Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Test Diss Sucker
« on: 2002-04-21 16:10:43 » |
 |
[Eugen -1] Cited by David Lucifer
[David Lucifer 1]
[Ashton 2]
[Hermit 3]
[Eugen 4]
[Hermit 5]
[Hermit 5] The above provides a quick index to the discussion, allowing the reader to track who has been involved (and if they are viewing the text with an "intelligent client" provides additional capabilities.
[Eugen 4 (re-ordered to reflect on the above)] For the first time twitter is introduced. The first time reader scratches her head, before reading on, the more seasoned reader recognizes a reinvention of a wheel http://www.fnal.gov/docs/products/emacs/v19_34/sc_toc.html]Supercite albeit in a polygonal shape. Yes, it is really hard to improve on a mature medium.
[Hermit 5] Unfortunately recent members of the computer industry seem to know so little about history that they leap to the conclusion that their first exposure to some technology must be the first possible introduction of that "reinvented wheel" no matter how triangular the format. Mail ">" indentation (borrowed from telex practice) is one of these examples.
[Hermit 5] In fact, the "quotation" style dates back at least to 1500's and the writing of scripts and keeping of court records, while the "enclosure" of formatted text in order to separate content from format dates back at least to the late 1960s with GCA and GML. Another significant difference is that the Microsoft products, Outlook and Outlook Express both support this quoting style - without scripting - which means that it is supported as native by the MUA for the vast majority of Internet users. It does not require a special add-on script, and is trivial to implement and follow manually.
[Eugen 4] For the benefit of the list (not BBS, that's something different, see subject line) subscribers I've reformatted Hermit's reply properly by wrapping overlong lines, and using legacy citation methods and removing the CoV plug, since irrelevant to the discussion.
[Hermit 5] And mixed content and format, and self-admittedly lost presentation and meaning (Refer [eugen 4.1] "I frankly admit the reverse is less trivial" below). You consider this to be an improvement?
[Hermit 5] To make the point, I have appended this mail thread using conventional ">" quoting practice, after sending it via the paths to which I responded. I will leave it to the readers to determine which of the quoting methods under discussion is more easily followed and understood by anyone bar the participants. If you are not sufficiently confused, reduce the window size until the text wraps and see how you feel about it then. If your mail reader demands that you scroll, visit the Re: client-side empty eyesockets the wave of the future? thread on the ExI BBS and look at it there.
[Hermit 5] When an organization is by implication referred to as a "cult," a label that undoubtedly carries negative connotations, then it behooves its members, to respond to the slur as and when they become aware of it. As I have put more than a little effort into the CoV, when I discovered that certain Extropians had decided to attack the CoV, I decided to respond appropriately. Asserting that the response designed to address the slurs made in this forum, is a "plug" and "irrelevant," says more to eugen@leitl.org's apparently undeserved arrogance, and the degree of irrationality of his adherents, than it does about the CoV.
[Hermit 3] A full reply may be viewed (in full mark-up format) at http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25392
[Eugen 4] Here Hermit admits implicitly that the email format with full markup is inferior if not rendered into HTML and viewed via a browser. No explanation is given why using a browser is preferrable to user's current method of choice (MUA) to view what is a pure text message.
[Hermit 5] Not at all. What we have here is eugen@leitl.org demonstrating his ability to place words into his interlocutor's mouth in order to erect a straw-man for the purposes of demolishing it. What the original reference did, probably convincingly to anyone who visited the website, was to demonstrate how a trivial mark-up can produce a valuable improvement in the presentation and readability of archives (which are going to be around for a long time), and through example demonstrated that anyone not suffering from an insufficiency of wit (even eugen@leitl.org, else he could not have "converted" my post) could follow the formatting in pure ASCII email. In discussions which require notation above the trivial, or even the ability to display lists, the ability to do this via a mail client which allows a user to follow the discussion using a mail client or experience the same material in a richer format via a web browser (or other technology) can be invaluable. My argument was not that this is appropriate for the extropians, who may be satisfied to only cater to members of their mail lists, and are not concerned that others should be able to read their archives (which presumably speaks more to the chatty nature of the extropian list than to the long term goals of the CoV), but that this is undoubtedly appropriate for the CoV - where this discussion first was raised.
[Hermit 5] What eugen@leitl.org omitted to mention was that this saga originated when he signed onto the Church of Virus and, in an unrelated thread, barged in with complaints about our posting methods as his first post to our mail-list (Refer Re:virus: politics test/mix, Reply #5 on: 2002-04-16 21:52:03 , without mentioning that he was a part of the Extropians. When he received a polite response, (Refer reply 9) he became rude and attempted insult (reply 10). When this was returned (reply 11), he departed (and will not be missed). However, this was followed up by his snide commentary here (where he presumably imagined that he could get away with it without reply). In addition others Extropians have responded on the CoV and here.
[Hermit 5] eugen@leitl.org and fellow-travelers should take note that this is not the case, and that illogical flailing and unfounded assertions will be addressed as completely as circumstances require. Starting - or exacerbating - an unnecessary war with others who probably would have agreed with the Extropian goals (if appropriately expressed and articulated), is I submit, foolish and self-defeating, albeit not particularly unique (as could be discovered at FAQ: UTism what is it. While eugen@leitl.org may not have been representing the Extropians on the CoV, his (and others) continued attacks on the CoV in this forum indicate to members of the CoV that what we are seeing here is a classic but unthinking defense of memespace.
[Hermit 3] The formatting under discussion may be viewed at FAQ: Hermitish mail mark-up and citation V2.1
[Hermit 3] As this reply appears to be relevant to Extropians as well, and is indirectly a response to a critical article posted on the ExI BBS (of which I am a member), it appears appropriate to post excerpts here too.
[David Lucifer 1] Message sent to Extropians mailing list: http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=51564
[eugen 4] Here you see the polygonal-wheel aspect of the citation method: it doesn't
use abbreviations for the author cite, thus wasting line width, a scarce
resource in this medium.
[Hermit 5] A quick check of the last three months of my postings on the CoV yields a ratio of 1394 characters for conventional mark-up and only 119 characters for "Hermitish mark-up" or 8.5% of the total volume of the "conventional quoting". Bear in mind that the prefix indentation message takes two characters per line per round, and that the number of lines tends to increase for each round due to wrapping. I'd suggest that eugen@leitl.org's argument fails in the face of easily ascertained facts.
[Ashton 2] Humm, I'd swap bizarrely wrong design with the more delightful 'wrong-headed'.
[eugen 4] Here we see more twitter. The idiotic gateway from the SuperDuperMarkUp feels it's necessary to mask apostrophes in plain text rendition of the markup. There is absolutely no reason to do this either than author's fiat. Here he continues demonstrating his fundamental lack of understanding of legacy medium plain text, or blatant disregard for user's wishes.
[Hermit 5] Easy to cast aspersions, more difficult to substantiate them. I only call eugen@leitl.org names where his own idiocy makes it evident that they apply. I agree completely that the escaping necessary to store the information in a SQL database (as is done by the BBS used), is unnecessary and offensive - a bit like eugen@leitl.org apparently instinctively reaching for ad hominem on what he deems the slightest contradiction to what he no doubt perceives as the pearls of wisdom dribbling from wherever he dribbles from. Had he bothered to read the cited article on "Hermitish mark-up" (and if he read it, had he comprehended it), he would have discovered that this escaping forms no part of the specification. It is purely an annoying artifact - which will no doubt be dealt with shortly. As for fundaments, the only one currently showing is eugen@leitl.org - because I don't have any "users" of this system whose wishes I can disregard. Only people who choose - or don't choose - to adopt this format. And, as can be seen on the CoV BBS http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs more and more are. Score another "own" goal for eugen@leitl.org.
[eugen 4.1] It would have been trivial to reverse the masking, and even to convert his citation style into legacy (I frankly admit the reverse is less trivial, but that's not the point discussed).
[Hermit 5] This facility could be made available quite trivially. I had to do it to compare eugen@leitl.org's assertions about line lengths with reality - and it didn't take a day to write (less than 10 minutes actually), but as eugen@leitl.orgobserved, doing so destroys information. It is also irreversible, unlike "Hermitish markup." These issues are factors which are anathema to IT professionals. Which might suggest something about eugen@leitl.org.
[Hermit 3] I'll deal with this later. I would suggest that "bizarrely wrong design" might apply to people advocating embedding line wrapping into text, and thus confusing data and presentation.
[eugen 4] The assertion is that his method is superior. There is no proof given but reference to nebulous mention of "confusing data and presentation".
[Hermit 5] Not nebulous at all. Simple concrete fact, known to the industry since the 1960s.I refer eugen@leitl.org to Rice and Tunnicliffe, Graphic Communications Association Composition Committee 1967, since recognized as the originators of the concept of SGML.
[eugen 4] I recommend Hermit to read up on basic typography, which is the art and technology to render readable documents. He might have failed to notice that markup, which was designed to be orthogonal to orthography has wound up to have had to reinvent typography, poorely (I've predicted that, of course).
[Hermit 5] Well, I don't know what eugen@leitl.org has predicted, but what he is asserting appears to run counter to the observations of luminaries such as Donald E. Knuth - who felt that he had to take the time (years) to invent TeX in order to more properly convey what he meant when discussing algorithms - plain ASCII was not sufficient. It also runs counter to the entire premise behind ISO 8879:1986 (Anders Berglund) and adopted by most serious documentation producers - including those implementing ISO 900X documentation programs. Perhaps eugen@leitl.org considers his understanding to be exquisitely superior, but given the combination of his railing against things which appear self-evident to most of the Industry (e.g. XML refer Re:virus: politics test/mix, Reply #10 on: 2002-04-17 18:25:04 where he said "Those Quote:things are extremely annoying. I hope you're not moving to XML markup anytime soon?") I don't think I can accept his self-appreciation as making him an expert in the field.
[eugen 4] It's obvious why: people's visual systems are rather hardwired, and legibility is measurable in objective benchmarks. Because people are not computers there's most assuredly a strong coupling between data and presentation.
[Hermit 5] I do not disagree with this. I love "objective benchmarks" - they dispense with so many needless arguments. I simply query eugen@leitl.org's assertion as to what legibility consists of. Perhaps he would care to support his arguments by sharing his "objective benchmarks" and explaining how he used them to draw the conclusions he is asserting here? Or is eugen@leitl.org simply saying that "legibility is measurable in objective benchmarks" but not claiming that he has used them to reach the conclusion that the morass below is preferable to "Hermitish quotation"? In which case, why did he bring up "objective benchmarks"? To garner some spurious credibility?
[Hermit 3] If so, it indubitably applies to ">" indentation of mail which requires the embedding of hard line feeds and makes the material almost unusable after more than a few people have commented on it, even on computers supporting 80 column text.
[eugen 4] Here is another assertion without proof.
[Hermit 5] What is "another assertion without proof"? eugen@leitl.org's assertion? I don't recall eugen@leitl.org having demonstrated a first "assertion without proof". As already stated (with references) to eugen@leitl.org (refer Re:virus: politics test/mix, Reply #9 on: 2002-04-17 10:20:08), the industry standards for email specify that presentation, including line wrapping, is the responsibility of the mail client, not the originator.
[eugen 4] I think the "even on 80 chars column text" can be considered a rather modest requirement at this day and age. As compared to a browser on a bitmapped display. Especially a bitmapped display of >2 kPixels horizontal, which Hermit is using. I also happen to use a dual-head display with >2 kPixels, but I don't assume anybody else does. This email could be read via a voice synthesizer (twitter characters highly fatal here, or anything which makes textflow nonlinear for that matter), on a braille line, or some other degraded medium. (Btw, any blind or othewise disabled extropians here? I'm asking for your input in this debate. Do you have specific requirements for the formatting of list messages?)
[Hermit 5] As previously mentioned, at Re:virus: politics test/mix, Reply #11 on: 2002-04-18 04:00:52, "My usual screens run at a horizontal resolution of 2000 pixels. When spurious line feeds are inserted into the text of mail, I end up being able to use a fraction of my useable screen area. The same happens when such mail is displayed on the web. In addition, my WAP compliant handheld automatically reformats streamed text (i.e. no spurious line feeds). When it meets a line feed it obediently does so. Because of this, your emails scroll for pages, as every second line is only one or two words long. Your advocacy of lame, non-RFC compliant posting methods indicates why standards are required. They also indicate why some people should stick with AOL accounts." In addition, I, and others, even though not vision impaired (but time pressed) use voice synthesizers to read our mail to us. Having the synthesizer saying "greater than", "greater than", "greater than" every five to eight words does not convey who the speaker is to any meaningful extent - and disrupts the flow of any discussion completely. In addition, the hard coded line returns cause a paragraph pause, which is also more than a little annoying.
[Hermit 5] In addition, and as previously mentioned (Reply 11, supra), the Web system used is "fully CSS and HTML 4.01 compliant" which means that any standardized equipment for sensory impaired users is able to access it (Refer e.g. http://www.textmatters.com/guides/visually_impaired_web.html). More than can be said for non-standard email. And much more than should be said by somebody who complained about access for the impaired, but has a web site full of Micro$oft Powerpoint 97 slides (refer http://leitl.org/ui22204/.html/pres/index.htm).
[Hermit 3] I'm not even sure that "wrong-headed" applies at all, as the mark-up is a way which permits users to format their text in such a way as to make it more attractive to people viewing it through the BBS, comprehensible to those receiving it in mail and fully useable in a WAP environment.
[Hermit 5] Lame though WAP most certainly is.
[eugen 4] The claim made is that an email users wants to jump through hoops to make this text more readable to web users than those via hypermail'd list archives.
[eugen 4] Here's a counterclaim: the medium of pigment-stained dead tree has produced great content and still continues doing so. Content created is of a quality making our drivel here utterly insignificant. Here's empiric proof that great minds are not bottlenecked by legacy media. Especially, spiced up legacy media as plain text email with obvious citation rules and
hyperlinks.
