ib@apolling (Ivan N. Bach) (03/05/90)
I would love to answer your questions about USPC. If we lived in a free
society, I would no doubt be able to do that. You seem to have the illusion
that this is a free-access network. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This network is being administered by at least five self-appointed Ministers.
Their names are:
dyer@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM (Steve Dyer)
don@cs.UMD.EDU (Don Hopkins)
adobe.reply3:From: munck@chance.uucp (Robert Munck)
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson)
You have already broken several of their rules by posting your questions
directly to this newsgroup. The proper procedure is to prepare a draft for
your posting in five copies, and send it for approval to the Ministry of the
USENET Network in Beaverton, Oregon. They will decide whether your posting
is "crap." This is the term the Honorable Don Hopkins used when he referred
to one of my recent postings.
If you change your posting to their liking, and they approve its distribution,
you will be able to post it to this newsgroup. These Ministers, who also act as
judges, have imposed a gag order on my postings, and they have put my e-mail
address into their "kill" files, so that all my future postings will be auto-
matically eliminated. If you would like me to answer your questions, you will
have to prepare an application for the lifting of my gag order in five copies,
and send it to the Ministry.
If my gag order is lifted, I will then have to submit a proposal for my answers
to the Ministry. Ministers will review my answers, and if they pass their
review, they will give me the permission to post them.
If I were you, I would think three times before posting any articles to this
newsgroup. The last time I asked perfectly reasonable questions, such as:
1. Why are Adobe and SUN using a compact, binary format in Display Post-
Script, but only a readable format in Printer PostScript?
2. Why cannot Adobe propose a standard binary format for Printer Post-
Script that could be implemented in all PostScript interpreters, so
that our printer drivers can produce PostScript programs that would
be up to 10 times shorter than the programs written in readable format?
3. Why don't we improve the user interface programs which allow you to use
PostScript interpreters in interactive or executive mode, so that they
are at least as good as the programs which allow you to use a BASIC
interpreter interactively?
4. Why don't we improve our application programs in such a way that they
give us full access to the power of PostScript, so that we do not have
to program in PostScript directly?
not only did I not get an answer from, for example, Glenn Reid, the person who
managed to write a whole book on how to make PostScript printer drivers more
efficient without ever mentioning the compact, binary format used in other
languages, such as Interpress or DDL, but:
1. I was threatened by a libel suit.
2. I was publicly called all kinds of names (a "wannabe," an "embarrassment
to my employer," "Anti-Adobe," etc.), and then one of the Ministers
told me that I could respond to these offensive postings only by private
e-mail that nobody else would ever see.
3. My technical comments were called "bashing and haranguing." I was told
that my postings "belittled myself and demeaned the company for which
I work."
4. I was told that my postings were "innuendos unsupported by facts," and
then I was told to shut up. How do you like that parlimentary
procedure? I was also told that I "obviously had an ax to grind."
5. Several attempts were made to misinterpret my personal comments as the
comments of my employer.
6. I was told that the products from my company will not be purchased
because of my postings.
7. Minister Don Hopkins threatened to notify the PostMaster in my area
if I post any more "crap."
8. One of the Ministers posted instructions on how to put my e-mail address
into a kill file.
At the same time, the five Ministers enjoy the priviledge of posting any "crap"
they want. They can call anybody else anything they want, and they can make any
claims they want. Any attempts on my part to point out that they are the ones
who started this flame war have been met with scorn and more abuse.
When you post something to this group, never include your business address,
because you will expose yourself and your employer to all kinds of abuse.
