[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Fwd: Re: bitchx (sucks!)



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

    Reply-to.... Reply-to....

==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE==================
>From: "Steve Lamb" <morpheus@rpglink.com>
>To: "steven walsh" <swalsh@d.umn.edu>
>Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 13:47:56 -0800
>Reply-To: "Steve Lamb" <morpheus@rpglink.com>
>Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: PMMail 99 Professional (2.10.0382) For Windows NT (4.0.1381;3)
>In-Reply-To: <199903092124.PAA01846@riker.d.umn.edu>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Subject: Re: bitchx (sucks!)
>

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999 15:24:01 -0600 (CST), steven walsh wrote:

>	/bhelp is amusingly unsorted and approaches uselessness unless you 
>actually already know the command you want.

[l] Help on Topic: index
  4OP           ABORT     ADDIDLE   ADDSHIT   ADDUSER   ADDLAME   ADDFORWARD
  ADDWORD       ADMIN     AJOIN     AJOINLIST AWAY      BACK      BAN
  BANS          BANSTA    BANTYPE   BANWORD   BEEP      BK        BOTLIST
  BYE           C         CD        CDCC      CHANNEL   CHANST    CHGAOP
  CHGCHAN       CHGHOST   CHANNEL   CHANST    CHGAOP    CHGCHANCHGHOST
  CHGLEVEL      CHGPROT   CHOPS     CLEARAUTO CLEARLOCK CLEARTAB  CLONES
  CONNECT       CMSG      CREDIT    CSAY      CSET      CTCP      CWHO
  CWHOM         CYCLE     DESCRIBE  DATE      DBAN      DC        DCC

    Funny, looks alphabetized to me.
		
>>     /bhelp.  How many times will I say that before it sinks in.  I found
>> that in the first 20-30 seconds when I first used BX.

>	See above.

    Yup, still alphabetized.  Wow, that sure is unsorted.  I am, well,
stunned that I had never known that alphabetized was equal to unsorted.  And
here I though it was the most basic of sorting methods.  Imagine that,
graduated high school two years early with such a misconception of the world
hammered into my head.

>The ability of some IRCers to blatantly ban entire countries because of the
>acts of a few is why EfNet is in a decline.  Too many little kids fighting
>for "power" in a virtual medium.  It's funny in a sad sort of way.

    It was on dal.net and undernet, not efnet.  I've not been on efnet in 5+
years for other reasons.  And in each case we were justified.  When we get
20-30 people form the same country trying to clone us off a channel each
week and maybe 1-2 "legit" users each month for maybe 10 minutes, well, you
do the math.

>>     So far I've seen no evidence of that.  So far all I've seen is a guy who
>> does RTFM, is a clueless newbie who took a domain ban personally and is now
>> whining publicly.

>I dunno, all I see is an egotistical IRC/*nix user who is so high on his own
>experiences that he can't handle answering a simple question without trying
>to degrade him for _asking_.

    See what you want, just know that you're more than likely 100% wrong.

- -- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------


===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE===================

- -- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBNuWbWnpf7K2LbpnFEQJ87gCfT4RxhhMizW5Gu9fjV6UyPb0J0DIAn2/B
ixYfn94+6yu/bLDOArzLfOPT
=+Usx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: