Pete C. > wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
> >
> > Pete C. > wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks, this is the year 2009, and October no less, nearly 2010. The days
> > > of 2400 baud or less modems and using USENET shorthand to minimize
> > > bandwidth usage are long over. Even folks still stick on dialup are
> > > getting 36kbps or better connections generally.
> >
> > Need help?
>
> No, but apparently you do, Mr OCD.

Yes, you obviously need help, but something makes me sure it won't work.

> > Seeing as you are using an ancient Netscape browser
>
> Yes ancient, yes *newsreader*, browser is separate. Indeed I still use
> this ancient *newsreader* since it performs *better* than a number of
> new ones I've tried.

Went right over your head. The point is, HTML has been in use since
1991; your "newsreader" version was released in about 2000; the latest
USEFOR specifications have been released in 2007. What exactly is new
about HTML that the USEFOR experts possibly do not know?

> You need to evolve ludite. Perhaps since you clearly have too much time
> on your hands, you can spend some time working against spam, not valid
> posts.

You first need to learn what *Luddite* is. Then you might possibly
understand the ludicrousness and irrelevancy of your blatherings about
bandwidth. Do you want JavaScript and Flash animations, too? Bandwidth
is not much of a problem, after all. You want something against spam?
Get a newsreader with good killfile capabilities and use a newsserver
with a spam filter.

HTML is never valid on Usenet. There are valid Usenet standards and
protocols. *You* do not set the standards with your ridiculous HTML
"defence". I post the rfc FAQ, in plain text. The FAQ contains
numerous variously formatted tables. The tool needed to format tables,
etc. in plain text is called "tab" (and a monospaced font on the
receiving end). The same FAQ can be found on the Web; I converted it to
HTML about ten years ago. What is it you can tell me about HTML that I
do not already know? Everything has its place. HTML on Usenet is
garbage; it does not add anything at all of the slightest use. You want
HTML, go take part in Web-based discussion forums and leave Usenet
alone. Why don't *you* post HTML, anyway?

Victor

"Gene" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:56:01 -0400, "Cheryl" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
om...
>>> Pete C. wrote:
>>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You know that this is a text based format, but ignore it anyway.
>>>>> You, sir, are an ass.
>>>>
>>>> RTF *is* a text format. It is not like posting binaries in a text
>>>> group.
>>>
>>> It uses large amounts of html. It is not used in usenet NGs
>>>
>>
>>Give him a break, guys. He needed an easy way to post a table. You can't
>>do that with plain text.
>
> This is all nonsense. This same crap was posted not long ago. It
> showed the same things. Not much of a difference.
>
> BBQ and grilling is about quality. Some do better with propane, others
> lump. it matters not the few cents saved. People will go with what
> works for them.
>
> Give him a break? No. He knows what he is doing, how to do it better,
> and what form will get the biggest rise out of the regulars.
>
That is plain and simply not true.

Ed

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Pete C. wrote:
>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You know that this is a text based format, but ignore it anyway.
>>>> You, sir, are an ass.
>>>
>>> RTF *is* a text format. It is not like posting binaries in a text
>>> group.
>>
>> It uses large amounts of html. It is not used in usenet NGs
>>
>
> Give him a break, guys. He needed an easy way to post a table. You can't
> do that with plain text.
>
Thank you for your comment Cheryl.

Ed

"Pete C." > wrote in message
ter.com...
>
> Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>>
>> > Theron wrote:
>> >
>> > I didn't even notice that this was cross-posted, Sorry. Please,
>> > everyone,
>> > delete the crossposting before replying
>>
>> I didn't notice, either. Still, since I am not subscribed to afb, do I
>> delete that one? It seems to have more to do with barbeque, though, so
>> are you suggesting deleting rfc?
>>
>> Either way, I spend money on charcoal, especially since my younger son,
>> when he is home, likes to BBQ/smoke/grill. I'm interested in this post.
>>
>
> Yes, it's crossposted, but within accepted norms, i.e. three groups or
> less (only two here), and relevant groups (cooking in general and
> barbecue specific).
>
I agree with that, though I haven't crossposted in the past, other than by
accident.
>
> Personally, I'll worry about cooking fuel costs when they amount to more
> than a decimal percentage of my income.
>
>
Ed

"Nancy Young" > wrote in
:

> sandi wrote:
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote in
>>
>>> Actually I was just being a nudge, but what was posted
>>> doesn't bother me either. Seems like people should be able
>>> to change their settings if they don't want to see HTML.
>
>> Wouldn't that be like putting blinders on?
>>
>> Ignoring the 250+ lines of text?
>>
>> There awas a bunch of...
>> <TD height=16 width="16%"><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT
>> size=2
>> face=Arial>
>
> Oh, and I didn't see that, either. It looked fine to me.
>
> nancy

To me, using my news reader it is an advantage...
it either shows the person is a newbie and doen't know how to set
his reader or possibly a trouble maker who doesn't care if he posts
hundreds of lines of junk or binaires to a non-bin group.
(This takes up un-necessary space on the news servers..
causing older posts to drop off sooner.) Plus its plain etiquette
when posting at a plain text group. He even stated "I know you're
more or less not supposed to do this."

Thats just my outlook when 'garbage' is posted where and when it
should or shouldn't be. :-)

Theron wrote:
> "Gene" > wrote in message

>> Give him a break? No. He knows what he is doing, how to do it better,
>> and what form will get the biggest rise out of the regulars.

> That is plain and simply not true.

It plain and simply is true. This latest subject is a prime example.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

"sandi" > wrote in message
...
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in
> :
>
>> sandi wrote:
>>> "Nancy Young" > wrote in
>>>
>>>> Actually I was just being a nudge, but what was posted
>>>> doesn't bother me either. Seems like people should be able
>>>> to change their settings if they don't want to see HTML.
>>
>>> Wouldn't that be like putting blinders on?
>>>
>>> Ignoring the 250+ lines of text?
>>>
>>> There awas a bunch of...
>>> <TD height=16 width="16%"><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT
>>> size=2
>>> face=Arial>
>>
>> Oh, and I didn't see that, either. It looked fine to me.
>>
>> nancy
>
> To me, using my news reader it is an advantage...
> it either shows the person is a newbie and doen't know how to set
> his reader or possibly a trouble maker who doesn't care if he posts
> hundreds of lines of junk or binaires to a non-bin group.
> (This takes up un-necessary space on the news servers..
> causing older posts to drop off sooner.)

Not even close to true. His post was a whopping 12KB in size. Whoopty.
Granted, about 3 times the average size of a text post, it just isn't the
same as a binary, and certainly isn't going to take up a lot of space on a
news server.

I just don't get the big deal. You can set your newsreader to read in text
only, and if it has garbage from HTML, so what? You just don't have to read
it.

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 19:47:48 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:31:41 -0700, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>>> Theron wrote:
>>>> "Gene" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> Give him a break? No. He knows what he is doing, how to do it
>>>>> better, and what form will get the biggest rise out of the
>>>>> regulars.
>>>
>>>> That is plain and simply not true.
>>>
>>> It plain and simply is true. This latest subject is a prime example.
>>
>> Ed's snipping left a little to be desired, but I applied his comment
>> to this part of the quoted post:
>>
>> "BBQ and grilling is about quality. Some do better with propane,
>> others lump."
>>
>> Of course I may be FOS, too.
>
> Of course I may have thought that was Ed P (The Real Ed) posting,
> not that douchebag Kent signing his name as Ed.

But I'm sure Ed P is flattered. LOL
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 15:25:00 -0700, Theron wrote:
>
>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Give him a break, guys. He needed an easy way to post a table. You
>>> can't
>>> do that with plain text.
>>>
>> Thank you for your comment Cheryl.
>
> Translation: "Sucker!"
>

Translation: You only know how to string one word together.

Steve wrote:

> ObFood: If you braise short ribs in merlot, onions, garlic, beef
> stock and long pepper, and tomato paste, you get something that
> tastes not unlike A1. Which is not what I was after.
>
> The long pepper smelled awesome in here, though.

Too late now, but maybe more spices (particularly turmeric, lemongrass, and
cinnamon) would have helped avert that fate. Were you going after a Balinese
flavor, or just fooling around to see what happened with that combination?

I am a bit surprised that what you got was reminiscent of A1. IIRC orange
peel is fairly prominent in A1, and I don't see anything in your list of
ingredients which might have echoed that flavor.

Bob

"Cheryl" > wrote in
:

>
> "sandi" > wrote in message

> Not even close to true. His post was a whopping 12KB in size.
> Whoopty. Granted, about 3 times the average size of a text
> post, it just isn't the same as a binary, and certainly isn't
> going to take up a lot of space on a news server.
>
> I just don't get the big deal.

Netiquette. He even knew it was not right to do.

> You can set your newsreader to
> read in text only, and if it has garbage from HTML, so what?
> You just don't have to read it.
>

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:01:08 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>
>> Pete C. wrote:
>> > Dave Bugg wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You know that this is a text based format, but ignore it anyway.
>> >> You, sir, are an ass.
>> >
>> > RTF *is* a text format. It is not like posting binaries in a text
>> > group.
>>
>> It uses large amounts of html. It is not used in usenet NGs
>
>RTF does not use HTML. RTF is not used in usenet NGs.
>
>Ed's original post was displayed in plain text in my newsreader on my
>computer. When you quoted his post, there were two copies, the first in
>plain text, the next in HTML.

I didn't get a double post. I got a post with no formatting
what-so-ever. Line wrap was turned off and what should have been
tabbed - wasn't.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 04 Oct 2009 17:35:07 GMT, sandi > wrote:

>There awas a bunch of...
> <TD height=16 width="16%"><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT size=2
>face=Arial>
> <P align=right>$4.76</FONT></FONT></P></TD>
> <TD height=16 width="16%"><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT size=2
>face=Arial>

I didn't see any of that stuff.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.