside the block of text to break lines at a certain margin (normally 76 chars).

Richard Steiner

2004-01-31, 4:25 pm

Here in rec.travel.air, nobody <nobody@nobody.com> spake unto us, saying:

>Richard Steiner wrote:
>
>
>That particular message was sent with a right margin at 75 charaters per
>line and, as per RFCs for text messages, the recomended CR-LF sequence
>at the end of each LINE.

Most of your articles in this newsgroup are just fine in terms of text
formatting, but you appear to have done something different in the one
I commented on, something which resulted in a screwy format.

I'm reading this in a text-mode newsreader (Yarn) on an 80 column by 40
monitor screen (a fullscreen OS/2 VIO session), and this newsreader is
intelligent enough to wrap paragraphs without EOL characters right at
80 characters.

However, it also honors hard EOLs when present, and it will terminate a
line at the hard EOL when such is detected.

FYI, the lines that were sent by your newsreader in the posting which I
responded to were much longer than 75 characters. I'd guess between 95
and 100. It appeared here like this:

---SNIP---

Binary articles contain information which is in a form not directly readable
by humans, usually
in "base64" or "UUENCODE" sections. These are usually "attachments" of
images, executable
files, sounds, or proprietary format documents such as Microsoft Word or
Excel. Even if the
attachment within the article was originally simple text or a web page
(HTML), if it has been
encoded before posting it is still considered to be a "binary".

---UNSNIP---

In fact, I'll provide pictures to illustrate your latest posting (which
is fine) and your previous posting (which was not) so you can see the
nature of the messy formatting that I'm talking about :

The good one is here (viewer in Yarn):

http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/goodformat.gif

and the bad one is here:

http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/badformat.gif

Using slrn shows the same thing, BTW. It isn't just this newsreader:

http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/goodformat2.gif
http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/badformat2.gif

>Software, such as Microsoft which, by default, sends a CR-LF at the end
>of a paragraph instead of terminating each line don't technically break
>the RFCs as long as a paragraph doesn't extend beyond about 1000
>characters.

True. This newsreader has no problems at all with that sort of text
formatting.

>You need to consider how programs deal with text windows: the program is
>given one long string containing all your text. Simpler programs (such
>as Microsoft) just write that raw data. More adherant programs will
>insert cr-lf sequences inside the block of text to break lines at a
>certain margin (normally 76 chars).

Yes. I use FTE as my text editor when writing messages in either Yarn
or slrn, and it places a hard CRLF sequence at the end of the defined
text area (in my case, the right margin is set at 72 characters).

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.

Frank Slootweg

2004-02-01, 1:26 pm

Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
[deleted]
> We have even seen
> someone speak out about HTML, claim that violators of GNSKA should
> rightfully be flamed, and yet silently let other GNSKA violations go
> by.
[deleted]

1. Did that someone say that he would or everybody else should flame
every violation of the GNKSA? Answer: No.

2. Not that it really matters (see 1.), but did that someone *actually*
let said other GNKSA violation (AFAIK, singular, not plural) go by
silently? Answer: (Two times) No.

Bernie

2004-02-01, 3:25 pm

On 01 Feb 2004 17:58:17 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>[deleted]
>[deleted]
>
>1. Did that someone say that he would or everybody else should flame
> every violation of the GNKSA? Answer: No.

Um, did you misread my statement?!?!? Answer: Yes. I said that you
claimed that violators should rightfully be flamed. I did *not* say
you said *you* should flame them and I did not say that you said
*everyone* should be flame them. Please re-read the stinking
statement I made above before you have a conniption next time. For
reference, here is your exact words and you can compare my phrasing of
your statement to your exact statement:

On 29 Jan 2004 10:37:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:
> What does that all mean? It means that newsreaders and their users
>should comply to the GNKSA, Netiquette, etc.. If they don't, they
>probably will be 'flamed' and (IMO) rightfully so.

So next time you want to claim others are using strawmen against you,
you might check out your reflection in the mirror.

>2. Not that it really matters (see 1.), but did that someone *actually*
> let said other GNKSA violation (AFAIK, singular, not plural) go by
> silently? Answer: (Two times) No.

Bzzzt: Wrong. The correct answer is yes. You said nothing to that
person for their violation.

--Bernie

Frank Slootweg

2004-02-01, 3:25 pm

Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
> On 01 Feb 2004 17:58:17 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
> Um, did you misread my statement?!?!? Answer: Yes. I said that you
> claimed that violators should rightfully be flamed. I did *not* say
> you said *you* should flame them and I did not say that you said
> *everyone* should be flame them. Please re-read the stinking
> statement I made above before you have a conniption next time. For
> reference, here is your exact words and you can compare my phrasing of
> your statement to your exact statement:
>
> On 29 Jan 2004 10:37:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:

Totally correct. But with that, correct interpretation, the use of
"yet" is totally unjustified. So you either interpreted what I said
correctly, but then can not say "and yet ..." *or* you interpreted it
incorrectly. Sorry, but there is no other option. Logic 101.
[color=blue]
> So next time you want to claim others are using strawmen against you,
> you might check out your reflection in the mirror.
>
>
> Bzzzt: Wrong. The correct answer is yes. You said nothing to that
> person for their violation.

While it is somewhat of a stretch, I'll grant you that I did not "say"
anything specifically to that person, but I did *not* "let the GNKSA
violation go by silently". You made that claim before. I refuted the
claim with documentation, but apparently you missed that as well.
Anyway, like I said, because my statement 1. is true, 2. is irrelevant.

I'l think we should call it (the 'discussion' between us) quits,
because we will probably never agree and will probably keep blaming
eachother for that. I responded to the above because the response was
not addressed to me, but contained incorrect comments about me.

Bernie

2004-02-01, 4:25 pm

On 01 Feb 2004 20:07:38 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>
> Totally correct. But with that, correct interpretation, the use of
>"yet" is totally unjustified. So you either interpreted what I said
>correctly, but then can not say "and yet ..." *or* you interpreted it
>incorrectly. Sorry, but there is no other option. Logic 101.

I do see what you are saying. However, the logical opposite of
letting a GNSKA violation go is not "flaming the hell out of the
person for it" Yes, that comes from logic 101 as well. Thank you for
bringing that up. Politely saying something to the person is an
option that violates neither construct. But without turning this into
a word bending exercise I simply find the difference between the
various positions, statements, and actions to be interesting.

>
> While it is somewhat of a stretch, I'll grant you that I did not "say"
>anything specifically to that person, but I did *not* "let the GNKSA
>violation go by silently". You made that claim before.

Silently is a qualifier, yes, and I say that because you didn't say
anything to that person. So yes, I am talking about the context.
Pointing out that you rewrapped it after I made a comment about line
length is after the fact. That is sort of like me saying to my wife
that I really did remember her birthday after she reminded me a day
after (or something like that ;-)). Yes you re-wrapped it, but I do
consider to be fairly silent.

>I refuted the
>claim with documentation, but apparently you missed that as well.
>Anyway, like I said, because my statement 1. is true, 2. is irrelevant.
>
> I'l think we should call it (the 'discussion' between us) quits,
>because we will probably never agree and will probably keep blaming
>eachother for that. I responded to the above because the response was
>not addressed to me, but contained incorrect comments about me.

Well, there is a third option. Sticking to statements and reason. If
you want to take it down a notch, fine. Snipping 90% of my post and
simply saying that I am strawman-ing you is not going to keep us on
track. Even if you thought that, you could have addressed it
specifically in each case and perhaps hammered it out with me.

And speaking of strawmen, I have been going by the aforementioned
qualifiers you set out in your first post. If you forgot that you
said this (below) then I am sorry:

" If we continue to discuss this further, then I think it is best to
concentrate on the *general* (i.e. non-Andrew) case. As I mentioned in
my response to kr/CCIE8122, Andrew's (non-)HTML posting style is the
exception, not the rule. Andrew uses HTML (somewhat) responsibly, most
posters do not. *If* we talk about Andrew's postings, then let's
clearly say so."

It is imminently unfair and unreasonable to pre-qualify an entire
discussion and then accuse the person you disagree with of making
strawmen arguments when those arguments were bounded by your
pre-qualifiers. You can't have it both ways unless you are
deliberately trying to set someone up.

--Bernie

CCIE8122

2004-02-01, 5:25 pm

>>>2. Not that it really matters (see 1.), but did that someone *actually*
>
> While it is somewhat of a stretch, I'll grant you that I did not "say"
> anything specifically to that person, but I did *not* "let the GNKSA
> violation go by silently". You made that claim before. I refuted the
> claim with documentation, but apparently you missed that as well.
> Anyway, like I said, because my statement 1. is true, 2. is irrelevant.
>
> I'l think we should call it (the 'discussion' between us) quits,
> because we will probably never agree and will probably keep blaming
> eachother for that. I responded to the above because the response was
> not addressed to me, but contained incorrect comments about me.

