Re: MSN Zone on Linux?

From: P.T. Breuer (ptb_at_oboe.it.uc3m.es)
Date: 10/25/03 

Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:01:47 +0200

In comp.os.linux.misc Wally Sanford <wsanford@wallysanford.com> wrote:
> "P.T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message news:sjtbnb.l5r.ln@news.it.uc3m.es...
> > That's what Paul has been telling you is ALLOWED. They can reject your
> > post. What they can't do is ACCEPT it BUT not crosspost it. That would
> > be aginst RFCs (no change in a post).

> But I never claimed that.

You contradict yourself....

> The only thing I ever claimed was that my isp
> would not allow me ot cross post.

There you are! Your self-contradiction! No. They allow you to cross
post just fine. What they DON'T allow you to do is make a post that
would result in a cross post.

Please go back to elementary school in logic .. or do you get the
difference now? Let's try it again:

     The laws of nature do not allow a cross-breed between a highland
     pony and a marino sheep to live off alfalfa.

     False.

     They allow it just fine.
     
     What they don't allow is a cross-breed between a highland pony and
     a marino sheep to survive to the stage at which it could consider
     eating alfalfa, or anything.

OK? Now is it clear? Empty set theology - very common, and always valid.

> THat it would get rejected. Paul didnot
> have to go on his crazy crusade abotu this.

He's only retreated into a corner of logic. What you don't have to do
is keep on misunderstanding the logic.

> > > > from the server. Therefore it is very possible, stop saying it isn't.
> > > > Thank you and fo.
> >
> > > I've had it happen to me in the past too. It really is the right of the
> > > admins to impose any regulation.
> >
> > No it isn't. They cannot go against RFCs. That's what they're for. They
> > can reject your post, as allowed by their policy - what they can't do
> > is alter it, and if the post says it should be xposted, they can't
> > alter that.

> Who ever said anything about altering. My original claim was that I wasn't
> being allowed to cros post.

There you are! If you POST something that is crossposted, and the
result is that it is POSTED but not crossposted, then it has been
altered. So yes, you said plenty about altering. You claimed
they could stop you xposting and didn't say that they could stop you
posting. I at least understood you to mean originally that when you
tried to xpost, it came out instead as a multi post - that was what all
that stuff about links was about! Trying to teach you about the trick
so that you would see that the claim that they could decide to turn a
xpost into a multipost "as a matter of policy" was nonsensical.

> I NEVER claimed that the post was being accepted
> and multiple groups being stripped.

I don't think you're being accused of that, but instead of saying that
a xpost was being reshaped as n single-posts, i.e. as a multi-post. I
certainly understood you to be saying that.

> They exerisied their right to change
> their policy.

Eh? I think you mean the converse. Or something.

> > It's fairly normal to refuse to accept posts with more than 5 xposts, by
> > the way. Refusing to accept posts with more than 0 xposts is just a
> > more extreme version of that, and is quite within RFCs, as Paul has
> > been telling you, no matter what amazing imaginary thing you think he
> > is telling you.
> >
> > > Paul Lutus is at it again. I don't think
> >
> > Not in this case. He's found a valid straw, and is clutching it, thank
> > you.

> No he has not. He has been insulting and miss-informing. I don't call that a
> "valid straw", but cclutching everying but reality.

He's not. He's sitting back and laughing at you while you flap around
imagining what he's saying instead of looking at the logic, and then
checking that what you deduce he must be saying is what he is saying.

> He insults simply
> becuase he does not understand my position,

He possibly or probably understands it fine, or doesn't, but anyway, he
doesn't care, since he has simply retreated to a logically imperturbable
stance of his own, and is leaving you to figure out what it is from his
answers, something you seem not to be trying to do.

I agree that he is simply insulting you for the most part, but that's
because he doesn't see why he should help you form your argument
against his position. If you can't see it and want to be distracted by
insults and uninformation, fine.

> and completely took this tread
> down a tangent

Hey, that's not against RFCs.

Sure - he's arguing in an annoying way, but you're not helping by
not slapping down his argument.

> that had nothing to do with the original topic. Hew refuses
> to accept the reality put before him, and this is something common of him as

He doesn't have to accept "reality", or rather, he doesn't have to move
to your position because he has a strong position of his own. Namely:
your news server and its operators must follow RFCs, whatever you
claim. And I recall you arguing that the operators can do whatever they
like, and that "not xposting" was one of the things your server did to
your posts.

We've had to work out what you might mean by that, and only in the last
few articles has it become clear that you mean "rejecting articles
which would be xposted if posted", not "changing xposts to multiposts",
or possibly "stripping the groups line down to one entry".

The middle claim was what I originally thought you were saying, from
the form of your english, and was what Paul took you up on, I think,
especially in light of your claim that the operators could do
whatever they liked and some/many servers really did this dastardly deed.

The third possibility is something you might have meant, but apparently
don't.

The first possibility is what it now seems you do mean, and we all
agree it is allowed by RFCs (well, I haven't checked, but I assume so).
So now we all agree. End.

> Google shows.

Peter

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MSN Zone on Linux?
    ... >> That's what Paul has been telling you is ALLOWED. ... They cannot go against RFCs. ... xpost into a multipost "as a matter of policy" was nonsensical. ... certainly understood you to be saying that. ...
    (linux.redhat.misc)
  • Re: Paul was on Ellen today
    ... > So you're saying that Paul, arguably the greatest rock and roll stud of ... He dated a lot of girls. ... Paul having sex for procreative purposes. ... Heh I'm not saying he ONLY ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: John and his devoted family
    ... If that is what you are saying, ... and John, in particular, acted as a check and balance on each other ... I think Paul and John were diverging so much on their musical tastes that ... the "check and balance" thing, which served them very well earlier, was no ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: Traction Control & ESP availability?
    ... Adrian wrote: ... > PC Paul gurgled happily, sounding much like they were ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: OK Paul. Was: Who is the real author of the Service of Womenpaper?
    ... He keeps on saying that he is not a Baha'i. ... The two of you sprang into action immediately, as if you knew that Paul would need urgent help on this one. ... to onlookers the same propaganda techniques we have seen in Bad's posts to date, in this case of swapping discussion of the point with ad hominem accusations of intrusiveness, using extreme false analogies that equate asking a religious question relevant to a participant's religious claims on a religion newsgroup with asking an irrelevant question about one's homosexuality or asking for sensitive financial records. ... Other fair-minded readers will judge these tawdry tactics with the contempt they deserve. ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
Loading