CompuServe Thread

Imagine Mailing List

15 messages in this thread
#27024From: jeff HolinskiFeb 23, 1993 3:34 AM
Those of you thinking of subscribing to the mailing list should realize that what you will be getting is not like the Mailing list archives available in the Compuserve libraries. The average message tends to run about 20 lines, 15 of which are header info telling you all the systems the message goes through to get to you. I don't know what the charges are on Compuserve are for incoming internet mail but on the system I get the mailing list on the average charge is $.09 to $.15. most of that charge is for useless header information. There also seem to be a lot of fools on the list that didn't read the instructions they got when they joined the mailing list so you'll be paying for a lot of messages from people who want to be taken off the list. Then there's the ones who don't bother with a subject for the message so you don't know if it's worth paying for till you read it. I find that I delete about 8 out of 10 message without reading them to avoid paying for them. Just so you don't think I'm against the concept of the mailing list, I'm not. I was very impressed with the mailing list archives I downloaded from Compuserve. There's a lot of usefull tips in them. However, subscribing to the mailing list as it is now is like buying a $5.00 magazine because it has 1 paragraph you want to read.
#27034From: SyndesisFeb 23, 1993 11:55 AM
I agree, the vast bulk of Internet mail is junk. I wish Compuserve would make the interface a bit better, instead of funneling it through Easyplex. You're right, we don't need all that routing information. Internet mail readers on many platforms perform this kind of isolation of the message versus the header. As for the problems with content – well, Internet has been 95 to 98 percent junk from the very start. What do runny-nose college kids know? 🙂
#27039From: Thomas VoirolFeb 23, 1993 3:41 PM
John, -> Internet has been 95 to 98 percent junk from the very start. You should stop reading .advocacy Tom / Amiga Imagineer from Switzerland with AutoPilot engaged
#27057From: SyndesisFeb 23, 1993 9:28 PM
It's been a long time since I had an Internet feed that wasn't severely limited, both by speed and my choice of what to read or ignore. It's still junk – but that other two-three percent of information there can't be found anywhere else. 🙂
#27073From: Thomas VoirolFeb 24, 1993 3:14 PM
John, Where else but on Internet could you get a High-Noon-type showdown between ASDG/PK and BBS/BW. Entertained (and informed) me for weeks. Tom / Amiga Imagineer from Switzerland with AutoPilot engaged
#27080From: SyndesisFeb 24, 1993 10:12 PM
Gee, if you captured that thread, maybe you should upload it here… it would make interesting reading.
#27082From: Black Belt SystemsFeb 24, 1993 10:23 PM
Now now, he posted here and I toasted his shorts for him in vendor, too. The internet has no monopoly on those kind of postings. –Ben …via AutoPilot
#27065From: Black Belt SystemsFeb 24, 1993 8:55 AM
Yeah, that would reduce the junk level from 95-98% to, say, 94-97%. :^) Between message headers, quoting, and signatures, there is very little new data at all. What is there if often pretty sorry, too. You get what you pay for – the free nature of the Internet usually shows in the quality of the posts. Thank goodness for CIS. –Ben …via AutoPilot
#27072From: Thomas VoirolFeb 24, 1993 3:14 PM
Ben, -> Between message headers, quoting, and signatures, there is very little -> new data at all. True ;^))))) Just to prove the point, Tom / Amiga Imagineer from Switzerland with AutoPilot engaged
#27081From: Black Belt SystemsFeb 24, 1993 10:23 PM
Tom, ->Just to prove the point mmmmph. –Ben …via AutoPilot
#27042From: Peter GreciFeb 23, 1993 3:45 PM
John, did you find the files I uploaded to Amigaarts????
#27056From: SyndesisFeb 23, 1993 9:26 PM
Yes, I did see them. I'll grab them and compare them to my existing extensive collections of P.D. Atari ST objects, and see which I don't have. Did you perform some minor or major clean-up or Amiga-zation of these models? In that case, we might want to use yours instead of the straight 3D2 -> LW conversion that InterChange Plus might produce. 3D2 objects are nice in that the triangles are not randomly oriented, so you don't have to double faces, or use surfaces in LW that have the "double-sided" flag set. But I think they're not quite as precise as they could be, in general: in other words, corners aren't quite square, points that should be coincident aren't, and the hierarchies aren't correct because we don't scan the other files that had that info. What's your impression of this?
#27106From: Peter GreciFeb 25, 1993 4:40 PM
The 3D2's convert nicely. BTW I haven't uploaded the Converted 3D2's as yet. I've only uploaded MY creations. BTW Let me know if in the Archive of 3D objects if their is a Model of an Ant or another of a Bipedal RAT. If not I'll UL them as well. I think I forgot to add them to the Archive. Some are repeats of objects I uploaded previously. Also look for my Veritech object which I uploaded a few months back. I'm holding off on ULing the 3D2's due to the wording of the Readme which said they were PD then said they couldn't be sold. I've Sent the Creatr Email here about it and will get back to you.
#27113From: Marlene Zenker/SYSOPFeb 25, 1993 9:43 PM
Both those objects are in the file you uploaded. Steve
#27128From: Peter GreciFeb 26, 1993 4:50 PM
Thanx for the info Steve. Glad the Rat and the Ant were in their even tho the Ant is missing it's mandibles and Feelers