Paul Weaver wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
Thursday, Jubilee Line, fox on line at West Hampstead. There was
too, it ran down the line in front of the Southbound platform.

This is what you get when you ban fox hunting

I thought it was ony hunting with dogs that was banned. Hunting with a
Jubilee Line train continues to be legal. Does the repertoire of
automated announcements to passengers include "Tally ho!"?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On 06/12/2004 16:05, in article
, "Richard J."
wrote:

I thought it was only hunting with dogs that was banned. Hunting with a
Jubilee Line train continues to be legal. Does the repertoire of
automated announcements to passengers include "Tally ho!"?

"Will passengers who have not been blooded please travel in the front car of
the train. After the kill, the driver will pass among you with the severed
brush..."

Well, if it makes you feel better, see if I care.

Obviously, though, I should apologise for - having regularly posting to
this NG for over three years - having the termerity to post a valid
response to your thread, without anticipating the ****-stirring of
anally-retentitive pricks with nothing better to do with their lives....

Greg Hennessy wrote:
The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?

No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.


Nonsense,

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html

I don't see what referring to this again accomplishes. It's still an
Internet Standard (STD 7).

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html

This is no longer an Internet Standard, having been obsoleted by RFC
2821 (STD 10).

The original document you quoted on netiquette was never an Internet
standard. They are all listed on the same site you referred to at
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/std/std-index.html.

If you believe that all RFCs are normative, then you must find RFC 1796,
"Not All RFCs Are Standards" quite paradoxical:

} It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an
} RFC provides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not
} any more than the publication in a regular journal. In fact, each
} RFC has a status, relative to its relation with the Internet
} standardization process: Informational, Experimental, or Standards
} Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, Internet Standard), or
} Historic.

The document you quote is informational only.
--
Michael Hoffman

Huge wrote:
writes:
Well, if it makes you feel better, see if I care.

You obviously do, which makes you a hypocrite as well as a
potty-mouthed moron.

Says the anonymous coward....

Obviously, though, I should apologise for - having regularly posting
to
this NG for over three years - having the termerity to post a valid
response to your thread, without anticipating the ****-stirring of
anally-retentitive pricks with nothing better to do with their
lives....

The definitive sign of idiothood - munging the originating address
to (briefly) avoid killfiling.

If you were as smart as you seem to think you are, you'd have worked
out that I use one spamtrap when posting from home, and another via
Google when I'm elsewhere. Of course, you're free to check my posting
history through Google (unlike you, I'm not a coward who is despereate
to cover its own tracks) and you'll see that I've been using the two
forms for over a year, so nobody (least of all an obsessive cockmuncher
like you) should flatter themselves into thinking that I've changed my
posting habits lately just for their benefit.

I note that you have complied, despite your childish, foul-mouthed
protestations.

Oh, stop, I'm starting to cry....

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 18:25:43 +0000, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:
The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?

No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.


Nonsense,

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html

I don't see what referring to this again accomplishes. It's still an
Internet Standard (STD 7).

Rubbish,

TCP was defined by a plain old RFC long before it became an IETF standard.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html

This is no longer an Internet Standard, having been obsoleted by RFC
2821 (STD 10).

See above.



greg


--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

Greg Hennessy wrote:
[Michael Hoffman]
Greg Hennessy wrote:
The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?
No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.
[SNIP]
I don't see what referring to this again accomplishes. It's still an
Internet Standard (STD 7).

Rubbish,

TCP was defined by a plain old RFC long before it became an IETF standard.

You have still not pointed out anything "rubbish" or "nonsense" about
anything that I've said. Additionally, I think it is ironic that you are
being so brusque while claiming to uphold a higher standard of
netiquette. If you really think it is more important to keep a sig of
four lines than to be polite, I think you should rethink the purpose of
your adherence to netiquette.

You are arguing that a particular RFC (RFC 1855) is normative, while
ignoring another one (RFC 1796) which states that it is only
informative. You can't argue that all RFCs are normative without an
inherent logical inconsistency.

And before the formal IETF standards process existed, there were plenty
of RFCs which were obsolete or inapplicable, so the mere existence of an
RFC did not make it normative. You are then either left with trying to
pick and choose which ones apply (in which case you decide that RFC 1855
applies but our friend Mr. Coghlan apparently disagrees with you) or
rely on the IETF standards process to decide.
--
Michael Hoffman
(whose sig is never longer than four lines but will defend to the death
your right to do so yourself, even if you look like a boor doing it.
Well, maybe not to the death.)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:10:30 +0000, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:
[Michael Hoffman]
Greg Hennessy wrote:
The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?
No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.
[SNIP]
I don't see what referring to this again accomplishes. It's still an
Internet Standard (STD 7).

Rubbish,

TCP was defined by a plain old RFC long before it became an IETF standard.

You have still not pointed out anything "rubbish" or "nonsense" about
anything that I've said.

Au contraire, I've shown that your laughable attempt to dismiss the long
established netiquette RFC on the basis that it's not an IETF standard is
diversionary nonsense.




greg

--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

Greg Hennessy wrote:
Au contraire, I've shown that your laughable attempt to dismiss the long
established netiquette RFC on the basis that it's not an IETF standard is
diversionary nonsense.

You can call things nonsense without an understandable argument as much
as you want but that doesn't make it true.
--
Michael Hoffman

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:29:17 +0000, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:
Au contraire, I've shown that your laughable attempt to dismiss the long
established netiquette RFC on the basis that it's not an IETF standard is
diversionary nonsense.

You can call things nonsense without an understandable argument as much
as you want but that doesn't make it true.

What is 'not' understandable about the fallacy in your IETF argument ?


greg
--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone