Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / June 2007
A Different Type of RVer
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Atomik Harmonik - 06 Jun 2007 04:45 GMT RVers have been characterized as a subset of the ugly American. Fat, ignorant, redneck types driving ponderous vehicles that guzzle gas at 10 mpg or less. For the most part it is true but there is a class of RVer that stands head and shoulders above the rest.
That RVer drives a Road Trek. Road Trek drivers tend to be unpretentious. They are of the upper income bracket, physically fit and mentally of the top 20 of the bell curve. Their vehicles are small, don't look like RVs and get mileage of about 17.5 mpg. In fact, many RoadTrek drivers are somewhat patrician in their appearance. The are retired physicists, economists, philosophers, and people of that type. The Roadies as I call them seem very content with life, they aren't after thrills or fun. They drive their own path, both RVing and in life.
Roadies don't go to Branson and gobble up the buffet. No, they are found on lesser travelled backroads and venture out for the unusual or extraordinary. They'll climb mountains, shoot the rapids, go big game hunting, sail solo across the Caribbean. That is why Roadies have such excellent health. They aren't diabetic from eating too much and aren't so fat that they stink because they can't reach their butt cleavage to clean out the excrement.
Roadies believe that more is less and in economy. That is why they can afford such expensive vehicles for their size. They don't need or want the big screen, the washer and dryer. They can live in tight quarters because they aren't fat or offensive smelling. They don't chain smoke and aren't ignorant in the ways of culture and science. Road Trek drivers are in a league far above your average RVer.
Dave in Lake Villa - 06 Jun 2007 12:51 GMT 'Road Trek drivers are in a league far above your average RVer.'
REPLY: I hope they all arent narcisistic and let down from Heaven on a shoestring as an example to the planet.
miles - 06 Jun 2007 14:05 GMT > RVers have been characterized as a subset of the ugly American. Fat, > ignorant, redneck types driving ponderous vehicles that guzzle gas at > 10 mpg or less. I see that type as a very small minority. I suppose it depends on where you RV. Where I go there's always that one jerk of an RV'er thats brain dead but theres dozens of others that are genuinely good decent folk.
mikeyhsd - 06 Jun 2007 14:39 GMT doubt the truth of your post. as I have seen many that need to apply generous amount of vaseline to get behind steering wheel.
maybe you need to go to sleep and wake up in the real world.
mikeyhsd@comcast.net
RVers have been characterized as a subset of the ugly American. Fat, ignorant, redneck types driving ponderous vehicles that guzzle gas at 10 mpg or less. For the most part it is true but there is a class of RVer that stands head and shoulders above the rest.
That RVer drives a Road Trek. Road Trek drivers tend to be unpretentious. They are of the upper income bracket, physically fit and mentally of the top 20 of the bell curve. Their vehicles are small, don't look like RVs and get mileage of about 17.5 mpg. In fact, many RoadTrek drivers are somewhat patrician in their appearance. The are retired physicists, economists, philosophers, and people of that type. The Roadies as I call them seem very content with life, they aren't after thrills or fun. They drive their own path, both RVing and in life.
Roadies don't go to Branson and gobble up the buffet. No, they are found on lesser travelled backroads and venture out for the unusual or extraordinary. They'll climb mountains, shoot the rapids, go big game hunting, sail solo across the Caribbean. That is why Roadies have such excellent health. They aren't diabetic from eating too much and aren't so fat that they stink because they can't reach their butt cleavage to clean out the excrement.
Roadies believe that more is less and in economy. That is why they can afford such expensive vehicles for their size. They don't need or want the big screen, the washer and dryer. They can live in tight quarters because they aren't fat or offensive smelling. They don't chain smoke and aren't ignorant in the ways of culture and science. Road Trek drivers are in a league far above your average RVer.
Barbara - 06 Jun 2007 20:10 GMT > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Mikey, can you kill the HTML?
Have you noticed that your posts/replies are HUNDREDS of lines long duplicating the text plus the HTML formated version? You've been reading/posting here a while. Take a look.
Text format is appropriate for newsgroups.
 Signature Barbara
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tom J - 06 Jun 2007 21:09 GMT > Have you noticed that your posts/replies are HUNDREDS of lines long > duplicating the text plus the HTML formated version? You've been > reading/posting here a while. Take a look. I have my reader set to only receive and send text, so I don't see all that. I suggest you do the same, or do you just need something to complain about today???
Tom J
Barbara - 06 Jun 2007 22:11 GMT > > Have you noticed that your posts/replies are HUNDREDS of lines long > > duplicating the text plus the HTML formated version? You've been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that. I suggest you do the same, or do you just need something to > complain about today??? The point is: He *can* set his newsreader to send in text only, just like you have done along with everybody else. Many newbies don't know the difference until someone mentions it.
 Signature Barbara
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Festus Haggen - 06 Jun 2007 23:18 GMT BEWARE ALL! DANGER ALERT! IT'S A ROADTREK TROLL MASQUERADING AS A REGULAR RVER. RUN, HIDE.....SEQUESTER THE CHILDREN, THE EVIL PESTILENCE OF THE ROADTREK TROLL IS UPON US! AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH...............
Frank Tabor - 06 Jun 2007 23:42 GMT >> > Have you noticed that your posts/replies are HUNDREDS of lines long >> > duplicating the text plus the HTML formated version? You've been [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >like you have done along with everybody else. Many newbies don't know >the difference until someone mentions it. He's not a newbie. He's been around here and R.O.R.T. for a while now. He's also been around long enough to know that these groups prefer bottom posting.
 Signature Frank Tabor
Will Sill - 07 Jun 2007 01:53 GMT I see where "Barbara" <bcallen@nospam.attglobal.net> contributed re:
"mikeyhsd" <mikeyhsd@comcast.net>
>Mikey, can you kill the HTML? He CAN, but he won't. He's been asked dozens of times, and continues to be a moron.
My solution: the twit file.
Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
miles - 07 Jun 2007 02:04 GMT > He CAN, but he won't. He's been asked dozens of times, and continues > to be a moron. Why do so many still use newsreaders that aren't HTML capable? That would be similar to sending only text emails which isn't very common any more.
Barbara - 07 Jun 2007 01:47 GMT > > He CAN, but he won't. He's been asked dozens of times, and continues > > to be a moron. > > Why do so many still use newsreaders that aren't HTML capable? That > would be similar to sending only text emails which isn't very common any > more. Because some of us prefer using stand-alone classic newsreaders which are fast, efficient, dedicated, threaded agents designed specifically for Usenet. They operate offline, online, and can be configured in a multitude of ways. They can dance circles around a web-based reader.
Usenet predates HTML. It predates browsers. It predates MicroSoft Internet Explorer, Thunderbird, and anything named MicroSoft Mail or similar. Historically it has been text only and that's the way most experienced Usenet users want it to remain.
If you want to post using HTML, go find a blog, or a web forum. It's not so much a matter of "capable" as that HTML just isn't needed for newsgroup discussions. There's a place for both. If you can't see the difference, I'm at a loss to explain.
 Signature Barbara
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Jim Redelfs - 07 Jun 2007 04:13 GMT > some of us prefer using stand-alone classic newsreaders which > are fast, efficient, dedicated, threaded agents designed specifically > for Usenet. They operate offline, online, and can be configured in a > multitude of ways. They can dance circles around a web-based reader. You said it.
> Usenet predates HTML. It predates browsers. It predates MicroSoft > Internet Explorer, Thunderbird, and anything named MicroSoft Mail or > similar. Usenet predates the world-wide web and Microslop by a LONG shot.
> Historically it has been text only and that's the way most > experienced Usenet users want it to remain. Amen.
> If you want to post using HTML, go find a blog, or a web forum. It's > not so much a matter of "capable" as that HTML just isn't needed for > newsgroup discussions. What? No color, bold, underlined, blinking or scrolling text? Horrors!
Thank-you for posting a well-worded explanation of why HTML does NOT belong in usenet.
Of course, half the folks reading this via Google Groups (et al) using a web browser or, worse, WebTV, are scratching their heads, wondering what "usenet" is.
 Signature <sigh> JR
miles - 07 Jun 2007 04:30 GMT > Thank-you for posting a well-worded explanation of why HTML does NOT belong in > usenet. I saw no such thing. More like Grandpa who wants to keep things the same as when he was a kid. Usenet, Email, Echos, BBS's and all other computer networking was without HTML. I wouldn't have wanted HTML or graphics etc. when I used my 300 baud dial up modem. The technology and speed now support it.
