Ann wrote:
> I don't see this page: http://tinyurl.com/3fb6hk
> Why?


Do you have Flash Player installed?

The page has a single Flash movie playing in the centre of the page.

--
Annie.......... (ISP:Be Un Limited - OS:Vista Ultimate 32bit)
http://find-out-more.brion.me.uk - http://email-me.brion.me.uk

Ann wrote:
> I don't see this page: http://tinyurl.com/3fb6hk
> Why?

Since I don't click on blind links, I can't help you. Sorry.

Tarkus wrote:
> Ann wrote:
>> I don't see this page: http://tinyurl.com/3fb6hk
>> Why?
>
> Since I don't click on blind links, I can't help you. Sorry.

So go to tinyurl and set a preference for their preview feature. Then
when you click on a tinyurl you'll be shown the long URL and asked if
you want to go there.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
NEW --> Now evaluating a GG-free news feed: http://usenet4all.se

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Tarkus wrote:
>> Ann wrote:
>>> I don't see this page: http://tinyurl.com/3fb6hk
>>> Why?
>>
>> Since I don't click on blind links, I can't help you. Sorry.
>
> So go to tinyurl and set a preference for their preview feature. Then
> when you click on a tinyurl you'll be shown the long URL and asked if
> you want to go there.

When someone is asking ME (in a general sense) for help, I see no reason
to go out of my way to provide work-arounds to bypass their security
shortcomings. Just post the damn link. It's 2008. Newsreaders that
are able to post long links without breaking them up are not exactly in
short supply (including Mozilla Thunderbird, for example). And even if
it is broken up, I can fix it in ClipMate. I'm not going to jump
through hoops to try and figure where a blind link is taking me, just to
possibly help someone else.

Tarkus wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Tarkus wrote:
>>> Ann wrote:
>>>> I don't see this page: http://tinyurl.com/3fb6hk
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Since I don't click on blind links, I can't help you. Sorry.
>>
>> So go to tinyurl and set a preference for their preview feature.
>> Then when you click on a tinyurl you'll be shown the long URL and
>> asked if you want to go there.
>
> When someone is asking ME (in a general sense) for help, I see no
> reason to go out of my way to provide work-arounds to bypass their
> security shortcomings. Just post the damn link. It's 2008.
> Newsreaders that are able to post long links without breaking them up
> are not exactly in short supply (including Mozilla Thunderbird, for
> example). And even if it is broken up, I can fix it in ClipMate. I'm
> not going to jump through hoops to try and figure where a blind link
> is taking me, just to possibly help someone else.
Or just post it in HTML and then you can make a word or two the link. Oh
wait. You don't like that? Hmmm... I thought you said it was 2008 and
that newsreaders knew how to handle such things? Guess not. Maybe 2019...
--
Andrew DeFaria
You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Tarkus wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>> Ann wrote:
>>>>> I don't see this page: http://tinyurl.com/3fb6hk
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Since I don't click on blind links, I can't help you. Sorry.
>>>
>>> So go to tinyurl and set a preference for their preview feature.
>>> Then when you click on a tinyurl you'll be shown the long URL and
>>> asked if you want to go there.
>>
>> When someone is asking ME (in a general sense) for help, I see no
>> reason to go out of my way to provide work-arounds to bypass their
>> security shortcomings. Just post the damn link. It's 2008.
>> Newsreaders that are able to post long links without breaking them up
>> are not exactly in short supply (including Mozilla Thunderbird, for
>> example). And even if it is broken up, I can fix it in ClipMate. I'm
>> not going to jump through hoops to try and figure where a blind link
>> is taking me, just to possibly help someone else.
> Or just post it in HTML and then you can make a word or two the link. Oh
> wait. You don't like that? Hmmm... I thought you said it was 2008 and
> that newsreaders knew how to handle such things? Guess not. Maybe 2019...

Actually, Thunderbird handles that just fine too, though it's considered
bad netiquette on Usenet.