I don't know about you, but from now on I will post my articles only to the
newsgroup comp.newprod. Even that may not be safe.henry@angel.Sun.COM (Henry McGilton--Software Products) (03/05/90)
In article <9477@imagen.UUCP>, ib@apolling (Ivan N. Bach) writes: * I would love to answer your questions about USPC. If * we lived in a free society, I would no doubt be able to * do that. You seem to have the illusion that this is a * free-access network. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would have E-mailed this to Ivan Bach, but there seems to be a problem getting through. I can't quite understand why Mr. Bach doesn't have a `real' mail address, but mails from the daemon account. It's not my nature to denigrate anyone publicly. Praise People Publicly. Pillory People Privately. But, given I can't get through on E-mail, Mister Bach, your last posting was somewhat disturbing, from some minor and some major viewpoints. The Minor first -- would you mind using some editor that wraps lines correctly to eighty characters or fewer, please? Would make our lives (a little) easier if you could. The Major. * This network is being administered by at least five * self-appointed Ministers. Their names are . . . * ( names deleted to prevent further seiches of the net ) I was under the impression (am I mistaken?) that ad hominem debates are in poor taste on the net. I also had no idea that any person or group were acting as self- appointed arbiters of what's acceptable. I have enjoyed reading this newsgroup for quite some time now, have gained reams of useful information, have been amused, and have been completely awed by the level of intellect within this group. And have learned a lot from the really knowledgeable people -- all five to ten of them -- who post to this group. * 1. Why are Adobe and SUN using a compact, binary format * in Display Post- Script, but only a readable format * in Printer PostScript? I already responded to this one. I had no idea that Sun were supporting DPS. I can feel Alzheimer's creeping up -- must be the effects of eight years in the Sun. * 2. Why cannot Adobe propose a standard binary format * for Printer Post- Script that could be implemented * in all PostScript interpreters, so that our printer * drivers can produce PostScript programs that would * be up to 10 times shorter than the programs written * in readable format? I don't know why Adobe can't do this. Maybe Adobe are busy doing lots of other groovy things since PostScript has been such a raving success in the marketplace. Groovy things like Illustrator, Streamline, Type Manager, PhotoShop, the forms generator, a reasonably decent (if somewhat overpriced) font library (congratulations Adobe, for Adobe Garamond). If Adobe aren't presently doing any such innovation, perhaps some other company (QMS/Imagen, perhaps?) would like to take a stab at it. After all, while Adobe have only one page description language in their portfolio, Imagen (who have been in existnce a lot longer than Adobe) already have considerable experience in designing page description languages (ImPress and DDL, to name just two). * 3. Why don't we improve the user interface programs which * allow you to use PostScript interpreters in * interactive or executive mode, so that they are at * least as good as the programs which allow you to use * a BASIC interpreter interactively? I admit to guessing at your requirements here, but I think that you would like to see a much more interactive, debugging kind of interaction. Such a facility is possible in principle, but incredibly hard in practice. After all, BASIC is trivial compared to PostScript. But, if you have any practical suggestions on how to build an `incremental' debugging PostScript environment, or better yet, a prototype implementation we could all use to see how it is and provide our feedback, I'm sure we'd all be overjoyed to obtain such a utility. * 4. Why don't we improve our application programs in such * a way that they give us full access to the power of * PostScript, so that we do not have to program in * PostScript directly? Many applications predated PostScript, and so never were written to exploit the capabilities of a page description language that wasn't dreamed of at the time they were written (oops -- tautology, I know). And a lot of the old pre-PostScript applications had to be cobbled up in a real hurry to support PostScript when the writing appeared on the wall. Some modern applications (Adobe Illustrator), and some others whose names escape me at this late hour (the A problem again) do provide great facilities such as text around arbitrary paths and so on. But, I think that ultimately, (guessing again at your desires) descriptive systems can't, by definition, describe every possible thing that a procedural system can execute. Just recently, for example, I wrote a quick and