JerryD(upstateNY) - 07 Jun 2007 23:17 GMT miles wrote: I saw no such thing. More like Grandpa who wants to keep things the same as when he was a kid. Usenet, Email, Echos, BBS's and all other computer networking was without HTML. I wouldn't have wanted HTML or graphics etc. when I used my 300 baud dial up modem. The technology and speed now support it.
I like using usenet. It's like a trip back to the 80's every time I am here. It SURELY the only place you will EVER hear someone complain about using too much bandwidth. I wonder if anyone here still uses a black and white TV. <g> I can see text only for people stuck with dial-up services. I can remember waiting 2-3 minutes for a picture to appear........12 years ago.
 Signature JerryD(upstateNY)
miles - 08 Jun 2007 02:40 GMT > I like using usenet. > It's like a trip back to the 80's every time I am here. Nah. In the 80's we had FidoNet BBS's with Echomail which for the most part was similar to Usenet. Except for a big difference. It was all hobbiests and not the entire general public. There just wasn't anywheres near the crap you see on Usenet. Nobody ever even thought about a moderator as the idea of a flamewar, troll etc was almost unheard of.
Jim Redelfs - 08 Jun 2007 04:30 GMT >> I like using usenet. It's like a trip back to the 80's >> every time I am here.
> Nah. In the 80's we had FidoNet BBS's MacNet Omaha (see this article's header) is the name of the BBS (Bulletin Board System) I operated out of my home for years.
MacNet Omaha was 1:285/14 on FidoNet.
> with Echomail which for the most part was similar to Usenet. Instead of newsgroups, they were called "echo conferences". Traffic was distributed nationally and, for a few, internationally, using the world's largest network of hobbyist-operated computers and modems. It worked AMAZINGLY well. It was distributed over dial-up lines at 2400 baud in the middle of the night with the SysOps (System Operators) paying the long distance charges on their phone bills.
> Except for a big difference. It was all hobbiests > and not the entire general public. Hobbyists operated the BBSes but the general public USED them.
> There just wasn't anywheres near the crap you see on Usenet. You said it.
> Nobody ever even thought about a moderator Uh, that's not quite accurate...
Virtually every BBS operator "moderated" the traffic on their system, whether it was networked or not. The rare flamewar might be snuffed by the participants losing their posting (write) privileges for a while. It was rare that an anonymous (or pseudonym-using) person was granted posting privileges so trolls were pretty much unheard of.
The BBS operator knew the REAL name (and probably address and phone number, verified) of every user on their board. Knowing that, most users were VERY well behaved on-line.
Usenet makes FidoNet (in its heyday) look like small potatoes. Usenet, on the other hand, has proven to be, at times, a ruthless anarchy. Anonymous is the rule of the day although I still post using my real name, just like I did (and required) on my BBS.
...but I hang on. Long live Use(less)Net<tm>.
 Signature <sigh> JR -- :) JR
Will Sill - 07 Jun 2007 02:17 GMT I see where miles <nope@nopers.com> contributed:
>Why do so many still use newsreaders that aren't HTML capable? That >would be similar to sending only text emails which isn't very common any >more. It's not the newsreaders - mine can easily handle it. I just don't want to. USENET is a text-based medium, and has been for a LONG time. Morons like Mikey just refuse to get with the program.
Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
miles - 07 Jun 2007 02:39 GMT > It's not the newsreaders - mine can easily handle it. I just don't > want to. USENET is a text-based medium, and has been for a LONG time. > Morons like Mikey just refuse to get with the program. Thats because usenet predates HTML by over a decade. But thats old technology. Email was text based as well. Out with the old, in with the new.
I do agree that I don't care for overly complex huge posts but the ability to post pictures is nice. Many usenet groups do allow HTML, photos etc. It's not unheard of.
Jim Redelfs - 07 Jun 2007 04:14 GMT > Many usenet groups do allow HTML, > photos etc. It's not unheard of. It was, until now. Would you care to name one?
 Signature :) JR
miles - 07 Jun 2007 04:43 GMT > It was, until now. Would you care to name one? All of the bionet. groups are html based. They may not be carried on your nntp server though.
Frank Tabor - 08 Jun 2007 00:02 GMT >> It was, until now. Would you care to name one? > >All of the bionet. groups are html based. They may not be carried on >your nntp server though. bionet is not part of Usenet.