[Hermit 5] I recommend the notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci (ref http://www.mos.org/leonardo/index.html) as but one example of what paper offers that ASCII email does not. And while in some ways, the Web is superior to paper (better indexing, much lighter, far cheaper, fewer trees killed) in other ways it is still vastly inferior (lower resolution, poorer contrast, can't sketch on it, is more difficult to use conventional mathematical notation unless using graphics or "private" formats). While eugen@leitl.org may be correct in his assessment of the value of discussions on Extropy, we reject the idea that we cannot improve on current technology, are sure we can do better than teletype emulation for communication, intend to achieve results as close to paper (though a lot more interactively) as possible, and hope to do much better in the CoV. A matter of opinion. I don't think that this is grounds for warfare and invective, except perhaps for the most Luddite reactionaries.
[eugen 4] Hermit's markup is there for a purpose: it claims to facilitate communcation, drawing great minds which then produce content. I would like to see some of that fabulous content those great minds have produced which eclipses content produced e.g. in this meek legacy medium of extropians@mailing list -- by an order of magnitude. I somehow kept missing those in http://forum.javien.com/messages.php?topicdata=virus&new=true. I'm so lost. Can you help me by pointing out killer content in there? Thank you.
[Hermit 5] I would suggest that eugen@leitl.org's trouble with finding content in the archives is a trouble of the "signal-to-noise" ratio which is endemic to almost any public forum - and particularly email. I recommend that he visit the FAQ (in particular the "Best of Virus"), Philosophy & Religion, http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=34 and Serious Business sections of our archives. A number of virians are working hard to collect and collate those thoughts and concepts, produced by virians and others, which may be useful to our members in the future. In the best of scientific practice, the current structure is manual, but is helping those of us working on a more general and less labor intense system to define what we need and how it should be implemented. What we have proposed will make the transition to more advanced systems a great deal simpler, yet allow us to maintain at least some continuity with standards based legacy architectures.
[Hermit 3] The alternative appears to be no formatting capability at all, the easy confusion of attribution in all but the simplest cases, a confused tangle of wrapped lines and the non-portability of the material.
[eugen 4] One would think that people who care about attribution can keep track of what was said when by whom, even without installing Supercite. Guess what, they do. It's the people who disregard form who don't. Which is fine with me, because such people rarely have anything worthwhile to say. If you care about content, you care about form. Sounds kinda obvious, right?
[Hermit 5] Err, I think eugen@leitl.org might be asserting on the wrong side of this argument. Certainly "Supercite" is his strawman, and I'd very much like to hold-off judgment on keeping "track of what was said when by whom" until he provides his "objective benchmarks". Certainly, speaking for myself, I find discussions where a paragraph begins "[eugen 3] Blah-blah-blah" far easier to comprehend where each line is prefixed with "> > > > > Blah-blah-blah." But no doubt the "objective benchmarks" are going to persuade me how very wrong I am.
[Hermit 3] Perhaps the reason for considering this approach "wrong headed" is simply that none of this might be visible to somebody lacking appropriate experience or imagination. Perhaps you would like to expand on why you perceive this effort as 'wrong-headed'?
[eugen 4] You're asking me for experience with your medium, without demostrating value first? What strange attitude you have there. Your claims of your critic's lack of imagination is disingenuous (you're also ugly, and your mother dresses you funny, too).
[Hermit 5] Here we have eugen@leitl.org at his ingenious worst. The first salient point being, that unless he is comprehensionally impaired (as well as logically) he would recognize that his chain was not being pulled. He also appears to have lost track of "what was said when by whom." Does this imply that when eugen@leitl.org said "because such people rarely have anything worthwhile to say," that he was speaking from personal experience. Let me remind him:
Quote:
[eugen -1] I've had a gander at the virus@ folks over at lucifer, and saw adherence to what struck me as bizarrely wrong design.
[Ashton 2] Humm, I'd swap bizarrely wrong design with the more delightful 'wrong-headed'. |
[Hermit 5] Notice that the question was about "wrong-headed" not "bizarrely wrong design" and if eugen@leitl.org considers that he deserves more than contempt for his uncharming attempts to complain about the fact that I mentioned that a possible reason (other than a dishonest (mischaracterizing arguments) and abrasive personality and seeming utter lack of reasoning) why some might not see the benefits, after his streams of vituperation, then he is sadly mistaken. No eugen@leitl.org, I did not ask you anything. You interjected with another of your unasked for streams of invective. Do Extropians accept this as normal behavior, or do they make special allowances for you when you are off your medication?
[Ashton 2] 'a simplified mail-markup'? It's certainly not simpler for the writers! Unless, of course, someone's scripted their mail agent blue in the face ...
