Re: The FAQ for <alt.privacy.spyware> [updated July 30, 2003]

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:11:30 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, shplink
<shplink@removeme.shplink.com> wrote:
>
> Message-ID: <b02ed7a0b0371d70b5d137ecc7f3f975@news.teranews.co m>
> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:11:30 GMT
> Lines: 417
> From: shplink <shplink@removeme.shplink.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.privacy.spyware
> Subject: The FAQ for <alt.privacy.spyware> [updated July 30, 2003]
>
[snip]

OK, this is at least the third *different* version to be labeled "[updated
July 30, 2003]". You really need to be consistent with your posting style,
etc., if that attempt at "version control" is going to be at all useful.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[shplink]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:29:35 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:11:30 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, shplink
><shplink@removeme.shplink.com> wrote:
> >
> > Message-ID: <b02ed7a0b0371d70b5d137ecc7f3f975@news.teranews.co m>
> > Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:11:30 GMT
> > Lines: 417
> > From: shplink <shplink@removeme.shplink.com>
> > Newsgroups: alt.privacy.spyware
> > Subject: The FAQ for <alt.privacy.spyware> [updated July 30, 2003]
> >
> [snip]
>
>OK, this is at least the third *different* version to be labeled "[updated
>July 30, 2003]". You really need to be consistent with your posting style,
>etc., if that attempt at "version control" is going to be at all useful.

Hi Jay, I am guessing you are referring to my word wrap -er- "issues"?
There is no other difference in the last three July 30 FAQs, unless I
am losing my mind...?

the alt.privacy.spyware FAQ:
http://shplink.com/misc/FAQ.htm

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 18:02:11 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, shplink
<shplink@removeme.shplink.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:29:35 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
> <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> >OK, this is at least the third *different* version to be labeled
> >"[updated July 30, 2003]". You really need to be consistent with your
> >posting style, etc., if that attempt at "version control" is going to be
> >at all useful.
>
> Hi Jay, I am guessing you are referring to my word wrap -er- "issues"?
[snip]

Could be, but I thought you'd said you got that straightened out?

In any event... When, after downloading the news headers, you see wildly
different line counts (in this case, 486, 550, and 417, respectively) for a
periodic posting, you *can't* reasonably assume that it is still the same
"version", regardless of what the "Subject:" line might claim.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[shplink]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:20:17 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 18:02:11 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, shplink
><shplink@removeme.shplink.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:29:35 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
> > <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:
> >
snippage
> > Hi Jay, I am guessing you are referring to my word wrap -er- "issues"?
> [snip]
>
>Could be, but I thought you'd said you got that straightened out?
>
>In any event... When, after downloading the news headers, you see wildly
>different line counts (in this case, 486, 550, and 417, respectively) for a
>periodic posting, you *can't* reasonably assume that it is still the same
>"version", regardless of what the "Subject:" line might claim.

You are absolutely correct- The word wrapping issue was pointed out
to me after my 550 line post. I trimmed it off a notepad file between
that and the 417 post, so I am hoping next one, around 9/13, will be
something close to 417... Though sometimes I post via my apple's MT
Newswatcher, not sure if that might post a little differently. I'll
try to stick with Agent and will also try to be consistent. Thanks for
the heads up!

the alt.privacy.spyware FAQ:
http://shplink.com/misc/FAQ.htm