 Signature Frank Tabor
miles - 08 Jun 2007 02:48 GMT > bionet is not part of Usenet. Usenet is whatever a NNTP server decides to list. Every server carries different feeds. Bionet is carried on NNTP servers. Like any usenet feed you have to subscribe to a server that carries what you want.
Mark Jones - 07 Jun 2007 02:29 GMT >> He CAN, but he won't. He's been asked dozens of times, and continues >> to be a moron. > > Why do so many still use newsreaders that aren't HTML capable? That > would be similar to sending only text emails which isn't very common > any more. Mine is HTML compatible and I still hate it when people post anything other than plain text. There is a time and place for most anything, but this isn't the place for HTML.
miles - 07 Jun 2007 02:40 GMT > Mine is HTML compatible and I still hate it when people post > anything other than plain text. There is a time and place for > most anything, but this isn't the place for HTML. Do you feel the same way about email?
Mark Jones - 07 Jun 2007 03:52 GMT >> Mine is HTML compatible and I still hate it when people post >> anything other than plain text. There is a time and place for >> most anything, but this isn't the place for HTML. > > Do you feel the same way about email? No. I get HTML formatted email constantly.
At work we use Outlook and almost every email is HTML.
I wouldn't mind it in newsgroups if I had a broadband connection.
miles - 07 Jun 2007 03:59 GMT > I wouldn't mind it in newsgroups if I had a broadband connection. Thats true. I thought the number of dialup internet uses is dwindling rapidly. I never see any dial up ads on TV anymore. Used to see them constantly. I used dialup since the early 80's but I get free cable now.
Jim Redelfs - 07 Jun 2007 04:16 GMT >> There is a time and place for most anything, but >> this isn't the place for HTML.
> Do you feel the same way about email? Yes.
 Signature :) JR
Frank Tabor - 08 Jun 2007 00:04 GMT >> Mine is HTML compatible and I still hate it when people post >> anything other than plain text. There is a time and place for >> most anything, but this isn't the place for HTML. > >Do you feel the same way about email? I do. HTML email is automatically trashed here.
 Signature Frank Tabor
JerryD(upstateNY) - 08 Jun 2007 02:16 GMT Frank Tabor wrote: I do. HTML email is automatically trashed here.
So if anyone sends you a picture of your grandchildren, you never see it because it went to the trash. Good thinking !!!!
 Signature JerryD(upstateNY)
Frank Tabor - 08 Jun 2007 02:30 GMT On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 21:16:12 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <jerryd@wherever.com> wrote:
>Frank Tabor wrote: I do. HTML email is automatically trashed here. > >So if anyone sends you a picture of your grandchildren, you never see it >because it went to the trash. >Good thinking !!!! They come as attachments, not embedded as html. My children are smart enough to know how to use news reader and email program that can send attachments without having to embed them with brain dead programs like Outhouse Express.
 Signature Frank Tabor
Jim Redelfs - 08 Jun 2007 04:50 GMT > Outhouse Express. ARGH!! [ROFL]
 Signature :) JR
Jim Redelfs - 08 Jun 2007 04:49 GMT > Frank Tabor wrote: I do. HTML email is automatically trashed here.
> So if anyone sends you a picture of your grandchildren, you never see it > because it went to the trash. > Good thinking !!!! Jerry, Jerry...
Attaching a file to an email message is different than using HTML in the "body text" of the message.
If I operate a 1/8-mile drag strip (as opposed to the traditional quarter-mile strip), and the rules include a limit on engine displacement or some other restriction, dems the rulz.
Due to its unrestricted nature, posting HTML to usenet is unstoppable. That doesn't make it right or proper. The "rule" in the same "list" that includes the tradition of BOTTOM posting and quoting (but less than 50% of the message to which you are replying).
I want my words to be read by as many people as possible. Why else would I take the time to do this? (Talk to myself? Moi?!? <grin>) Therefore, I am VERY MUCH inclined to CONFORM to the prevailing traditions and "standards".
You want HTML, use your web browser. That's what it's for.
If you wish to post a PICTURE or other file to this medium, provide a hyperlink to it's WWW location or encode it and post its text to the appropriate usenet binary newsgroup. There's a LOT of them "out there".
When in Rome...