dirty PostScript program (twenty lines or so) to provide the effect of stone-cut letters. I don't have a WYSIWYG program with which I can describe such a thing so succinctly. * Not only did I not get an answer from, for example, Glenn * Reid, the person who managed to write a whole book on how * to make PostScript printer drivers more efficient without * ever mentioning the compact, binary format used in other * languages, such as Interpress or DDL, but: Why did you expect an answer from Glenn Reid? I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that Glenn was writing a book about PostScript. Assuming my notion of Glenn's chosen subject matter was correct, why would he have written about InterPress or DDL? As I stated in a previous posting, I don't see a lot (in fact, I don't see any at all) of street corner shops advertising `InterPress Spoken Here'. Same problem for DDL. Same for ImPress (RIP [no pun intended]). If I look in my net news comp/lang directory, I see postscript, but I don't see interpress, or ddl, or impress, or hpgl, or xics, or, name one, and it's not there. * . . . Some Glop Deleted . . . * 3. My technical comments were called "bashing and haranguing." I posted the article with the `anti-bashing' title originally. It was not directed at any one person, but was a philosophical comment on the notion that Adobe have provided the world with something useful, and that many people seem to have adopted a position that Adobe were somehow `in control, and that if people disagreed with Adobes' execution, that such people should build something that they considered better and sell it in the free marketplace. My position as I stated in my posting of a week ago still stands. You, Mr. Bach, for example, have stated some interesting and fairly good ideas, now and then. Well, why don't you go ahead and implement some of your good ideas? An interactive, incremental, debugging PS environment (running on what platform?, I hear the cry) would be a boon. Shouldn't be too hard -- about the same level of complexity as an APL interpreter, plus colour extensions of course. ........ Henry | Henry McGilton | I'll bet those people who | | | Sun Microsystems | put control-D characters | arpa: hmcgilton@sun.com | | 2550 Garcia | in PostScript files also | uucp: ...!sun!angel!henry | | Mountain View, CA | put beans in their chili. | |
munck@chance.uucp (Robert Munck) (03/06/90)
In article <9477@imagen.UUCP> ib@apolling (Ivan N. Bach) writes: >... >This network is being administered by at least five self-appointed Ministers. >Their names are: > > (four other people) > adobe.reply3:From: munck@chance.uucp (Robert Munck) > Hey, that's me!! Wow, fame at last! >... >At the same time, the five Ministers enjoy the priviledge of posting any "crap" >they want. They can call anybody else anything they want, and they can make any >claims they want. ... So true. What is this world coming to? Actually, I do most of my posting of crap, name calling, and claim-mongering over in comp.lang.ada and comp.software-eng, both of which have some of the same problems as this newsgroup. (It's my theory that Ted, Bill, and Ivan are all THE SAME PERSON! That's why you never seem them together.) Postscript to me is just a neat idea that I don't know very much about. -- Bob <Munck@MITRE.ORG>, linus!munck.UUCP -- MS Z676, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA 22120 -- 703/883-6688
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (03/06/90)
ib@apolling (Ivan N. Bach) fumes: > I would love to answer your questions about USPC. If we lived in a free > society, I would no doubt be able to do that... Hey, Ivan...go ahead! It would be your first technical posting; I'd like to see it! > This network is being administered by at least five self-appointed Ministers. > Their names are: . . . > rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) . . . Hey, not me, bunky. I just post like everyone else. What does your little lie buy you, anyway? Trying to get sympathy, perhaps? > You have already broken several of their rules by posting your questions > directly to this newsgroup... No, technical questions are fine, Ivan. Is there some problem with Ultra- Script that you don't want to admit? Is that why you're dodging the issue and flaming some random third parties? > If you change your posting to their liking, and they approve its distribution, > you will be able to post it to this newsgroup. These Ministers, who also act as > judges, have imposed a gag order on my postings,... Shall we try for a grain of truth? There are people who have decided they don't want to read your postings, so they have set personal options on their news readers to filter out your postings. Is that what you mean by a "gag order" - that you can't FORCE these folks to read your flames? -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools.
