Subj : SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE
To   : STEPHEN HURD
From : MICHEL SAMSON
Date : Sat Nov 06 2004 11:01 am

Hi Stephen (what now?...),

    About "SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE" of November 5:

MS> ...the `MS-Kermit' terminal is OK on `SBBS'...  ...`MS-Kermit' is
MS> free but few newbies would know how to use it...  Wayne Warthen's
MS} `Kermit for Win-16/32' is free too but there was a major issue...
SH} ...MS-Kermit comes without any documentation whatsoever...
MS> This text is taken from the .INI you managed not to read all along:
MS> "ftp://kermit.columbia.edu/kermit/archives/msk314.zip (677 Kb,
MS} November 7, 2002 - updated documentation)"  ...information, directly
MS> from the source, gets distorted even when it's put under your nose!
SH} ...MS-Kermit doesn't run on ANY of the systems comprising my BBS...
MS> Perhaps if you had read `MSK.INI' and paid attention to my 1st line
MS} you would have noticed that it says:  "`SBBS/W32' support...
MS> It's been tested with Kermit95, C-Kermit and G-Kermit.

    I'm the one who'll do misinformation?  And topic steering perhaps?!

    Refrain from using absolutes when memory fails!!!  You're unable to
comment over free `Windows' SoftWare with suitable `Kermit' support just
because you didn't test any.  *I* did, yet here you are!  You read about
how rare the FREE and suitable `Windows' clients happen to be, long ago:
            ^^^^              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
___________________________ [ "Kermit preconceptions" - July 24, 2003 ]_
SH> There is a Windows version...  I think (but am not sure) that
SH} the Windows version is not available without paying for it.

    `K95' (Columbia's *OFFICIAL* `Kermit' SoftWare for `W32' platforms)
is available for a 21 days free trial period, `C-Kermit' is no `Windows'
product and `G-Kermit' much less!  Was this a topic-steering attempt?...

                                 8-7

SH> I'm fairly certain that even you have managed to transfer files
SH> using that setup and MS-Kermit...  ...This is based on memory...

    The following is based on FACTS I'VE OBSERVED MYSELF:  "...the `MS-
Kermit' terminal is OK on `SBBS'...", how could you forget my statement?
       ^^^^^^^^
    THIS APPEARED ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT WHEN YOU WERE POSTING THE REPLY!
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                 %-b,

    Time-travel tourism isn't for you, it makes one dizzy after a time!

                               8,-D  ))

    Seriously, what words or language must i use to prevent distortions
and topic-steering?  Go to the records, i already suggested you read it.

SH> I'm *positive* that Winston Smith...  another MS-Kermit user, has
SH> managed to transfer files using the Kermit protocol as included...

    I'm very well aware of the situation since i contacted Rob Swindell
on Winston's advice and submitted my .INI, as a result.  `Windows' tests
failed, `Kermit.INI' lacked clarity, Swindell became irrational and then
many SysOps managed to disable `Kermit' (user UpLoads) somewhat later...

SH> I'm still waiting to hear exactly what "$hareWare" Rob is "forcing"
SH} sysops to use.

    Forcing who!?  You're another 80 years old senile man or something?

                                 %->

    Talk about misinformation accidently or purposely posted!  Lets see
what was on the menu lately (and which you carefully ignored, actually):

SH> I am interested however in pointing out and correcting any
SH> misinformation you accidently or purposely post.
MS> ...you and your guru remain consistently silent relatively to the
MS} VERY WEAK INTERFACE between `SynchroNet' and `MS-Kermit'
MS> (on `SBBS/W32' BBS systems, mind you)!  ...misinformation?  Like
MS> when you argue i'm expecting hours of work from you and I ASKED FOR
MS} LESS INTERFERENCE?  I have ignored Rob Swindell's `Kermit' SABOTAGE
MS> for over a year...  I couldn't avoid the need for an UpDate since at
MS> least two SysOps complained about Rob's setup lately, not to mention
MS> the BBSers who are completely mystified by this SABOTAGE.
SH> I still fail to see how including a setup that happens to do the
SH> job (ie:  transfer files) using Kermit is a form of sabotage.

    I still fail to see what justifies your obvious voluntary blindness
when i return to some posts you published on `DoveNet', not so long ago:

________________________________ [ "SBBS & MS-Kermit" - July 23, 2003 ]_
SH> Most other protocols are designed to work only on certain kinds or
SH> qualities of connections, and/or between certain kinds of computers,
SH> and therefore work poorly (or not at all) elsewhere and offer few if
SH> any methods to adapt to unplanned-for situations.  Kermit, on the
SH> other hand, allows you to achieve successful file transfer and the
SH> highest possible performance on any given connection.  HyperTerminal
SH> supports Kermit.  Haven't tried it with HyperTerminal though...

    I already explained where the sabotage is:  `Hyper-Terminal' (which
is included in `Win-32') can make `Kermit' transfers at least twenty-six
times slower than they should be while Wayne Warthen's `Kermit for `Win-
16/32' (which is FreeWare) just hangs the session and reveals how *WEAK*
`SBBS's *INTERFACE* to external (`Kermit') protocol drivers can be!  So,
`Kermit.INI' by Swindell does the job:  a `SynchroNet/W32' SABOTAGE job.
                                                     ^^^
                                                          Salutations,

                                                          Michel Samson
                                                          a/s Bicephale


... Rob's SBBS/Kermit:  spend spare-time to discover a form of SABOTAGE!
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Who will make TelNet OLMR BBSing UNIVERSAL?
* Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)

You are viewing proxied material from vert.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.