 Signature :) JR
JerryD(upstateNY) - 08 Jun 2007 13:42 GMT Due to its unrestricted nature, posting HTML to Usenet is unstoppable. That doesn't make it right or proper. The "rule" in the same "list" that includes the tradition of BOTTOM posting and quoting (but less than 50% of the message to which you are replying).<<<<<<<<<<
I don't use HTML here and I bottom post.
If you wish to post a PICTURE or other file to this medium, provide a hyperlink to it's WWW location or encode it and post its text to the appropriate Usenet binary newsgroup.<<<<<<<<<
I don't bother with pictures here. It would take me longer than I wish to spend trying to find the correct binary board, posting the picture there and then telling people here where the picture is.............and then 50% of the people won't go and look anyway.
 Signature JerryD(upstateNY)
miles - 08 Jun 2007 02:54 GMT > I do. HTML email is automatically trashed here. That means everything has to be attached in emails rather than viewed inline which is faster.
Frank Tabor - 08 Jun 2007 03:36 GMT >> I do. HTML email is automatically trashed here. > >That means everything has to be attached in emails rather than viewed >inline which is faster. So, are you so important that you can't waste a millisecond to double click on the attachment?
 Signature Frank Tabor
Dean - 08 Jun 2007 04:51 GMT >>> I do. HTML email is automatically trashed here. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >So, are you so important that you can't waste a millisecond to double >click on the attachment? Also, it is easier to transfer wanted attachments from the download directory over to the proper location and delete the junk.
miles - 08 Jun 2007 05:26 GMT > So, are you so important that you can't waste a millisecond to double > click on the attachment? No problem but why is it better? Thats the point.
Jim Redelfs - 08 Jun 2007 12:24 GMT > No problem but why is it better? Thats the point. Where'd THAT come from? Who said it was "better"?
It IS, but I don't recall that being claimed - until now.
With a properly configured newsreader, participating in this medium is FAR easier - making it BETTER - than ANY web-based (yes, HTML) method.
Using even Outhouse Express<tm> to read and post here is better than a web-based interface. Dedicated newsreaders make the experience even better.
Those reading these words using their web browser and participating via Google Groups (for example) or (probably) worse, WebTV, are missing a LOT of the EASE of use enabled by a dedicated newsreader on their computer.
 Signature :) JR
miles - 08 Jun 2007 14:44 GMT >> No problem but why is it better? Thats the point. > > Where'd THAT come from? Who said it was "better"? > > It IS, but I don't recall that being claimed - until now. Try to keep up with the discussion! You asked whether I can click on an attachment or not in email when I mentioned I prefer inline as its faster (better). Yes, I can click on an attachment but whats your point? Is that an improvement over inline? If not, then why are you asking?
> With a properly configured newsreader, participating in this medium is FAR > easier - making it BETTER - than ANY web-based (yes, HTML) method. Web based? Most newsreaders can read/write in HTML just fine. Who is talking about a web based reader (such as Google.com)?
> Using even Outhouse Express<tm> to read and post here is better than a > web-based interface. Dedicated newsreaders make the experience even better. I agree and most support HTML.
> Those reading these words using their web browser and participating via Google > Groups (for example) or (probably) worse, WebTV, are missing a LOT of the EASE > of use enabled by a dedicated newsreader on their computer. True again but these readers support HTML if one so desires to use it. Whats your point? I never mentioned web based news reader sites.
Jim Redelfs - 07 Jun 2007 04:06 GMT > Why do so many still use newsreaders that aren't HTML capable? That > would be similar to sending only text emails which isn't very common any > more. Join the coalition to promote HTML-free email.
 Signature :) JR
miles - 07 Jun 2007 04:12 GMT > Join the coalition to promote HTML-free email. What about HTML free internet? Hmmm...the XXX websites would have to use the character based pictures that used X's and O's as used in the 70's and 80's.
Jim Redelfs - 07 Jun 2007 13:07 GMT >> Join the coalition to promote HTML-free email.
> What about HTML free internet? Hmmm...the XXX websites would have to > use the character based pictures that used X's and O's as used in the > 70's and 80's. That would be ASCII Art:
, |`-.__ / ' _/ ****` / } / \ / \ /` \\\ `\ /_\\ jgs `~~~~~``~`
 Signature :) JR
JerryD(upstateNY) - 07 Jun 2007 23:19 GMT Jim Redelfs wrote: Join the coalition to promote HTML-free email.
The minutes of their meetings are kept on a 5¼" floppy. LOL !!!
 Signature JerryD(upstateNY)
miles - 08 Jun 2007 02:45 GMT > Jim Redelfs wrote: Join the coalition to promote HTML-free email. > > The minutes of their meetings are kept on a 5¼" floppy. LOL !!! Not 8" CPM discs?
Jim Redelfs - 08 Jun 2007 04:33 GMT >> Join the coalition to promote HTML-free email.
> The minutes of their meetings are kept on a 5¼" floppy. LOL !!! Notsofast! :)
My first computer was an Apple Macintosh. Apple and and Sony collaborated to develop the 3-1/2-inch "floppy" disk.
Heck, my first computer could write to the NEW high-density floppy disk! 1.44 MB on a disk. $2/disk. It took ~30 of 'em to back-up my hard-disk drive.
Whoa!
 Signature :) JR
Frank Tabor - 08 Jun 2007 00:00 GMT >> He CAN, but he won't. He's been asked dozens of times, and continues >> to be a moron. > >Why do so many still use newsreaders that aren't HTML capable? That >would be similar to sending only text emails which isn't very common any >more. Because Usenet is a text medium. Most folks don't care for html. It only increases the overhead and the size of the message and doesn't add anything to the message.
 Signature Frank Tabor
Ron Recer - 08 Jun 2007 00:09 GMT >>> He CAN, but he won't. He's been asked dozens of times, and continues >>> to be a moron. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > only increases the overhead and the size of the message and doesn't > add anything to the message. And that is why there are so many links to photo and HTML sites? All those folks who don't care for it provide a lot of links to those type sites a lot! <g>
Ron
Frank Tabor - 08 Jun 2007 01:10 GMT >>>> He CAN, but he won't. He's been asked dozens of times, and continues >>>> to be a moron. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Ron There's nothing wrong with putting a URL to a photo or anything else in a Usenet post. It takes the reader to another site on the World Wide Web where html and photos are accepted. A URL consists of a protocol; http, https, ftp or similar, two slashes; //, a properly formed host name; somebody.somewhere.com, and another slash, / to denote the tree structure. EEG http://www.somebody.somewhere.com/index.htm. That is a URL. A link is something that shows up in html formatted documents and hides the actual URL and provides some text to describe the URL.
 Signature Frank Tabor
miles - 08 Jun 2007 02:46 GMT > Because Usenet is a text medium. Most folks don't care for html. It > only increases the overhead and the size of the message and doesn't > add anything to the message. Photos are nice to show in messages rather than having to post to a public site and post a link. HTML can show the very same thing it does in an email.
Will Sill - 08 Jun 2007 03:06 GMT I see where miles <nope@nopers.com> contributed:
>Photos are nice to show in messages rather than having to post to a >public site and post a link. HTML can show the very same thing it does >in an email. Miles, you don't seem to get it. Protest all you wan't, but many readers (including yrs trly) will PLONK you if you insist on posting HTML here.
Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
miles - 08 Jun 2007 03:33 GMT > Miles, you don't seem to get it. Protest all you wan't, but many > readers (including yrs trly) will PLONK you if you insist on posting > HTML here. What is your problem? I'm not posting HTML so quit your whining! We're discussing it...got a problem with discussion then plonk away if it makes ya happy. Geez, some peoples kids!
Frank Tabor - 08 Jun 2007 03:39 GMT >> Because Usenet is a text medium. Most folks don't care for html. It >> only increases the overhead and the size of the message and doesn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >public site and post a link. HTML can show the very same thing it does >in an email. A real Usenet server will only accept a "picture" in groups whose name includes binaries as the second part of the name. All other posts with binary attachments get dropped on the floor.
HTML has no place on Usenet. Usenet was never intended to be a medium for file or graphic exchanges. That's what FTP and WWW are for. You want to play with html, go play on the web.
 Signature Frank Tabor
miles - 08 Jun 2007 05:28 GMT > HTML has no place on Usenet. Usenet was never intended to be a medium > for file or graphic exchanges. That's what FTP and WWW are for. You > want to play with html, go play on the web. The internet as a whole was text only. None of it was 'intended' to be a medium for graphic exchanges. IRC was also text only chat. Not any more as technology advanced.
Jim Redelfs - 08 Jun 2007 12:48 GMT > The internet as a whole was text only. In the beginning.