My, now that is some pretty serious retrenching. It is pretty
amusing/sad to watch someone paint themselves into a corner, and then do
the dance just because they are not big enough to admit when they are wrong.

LOL

kr

Frank Slootweg

2004-02-02, 5:24 am

[You offered to change to a softer tone. I will try to do the same.]

Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
> On 01 Feb 2004 20:07:38 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:

[stuff that is no longer really relevant deleted]

> But without turning this into
> a word bending exercise I simply find the difference between the
> various positions, statements, and actions to be interesting.

Thanks. That just confirms that things are not black and white. What I
said does not mean that I agree 100% with every letter of the GNKSA, nor
that I think that every and all violations of it should/must be flamed.
I consider such a position ridiculous and even illogical. Even more: It
is quite possible and even likely that I myself or/and my newsreader
violate one or more aspects of the GNKSA.

>
> Silently is a qualifier, yes, and I say that because you didn't say
> anything to that person. So yes, I am talking about the context.
> Pointing out that you rewrapped it after I made a comment about line
> length is after the fact.

Yes, it would be, but the point is that I pointed out that I
re-wrapped it *before* you made a comment about line length. Here is the
sequence (parent, child, grand-child):

Date: 30 Jan 2004 15:44:27 GMT
401a7bdb$0$89923$1b2cd167@news
.wanadoo.nl>
Me> [re-wrapped]

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:57:38 -0600
< news:763l10d1pnavjm56c16sv4qvm
r5hpsqqjt@4ax.com>
You> And yet I don't see you flaming Nobody for ignoring the 80 character
You> line-length convention. Don't you believe in upholding the standard?

Date: 30 Jan 2004 18:54:03 GMT
< news:401aa84a$0$89923$1b2cd167
@news.wanadoo.nl>
Me > >[re-wrapped]

I.e. I said "[re-wrapped]" in response to "nobody"'s posting with long
lines, then you said that you didn't see me flaming Nobody, so then I
pointed you to what you apparently had not seen.

[more of the same deleted]

>
> Well, there is a third option. Sticking to statements and reason. If
> you want to take it down a notch, fine. Snipping 90% of my post and
> simply saying that I am strawman-ing you is not going to keep us on
> track. Even if you thought that, you could have addressed it
> specifically in each case and perhaps hammered it out with me.
>
> And speaking of strawmen, I have been going by the aforementioned
> qualifiers you set out in your first post. If you forgot that you
> said this (below) then I am sorry:
>
> " If we continue to discuss this further, then I think it is best to
> concentrate on the *general* (i.e. non-Andrew) case. As I mentioned in
> my response to kr/CCIE8122, Andrew's (non-)HTML posting style is the
> exception, not the rule. Andrew uses HTML (somewhat) responsibly, most
> posters do not. *If* we talk about Andrew's postings, then let's
> clearly say so."
>
> It is imminently unfair and unreasonable to pre-qualify an entire
> discussion and then accuse the person you disagree with of making
> strawmen arguments when those arguments were bounded by your
> pre-qualifiers. You can't have it both ways unless you are
> deliberately trying to set someone up.

The point is that in this thread there are several discussions going
on between several people. Each topic (HTML, standards, etc.) again has
several subtopics. So if we (you and I) agree on some issue, that does
not mean that we also agree on (slightly/quite) different issues, nor
does it mean that I agree with others on slightly different issues than
on which you and I agree.

What got us off-track was your ridiculing of the GNKSA and your
pretending to know what my position is on HTML on Usenet. While off
track, you continued to distort my explanations, clarifications, etc.,
so it only went from bad to worse. Considering your above quoted tone, I
am quite willing to accept that those distortions were not intentional/
malicious. However I also don't know how we/I can prevent this from
happening again. I can only promise to try and to try to not be too
harsh.

Frank Slootweg

2004-02-02, 5:24 am

CCIE8122 <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> My, now that is some pretty serious retrenching. It is pretty
> amusing/sad to watch someone paint themselves into a corner, and then do
> the dance just because they are not big enough to admit when they are wrong.
>
> LOL
>
> kr

I was afraid (read: I knew) that this would happen. The point is that
my explanations, clarifications, etc. did not help to progress the
'discussion' and only lead to more (IMO) distortions of my position,
statements, etc.. At a certain moment there is no point continuing. IMO,
we had come to that point.

As to me being "wrong" on the above quoted issue, please see my recent
'soft' response < news:401e1593$0$94604$abc4f4c3
@news.wanadoo.nl> for
(more specicific) proof. If you think that does not prove my point, then
please specifically say *why* you think it doesn't.

Bernie

2004-02-02, 1:25 pm

On 02 Feb 2004 09:17:08 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>[You offered to change to a softer tone. I will try to do the same.]
>
>Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>
>[stuff that is no longer really relevant deleted]
>
>
> Thanks. That just confirms that things are not black and white.

I can't possibly understand how you might have thought I have been
saying something otherwise. Within the large scope it certainly isn't
black and white--that has been my exact position. Some individual
components obviously are, e.g. either the RFCs do or do not prohibit
HTML. At any point in any of these discussions, I have be reacting to
the attempt to turn the issue of posting with HTML into a black and
white one.

>What I
>said does not mean that I agree 100% with every letter of the GNKSA, nor
>that I think that every and all violations of it should/must be flamed.
>I consider such a position ridiculous and even illogical. Even more: It
>is quite possible and even likely that I myself or/and my newsreader
>violate one or more aspects of the GNKSA.
>
>
> Yes, it would be, but the point is that I pointed out that I
>re-wrapped it *before* you made a comment about line length. Here is the
>sequence (parent, child, grand-child):
>
>Date: 30 Jan 2004 15:44:27 GMT
> 401a7bdb$0$89923$1b2cd167@news
.wanadoo.nl>
>Me> [re-wrapped]
>
>Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:57:38 -0600
>< news:763l10d1pnavjm56c16sv4qvm
r5hpsqqjt@4ax.com>
>You> And yet I don't see you flaming Nobody for ignoring the 80 character
>You> line-length convention. Don't you believe in upholding the standard?
>
>Date: 30 Jan 2004 18:54:03 GMT
>< news:401aa84a$0$89923$1b2cd167
@news.wanadoo.nl>
>Me > >[re-wrapped]
>
> I.e. I said "[re-wrapped]" in response to "nobody"'s posting with long
>lines, then you said that you didn't see me flaming Nobody, so then I
>pointed you to what you apparently had not seen.

I don't think we are making any progress here, and I don't know that
we will. On one hand cleaning up the portion of the post you quoted
could be argued to be a verbal notification. On the other hand it
could be likened to someone littering and considering that them seeing
you pick up their trash for them is verbal notification. I think the
best we are going to get is to agree that it is somewhere in between.

>
> The point is that in this thread there are several discussions going
>on between several people. Each topic (HTML, standards, etc.) again has
>several subtopics. So if we (you and I) agree on some issue, that does
>not mean that we also agree on (slightly/quite) different issues, nor
>does it mean that I agree with others on slightly different issues than
>on which you and I agree.
>
> What got us off-track was your ridiculing of the GNKSA

What I ridiculed (at least what I meant to ridicule) was the notion
that the GNSKA is a "standard" that is applicable to anyone posting on
Usenet. If some people (including the writers) want to call it a
standard, they are at liberty to do so. But I am also at liberty to
call Emily Post a standard, i.e. both tread in the realm of etiquette.
However, to turn what they have accepted as a standard into a cudgel
to beat others with is wrong. If it was an RFC, well at least the
IETF has been given some authority over certain areas (it still isn't
a mandate of compliance as vendors often don't comply, but that is
another story). The GNSKA has assumed authority and depends on each
of us accepting it (grassroots) to be effective. That is the
difference I was trying to point out. IOW, in the context of
appealing to what standards mandate some random person should or
should not do, I would think that the appeal would be to a standard
that has universal and un-questionable authority, unlike say the
example of Emily Post.

Let me re-phrase. Given history of the GNSKA and the descriptions on
their own website, it is fairly obvious that they have ideas about
what is best. Some might call them benevolent dictators (so you don't
misread that, I don't mean that in a bad way), some might call them
guardians, some might call them Emily Post. But the point is that at
the end of the day, they have no more God-given authority over the
subject than I do. So appealing to their document as a "standard"
that "mandates" I (rather Andrew) comply to their rules is a *huge*
stretch. And remember, I am replying to the original assertions about
what "standards mandate". It is netiquette, yes. Is it a standard
that has universal application to each person? Only in the same sense
that etiquette could be called a standard for how to act in social
settings. So while maybe it came out wrong, I was contending with how
the GNSKA was being applied to the situation.

>and your
>pretending to know what my position is on HTML on Usenet.

It sounds like when that happened you forgot that we had previously
agreed to speak within the sub-context of all the qualifiers you
provided. Because given that context, I don't see how I was more than
a hair off.

>While off
>track, you continued to distort my explanations, clarifications, etc.,
>so it only went from bad to worse.

