Re: What are you people using to download multipart binaries?

From: NunYa Bidness (nunyabidness_at_nunyabidness.org)
Date: 09/02/05 

Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 11:05:30 GMT

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:02:00 -0400, "Arthur Hagen" <art@broomstick.com>
Gave us:

>NunYa Bidness <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:40:37 -0400, "Arthur Hagen" <art@broomstick.com>
>> Gave us:
>>
>>> AJP <AJP@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering what you people use to download multipart binaries
>>>> from newsgroups.
>>>
>>> We normally don't.
>>
>> Who is "we", Kimosabe?
>
>We The News Admins, Tonto. Those of us who *built* Usenet and run and
>administer the servers you see as a free means to get your daily fix of
>pr0n and mp3's.

  Yeah, like some twit that has "admin'd" a server for what? a few
years? Has any clue as to the history of the forum. You are just a
twit that has an opinion about how difficult a time that YOU have
admining YOUR server. You speak for NO others.

> Those of us who pay for the bandwidth and disk space to
>do so,

  Idiot. You use NO bandwidth unless you are downloading from a
binary server. Your argument is baseless. If you run a server and
want to clip bandwidth instream, remove the binary groups from those
you carry, ya total twit.

  Don't try to feed folks your bull***.

> spend hours maintaining and tweaking the systems to ensure
>availability, and still does it *despite* people like you,

  You know nothing about me, asswipe. Aside from that, there are
plenty of, for example, MP3 groups where the content is public domain.
Ever heard of the 78rpm groups?

  Your argument is a baseless opinion, nothing more. Your remarks as
to what you THINK I am is about as retarded as it gets.

> because we
>see the importance of Usenet as an uncensored forum.

  You are spewing babble. Senseless babble at that.

> That "we".

 Oh boy. You ever think about seeing a psychologist about those
multiple personalities? It is considered a disorder, ya know.

>
>>> Multipart binaries on newsgroups is inconsiderate
>>> bandwidth hogging,

  You're a Usenet dope. Claiming to be an admin tells me you do the
nitty gritty stuff, but are clueless as to the facts.

>>
>> This has to be the most uninformed, retarded remark I have seen on
>> Usenet.
>
>As a long time Usenet administrator, I take offense to that.

  Good for you. Again, the original claim that Usenet was never meant
for file transfers is retarded. If you made it, YOU are retarded.

> Without
>people volunteering their hardware, lines and time, there would have
>BEEN no Usenet, binaries or not.

 Bull***. ISPs provided Usenet servers long before the FIDONET and
EFNET twits and whatever you think you are came into it.

> A single binary takes up as much
>bandwidth and storage space as hundreds if not thousands of text posts.

  No ***. You don't like it, leave the binary groups OUT of those
you carry. Pretty damned simple, boy. Be offended by that!

>There's a good reason why Usenet servers in 2005 don't carry the
>articles from five years ago.

  Likely wussified chumps like you.

> That reason is bandwidth hogging
>binaries, which started appearing in volume as late as the mid 90's.

  You're an idiot. They have been around since the onset of the
forum. I was there. You obviously were not, or were just as brain
dead then as you make yourself out to be now.

>Before then, retention was measured in *years* and not *days*, even with
>much MUCH smaller storage devices.

  You don't know much about population explosions, do ya, boy?

>>> causing delayed propagation and decreased retention
>>> of real posts.

 Sounds like you need to learn what the term "terabyte" means.
Get a few or several for your "server" and maybe it will actually
qualify as one.

>> There are binary specific newsgroups, so it most certainly IS one of
>> the features of Usenet.
>
>No, what the groups are *used for* doesn't imply it's one of Usenet's
>*features*.

  Didn't say it did. What I declare is that file transfers have
ALWAYS been a feature of the forum, and for you to claim otherwise
simply means that you have been making *** up all these years.
You act like a friggin' two year old.

> The binary specific newsgroups were created to get most of
>the September babies *away* from the discussion groups.

  You're a total mis-information idiot!
>
>>> Usenet was never designed for this use,
>>
>> Bull***. It most certainly WAS one of the primary goals, and
>> binary to text conversion and file transfers have taken place since
>> the very beginnings of Usenet, and even before that by the military,
>> when it was ARPANET.
>
>Except that Usenet *wasn't* an ARPANET/DARPA project. In fact, it was
>designed to bring message propagation to machines that were *NOT* part
>of DARPA. It was created as an alternative, and never relied on
>Internet or its predecessors (it started out using UUCP, and you *still*
>find sites that propagate news using UUCP).
>
  You obviously need to do some history research.

>> You need to BONE UP on the facts, and quit making *** up as you go.
>
>I was running Usenet servers probably long before you had *heard* of
>Internet

  You're full of ***.

> -- I have no need to make things up.

  Then STOP, dumbass!
>
>The encoding of binaries in a *text-only* format should give you a small
>clue here.

  Actually, it should give YOU one, dip***. The origins of Usenet
didn't allow for extended characters. That is the ONLY reason
conversion was needed. Anything you make up goes in the garbage bin
along with the rest of what you have spewed here.

> If it had been designed to handle binaries, it would have
>accepted binaries without them having to be encoded into and camouflaged
>as text post.

  They were NOT "camouflaged", idiot. It was required due to the
servers which were passing the character symbols. Unix only carried a
limited set. Get a clue, boy. Stop making *** up.

>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Binary_content
>Also take a look at RFC1036
>
>>> Thus, I would
>>> think that most selfish uses with little regard for others as long as
>>> they get THEIR pr0n would use Windows.
>>
>> You're an idiot. This is where some would declare "plonk", but I
>> already know how to ignore ineffectual internet idjiiots.
>
>Please plonk me. Then at least it will be mutual.

  Run, wussy, run!