[eugen 4] Exactly. Without widespread authoring tools you're back to manual formatting. Uh, Don't Think So.
[Hermit 5] eugen@leitl.org does sing very prettily in the key of "Me Too, Me, Me, Me." The question is why on earth somebody needs "widespread authoring tools" to perform such a simple task as prefixing the paragraphs written by themselves with their own name, or, when they split a paragraph written by somebody else, by the other person's name? Is this so complex that it requires "tools" to do it? So much additional work, to attain what seems to some to be an increase in legibility?
[Hermit 3] Actually, I have to disagree. It takes me much less time (as a fairly prolific writer), to enter "Hermitish mark-up" manually, rather than trying to follow ">" indentation. Certainly I (and many others) find it much easier to follow.
[eugen 4] Hermit, this is compleat horse puckey (thanks, Robert). Typical discussions never go over 5 citation nesting, which is trivial to follow (even without Supercite -- notice that no one bothers with superior citation practices because there's _zero demand_ for it).
[Hermit 5] Am I to be overwhelmed with gratitude to "Robert" that eugen@leitl.org uses twee circumlocutions here as opposed to referring to "compleat bullshit" as he did in response to a polite post on the Church of Virus. The stench of his self-befoulment remains as vile. Another change from his post to the CoV is that he is now saying "Typical discussions never go over 5 citation nesting". I wonder if he means "never" as in "never" or "never" as in "hardly ever." Or, does he mean that if a discussion "go over" (sic) 5 citation nesting that they are atypical? For a candidate, try THREAD II PART 1 RE: virus: A discussion concerning determinism on another list, Aaron Agassi, 1999-10-12 04:32:23. Below is this discussion using 5 levels of quoting. I admit to finding it as clear as mud.
[Hermit 3] The important point being that the use of any form of mark-up is purely optional,...
[eugen 4] If it's purely optional, the please remove the twitter, wrap your lines, and use the ">" for citations. That's about a Perl-geek-afternoon in work units
[Hermit 5] The above, standards hostile proposal is also presumably optional. Now if we saw an attempt to argue its "immense superiority" from a rational perspective rather than emoting in all directions, it might yet be persuasive. However, what I have perceived to date are a lot of arguments along the Luddite lines of "its always been done this way." Are there compelling reasons not to advance? If so, can somebody sensible kindly explain exactly what it is that Extropians are seeking so that I can determine if I have perhaps signed onto the wrong list?
[Hermit 3] but the fact that it exists and is "mail-safe" as well as displaying effectively on the BBS allows those who wish to take the trouble to make their messages a lot more attractive, and allows somebody with slight experience to follow items formatted in this fashion in email or on the BBS.
[eugen 4] You're not making this message a lot more attractive, let me tell you.
[Hermit 5] Perhaps eugen@leitl.org fondly examines that this is a reasoned, persuasive, even compelling, well supported argument. Perhaps. Would anyone else like to suggest how many Extropians are of this opinion?
[Hermit 3] As the FAQ puts it, "The use of this system is recommended but not mandated for postings on the CoV. Using it will make it more likely that others will read your submissions and will help to prevent the CoV from becoming a "write only zone." The use of HTML in posting to the CoV is depreciated and should be avoided under any circumstances."
[eugen 4] I much prefer to follow forums which don't require me to jump through hoops. You might observe that readiness to follow braindead formatting rules in a forum yet sans prestige is negatively correlated with the ability to contribute content. In other words, you're deliberately crippling your forum by adherence to idiotic formatting fiat.
[Hermit 5] I'm not sure which forum eugen@leitl.org has been to where hoop jumping was useful, but I can mention to Extropians that in my opinion he will not do well in any forum where rationality, arguing or debating skills are required. As far as I can see he is "deliberately crippling" this "forum by adherence to idiotic" emotional tantrums which most people grow out of by age 3. Does anyone else have a clue as to what is really causing his dissonance?
[Ashton 2] However, I guess that it keeps the cult factor high though sheer ugliness.
[Hermit 3] This loaded sentence contains a number of assertions, which I would challenge.
[eugen 4] Hey, if you can dish out, you'd better get ready to take it. My readiness to provide you with new nether orifices is only limited by a lack of time.
[Hermit 5] We can see that eugen@leitl.org is stuck at the potty stage. But eugen@leitl.org should get a "klue". I won't even charge him for it. It isn't a "lack of time" that will end up causing his own scatological excrescence to end up all over his face, but his inability to reason his way out of a wet paper bag, and yet attempting to vilify his mental superiors.
[Hermit 3] The use of "sheer ugliness" is a personal opinion, which you are certainly entitled to, although not, I think, generally shared.
[eugen 4] Not generally shared, my ass.
[Hermit 5] Try to grow up, potty mouth. Words are only words. Scatological or not, your choice of words speaks volumes about your mental capacity - or lack of one. In your case, they project the impression of a slightly retarded 3 year old. Are you representative of Extropians as a whole? The fact that your asinine assertions are not rejected here does not reflect particularly impressively on them as a forum.
[Hermit 3] Certainly, the assertion of "cult factor" does not apply at all, unless the CoV is a cult. So let's see.
[eugen 4] Let's rather not. [snip]
[Hermit 5] eugen@leitl.org really does not have a clue, does he? A rational approach is to examine what is presented and then form a conclusion. It would seem that eugen@leitl.org's approach is to close his eyes and shout "No! No! No!" and hope that others will listen to him... but in the grown-up world, it doesn't work that way.
[Hermit 5] eugen@leitl.org forgot two paragraphs he really should have examined. Because while they were addressed to ashton@pyro.net, they arguably apply even more compellingly to eugen@leitl.org.
[Hermit 3] So are we a cult? Not by a "skeptical standard." Would you like to offer us an alternative definition which supports your blundering assertion, or was it simply an attempted insult - in which case it has already received more attention than it deserved.
[Hermit 3] In conclusion, let me suggest that what I don't get is why people join an existing group, where the invitation to join is "Virus is a collaborative project; if you subscribe to the ideas consider joining us on the Virus BBS", only to criticize what has achieved, without having introduced themselves, let alone made a contribution, and without offering a viable alternative. So, Ashton, if you consider what we are using to be "wrong headed", please take the time to propose your "right headed" alternative which permits the same capabilities of portable ASCII email and useable BBS mark-up (in the same mail). After all, the Church of Virus is a "collaborative" community and we wish to provide the best possible support for our members whether the attend via the web or via the mail list (subscribe virus at [email]majordomo@lucifer.com]) and irrespective of whether they use a PC, a hand held or a voice synthesizer (as a number of our members do).
Good suggestions and valid criticism are always welcome. Unwarranted sneering and invalid objections are not.
Classic ">" Formatting
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eugen@leitl.org
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 08:12
> To: ExI BBS
> Subject: RE: client-side empty eyesockets the wave of the future?
>
>
> For the benefit of the list (not BBS, that's something different, see
> subject line) subscribers I've reformatted Hermit's reply properly by
> wrapping overlong lines, and using legacy citation methods
> and removing
> the CoV plug, since irrelevant to the discussion.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hermit [mailto:hermits@iowatelecom.net]On Behalf Of
> > hermit@lucifer.com
> > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 07:34
> > To: hermit@lucifer.com
> > Subject: RE: client-side empty eyesockets the wave of the future?
> >
> >
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Hermit wrote:
>
> > A full reply may be viewed (in full mark-up format) at
> >
> http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display
> ;threadid=2539
> 2
>
> Here Hermit admits implicitly that the email format with full
> markup is
> inferior if not rendered into HTML and viewed via a browser. No
> explanation is given why using a browser is preferrable to
> user's current
> method of choice (MUA) to view what is a pure text message.
>
> > The formatting under discussion may be viewed at FAQ: Hermitish mail
> > mark-up and citation V2.1
> >
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=displa
> y;threadid=115
> 26)
> >
> > As this reply appears to be relevant to Extropians as well, and is
> > indirectly a response to a critical article posted on the
> ExI BBS (of
> > which I am a member), it appears appropriate to post excerpts here
> > too.
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> -----
> >
> > [David Lucifer 1]
> > [Ashton 2]
> > [Hermit 3]
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> -----
> For the first time twitter is introduced. The first time
> reader scratches
> her head, before reading on, the more seasoned reader recognizes a
> reinvention of a wheel (Supercite):
>
> http://www.fnal.gov/docs/products/emacs/v19_34/sc_toc.html
>
> albeit in a polygonal shape. Yes, it is really hard to
> improve on a mature
> medium.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ashton@pyro.net
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 07:28
> > > To: CoV BBS
> > > Subject: RE: client-side empty eyesockets the wave of the future?
> > >
> > >
> > > David Lucifer <hidden@extropy.org>:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: David Lucifer <hidden@extropy.org>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 07:01
> > > > To: CoV BBS
> > > > Subject: RE: client-side empty eyesockets the wave of
> the future?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [David Lucifer] Message sent to Extropians mailing list:
> Here you see the polygonal-wheel aspect of the citation
> method: it doesn't
> use abbreviations for the author cite, thus wasting line
> width, a scarce
> resource in this medium.
> > > > http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;t
> > > > hreadid=51564
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: eugen@leitl.org
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 06:53
> > > > > To: ExI BBS
> > > > > Subject: client-side empty eyesockets the wave of the future?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [resend, since it kept bouncing]
> > > > >
> > > > > I've had a gander at the virus@ folks over at lucifer, and
> > > > > saw adherence
> > > > > to what struck me as bizarrely wrong design. Could someone
> > > > else please
> > > > > comment on:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=displa
> > > > y;threadid=115
> > > > 26>
> > > > >
> > > > >List archives are that-a-way:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > <http://forum.javien.com/messages.php?topicdata=virus&new=true>
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm curious as to whether such media find acceptance,
> > > > especially among
> > > > >newcomers (given that horrendous UIs such as two-thumb
> > entry of SMS
> > > > >messages catched on bigtime very little can surprise me),
> > > > and what kind of
> > > > >communities they form. Anyone in the know?
> > > [Ashton 2] Humm, I\'d swap bizarrely wrong design with the more
> delightful \'wrong-headed\'.
> Here we see more twitter. The idiotic gateway from the
> SuperDuperMarkUp
> feels it's necessary to mask apostrophes in plain text
> rendition of the
> markup. There is absolutely no reason to do this either than author's
> fiat. Here he continues demonstrating his fundamental lack of
> understanding of legacy medium plain text, or blatant
> disregard for user's
> wishes. It would have been trivial to reverse the masking, and even to
> convert his citation style into legacy (I frankly admit the reverse is
> less trivial, but that's not the point discussed).
> > I'll deal with this later. I would suggest that "bizarrely
> > wrong design"
> > might apply to people advocating embedding line wrapping into
> > text, and thus
> > confusing data and presentation. If
> The assertion is that his method is superior. There is no
> proof given but
> reference to nebulous mention of "confusing data and presentation". I
> recommend Hermit to read up on basic typography, which is the art and
> technology to render readable documents. He might have failed
> to notice
> that markup, which was designed to be orthogonal to
> orthography has wound
> up to have had to reinvent typography, poorely (I've
> predicted that, of
> course).
>
> It's obvious why: people's visual systems are rather hardwired, and
> legibility is measurable in objective benchmarks. Because
> people are not
> computers there's most assuredly a strong coupling between data and
> presentation.
> > so, it indubitably applies to ">"
> > indentation of mail which requires the embedding of hard line
> > feeds and
> > makes the material almost unusable after more than a few people have
> > commented on it, even on computers supporting 80 column text.
> > I'm not even
> > sure that
> Here is another assertion without proof. I think the "even on 80 chars
> column text" can be considered a rather modest requirement at
> this day and
> age. As compared to a browser on a bitmapped display. Especially a
> bitmapped display of >2 kPixels horizontal, which Hermit is
> using. I also
> happen to use a dual-head display with >2 kPixels, but I don't assume
> anybody else does. This email could be read via a voice synthesizer
> (twitter characters highly fatal here, or anything which
> makes textflow
> nonlinear for that matter), on a braille line, or some other degraded
> medium. (Btw, any blind or othewise disabled extropians here?
> I'm asking
> for your input in this debate. Do you have specific
> requirements for the
> formatting of list messages?)
> > "wrong-headed" applies at all, as the mark-up is a way which
> > permits users to format their text in such a way as to make it more
> > attractive to people viewing it through the BBS,
> > comprehensible to those
> The claim made is that an email users wants to jump through
> hoops to make
> this text more readable to web users than those via hypermail'd list
> archives.
>
> Here's a counterclaim: the medium of pigment-stained dead tree has
> produced great content and still continues doing so. Content
> created is of
> a quality making our drivel here utterly insignificant. Here's empiric
> proof that great minds are not bottlenecked by legacy media.
> Especially,
> spiced up legacy media as plain text email with obvious
> citation rules and
> hyperlinks.
>
> Hermit's markup is there for a purpose: it claims to facilitate
> communcation, drawing great minds which then produce content.
> I would like
> to see some of that fabulous content those great minds have
> produced which
> eclipses content produced e.g. in this meek legacy medium of
> extropians@
> mailing list -- by an order of magnitude. I somehow kept
> missing those in
>
> http://forum.javien.com/messages.php?topicdata=virus&new=true
>
> I'm so lost. Can you help me by pointing out killer content in there?
> Thank you.
> > receiving it in mail and fully useable in a WAP environment.
> > The alternative
> > appears to be no formatting capability at all, the easy confusion of
> > attribution in all but the simplest cases, a confused
> One would think that people who care about attribution can
> keep track of
> what was said when by whom, even without installing
> Supercite. Guess what,
> they do. It's the people who disregard form who don't. Which
> is fine with
> me, because such people rarely have anything worthwhile to say. If you
> care about content, you care about form. Sounds kinda obvious, right?
> > tangle
> > of wrapped
> > lines and the non-portability of the material. Perhaps the
> reason for
> > considering this approach "wrong headed" is simply that none
> > of this might
> > be visible to somebody lacking appropriate experience or
> imagination.
> > Perhaps you would like to
> You're asking me for experience with your medium, without demostrating
> value first? What strange attitude you have there. Your claims of your
> critic's lack of imagination is disingenuous (you're also
> ugly, and your
> mother dresses you funny, too).
> > expand on why you perceive this effort as
> > 'wrong-headed'?
> > >
> > > 'a simplified mail-markup'? It's certainly not simpler for
> > > the writers!
> > > Unless, of course, someone's scripted their mail agent
> > > blue in the face ...
> Exactly. Without widespread authoring tools you're back to manual
> formatting. Uh, Don't Think So.
> > Actually, I have to disagree. It takes me much less time
> (as a fairly
> > prolific writer), to enter "Hermitish mark-up" manually,
> > rather than trying
> > to follow ">" indentation. Certainly I
> Hermit, this is compleat horse puckey (thanks, Robert). Typical
> discussions never go over 5 citation nesting, which is
> trivial to follow
> (even without Supercite -- notice that no one bothers with superior
> citation practices because there's _zero demand_ for it).
> > (and many others) find
> > it much easier
> > to follow. The important point being that the use of any form
> > of mark-up is
> > purely optional, but the
> If it's purely optional, the please remove the twitter, wrap
> your lines,
> and use the ">" for citations. That's about a
> Perl-geek-afternoon in work
> units.
> > fact that it exists and is
> > "mail-safe" as well as
> > displaying effectively on the BBS allows those who wish to
> > take the trouble
> > to make their messages a lot more attractive, and allows
> somebody with
> You're not making this message a lot more attractive, let me tell you.
> > slight experience to follow items formatted in this fashion
> > in email or on
> > the BBS. As the FAQ puts it, "The use of this system is
> > recommended but not
> > mandated for postings on the CoV. Using it will make it more
> > likely that
> > others will read your submissions and will help to prevent
> > the CoV from
> I much prefer to follow forums which don't require me to jump through
> hoops. You might observe that readiness to follow braindead formatting
> rules in a forum yet sans prestige is negatively correlated with the
> ability to contribute content. In other words, you're deliberately
> crippling your forum by adherence to idiotic formatting fiat.
> > becoming a "write only zone." The use of HTML in posting to
> the CoV is
> > depreciated and should be avoided under any circumstances."
> > >
> > > However, I guess that it keeps the cult factor high though
> > > sheer ugliness.
> > This loaded sentence contains a number of assertions which
> Hey, if you can dish out, you'd better get ready to take it.
> My readiness
> to provide you with new nether orifices is only limited by a
> lack of time.
> > I would
> > challenge. The use of "sheer ugliness" is a personal opinion,
> > which you are
> > certainly entitled to, although not, I think, generally
> > shared. Certainly,
> > the assertion of "cult factor" does not
> Not generally shared, my ass.
> > apply at all, unless
> > the CoV is a
> > cult. So let's see.
> Let's rather not.
>
>[snip]
>
[Partial restore of snip so as to not lose the impact]
> > So are we a cult? Not by a "skeptical standard." Would you
> > like to offer us
> > an alternative definition which supports your blundering
> > assertion, or was
> > it simply an attempted insult - in which case it has already
> > received more
> > attention than it deserved.
> > <snip>
> > [Hermit 3] In conclusion, let me suggest that what I don't
> > get is why people
> > join an existing group, where the invitation to join is "Virus is a
> > collaborative project; if you subscribe to the ideas consider
> > joining us on
> > the Virus BBS", only to criticize what has achieved, without having
> > introduced themselves, let alone made a contribution, and
> > without offering a
> > viable alternative. So, Ashton, if you consider what we are
> > using to be
> > "wrong headed", please take the time to propose your "right headed"
> > alternative which permits the same capabilities of portable
> > ASCII email and
> > useable BBS mark-up (in the same mail). After all, the Church
> > of Virus is a
> > "collaborative" community and we wish to provide the best
> > possible support
> > for our members whether the attend via the web or via the maillist
> > (subscribe virus at [email]majordomo@lucifer.com]) and
> > irrespective of
> > whether they use a PC, a hand held or a voice synthesizer (as
> > a number of
> > our members do).
> >
> > Good suggestions and valid criticism are always welcome. Unwarranted
> > sneering and invalid objections are not.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Hermit
> > >
> > > --
> > > My virus wasn't targeting stupid computer users specifically,
> > > just anyone using Microsoft's Outlook Express or AOL," he said.
> > > "Oh... damn."
> > > http://www.SatireWire.com/news/0112/hate_crime.shtml
|
Author
Logged