larry@csccat.UUCP (Larry Spence) (03/06/90)
In article <9477@imagen.UUCP> ib@apolling (Ivan N. Bach) writes: >I would love to answer your questions about USPC. If we lived in a free >society, I would no doubt be able to do that. You seem to have the illusion >that this is a free-access network. Nothing could be further from the truth. Awww, c'mon, quit whining. I'm sure that plenty of people will stand up for your right to post if it's really threatened, including me. >This network is being administered by at least five self-appointed Ministers. >Their names are: > ... list of names ... > >You have already broken several of their rules by posting your questions >directly to this newsgroup. The proper procedure is to prepare a draft for >your posting in five copies, and send it for approval to the Ministry of the >USENET Network in Beaverton, Oregon. They will decide whether your posting >is "crap." This is the term the Honorable Don Hopkins used when he referred >to one of my recent postings. Is someone actually keeping you from posting something? Are you being PREVENTED from posting? Until then, quit whining. >judges, have imposed a gag order on my postings, and they have put my e-mail >address into their "kill" files, so that all my future postings will be auto- >matically eliminated. You have a right to post what you want, we have a right to not look at it. Do you have a problem with that, and if so, why? >If I were you, I would think three times before posting any articles to this >newsgroup. This is too much. Let the guy post and draw his own conclusions about this newsgroup. However, I support your right to post your pathetic whining, as long as you support my right to warn this person about your warnings! > 1. I was threatened by a libel suit. If you don't feel that you've libelled anyone, why should you worry about this? > 2. I was publicly called all kinds of names (a "wannabe," an "embarrassment > to my employer," "Anti-Adobe," etc.), and then one of the Ministers > told me that I could respond to these offensive postings only by private > e-mail that nobody else would ever see. No one can force you to do this without some serious evidence, and I think you know that. > 3. My technical comments were called "bashing and haranguing." I was told > that my postings "belittled myself and demeaned the company for which > I work." I don't tar QMS with the same brush, since there's no way they could possibly have seen and approved of your postings. My impression of your employer has been and continues to be positive. > 5. Several attempts were made to misinterpret my personal comments as the > comments of my employer. Well, your employer is a potential competitor of Adobe, and many of your points seemed to criticize things that PS lacks... it's an easy conclusion to come to. > 7. Minister Don Hopkins threatened to notify the PostMaster in my area > if I post any more "crap." If his complaints are spurious, you have nothing to worry about, right? Just keep copies of the postings and email around for reference. > 8. One of the Ministers posted instructions on how to put my e-mail address > into a kill file. So what?!? Do you think that we're a bunch of robots who will read that and automatically put you in the kill file? Even without a kill file entry, all someone has to do is hit "n." So what's the big deal? >At the same time, the five Ministers enjoy the priviledge of posting any "crap" >they want. Their rights are exactly the same as yours. Let us know when someone stops you from posting. Send me email, and I'll post it to this newsgroup. >When you post something to this group, never include your business address, >because you will expose yourself and your employer to all kinds of abuse. What is the purpose of including your address, if not to give people a route by which to respond? If you can't stand the heat... >I don't know about you, but from now on I will post my articles only to the >newsgroup comp.newprod. Even that may not be safe. Coward! Keep posting here! I don't like your postings, but don't pull some martyr-complex act on us. You make bold statements, then act hurt when you get similarly bold replies. I've never heard of a case where someone was prevented from posting unless they were using obscene insults, or suggesting something illegal. Keep the technical content high and the emotional content low, and I don't think you'll have any problems you can't handle. Apologies for using so much bandwidth on this, but when you started spewing your warnings about the supposed horrors of this newsgroup, it really ticked me off. The content of this newsgroup could be better, but I don't think that the problem is censorship. -- Larry Spence larry@csccat ...{texbell,texsun}!csccat!larry
chuck@mitlns.mit.edu (03/06/90)
-Message-Text-Follows-
> <Flames galore>
I am thinking about buying Ultrascript hence I keep reading this thread.
Could you people possibly use a different SUBJECT for this discussion?
Perhaps... Argument?
Thanks for your time,
Chuck Parsons
CHUCK@MITLNS.MIT.EDU