> None of it was 'intended' to be a medium for graphic exchanges. I respectfully disagree.
> IRC was also text only chat. > Not any more as technology advanced. As the internet GREW, different technologies were developed to accommodate/enable emerging purposes.
FTP - file transfer protocol
Instead of "http" at the head of an address in your web browser's address bar, substitute "ftp" and see what happens.
The world-wide web was developed intentionally as a much more vibrant (colorful?) and more flexible medium for CONTENT DELIVERY, not necessarily interaction. That came later.
HTML - hypertext markup language - was developed along with the web as its "language" - what makes it work. HTML is NOT the language of usenet although it must be tolerated. Some usenet participation software (newsreader) accommodate HTML. Some don't. Those that do allow the cabability to be turned OFF. In any case, HTML is NOT in the specification.
A *LOT* of information can be read VERY quickly in a text-based (lower-ASCII only) medium. When the senses are additionally loaded with/distracted by blinking advertisements, "crawling" text and other extraneous (to many) "enhancements", reading speed and comprehension decreases.
We have enough spammers and trolls here as it is. Can you imagine how out-of-hand they'd get if given the ability to force us to endure the many elements of a WEB PAGE? I shudder to think.
I think this is a "tempest in a teapot". A presumably otherwise well-intended person posts an HTML-encoded hyperlink, I play netnanny and off we go. Still, I have enjoyed the conversation and even learned something.
 Signature :) JR
miles - 08 Jun 2007 14:51 GMT >> None of it was 'intended' to be a medium for graphic exchanges. > > I respectfully disagree. Oh? Before the HTML and WWW please tell me all about graphic internet web pages that were in use. The internet was entirely text based. Yes, one could transfer pictures etc. but they could not view it as a web page. Text only.
> Instead of "http" at the head of an address in your web browser's address bar, > substitute "ftp" and see what happens. Your point? The internet started out as 100% text. Usenet was no different. Most of the internet has evolved to utilize newer technologies despite what it was 'intended' for originally.
> In any case, HTML is NOT in the specification. There is no set specification or rules for the web. There are technologies that have been adapted to become defacto standards. Take Microsoft for instance. They routinely add their own extensions, proprietary. How about MacroMedia and other graphic extensions. They are not part of any specification yet they are widely used.
> We have enough spammers and trolls here as it is. Can you imagine how > out-of-hand they'd get if given the ability to force us to endure the many > elements of a WEB PAGE? I shudder to think. You can turn off HTML in your reader and not view it.
Tom J - 07 Jun 2007 03:16 GMT > I see where "Barbara" <bcallen@nospam.attglobal.net> contributed re: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > My solution: the twit file. I never notice who she was complaining about. I have seen his post since a couple of days after he showed up here - what - 2 or 3 years ago!!
Tom J
Barbara - 07 Jun 2007 13:20 GMT > I never notice who she was complaining about. I have seen his post > since a couple of days after he showed up here - what - 2 or 3 years > ago!! > > Tom J Tom, in my attempt to figure out what you just said, I suspect your newsreader displays each post in a separate box with no attention paid to the outline or threading history of the topic.
With apologies to everyone else in this group, and just for the HTML generation, this is what mikeyhsd's post looks like to a text based "real" newsreader:
---------- Copy/Paste of "What I'm complaining about" --------------- This is a multi-part message in MIME format. doubt the truth of your post. as I have seen many that need to apply generous amount of vaseline to get behind steering wheel. maybe you need to go to sleep and wake up in the real world. mikeyhsd@comcast.net "Atomik Harmonik" wrote in message news:jmac63t2hf3s4dnsdp0cgam9e0tp21iqc4@4ax.com... RVers have been characterized as a subset of the ugly American. Fat, ignorant, redneck types driving ponderous vehicles that guzzle gas at 10 mpg or less. For the most part it is true but there is a class of RVer that stands head and shoulders above the rest. That RVer drives a Road Trek. Road Trek drivers tend to be unpretentious. They are of the upper income bracket, physically fit and mentally of the top 20 of the bell curve. Their vehicles are small, don't look like RVs and get mileage of about 17.5 mpg. In fact, many RoadTrek drivers are somewhat patrician in their appearance. The are retired physicists, economists, philosophers, and people of that type. The Roadies as I call them seem very content with life, they aren't after thrills or fun. They drive their own path, both RVing and in life. Roadies don't go to Branson and gobble up the buffet. No, they are found on lesser travelled backroads and venture out for the unusual or extraordinary. They'll climb mountains, shoot the rapids, go big game hunting, sail solo across the Caribbean. That is why Roadies have such excellent health. They aren't diabetic from eating too much and aren't so fat that they stink because they can't reach their butt cleavage to clean out the excrement. Roadies believe that more is less and in economy. That is why they can afford such expensive vehicles for their size. They don't need or want the big screen, the washer and dryer. They can live in tight quarters because they aren't fat or offensive smelling. They don't chain smoke and aren't ignorant in the ways of culture and science. Road Trek drivers are in a league far above your average RVer. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16448" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>doubt the truth of your post. as I have seen many that need to apply generous amount of vaseline to get behind steering wheel.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>maybe you need to go to sleep and wake up in the real world.</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000> <MARQUEE scrollAmount=2 scrollDelay=9 behavior=alternate width="35%" bgColor=#ffff00 height=22><A href="mailto:mikeyhsd@comcast.net">mikeyhsd@comcast.net</A></MARQUEE>< /FONT></P> <P> </P></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV>"Atomik Harmonik" wrote in message <A href="news:jmac63t2hf3s4dnsdp0cgam9e0tp21iqc4@4ax.com">news:jmac63t2hf 3s4dnsdp0cgam9e0tp21iqc4@4ax.com</A>...</DIV>RVers have been characterized as a subset of the ugly American. Fat,<BR>ignorant, redneck types driving ponderous vehicles that guzzle gas at<BR>10 mpg or less. For the most part it is true but there is a class of<BR>RVer that stands head and shoulders above the rest.<BR><BR>That RVer drives a Road Trek. Road Trek drivers tend to be<BR>unpretentious. They are of the upper income bracket, physically fit<BR>and mentally of the top 20 of the bell curve. Their vehicles are<BR>small, don't look like RVs and get mileage of about 17.5 mpg. In fact,<BR>many RoadTrek drivers are somewhat patrician in their appearance. The<BR>are retired physicists, economists, philosophers, and people of that<BR>type. The Roadies as I call them seem very content with life, they<BR>aren't after thrills or fun. They drive their own path, both RVing and<BR>in life.<BR><BR>Roadies don't go to Branson and gobble up the buffet. No, they are<BR>found on lesser travelled backroads and venture out for the unusual or<BR>extraordinary. They'll climb mountains, shoot the rapids, go big game<BR>hunting, sail solo across the Caribbean. That is why Roadies have such<BR>excellent health. They aren't diabetic from eating too much and aren't<BR>so fat that they stink because they can't reach their butt cleavage to<BR>clean out the excrement. <BR><BR>Roadies believe that more is less and in economy. That is why they can<BR>afford such expensive vehicles for their size. They don't need or want<BR>the big screen, the washer and dryer. They can live in tight quarters<BR>because they aren't fat or offensive smelling. They don't chain smoke<BR>and aren't ignorant in the ways of culture and science. Road Trek<BR>drivers are in a league far above your average
RVer.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
---------------- End Copy/Paste ---------------------
 Signature Barbara
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Jim Redelfs - 07 Jun 2007 04:05 GMT > Text format is appropriate for newsgroups. Join the coalition for an HTML-free usenet!
 Signature :) JR
Shad O'Shay - 06 Jun 2007 23:24 GMT > RVers have been characterized as a subset of the ugly American. Fat, > ignorant, redneck types driving ponderous vehicles that guzzle gas at [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > and aren't ignorant in the ways of culture and science. Road Trek > drivers are in a league far above your average RVer. The most exercise the average RVer gets is standing in line waiting for a seat at their favorite buffet restaurant. Nine out of ten are obese. It's good to see there is one class of RVers who have a little concern about physical fitness. Keep setting a good example, dude.
Shad O'Shay
Shad O'Shay - 08 Jun 2007 00:29 GMT > RVers have been characterized as a subset of the ugly American. Fat, > ignorant, redneck types driving ponderous vehicles that guzzle gas at [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > and aren't ignorant in the ways of culture and science. Road Trek > drivers are in a league far above your average RVer. You made it way too complicated. You coulda just said a different type of RVer is somebody who drives like he doesn't own the road and who is courteous and polite.
Shad O'Shay
|
|
|