Tarkus wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> Tarkus wrote:
>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>>> Ann wrote:
>>>>>> I don't see this page: http://tinyurl.com/3fb6hk
>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I don't click on blind links, I can't help you. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>> So go to tinyurl and set a preference for their preview feature.
>>>> Then when you click on a tinyurl you'll be shown the long URL and
>>>> asked if you want to go there.
>>>
>>> When someone is asking ME (in a general sense) for help, I see no
>>> reason to go out of my way to provide work-arounds to bypass their
>>> security shortcomings. Just post the damn link. It's 2008.
>>> Newsreaders that are able to post long links without breaking them
>>> up are not exactly in short supply (including Mozilla Thunderbird,
>>> for example). And even if it is broken up, I can fix it in
>>> ClipMate. I'm not going to jump through hoops to try and figure
>>> where a blind link is taking me, just to possibly help someone else.
>> Or just post it in HTML and then you can make a word or two the link.
>> Oh wait. You don't like that? Hmmm... I thought you said it was 2008
>> and that newsreaders knew how to handle such things? Guess not. Maybe
>> 2019...
>
> Actually, Thunderbird handles that just fine too, though it's
> considered bad netiquette on Usenet.
Yes we wouldn't want a solution too soon...
--
Andrew DeFaria
Help Wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply.

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Tarkus wrote:
>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>>>> Ann wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't see this page: http://tinyurl.com/3fb6hk
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since I don't click on blind links, I can't help you. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>> So go to tinyurl and set a preference for their preview feature.
>>>>> Then when you click on a tinyurl you'll be shown the long URL and
>>>>> asked if you want to go there.
>>>>
>>>> When someone is asking ME (in a general sense) for help, I see no
>>>> reason to go out of my way to provide work-arounds to bypass their
>>>> security shortcomings. Just post the damn link. It's 2008.
>>>> Newsreaders that are able to post long links without breaking them
>>>> up are not exactly in short supply (including Mozilla Thunderbird,
>>>> for example). And even if it is broken up, I can fix it in
>>>> ClipMate. I'm not going to jump through hoops to try and figure
>>>> where a blind link is taking me, just to possibly help someone else.
>>> Or just post it in HTML and then you can make a word or two the link.
>>> Oh wait. You don't like that? Hmmm... I thought you said it was 2008
>>> and that newsreaders knew how to handle such things? Guess not. Maybe
>>> 2019...
>>
>> Actually, Thunderbird handles that just fine too, though it's
>> considered bad netiquette on Usenet.
> Yes we wouldn't want a solution too soon...

To what problem are you seeking a solution? As I said earlier, most
modern newsreaders handle long URLs just fine in text mode already.

Boys, boys, each in his corner and calm down

First of all, I neither see anything wrong in using URL shorteners
(actually I am running one myself, http://sliceurl.com - shamless plug)
and dont really understand where the problem would be to follow "blind
links", but anyhow - by the way the link in this case would be t-a- l-m-
a-h- a-s- i-t- .-u-w- .-h-u (without dashes and spaces).

Personally I am not very fond of HTML in postings either, simply because
they usually tend to play with rendering in an undesired way (just as in
your example Andrew, where you changed the font) but then as long as it
is readable I wouldnt really complain.

Technically, any modern newsreaders should be able to handle long URLs
and HTML.

> And has been available for over a decade! However pinheads like you
> insist that it's bad form only because they don't like it thus banishing
> it.

Unless you are referring to previous posts of other threads I cant see
where Tarkus complained about HTML posts.

Alexander

On 20.05.2008 10:38, Alexander wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> Boys, boys, each in his corner and calm down
>
> First of all, I neither see anything wrong in using URL shorteners

I discourage the use of shortened/disquised URL's on all of the forums I
manage. MouseOver does not show the long URL either. Disguising a URL
can be dangerous to the unaware user. However, they "can" be of use
where the poster is known and trusted.

--
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

Jay Garcia wrote:
>
> I discourage the use of shortened/disquised URL's on all of the forums I
> manage. MouseOver does not show the long URL either. Disguising a URL
> can be dangerous to the unaware user. However, they "can" be of use
> where the poster is known and trusted.

Dangerous as in? I dont see much danger in it unless your browser is
configured insecurely or you are scared you might view content which is
inappropriate for you in some way.

Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 20.05.2008 10:38, Alexander wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> Boys, boys, each in his corner and calm down
>>
>> First of all, I neither see anything wrong in using URL shorteners
>
> I discourage the use of shortened/disquised URL's on all of the forums I
> manage. MouseOver does not show the long URL either. Disguising a URL
> can be dangerous to the unaware user. However, they "can" be of use
> where the poster is known and trusted.

Once again: With TinyURL, all you have to do is let them drop a cookie
that says you prefer to see the long URL first. Once. And then you're set.

(This accomplishes the same for the reader that using the preview
subdomain when posting the link does.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/example takes the reader to the same view of
the long URL that he'd see if had was proactive enough to take care of
himself with that cookie.)


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
NEW --> Now evaluating a GG-free news feed: http://usenet4all.se

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Some do, most don't. Lots of people complain about this. Why is that?
> All of them are not using your definition of a modern newsreader? Why
> are such services as tinyurl and snipurl, etc. popular and often used?
> Simple answer: Because there's a need. The logic here is simple but I'm
> sure you'll find the need to argue it anyway.

Actually, I've seen less and less use of them over time, at least in the
groups I frequent. And often times they're used simply out of habit.
For example, I've seen people post both the tinyurl link and the
original link (to satisfy all parties), and the regular link is not even
long enough to wrap, unless you're using an old 40 column display.

> Now I'll bring the sarcasm out from behind the bush - there's already a
> solution and that is to use real HTML links which allow the write the
> ability to give a short phrase for the long link. It's easy to do too.
> And has been available for over a decade! However pinheads like you
> insist that it's bad form only because they don't like it thus banishing
> it. That kind of mentality is the same mentality that kept the buggy
> whip in fashion way longer than it should have been. When you chimed in
> with "Well it's 2008" I felt it so ironic as to compel me to post about
> your hypocrisy but being the dense, pinheadedness that you posses it
> went clearly over your head. Like I said, maybe in 2019...

Thanks for the childish name calling. It provides insight into your
level of maturity. Perhaps I'm wasting my time trying to have a
meaningful discussion with you.

And all I said was HTML is considered bad netiquette on Usenet. I never
gave my own opinion on the subject. Personally, it doesn't bother me,
as long as my program is using a basic renderer that can't be exploited.

You can create fake named links on the web, where it shows an incorrect
address in the status bar when hovering over it, for example, depending
on your security settings.

Alexander wrote:
> Unless you are referring to previous posts of other threads I cant see
> where Tarkus complained about HTML posts.

In fact, when I was using Dialog, I had many discussions, where I
complained that I wasn't even offered the option to load external images
in HTML mail from trusted sources (as Thunderbird does).

And again, although most HTML posts on Usenet don't bother me (unless
they go crazy with fonts and colors), but I do believe in following long
established netiquette protocol. Email is a different and personal
matter, though I would never post HTML to someone who I didn't know
prefers it or at leasts doesn't care.

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
> You're assuming I was excited. You were wrong!

"Sarcasm's not your thing eh?"

>
> I didn't change any font at all.

May I quote from your post body?

body {
font: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
}

>
> Hear, hear.

And so?

>
> That would be where he said:
>
> Actually, Thunderbird handles that just fine too, though it's
> considered bad netiquette on Usenet.
>
> referring to HTML posting.

He didnt complain, he stated a fact.

This is not, that I'd also complain about HTML (as long as it is within
boundaries and readable - like yours - I dont really care, otherwise I
dont complain either, but it neither will have my attention) but anybody
halfway familiar with newsgroups is aware that HTML is usually not very
well received.

Alexander

Alexander wrote:
>
> but anybody
> halfway familiar with newsgroups is aware that HTML is usually not very
> well received.

Rather in social terms than technical ones.

On 20.05.2008 13:25, Blinky the Shark wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 20.05.2008 10:38, Alexander wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> Boys, boys, each in his corner and calm down
>>>
>>> First of all, I neither see anything wrong in using URL shorteners
>>
>> I discourage the use of shortened/disquised URL's on all of the forums I
>> manage. MouseOver does not show the long URL either. Disguising a URL
>> can be dangerous to the unaware user. However, they "can" be of use
>> where the poster is known and trusted.
>
> Once again: With TinyURL, all you have to do is let them drop a cookie
> that says you prefer to see the long URL first. Once. And then you're set.
>
> (This accomplishes the same for the reader that using the preview
> subdomain when posting the link does.
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/example takes the reader to the same view of
> the long URL that he'd see if had was proactive enough to take care of
> himself with that cookie.)
>
>

How many newbie users that you know are aware of that?

--
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

On 20.05.2008 18:24, Tarkus wrote:

--- Original Message ---
> Perhaps I'm wasting my time trying to have a
> meaningful discussion with you.

You are ..

--
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 20.05.2008 18:24, Tarkus wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>> Perhaps I'm wasting my time trying to have a
>> meaningful discussion with you.
>
> You are ..

Apparently.