Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / June 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

A Different Type of RVer

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.