in reply to Re^24: Native newline encoding
in thread Native newline encoding

There is no assumption, You made it very clear that you either haven't read or didn't understand RFC 959 when you make dumb statements like:

"Your supposition that your transfer tools should be able to handle all necessary conversions for you is just wrong-headed."

in response to a description of the standard FTP protocol since at least 1985, and continuing through all the revisions to date.

You further make it clear by the way you cite no references; quote no authorities; just the world the way bones sees it.

And that's ass-back'ds. A figment in the mind of a bones with a dogged nature. Too small-minded to admit your mistakes, so distract; digress; dissemble. Anything but stick to the subject.

'nuff now. You bore me.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^26: Native newline encoding
by sauoq (Abbot) on May 29, 2012 at 19:10 UTC
    in response to a description of the standard FTP protocol since at least 1985

    I wasn't responding to your description of FTP. I was responding to your example which you seemingly didn't grok was an inappropriate use. Which, by the way, made it abundantly clear you didn't understand relevant RFCs, particularly this passage from 959:

    It should be noted that FTP provides for very limited data type representations. Transformations desired beyond this limited capability should be performed by the user directly.

    Between missing simple facts like that, conflating the use of the word "text" in different contexts, and your examples of exactly how one should not use FTP... your blabbering about "ass-back'd" and "figments in the mind" are downright silly.

    Too small-minded to admit your mistakes

    And that's good for a real elle-oh-elle. Thanks. I like to leave laughing.

    -sauoq
    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
[reply]

      And once again your misunderstanding is manifest. You've quoted from a section that has nothing to do with the discussion.

      The section you've quoted from relates to how to resolve dealing with the required 8-bit data stream on 9-bit byte/32-bit word machines -- long extinct.

      The section you should be reading is 3.1.1

      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

      The start of some sanity?
[reply]
        You've quoted from a section that has nothing to do with the discussion. . . . The section you should be reading is 3.1.1

        Is this some isolated sloppiness or are you really this incompetent thick?

        That quote was from 3.1, of which 3.1.1 is a subsection, of course.

        -sauoq
        "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom