reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (11/30/84)
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherschu@drutx.UUCP (SchulteSM) (12/12/84)
q w . dfslkfl; lkfdg ;lfdkg;lka;dlgk ZZ agkfjlkadfgkj
yosh@hou2e.UUCP (M.CHING) (12/13/84)
> From: schu@drutx.UUCP (SchulteSM) > Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal > > > > q > > > w > . > dfslkfl; > > > lkfdg > ;lfdkg;lka;dlgk > > > > ZZ > agkfjlkadfgkj > > Yes, I agree. This is definately a proposal worth considering. Dave Bloom Holmdel, NJ
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (12/18/84)
In article <383@hou2e.UUCP> yosh@hou2e.UUCP (M.CHING) writes: >> From: schu@drutx.UUCP (SchulteSM) >> Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal >> >> >> >> q >> >> >> w >> . >> dfslkfl; >> >> >> lkfdg >> ;lfdkg;lka;dlgk >> >> >> >> ZZ >> agkfjlkadfgkj >> >> > >Yes, I agree. This is definately a proposal worth considering. > > > Dave Bloom > Holmdel, NJ No, no, no!!! I know, it sounds nice, but believe me, it just doesn't work. Someone over here brought this up on our local network, and we've been discussing it over and again, and indeed, it sounds appealing, but when you work out the details you'll find lots of inconsistencies and problems. Don't try to reinvent the wheel, there are already enough other proposals on this net which ask for our attention. -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it. --Voltaire
egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) (12/19/84)
In article <393@klipper.UUCP> biep writes: >>> From: schu@drutx.UUCP (SchulteSM) >>> Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal >>> >>> >>> >>> q >>> >>> >>> w >>> . >>> dfslkfl; >>> >>> >>> lkfdg >>> ;lfdkg;lka;dlgk >>> >>> >>> >>> ZZ >>> agkfjlkadfgkj >>> >>> >> >>Yes, I agree. This is definately a proposal worth considering. >> > >No, no, no!!! >I know, it sounds nice, but believe me, it just doesn't work. >Someone over here brought this up on our local network, and we've >been discussing it over and again, and indeed, it sounds appealing, >but when you work out the details you'll find lots of inconsistencies >and problems. Don't try to reinvent the wheel, there are already >enough other proposals on this net which ask for our attention. > Well, we've actually done it here, and it works out just fine. Of course, we had to make certain minor changes like "DfXlkfl;:" instead of "dfslkfl;" as was indicated in the original article. You'll note that otherwise a contradiction arises when "ZZ" is implemented. Ed Sheppard Bell Communications Research
geoffs@brl-tgr.ARPA (Geoffrey Sauerborn ) (12/21/84)
In article <24@epsilon.UUCP> you write: >In article <393@klipper.UUCP> biep writes: >>>> From: schu@drutx.UUCP (SchulteSM) >>>> Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> q >>>> >>>> >>>> w >>>> . >>>> dfslkfl; >>>> >>>> >>>> lkfdg >>>> ;lfdkg;lka;dlgk >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ZZ >>>> agkfjlkadfgkj >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Yes, I agree. This is definately a proposal worth considering. >>> >> >>No, no, no!!! >>I know, it sounds nice, but believe me, it just doesn't work. >>Someone over here brought this up on our local network, and we've >>been discussing it over and again, and indeed, it sounds appealing, >>but when you work out the details you'll find lots of inconsistencies >>and problems. Don't try to reinvent the wheel, there are already >>enough other proposals on this net which ask for our attention. >> >Well, we've actually done it here, and it works out just fine. Of course, >we had to make certain minor changes like "DfXlkfl;:" instead of >"dfslkfl;" as was indicated in the original article. You'll note that >otherwise a contradiction arises when "ZZ" is implemented. > > Ed Sheppard > Bell Communications Research Alright! I'm sick of this! Why is it that every time someone puts a good piece into public domain, somebody has to good and change the source! The next thing to happen it some BO-ZO will try to use this changed version without taking the time to read the documentation - and naturally the FOOL starts flaming to the original poster!!!! Geoff Sauerborn
lffast@watrose.UUCP (lffast) (12/28/84)
> In article <24@epsilon.UUCP> you write: > >In article <393@klipper.UUCP> biep writes: > >>>> From: schu@drutx.UUCP (SchulteSM) > >>>> Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> q > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> w > >>>> . > >>>> dfslkfl; > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> lkfdg > >>>> ;lfdkg;lka;dlgk > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ZZ > >>>> agkfjlkadfgkj > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>Yes, I agree. This is definately a proposal worth considering. > >>> > >> > >>No, no, no!!! > >>I know, it sounds nice, but believe me, it just doesn't work. > >>Someone over here brought this up on our local network, and we've > >>been discussing it over and again, and indeed, it sounds appealing, > >>but when you work out the details you'll find lots of inconsistencies > >>and problems. Don't try to reinvent the wheel, there are already > >>enough other proposals on this net which ask for our attention. > >> > >Well, we've actually done it here, and it works out just fine. Of course, > >we had to make certain minor changes like "DfXlkfl;:" instead of > >"dfslkfl;" as was indicated in the original article. You'll note that > >otherwise a contradiction arises when "ZZ" is implemented. > > > > Ed Sheppard > > Bell Communications Research > > > Alright! I'm sick of this! Why is it that every time someone > puts a good piece into public domain, somebody has to good and change > the source! The next thing to happen it some BO-ZO will try to use > this changed version without taking the time to read the documentation - > and naturally the FOOL starts flaming to the original poster!!!! > > > Geoff Sauerborn This really belongs in net.sources. Larry Fast
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (01/02/85)
In article <6719@brl-tgr.ARPA>, geoffs@brl-tgr.ARPA (Geoffrey Sauerborn (TANK) <geoffs>) writes: >In article <24@epsilon.UUCP> you write: >>In article <393@klipper.UUCP> biep writes: >>>>> From: schu@drutx.UUCP (SchulteSM) >>>>> Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> q >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> w >>>>> . >>>>> dfslkfl; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> lkfdg >>>>> ;lfdkg;lka;dlgk >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ZZ >>>>> agkfjlkadfgkj >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>Yes, I agree. This is definately a proposal worth considering. >>>> >>> >>>No, no, no!!! >>>I know, it sounds nice, but believe me, it just doesn't work. >>>Someone over here brought this up on our local network, and we've >>>been discussing it over and again, and indeed, it sounds appealing, >>>but when you work out the details you'll find lots of inconsistencies >>>and problems. Don't try to reinvent the wheel, there are already >>>enough other proposals on this net which ask for our attention. >>> >>Well, we've actually done it here, and it works out just fine. Of course, >>we had to make certain minor changes like "DfXlkfl;:" instead of >>"dfslkfl;" as was indicated in the original article. You'll note that >>otherwise a contradiction arises when "ZZ" is implemented. >> >> Ed Sheppard >> Bell Communications Research > > > Alright! I'm sick of this! Why is it that every time someone >puts a good piece into public domain, somebody has to good and change >the source! The next thing to happen it some BO-ZO will try to use >this changed version without taking the time to read the documentation - >and naturally the FOOL starts flaming to the original poster!!!! > > > Geoff Sauerborn You all don't seem to get the point. Indeed, Ed, it is possible to adapt the thing to your local network, when all machines are compa- tible, none is running notesfiles, all are little-endian, and at least some of them are not feeding news to decvax, mcvax or purdue (and per- haps others, I've not yet got time to find out), and some other little things. *But not all sites of USENET do!!!* And what is happening then is that everybody starts making his local patches, and we end up even worse than we started. The whole mistake is due to the starting "q", which supposes a local "edsgr w534cb67835", since otherwise indeed "ZZ" goes wrong in boundary cases. I must say I do not yet completely understand Ed's patch, it occurs to me that this only works because of some local changes to the rot13 algorithm. That can hardly be called "portable", can it? Geoff, I think your argument goes wrong at the word "good". I would say: quit the idea, the gains for sf-movie-lovers do not outweigh the burden for the rest of us. -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it. --Voltaire