1) If the above was in fact going on, I don't think I was the only one
doing it.

2) I provided a number of clarifications and explanations as well,
just to have them entirely snipped, ignored, etc. and in return have a
blanket accusation levied against me for scatter-shooting strawmen all
over the place. This was what got it off track for me.

>Considering your above quoted tone, I
>am quite willing to accept that those distortions were not intentional/
>malicious. However I also don't know how we/I can prevent this from
>happening again. I can only promise to try and to try to not be too
>harsh.

I'll try too.

--Bernie

Frank Slootweg

2004-02-02, 3:25 pm

Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
> On 02 Feb 2004 09:17:08 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:

[much deleted]

>
> I don't think we are making any progress here, and I don't know that
> we will. On one hand cleaning up the portion of the post you quoted
> could be argued to be a verbal notification.

I really do not understand that you still do not (seem to) understand.
I am *not* referring to me "cleaning up the portion of the post which I
quoted". What I *am* referring to is that *before* that cleaned up quote
I wrote:

> [re-wrapped]
(obviously without the "> " part)

So I did not "silently let other GNKSA violations go by", because I
*wrote* "[re-wrapped]" before the quote that I had re-wrapped. No, it
was not (really) a 'flame' (but that was also not what you said), but it
was not "silent". I hope it is clear now. If not, we might as well drop
this one too.

[much deleted]

>
> What I ridiculed (at least what I meant to ridicule) was the notion
> that the GNSKA is a "standard" that is applicable to anyone posting on
> Usenet. If some people (including the writers) want to call it a
> standard, they are at liberty to do so.

As I explained, the people that *matter*, i.e. the newsreader writers,
the news.software.reader audience, etc. consider it a standard. Do you
really think it would have evolved as it did and become accepted as it
did if I did not have this 'authority'? You are of course free to have
your opinion, but that does not change the status of the GNKSA one bit.

If you want to dispute the status of the GNKSA, then feel free to do
so, but, as I wrote, don't ask me to take your opinion over that of the
people who actually are/have_been involved in it.

> But I am also at liberty to
> call Emily Post a standard, i.e. both tread in the realm of etiquette.
> However, to turn what they have accepted as a standard into a cudgel
> to beat others with is wrong. If it was an RFC, well at least the
> IETF has been given some authority over certain areas (it still isn't
> a mandate of compliance as vendors often don't comply, but that is
> another story). The GNSKA has assumed authority and depends on each
> of us accepting it (grassroots) to be effective. That is the
> difference I was trying to point out. IOW, in the context of
> appealing to what standards mandate some random person should or
> should not do, I would think that the appeal would be to a standard
> that has universal and un-questionable authority, unlike say the
> example of Emily Post.

You can refer to RFCs, the IETF, etc., till you're blue in the face,
but *with regard to News/Usenet* they are, as I explained, out-of-date
(1036) or (effectively) dead (son-of-1036 and UseFor), because they have
not been released and have little (UseFor) to no (son-of-1036) progress.
"It's dead Jim, dead.".

Believe me, everyone of 'us', including me, would love it if there was
a current RFC, because then we wouldn't have silly 'discussions' like
this one all the time. But there isn't one, and we and you will have to
accept that.

> Let me re-phrase. Given history of the GNSKA and the descriptions on
> their own website, it is fairly obvious that they have ideas about
> what is best. Some might call them benevolent dictators (so you don't
> misread that, I don't mean that in a bad way), some might call them
> guardians, some might call them Emily Post. But the point is that at
> the end of the day, they have no more God-given authority over the
> subject than I do. So appealing to their document as a "standard"
> that "mandates" I (rather Andrew) comply to their rules is a *huge*
> stretch. And remember, I am replying to the original assertions about
> what "standards mandate". It is netiquette, yes. Is it a standard
> that has universal application to each person? Only in the same sense
> that etiquette could be called a standard for how to act in social
> settings. So while maybe it came out wrong, I was contending with how
> the GNSKA was being applied to the situation.

Yes, it came out totally wrong, especially the suggestion that it was
the work of one person (later amended as the work of two people).
Calling that person Ron, instead of his full name, was even more
ridicule.

BTW, *I* never used the term "mandate" or anything else which even
comes close to that. Another example of the problem you seem to have
with telling your discussion partners apart.

Call me silly, but when you discuss things with me, I only want to be
judged on stuff I wrote, not what other participants wrote.

>
> It sounds like when that happened you forgot that we had previously
> agreed to speak within the sub-context of all the qualifiers you
> provided. Because given that context, I don't see how I was more than
> a hair off.

It was quite a bit off. That is why I objected.

>
> 1) If the above was in fact going on, I don't think I was the only one
> doing it.
>
> 2) I provided a number of clarifications and explanations as well,
> just to have them entirely snipped, ignored, etc. and in return have a
> blanket accusation levied against me for scatter-shooting strawmen all
> over the place. This was what got it off track for me.

The reason I snipped certain stuff was either because it was so off
("[blah blah]") that I couldn't be bothered to even get started to get
things back on track. Other stuff I snipped because it was not relevant
for or less important (to me) than the issue I wanted to address. FYI,
quite a lot of people snip silently. I don't like that, so normally I
say/indicate that I have snipped.

>
> I'll try too.

Thanks.

If there is still anything you'd like me to clarify, then please say
so.

Bernie

2004-02-02, 6:25 pm

On 02 Feb 2004 19:47:30 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>
>[much deleted]
>
>
> I really do not understand that you still do not (seem to) understand.
>I am *not* referring to me "cleaning up the portion of the post which I
>quoted". What I *am* referring to is that *before* that cleaned up quote
>I wrote:
>
>(obviously without the "> " part)

Yes I did catch your point.

> So I did not "silently let other GNKSA violations go by", because I
>*wrote* "[re-wrapped]" before the quote that I had re-wrapped. No, it
>was not (really) a 'flame' (but that was also not what you said), but it
>was not "silent". I hope it is clear now. If not, we might as well drop
>this one too.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree for reasons I
have already explained. Perhaps that is because if I were to alter
just slightly my exact wording, I could have conveyed the same spirit
I was trying to convey. The analogy I gave last post illustrates what
I was getting at. The best we will get is to agree that maybe it is
somewhere in between.

>[much deleted]
>
>
> As I explained, the people that *matter*, i.e. the newsreader writers,
>the news.software.reader audience, etc. consider it a standard. Do you
>really think it would have evolved as it did and become accepted as it
>did if I did not have this 'authority'? You are of course free to have
>your opinion, but that does not change the status of the GNKSA one bit.

Yes this is the same exact type of "authority" that etiquette book
writers have. You seem to be saying 100% the same thing, so I have no
idea why there is any dispute here.

> If you want to dispute the status of the GNKSA, then feel free to do
>so, but, as I wrote, don't ask me to take your opinion over that of the
>people who actually are/have_been involved in it.

I never did. However, this was about whether or not other *users*
should automatically accept that opinion and comply to GNSKA. I am
not trying to tell you that you can't shouldn't couldn't agree with
them or even refer that doc as scripture if you want to. It may be
your opinion that it is. Fine. Remember that it was the GNSKA that
was being force fed to Andrew. I didn't bring it up, nor did I
suggest that you should change your opinion.

As for any particular statement on status, I am going by what is said
on their site. If Ron or Jeroen takes a huge part in the credit, I
take that at face value. If you are saying that he is lying, then you
can make that case.

>
> You can refer to RFCs, the IETF, etc., till you're blue in the face,
>but *with regard to News/Usenet* they are, as I explained, out-of-date
>(1036) or (effectively) dead (son-of-1036 and UseFor), because they have
>not been released and have little (UseFor) to no (son-of-1036) progress.
>"It's dead Jim, dead.".

Remember, I wasn't the one saying that standards mandated use of plain
text. When someone listed the RFCs that are out there, I then
clarified what those RFC's said. Saying that they are out of date is
an opinion. You could appeal to demagoguery to prove that opinion if
you want. But I doubt you will because that isn't a very solid
position to take. The only ones that are truly out of date are the
ones that are obsoleted.

So here is the problem. If someone (not saying you) is going to adopt
a legal position on what the applicable standards say, then they have
to similarly adopt a legal position on which ones apply. If someone
wants to adopt a position to appeal to common courtesy, and say here
is this group (like the Post family) who have defined common courtesy
as it applies to Usenet, I also have no problem with that. But the
offshoot of that is that you cannot turn it into a legal position and
beat people up with it. So I object to trying to cobble together a
mix of legalism and appeals to common courtesy. For example, "It is
my opinion that this doc applies to everyone, so lets interpret it
legally and beat people up with it..." or "This other legally
authoritative document legally says this, but it is my opinion that it
no longer applies..." etc. To be very clear, I am not saying you have
made these claims, but in the ebbs and flows of these arguments, it is
very difficult to trace when things are changing from a legal basis to
an opinion basis and back. That is why I have said all along that I
have no problem with people politely requesting certain behavior to
change.

> Believe me, everyone of 'us', including me, would love it if there was
>a current RFC, because then we wouldn't have silly 'discussions' like
>this one all the time. But there isn't one, and we and you will have to
>accept that.

This is again an opinion. Technically the ones we have are current.
Only by things like popular opinion or common practice could it be
argued that they aren't. But if that is the perspective, then one
couldn't then take on a legal attitude as it pertained to some other
document and remain consistent.

>
> Yes, it came out totally wrong, especially the suggestion that it was
>the work of one person (later amended as the work of two people).

That is technically incorrect. Regardless of whether I had listed the
full history or the short history, my point was exactly the same. No I
didn't list all the random people who played some role. And when you
pointed that out, I didn't then say it was the work of only two
people. If you recall, I pointed out that the second person (who
clearly stated that it was handed off to him, not collaborative)
solicited feedback from other like minded people. But in either case,
both of those people sure took a lot of personal credit for the work
on the different versions, from Ron writing the first version, to
Jeroen writing the second version (draft) before getting feedback from
several others "dedicated to the cause" (whatever that means).

>Calling that person Ron, instead of his full name, was even more
>ridicule.

No it isn't. Especially if you are going to complain about me making
assumptions, you shouldn't make them about me. If he listed his name
as Ronald, then perhaps you could say that calling him Ron is
disrespectful. His first name is Ron. When I meet other adults, I
refer to them by their first name as they give it to me. If I called
him Ronny, or some other bastardization of his first name, then you
could probably claim that I ridiculed him.

So please if you want it to get back on track, lets not nitpick about
trivial things with an eye towards anything that could possibly be
construed as rude. I don't think either of us would come out looking
very clean.

> BTW, *I* never used the term "mandate" or anything else which even
>comes close to that. Another example of the problem you seem to have
>with telling your discussion partners apart.

Ummm. I didn't exactly say you did. A problem you seem to have is
tracing back the history of the discussion. At the beginning, I
pointed out to you that I have had a problem with those that stated
standards mandate a certain behavior. At that point, Devil quoted the
GNSKA to prove that a standard mandated such. At that point I
explained why GNSKA wasn't a "standard" except in the sense of how
etiquette could be called a "standard". Then you stepped back in.

> Call me silly, but when you discuss things with me, I only want to be
>judged on stuff I wrote, not what other participants wrote.

Well, call me silly, but if you are going to pick apart a reply I made
to someone else, I have a right to clarify the context in which I was
replying to the other person. And so I am replying to the use of the
GNSKA as a mandate for others to conform. And it sounds like you
agree with my position.

>
> It was quite a bit off. That is why I objected.
>
>
> The reason I snipped certain stuff was either because it was so off
>("[blah blah]") that I couldn't be bothered to even get started to get
>things back on track. Other stuff I snipped because it was not relevant
>for or less important (to me) than the issue I wanted to address. FYI,
>quite a lot of people snip silently. I don't like that, so normally I
>say/indicate that I have snipped.

Alright. We all appreciate when people clarify the snipping. But
certainly you can see how the comments you make while notifying the
snipping can be just as detrimental to keeping things on track as the
silent snipper. [You can scratch that last comment if you agree with
my above note on not notpicking things to death like not using
someone's last name, etc.] The part you snipped was extremely
important to my point that the GNSKA cannot be taken to be a cudgel to
beat other users with. Now, if you reply that you didn't say it was,
I'm going to scream, because a) my reply was to Devil's implication
that it was when you came back into the discussion, and b) when you
say that violators should rightfully be flamed, it becomes very
unclear under what argument you base this claim.

>
> Thanks.
>
> If there is still anything you'd like me to clarify, then please say
>so.

The only thing that needs to be clear is the context. I may not have
switched context in transition from answering Devil to answering you,
but you didn't exactly make it clear what the new context was. At the
time it was whether the GNSKA was a mandate for conformance of all
Usenet users. Saying something like HTML posters <insert all
qualifying disclaimers and caveats here> "should rightfully be flamed"
tends to make it look like you are defending Devil's application of
the GNSKA as a cudgel or mandate. And if you will take a second to
look at it from this end, whether you are saying *you* would flame or
that *someone else* should do the flaming, makes no difference to my
response. If you are defending the flaming, you are defending the
flaming.

--Bernie

Frank Slootweg

2004-02-03, 12:25 pm

[I will try to make this somewhat short(er), because I think there is no
longer any point.]

Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
> On 02 Feb 2004 19:47:30 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>

[much deleted]

>
> Yes this is the same exact type of "authority" that etiquette book
> writers have. You seem to be saying 100% the same thing, so I have no
> idea why there is any dispute here.

Please note that the GNKSA in not only an "etiquette book" (*your*
term), i.e. a document on how *people* should behave, but also a
document on how *newsreaders* (the software) should behave.

I hope you realize that the author of your newsreader (Forte Agent)
pays attention to the GNKSA.

>
> I never did. However, this was about whether or not other *users*
> should automatically accept that opinion and comply to GNSKA. I am
> not trying to tell you that you can't shouldn't couldn't agree with
> them or even refer that doc as scripture if you want to. It may be
> your opinion that it is. Fine. Remember that it was the GNSKA that
> was being force fed to Andrew. I didn't bring it up, nor did I
> suggest that you should change your opinion.
>
> As for any particular statement on status, I am going by what is said
> on their site. If Ron or Jeroen takes a huge part in the credit, I
> take that at face value. If you are saying that he is lying, then you
> can make that case.

But they don't. Yes that is an opinion, but I think more people will
share my opinion (i.e. that they do *not* "take a huge part in the
credit"), than yours. Jeroen's postings clearly show that he is not that
type of person.

[deleted]

>
> Remember, I wasn't the one saying that standards mandated use of plain
> text. When someone listed the RFCs that are out there, I then
> clarified what those RFC's said. Saying that they are out of date is
> an opinion.

First there is no "they", but only "it", rfc 1036. That is very old
and does not cover a lot of issues (like HTML :-)), which are covered in
the GNKSA. Very old and incomplete -> out of date. Note that I did *not*
say "obsolete", because there *are* still areas where the information in
RFC 1036 is still current. That is why the GNKSA refers to rfc 1036.

> You could appeal to demagoguery to prove that opinion if
> you want. But I doubt you will because that isn't a very solid
> position to take. The only ones that are truly out of date are the
> ones that are obsoleted.

Which is the null set.

> So here is the problem. If someone (not saying you) is going to adopt
> a legal position on what the applicable standards say, then they have
> to similarly adopt a legal position on which ones apply.

Sorry, but what the fsck is this? "a legal position"? Who talked about
a *legal* position? Don't you think you are overstating things a 'bit'?

[more 'legal' stuff deleted]

[much deleted]

> The part you snipped was extremely
> important to my point that the GNSKA cannot be taken to be a cudgel to
> beat other users with. Now, if you reply that you didn't say it was,
> I'm going to scream, because a) my reply was to Devil's implication
> that it was when you came back into the discussion, and b) when you
> say that violators should rightfully be flamed, it becomes very
> unclear under what argument you base this claim.

I am quoting this, because it is a, repeated, misrepresentation of
what I said. I said (< news:4018e257$0$530$cd19a363@n
ews.wanadoo.nl> ):

Me> What does that all mean? It means that newsreaders and their users
Me> should comply to the GNKSA, Netiquette, etc.. If they don't, they
Me> probably will be 'flamed' and (IMO) rightfully so. Note however my usage
Me> of "should", not "must", i.e. there is little to nothing that can be
Me> done 'against' 'offenders'.

I.e. I did not say they should be flamed, but that they probably will
be flamed (and (IMO) rightfully so). This may sound like nitpicking, but
it is an important distinction. I could give an analogy, but looking at
the history of this thread, I'm afraid that will cause more problems
than it will solve.

While in itself it is not too big a deal, I show this 'distortion'
as an *example* of things you do which (IMO) alienates your discussion
partners, at least it alienates me.

[deleted]

[leaving this, because it relates to the above (and I wouldn't want to
be accused of 'convenient' snipping, now would I? :-)):]

>
> The only thing that needs to be clear is the context. I may not have
> switched context in transition from answering Devil to answering you,
> but you didn't exactly make it clear what the new context was. At the
> time it was whether the GNSKA was a mandate for conformance of all
> Usenet users. Saying something like HTML posters <insert all
> qualifying disclaimers and caveats here> "should rightfully be flamed"
> tends to make it look like you are defending Devil's application of
> the GNSKA as a cudgel or mandate. And if you will take a second to
> look at it from this end, whether you are saying *you* would flame or
> that *someone else* should do the flaming, makes no difference to my
> response. If you are defending the flaming, you are defending the
> flaming.

FWIW, I think "flaming", when taken (too) literally, is too big a word
for feedback to the 'offender' (another too big word, hence the single
quotes). I.e. I only use(d) it to be somewhat terse, i.e. not too be
taken literally.

Bernie

2004-02-03, 2:25 pm

On 03 Feb 2004 16:25:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>[I will try to make this somewhat short(er), because I think there is no
>longer any point.]
>
>Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>
>[much deleted]
>
>
> Please note that the GNKSA in not only an "etiquette book" (*your*
>term), i.e. a document on how *people* should behave, but also a
>document on how *newsreaders* (the software) should behave.

As it pertains to a *user* using their newsreader, it is an "etiquette
book", period. Any other uses for a Swiss Army knife are irrelevant
to this discussion.

> I hope you realize that the author of your newsreader (Forte Agent)
>pays attention to the GNKSA.

And frankly I could personally care less, any more than whether I care
if my FR SP complies to FRF.5 or FRF.8. I don't know of many people
who choose to buy/use a newsreader based on whether it complies with
GNSKA or not.

>
> But they don't. Yes that is an opinion, but I think more people will
>share my opinion (i.e. that they do *not* "take a huge part in the
>credit"), than yours. Jeroen's postings clearly show that he is not that
>type of person.

I dunno. First off, I'd say that most people don't care. But since
you are appealing to popular opinion, then lets take a poll, send
people out to read the GNSKA site, and see how many think that they
don't take much credit. There is zero mention of Ron having any help
with his version. And Jeroen clearly says he wrote the draft before
soliciting feedback from others dedicated to the cause. I provided
all the quotes previously, so I'll leave it at that.

>[deleted]
>
>
> First there is no "they", but only "it", rfc 1036.

"They" as in how rfc refers to 822 for information on content of
postings. And "they" as in how 822 has been obsoleted by 2822. If
RFC 1036 didn't have dependencies on other RFC's then I would have
said "it". And also "they" as in 1855 (which is not truly a standard,
but does relate to Usenet communication).

>That is very old
>and does not cover a lot of issues (like HTML :-)), which are covered in
>the GNKSA. Very old and incomplete -> out of date. Note that I did *not*
>say "obsolete", because there *are* still areas where the information in
>RFC 1036 is still current. That is why the GNKSA refers to rfc 1036.

My point exactly. Anyone could venture opinions as to which parts are
outdated. Some could just as easily say that it isn't outdated wrt
HTML because it doesn't restrict it. Saying that it is outdated wrt
HTML because it doesn't address HTML is a non-sequitur. You would
have to have previously formed a particular position on HTML posting
(specifically that HTML posting should have restrictions on it) before
you could argue that rfc 1036 (or its successor) should regulate HTML
posting even though it doesn't. I don't petition my congressman to
pass a law making it ok to run on the sidewalk when laws already allow
it. Only if I wanted it outlawed or restricted in some manner would I
claim that existing laws are outdated wrt running on a sidewalk.

>
> Which is the null set.
>
>
> Sorry, but what the fsck is this? "a legal position"? Who talked about
>a *legal* position? Don't you think you are overstating things a 'bit'?

Not really. Going back to how this subject started, someone (i.e.
Devil) tried to tell Andrew that it was mandated by standards that he
not use HTML. That position was later backed up by an attempt to make
RFC 1036 say something it didn't really say. That is an argument that
implies a legal position, from using the term "mandate" (which is
synonymous with authority, i.e. things like court orders, etc) to
application of standards documents. Contrast that with someone who
appeals to common courtesy etc.

This is to clarify history. You responded to my response to Devil.
Whether we keep hashing out whether Devil had grounds for his position
is up to you moving forward.

>[more 'legal' stuff deleted]
>
>[much deleted]
>
>
> I am quoting this, because it is a, repeated, misrepresentation of
>what I said. I said (< news:4018e257$0$530$cd19a363@n
ews.wanadoo.nl> ):
>
>Me> What does that all mean? It means that newsreaders and their users
>Me> should comply to the GNKSA, Netiquette, etc.. If they don't, they
>Me> probably will be 'flamed' and (IMO) rightfully so. Note however my usage
>Me> of "should", not "must", i.e. there is little to nothing that can be
>Me> done 'against' 'offenders'.
>
> I.e. I did not say they should be flamed, but that they probably will
>be flamed (and (IMO) rightfully so). This may sound like nitpicking, but
>it is an important distinction. I could give an analogy, but looking at
>the history of this thread, I'm afraid that will cause more problems
>than it will solve.

Well then clarify the distinction. If you are saying that the act of
flaming (by others) is rightful [i.e. "having a just or legally
established claim"], then how is my statement a misrepresentation.
Furthermore, the root word "right" has numerous references to acting
according to truth, what is just, etc. So unless you are saying that
people *shouldn't* act according to what is right or just but that it
is good when they do, I don't see how you can even draw such a
hypertechnical distinction, unless of course you are trying to be
dodgy.

> While in itself it is not too big a deal, I show this 'distortion'
>as an *example* of things you do which (IMO) alienates your discussion
>partners, at least it alienates me.

Perhaps you are being too sensitive. I really don't think you want to
open the floor to "things done in a discussion that alienate people."
Forcing others to defend their exact wording (as opposed to their
position) in a hypertechnical fashion can be just as alienating in a
discussion. I generally try to address this situation by offering an
out when there seems to be a mis-statement, e.g. "If you didn't really
mean <this>, then just say so."

>[deleted]
>
>[leaving this, because it relates to the above (and I wouldn't want to
>be accused of 'convenient' snipping, now would I? :-)):]
>
>
> FWIW, I think "flaming", when taken (too) literally, is too big a word
>for feedback to the 'offender' (another too big word, hence the single
>quotes). I.e. I only use(d) it to be somewhat terse, i.e. not too be
>taken literally.

So I shouldn't take the word "flaming" literally, but I should read
the sentence in a hyper-technical fashion and delineate the difference
between rightful and should???? Maybe from here on out you should
clarify up front which parts of your statements we need to interpret
in a hypertechnical fashion and which ones we can interpret loosely.
After all, if I am going to get called onto the carpet for not having
ESP, then maybe you could provide a little assistance next time.

So, let me take the opportunity to point out that if you are going to
split hairs over other people's *precise* choice of words, then you
should be less cavalier in choosing yours. I could quote a definition
of "flame", but I won't. If you want people to read your position
*properly* you shouldn't use words that diverge radically from your
position. And if you do, you can't exactly cry "foul" when people
misread/misinterpret your position. You absolutely cannot remain
consistent if you pick apart the exact choice of words someone uses
while using words so loosely yourself. Much of this problem of
"misrepresentation" of your position has been your own doing. You
can't exactly hold me responsible for the misrepresentation when you
in fact misrepresented yourself.

--Bernie

Frank Slootweg

2004-02-04, 4:25 am

[Even more stripped.]

Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
> On 03 Feb 2004 16:25:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:

[deleted]

>
> Not really. Going back to how this subject started, someone (i.e.
> Devil) tried to tell Andrew that it was mandated by standards that he
> not use HTML. That position was later backed up by an attempt to make
> rfc 1036 say something it didn't really say. That is an argument that
> implies a legal position, from using the term "mandate" (which is
> synonymous with authority, i.e. things like court orders, etc) to
> application of standards documents. Contrast that with someone who
> appeals to common courtesy etc.
>
> This is to clarify history. You responded to my response to Devil.
> Whether we keep hashing out whether Devil had grounds for his position
> is up to you moving forward.

I don't share your narrow (i.e. only legal) interpretation of
"mandate", but if you really thought that people were expressing a legal
position, then (IMO) you should have addressed *that*. (IMO) Referring
to a standard (like the ones discussed here) for a legal position is
simply ludicrous. I can violate all the rules in all the standards in
the world and what are 'they' going to do? Sue me? Prosecute (sp?) me?
Etc.. I don't think so!

>
> Well then clarify the distinction. If you are saying that the act of
> flaming (by others) is rightful [i.e. "having a just or legally
> established claim"], then how is my statement a misrepresentation.
> Furthermore, the root word "right" has numerous references to acting
> according to truth, what is just, etc. So unless you are saying that
> people *shouldn't* act according to what is right or just but that it
> is good when they do, I don't see how you can even draw such a
> hypertechnical distinction, unless of course you are trying to be
> dodgy.

Taking your analogy of littering on the street: It is the difference
between saying that *if* a person is caught in the act (s)he would be
rightfully fined and saying that the police (whatever) should actively
seek out to get each and every litterer.

[deleted]

>
> So I shouldn't take the word "flaming" literally, but I should read
> the sentence in a hyper-technical fashion and delineate the difference
> between rightful and should???? Maybe from here on out you should
> clarify up front which parts of your statements we need to interpret
> in a hypertechnical fashion and which ones we can interpret loosely.
> After all, if I am going to get called onto the carpet for not having
> ESP, then maybe you could provide a little assistance next time.
>
> So, let me take the opportunity to point out that if you are going to
> split hairs over other people's *precise* choice of words, then you
> should be less cavalier in choosing yours. I could quote a definition
> of "flame", but I won't. If you want people to read your position
> *properly* you shouldn't use words that diverge radically from your
> position. And if you do, you can't exactly cry "foul" when people
> misread/misinterpret your position. You absolutely cannot remain
> consistent if you pick apart the exact choice of words someone uses
> while using words so loosely yourself. Much of this problem of
> "misrepresentation" of your position has been your own doing. You
> can't exactly hold me responsible for the misrepresentation when you
> in fact misrepresented yourself.

Easy does it! What I gave was a *clarification*. I realised,
especially because you seemed to put more weight on the word than I (had
intended), that my use of "'flamed'" (and "'offenders'") was not
interpreted in the way I meant it. For me the use of single quotes makes
clear that it is *not* to be taken literally, but for you that is for
some reason apparently not the case. There was another similar case
where double quotes ("non-standard" [1]), i.e. a quote of what someone
(in this case you) said were misinterpreted (by you). I don't understand
why these things happen, I only see that they do.

[1] In case you are interested:
< news:670l105prq9ln5o6qi3vif1fn
4fogsgkkg@4ax.com>:

> But now you agree that it is technically not a standard (i.e when you
> said, 'why the "non-standard" is the standard'). But you previously
> submitted this as a clear implication as to the basis of why you think
> it should be considered a standard:
>
> "Most newsreader authors take a lot of effort to make their newsreader
> GNKSA compliant.

Bernie

2004-02-04, 12:25 pm

On 04 Feb 2004 08:40:58 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>[Even more stripped.]
>
>Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>
>[deleted]
>
>
> I don't share your narrow (i.e. only legal) interpretation of
>"mandate",

But Webster does, which is all that matters. As you can see there is a
clear tie to an authority. And perhaps you can see now why I spent so
much time speaking about authority and you can see why throughout I
kept requoting the "mandate" statement. At any time the position of
standards mandating XYZ could have been modified or taken back.

mandate:
1 : an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a
superior court or official to an inferior one

It doesn't have to be legal in the sense of a court of law, but it has
to be from an authority that has some sort of jurisdiction over a
person. If the authority can be questioned (legitimately) then the
mandate isn't much of a command is it? IOW, Emily Post cannot mandate
anything.

>but if you really thought that people were expressing a legal
>position, then (IMO) you should have addressed *that*.

First, when I say legal, I am using the term under a slightly less
narrow definition. I really do hate quoting definitions, but when
splitting hairs, I end up having to explain why I read something a
certain way, or defending my choice of words. Well, anyway, here is
the definition, that I am using in this context.

legal:
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules

IOW, the established set of rules. Summarizing, I mean it as the
collection of discussing the established rules along with the
authority of those rules over the individual Usenet poster. Referring
to an rfc or GNSKA as an established set of rules that needs to be
parsed to see what they say about HTML posting and terming those rules
as mandates is where things get off track.

Second, Devil stated that standards mandate Andrew not post in a
certain way. When Andrew questioned the statement, Devil restated it
again. So he had a chance to soften it or say, "What I meant was
<this>". He also had a third chance to soften it when I listed to you
the various statements that I found to cross the line. Instead he
responded with quoting the docs. He had many chances to rephrase the
term mandate, yet he never did.

>(IMO) Referring
>to a standard (like the ones discussed here) for a legal position is
>simply ludicrous. I can violate all the rules in all the standards in
>the world and what are 'they' going to do? Sue me? Prosecute (sp?) me?
>Etc.. I don't think so!

Absolutely!! I said this too in an earlier post to you. And so it
should follow that using the term mandate to refer such standards is
excessive and silly. A mandate that can be ignored isn't much of a
mandate. I can only conclude that you agree 100% with my position,
though maybe you would have chosen a different way of stating it or
pursuing it.

>
> Taking your analogy of littering on the street: It is the difference
>between saying that *if* a person is caught in the act (s)he would be
>rightfully fined and saying that the police (whatever) should actively
>seek out to get each and every litterer.

Ok, but in a Usenet group there is virtually zero probability of not
getting caught, unless you are by yourself, in which case you aren't
bothering anybody and in which case Netiquette doesn't apply. So
effectively, the two are equivalent. Is there a .1% difference
between the two statements? Maybe. Is there a 1% difference? Maybe.
*Any* paraphrase is going to diverge ever so slightly (some more than
others) from the original phrase. I still believe I was close enough
to not warrant a quibble about someone distorting someone else's
position.

I don't say this to make it tit-for-tat, but I could just as easily
get up in arms over rephrasing my authority analogies to Emily as
saying GNSKA is an "etiquette book". You also said it was "my term".
I could go on about how it isn't a book and how dare you distort my
statement to say I said it was a book. I granted the rephrase because
it was close enough to not quibble. No if I thought you were out to
get me, I might assume you had bad intent. IOW, it is common
convention to opt for brevity in restating something someone says.
One can always find a small difference between a paraphrase and the
real phrase, but you know it doesn't serve to assume it was simply a
distortion.

>[deleted]
>
>
> Easy does it! What I gave was a *clarification*. I realised,
>especially because you seemed to put more weight on the word than I (had
>intended), that my use of "'flamed'" (and "'offenders'") was not
>interpreted in the way I meant it.

Ok. That is fine. What I take issue with is that when you issue a
very strong statement like that, and I interpret it as most people
would, it isn't exactly a distortion or misinterpretation on my part.
There is probably some blame to spread around. At least there is
enough room for doubt to where you could check it out or reclarify
*before* firing off accusations about distortion, strawmen, etc.

>For me the use of single quotes makes
>clear that it is *not* to be taken literally, but for you that is for
>some reason apparently not the case. There was another similar case
>where double quotes ("non-standard" [1]), i.e. a quote of what someone
>(in this case you) said were misinterpreted (by you).

To be completely honest, I don't know what you mean by single quotes.
I know what they mean in a literary sense. But as a qualifier on
Usenet, I don't know. You are the first person I have ever seen use
it to mean something special other than a quote (which is in
literature meant to be taken literally as a quote).
[color=blue]
>I don't understand
>why these things happen, I only see that they do.
>
>[1] In case you are interested:
>< news:670l105prq9ln5o6qi3vif1fn
4fogsgkkg@4ax.com>:
>

You have totally lost me here. Like I said above, we really could go
on all day picking apart each other's rephrasings. I think if you are
honest (not saying you aren't) you can think of a few similar things
where we had reverse roles. I listed one above, which I choose not to
take issue with, but which I could if I wanted to.

--Bernie

Frank Slootweg

2004-02-05, 5:25 am

[Again much snipped.]

Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
> On 04 Feb 2004 08:40:58 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:

[deleted]

>
> But Webster does, which is all that matters.

Well, then that copy of Webster isn't worth the money you payed for it.
Translation: Of course Webster *also* gives a legal interpretation (of
"mandate"), but, as I said, not *only*, and probably not even mainly
(i.e. in number of interpretations).

[deleted]

> Well, anyway, here is
> the definition, that I am using in this context.
>
> legal:
> 3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
>
> IOW, the established set of rules.

*That* ("the established set of rules") is fine by me and has no legal
meaning, so I am at a loss why you brought that ("legal") up, but
whatever.

> Absolutely!! I said this too in an earlier post to you. And so it
> should follow that using the term mandate to refer such standards is
> excessive and silly. A mandate that can be ignored isn't much of a
> mandate. I can only conclude that you agree 100% with my position,
> though maybe you would have chosen a different way of stating it or
> pursuing it.

Yes, but *you* now say that "mandate" means "the established set of
rules" and the RFCs and the GNKSA *are* exactly that, so you have just
invalidated your own point.

>
> Ok, but in a Usenet group there is virtually zero probability of not
> getting caught, unless you are by yourself, in which case you aren't
> bothering anybody and in which case Netiquette doesn't apply. So
> effectively, the two are equivalent. Is there a .1% difference
> between the two statements? Maybe. Is there a 1% difference? Maybe.
> *Any* paraphrase is going to diverge ever so slightly (some more than
> others) from the original phrase. I still believe I was close enough
> to not warrant a quibble about someone distorting someone else's
> position.

Try to read, will you? "getting caught" (again *your* words, not mine)
(in this context) means getting caught *and* getting fined (i.e. getting
'flamed' in the Usenet context). So in reality, the probablity of "not
getting caught" is not "virtually zero", but much, much, much larger,
i.e., dependent of course on the 'offense', probably 90% or more. So,
again, how you interpret my sentence is totally different than how I
interpret/meant it.

[deleted]

>
> Ok. That is fine. What I take issue with is that when you issue a
> very strong statement like that, and I interpret it as most people
> would, it isn't exactly a distortion or misinterpretation on my part.

It is (a misinterpretation), because any somewhat smart reader would
not interpret it the way you did, especially, like I said, *because* it
was in (single) quotes.

> There is probably some blame to spread around. At least there is
> enough room for doubt to where you could check it out or reclarify
> *before* firing off accusations about distortion, strawmen, etc.

And here we have the timing problem again! I already (IMO rightfully)
"fired off accusations about distortion, strawmen, etc." *before* this
(the misinterpretation of "'flamed'" and "'offenders'") episode, so I
*could not* "check it out or reclarify *before* ...".

>
> To be completely honest, I don't know what you mean by single quotes.
> I know what they mean in a literary sense. But as a qualifier on
> Usenet, I don't know. You are the first person I have ever seen use
> it to mean something special other than a quote (which is in
> literature meant to be taken literally as a quote).

Well, 'my' use is not uncommon. As to "as a quote": That is what
*double* quotes are for (and before we are going to argue about *that*,
*you* use double quotes to quote literally).

Anyway, I *explained* ("(another too big word, hence the single
quotes)", what I meant with the single quotes and *still* you
misinterpreted it (and consequently 'flamed' me).

Some more toughts:

*If* single quotes are meant to quote literally, then we can only
conclude that double and single quotes serve the same purpose, so one of
them is redundant, which (IMO) is a rather silly position to have.

If only (see exception below) double quotes are to quote literally
(i.e. my position), then what are single quotes for (in text)?

In sentences like "'My' use of single quotes ...", "The way 'my'
newsreader does this is ...", how would you quote the word "my"?
Double quotes would be wrong, because it means something someone has
said/written. So what solution remains (other than changing/re-arranging
the sentence)?

>
> You have totally lost me here.

1) I wrote "non-standard" in double quotes, i.e. a quote, i.e. to
refer to *your* use of the word. If it was (also) my interpretation, I
would/should just have left out the quotes. 2) It should have been
clear that I did consider the GNKSA a standard (i.e. not a
non-standard). 3) Reading the word "non-standard" in the sentence 'why
the "non-standard" is the standard' without giving any meaning to the
double quotes leads to a totally meaningless sentence.). (BTW, I agree
with this (your) use of single quotes, so we don't have to argue about
that.)

> Like I said above, we really could go
> on all day picking apart each other's rephrasings. I think if you are
> honest (not saying you aren't) you can think of a few similar things
> where we had reverse roles. I listed one above, which I choose not to
> take issue with, but which I could if I wanted to.

True. And of course we do not argue about the rephrasings, etc. which
are *not* a big deal, but we *do* argue, and IMO rightfully so, about
those which are a big deal. Believe me, I have only addressed the ones
which (IMO) are a big deal. If I had addressed also the smaller,
irrelevant, etc. ones, then this thread would have been even more ugly,
tedious, etc.. For example I could have joined the bandwidth debate, but
the arguments were (IMO) so silly that there was no point. And the there
was as an (IMO) even sillier one which I won't even mention, because
that sure would re-ignite the flames.

So yes, of course, where two people 'fight', they both share at least
part of the responsibility/'blame'. However I honestly do not see how I
could have prevented (part of) what happened here. Other than not
participating that is! :-)

Bernie

2004-02-05, 12:25 pm

On 05 Feb 2004 09:42:09 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>[Again much snipped.]
>
>Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>
>[deleted]
>
>
> Well, then that copy of Webster isn't worth the money you payed for it.

Utterly silly and untenable response. It is the current one, and
Webster is far more of an established authority than you. Second, I
gave you the definition which is an authoritative command, and coming
from a set of rules (legal) then the authoritative command has a legal
connection in the context in which it was used.

>Translation: Of course Webster *also* gives a legal interpretation (of
>"mandate"), but, as I said, not *only*, and probably not even mainly
>(i.e. in number of interpretations).

All definitions that remotely fit the context are commands that come
from an authority. It the "authority" is a framework of rules and
regulations, then it has a legal connection. Are you trying to be
obtuse? I have no idea how you can bury your head on this after I
have elaborated it so clearly.

>[deleted]
>
> *That* ("the established set of rules") is fine by me and has no legal
>meaning,

What a riot! It *****IS***** the meaning (one of them anyway) of the
word legal. Are you trying to make me laugh or are you dead serious?

>so I am at a loss why you brought that ("legal") up, but
>whatever.

How can you contradict yourself in the same sentence?!? You agree
that the definition fits and then say you don't know why I brought it
up using that word????????

Lets try again. You have heard the word legalism, right? Then you
know that the use of the word legal can be applied to religion,
government (laws), or any other field. So if someone is using sets of
rules to create mandates on user behavior, they are promoting a form
of Usenet legalism. Is that so hard to understand?

>
> Yes, but *you* now say that "mandate" means "the established set of
>rules" and the RFCs and the GNKSA *are* exactly that, so you have just
>invalidated your own point.

Now where did you get that???? I clarified this completely before. I
gave you definitions. I clarified how they apply. Legal is the set
of rules. Mandate is the command that comes from the set of rules.
Together it is legalism. I am opting for the summary this time since
you can't handle the expanded version.

>
> Try to read, will you? "getting caught" (again *your* words, not mine)
>(in this context) means getting caught *and* getting fined (i.e. getting
>'flamed' in the Usenet context).

Uhhh, you can't read methinks. You said if caught (then) they would
be fined. You didn't say if caught *and* fined.

>So in reality, the probablity of "not
>getting caught" is not "virtually zero", but much, much, much larger,

Only in a group with one member (i.e. the poster) will a post likely
not be "caught".

>i.e., dependent of course on the 'offense', probably 90% or more. So,
>again, how you interpret my sentence is totally different than how I
>interpret/meant it.

Funny.

>[deleted]
>
>
> It is (a misinterpretation), because any somewhat smart reader would
>not interpret it the way you did, especially, like I said, *because* it
>was in (single) quotes.

Whatever.

>
> And here we have the timing problem again! I already (IMO rightfully)
>"fired off accusations about distortion, strawmen, etc." *before* this
>(the misinterpretation of "'flamed'" and "'offenders'") episode, so I
>*could not* "check it out or reclarify *before* ...".

Your timeline is off (see below). You mispoke (blame in process of
being determined), I misread (blame in process of being determined),
you flamed for strawman (*INSTEAD* of checking it out).

On 29 Jan 2004 10:37:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:
>If they don't, they
>probably will be 'flamed'

On 29 Jan 2004 20:01:20 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:
>But as
>with your other postings, you fire strawman arguments at random in the
>vain hope that they hit something.

So unless you are suggesting that I read your second post after I read
the first you cannot possible make that claim. And since your second
post was a response to my response to your first, that is not
plausible.

>
> Well, 'my' use is not uncommon. As to "as a quote": That is what
>*double* quotes are for (and before we are going to argue about *that*,
>*you* use double quotes to quote literally).

Both quotes types serve the same purpose (depending on where you are
from). Yes I use double quotes to make a literal quote, but that is
because I use American English. If I lived in the UK, I would
probably be using single quotes. In some places of the world, people
use single quotes instead of double quotes which is more common here.
They are both, however, used when nesting quotes as you have seen me
use them. That is the proper convention.

As for the commonality of using ***quote*** marks for something other
than quoting, well, we are going to have to disagree as there is no
way you will ever convince me of that. I have never seen it used that
way on Usenet or in a book. I read a lot and use Usenet a lot. Maybe
in the groups you frequent (i.e. your small corner of the world) that
is a convention. At the very least using a symbol that can confuse
the hell out of a British reader and create other ambiguities for
others elsewhere is just is ridiculous if you are going to then turn
around and have a conniption when someone mistakes your meaning of
"not literal" for something else.

> Anyway, I *explained* ("(another too big word, hence the single
>quotes)", what I meant with the single quotes and *still* you
>misinterpreted it (and consequently 'flamed' me).

Not sure what you are referring to at this point. You just explained
it. My *exact* response to your explanation was:

-------
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:17:57 -0600, Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>To be completely honest, I don't know what you mean by single quotes.
>I know what they mean in a literary sense. But as a qualifier on
>Usenet, I don't know. You are the first person I have ever seen use
>it to mean something special other than a quote (which is in
>literature meant to be taken literally as a quote).
-------

That wasn't a flame.

> Some more toughts:
>
> *If* single quotes are meant to quote literally, then we can only
>conclude that double and single quotes serve the same purpose, so one of
>them is redundant, which (IMO) is a rather silly position to have.

1) Build your argument on what they mean in literature. Try to use a
source that doesn't include yourself.

2) They are both used when nesting quotes, so while roles are often
reversed, the function of both is the same.
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000110.htm

> If only (see exception below) double quotes are to quote literally
>(i.e. my position), then what are single quotes for (in text)?

When nesting quotes (both in America and in UK, order is reversed
though) or books written by British authors...

> In sentences like "'My' use of single quotes ...", "The way 'my'
>newsreader does this is ...", how would you quote the word "my"?
>Double quotes would be wrong, because it means something someone has
>said/written. So what solution remains (other than changing/re-arranging
>the sentence)?

What is clearly implied by the uses here, is that it is a quote within
a quote. Since you are just now learning about grammar rules for
quotes, then you will have to clarify if that is how you meant the
above.

>
> 1) I wrote "non-standard" in double quotes, i.e. a quote, i.e. to
>refer to *your* use of the word. If it was (also) my interpretation, I
>would/should just have left out the quotes. 2) It should have been
>clear that I did consider the GNKSA a standard (i.e. not a
>non-standard).

You have contradicted yourself and retrenched so many times, I no
longer am able to figure out when you are just using double speak or
what. You say things like:

----
On 05 Feb 2004 09:42:09 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:
>
> *That* ("the established set of rules") is fine by me and has no legal
>meaning, so I am at a loss why you brought that ("legal") up, but
>whatever.
----

So no, under the circumstances, I don't think you can find much fault
with me on this subject.

>3) Reading the word "non-standard" in the sentence 'why
>the "non-standard" is the standard' without giving any meaning to the
>double quotes leads to a totally meaningless sentence.).

Huh?

>(BTW, I agree
>with this (your) use of single quotes, so we don't have to argue about
>that.)

Good, because nesting quotes is a proper use of single quotes and
double quotes together. Using single quotes to mean "not to be taken
literally" is not a use for single quotes in grammar.

>
> True. And of course we do not argue about the rephrasings, etc. which
>are *not* a big deal, but we *do* argue, and IMO rightfully so, about
>those which are a big deal. Believe me, I have only addressed the ones
>which (IMO) are a big deal. If I had addressed also the smaller,
>irrelevant, etc. ones, then this thread would have been even more ugly,
>tedious, etc.. For example I could have joined the bandwidth debate, but
>the arguments were (IMO) so silly that there was no point. And the there
>was as an (IMO) even sillier one which I won't even mention, because
>that sure would re-ignite the flames.
>
> So yes, of course, where two people 'fight', they both share at least
>part of the responsibility/'blame'. However I honestly do not see how I
>could have prevented (part of) what happened here. Other than not
>participating that is! :-)

Your original statement about flaming was something you imminently had
control over.... Even though you won't admit that your backwards use
of punctuation in a non-standard way might cause confusion, you did
previously admit that you meant flaming in a way different than what
it normally means.

--Bernie

Bernie

2004-02-05, 12:25 pm

On 05 Feb 2004 09:42:09 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>
> Well, then that copy of Webster isn't worth the money you payed for it.
>Translation: Of course Webster *also* gives a legal interpretation (of
>"mandate"), but, as I said, not *only*, and probably not even mainly
>(i.e. in number of interpretations).

You might also find this definition mandate to be of interest, because
it also shows a historic Webster definition too:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/sear...=13&search.y=15

[n] (politics) the commission that is given to a government and its
policies through an electoral victory
[n] a document giving an official instruction or command
[n] a territory surrendered by Turkey or Germany after World War I
and inhabited by people not yet able to stand by themselves and so put
under the tutelage of some other European power
[v] assign authority to
[v] assign under a mandate; of nations

[The only one that fits Devil's context is the second]

Webster's 1913 Dictionary
-----------------------------------------
Definition: \Man"date\, n. [L. mandatum, fr. mandare to commit to
one's charge, order, orig., to put into one's hand; manus
hand + dare to give: cf. F. mandat. See {Manual}, {Date} a
time, and cf. {Commend}, {Maundy Thursday}.]
1. An official or authoritative command; an order or
injunction; a commission; a judicial precept.

This dream all-powerful Juno; I bear Her mighty
mandates, and her words you hear. --Dryden.

2. (Canon Law) A rescript of the pope, commanding an ordinary
collator to put the person therein named in possession of
the first vacant benefice in his collation.

3. (Scots Law) A contract by which one employs another to
manage any business for him. By the Roman law, it must
have been gratuitous. --Erskine.

Moreover, the American Heritage Dictionary also defines it as "an
authoritative command or instruction". I already gave you the current
Webster dictionary definition which you snipped.

IOW, the definition has not changed in almost a hundred years,
authorities on the subject of word meanings are in wide agreement, and
yet you, Frank, have a different personal definition which we are all
supposed to gravitate to and none of the current dictionaries are
correct. Here is a hint: it might be time to retrench (yet again) to
more solid ground.

So what about an "authoritative command" do you not understand or
disagree with? This has really become a three ring circus.

--Bernie

CCIE8122

2004-02-08, 2:25 am

>>> I don't share your narrow (i.e. only legal) interpretation of
>
> Well, then that copy of Webster isn't worth the money you payed for it.
> Translation: Of course Webster *also* gives a legal interpretation (of
> "mandate"), but, as I said, not *only*, and probably not even mainly
> (i.e. in number of interpretations).

That is ridiculous! But just to show how wrong you are, here is the
very first definition of "mandate" from the Volume 9, Page 301 of the
OED, which is considered by pretty much EVERYONE to be THE authority on
the English language:

mandate . . . sb. . . .[ad. L. mandat-um, neut.
pa. ppl. of manda-re to command, enjoin, or commit] . . .
1. gen. A command, order, injunction. . . .
2. spec. a. A judicial or legal command . . . .
b. A papal rescript . . . .
c. A command from the sovereign . . . .
d. Roman hist. An imperial command sent to the governor
of a province. . . .
e. A pastoral letter. . . .
3. a. Roman law. blah blah . . .
b. Scots law. blah blah . . .
c. A contract of bailment . . .
4. Politics. . . . a. The instruction . . . given by the
electors to a parliament or one of its members.
b. spec. A commission issued by the League of Nations . . . .
c. doctor's mandate A mandate from the people empowering
the government to take extreme measures in the national interest. . . .
5. attrib. = MAUNDY . . .

.. . .

mandate . . . v. [. . . ppl. stem of mandare to
enjoin, command]
1. trans. To command . . .
2. To commit (one's sermon) to memory
3. To assign . . . under a mandate of the League of Nations
4. To give a mandate to . . .

These are ALL the definitions of "mandate." So unless you are talking
about electoral politics, papal epistle, or memorization of sermons, you
must either be using "mandate" as Bernie defined it, or not in harmony
with consistent English definition, and thus unintelligible to the rest
of us that do not have the clairvoyance to share *your* interpretation
of the term "mandate."

>
> *That* ("the established set of rules") is fine by me and has no legal
> meaning, so I am at a loss why you brought that ("legal") up, but
> whatever.

It absolutely has legal meaning -- in the sense that the established set
of rules when "mandated" is "commanded, ordered, or enjoined."

>
> Yes, but *you* now say that "mandate" means "the established set of
> rules" and the RFCs and the GNKSA *are* exactly that, so you have just
> invalidated your own point.

Not so. See above.

>
> It is (a misinterpretation), because any somewhat smart reader would
> not interpret it the way you did, especially, like I said, *because* it
> was in (single) quotes.

I guess you are saying that the rest of the world is not somewhat smart,
then. That is a pretty big statement.

> So yes, of course, where two people 'fight', they both share at least
> part of the responsibility/'blame'. However I honestly do not see how I
> could have prevented (part of) what happened here. Other than not
> participating that is! :-)

My, now that is contradictory. "When two people fight, both share the
resp/blame, except for me, because I (and my interpretations) am right."

Puullleeeeaze.

kr

Bernie

2004-02-08, 10:25 am

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:48:19 -0700, CCIE8122 <none@none.com> wrote:

>
>That is ridiculous! But just to show how wrong you are, here is the
>very first definition of "mandate" from the Volume 9, Page 301 of the
>OED, which is considered by pretty much EVERYONE to be THE authority on
>the English language:
>
>mandate . . . sb. . . .[ad. L. mandat-um, neut.
>pa. ppl. of manda-re to command, enjoin, or commit] . . .
> 1. gen. A command, order, injunction. . . .
> 2. spec. a. A judicial or legal command . . . .
> b. A papal rescript . . . .
> c. A command from the sovereign . . . .
> d. Roman hist. An imperial command sent to the governor
>of a province. . . .
> e. A pastoral letter. . . .
> 3. a. Roman law. blah blah . . .
> b. Scots law. blah blah . . .
> c. A contract of bailment . . .
> 4. Politics. . . . a. The instruction . . . given by the
>electors to a parliament or one of its members.
> b. spec. A commission issued by the League of Nations . . . .
> c. doctor's mandate A mandate from the people empowering
>the government to take extreme measures in the national interest. . . .
> 5. attrib. = MAUNDY . . .
>
>. . .
>
>mandate . . . v. [. . . ppl. stem of mandare to
>enjoin, command]
> 1. trans. To command . . .
> 2. To commit (one's sermon) to memory
> 3. To assign . . . under a mandate of the League of Nations
> 4. To give a mandate to . . .
>
>These are ALL the definitions of "mandate." So unless you are talking
>about electoral politics, papal epistle, or memorization of sermons, you
>must either be using "mandate" as Bernie defined it, or not in