The John Corliss Usenet Glossary: EXPANDED AND UPDATED

[Tweety John]

The John Corliss Usenet Glossary: EXPANDED AND UPDATED

OFF TOPIC: A post with no freeware content - UNLESS the poster in
question happens to be John Corliss gossiping about guns, bikes,
vacations, etc.

TROLL: Someone you don't like who makes as many off-topic posts as you
do.

SOCK PUPPET: Anyone who gets the better of you in an argument.

ALT.COMP.FREEWARE: A freeware newsgroup controlled and run by and for
John Corliss, who graciously permits other posters to participate
subject to their absolute respect for, and conformity with His Rules
and Restrictions (see FAQ).

PUNK: Anyone who refuses to accept the Divinely ordained authority of
John Corliss to reign supreme over alt.comp.freeware.

BASEBALL BAT: Instrument for beating spammers [see SPAM] to a bloody
pulp.

KILLFILE: A method of avoiding confrontations with posters more
intelligent than you are.

FREEWARE: There are many false definitions of "freeware" on the
internet. Only one definition is definitive and final: A program may
only be considered freeware if John Corliss says so. If the author has
the cheek to ask satisfied users to send him a cordial postcard, for
example, THEN THE PROGRAM CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FREEWARE. Anyone who
says different is a punk (see PUNK) and a sock puppet (see SOCK
PUPPET).

PRICELESSWARE LIST: A list of freeware programs recommended by the
members of ACF. The list cannot be relied upon at all, as the content
was arrived at by a democratic vote, rather than being decided solely
by John Corliss. In consequence, the list contains many programs which
ARE NOT TRUE FREEWARE and may seriously damage your computer.

SPAM: A welcome excuse for a little flexing of muscles, tough-guy
posturing, and general showing off.

FAQ: The sole and absolute authority concerning the immutable laws
governing the nature and purpose of alt.comp.freeware and the correct
deportment of subscribers, as received from Almighty God by John
Corliss Esquire, His chosen representative on Earth.

John Corliss, his mark: XXXX
=======================

 

[(w)OOF]

LOl LOL LOL LOL LOL

=========================================================

The John Corliss Usenet Glossary: EXPANDED AND UPDATED

OFF TOPIC: A post with no freeware content - UNLESS the poster in
question happens to be John Corliss gossiping about guns, bikes,
vacations, etc.

TROLL: Someone you don't like who makes as many off-topic posts as you
do.

SOCK PUPPET: Anyone who gets the better of you in an argument.

ALT.COMP.FREEWARE: A freeware newsgroup controlled and run by and for
John Corliss, who graciously permits other posters to participate
subject to their absolute respect for, and conformity with His Rules
and Restrictions (see FAQ).

PUNK: Anyone who refuses to accept the Divinely ordained authority of
John Corliss to reign supreme over alt.comp.freeware.

BASEBALL BAT: Instrument for beating spammers [see SPAM] to a bloody
pulp.

KILLFILE: A method of avoiding confrontations with posters more
intelligent than you are.

FREEWARE: There are many false definitions of "freeware" on the
internet. Only one definition is definitive and final: A program may
only be considered freeware if John Corliss says so. If the author has
the cheek to ask satisfied users to send him a cordial postcard, for
example, THEN THE PROGRAM CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FREEWARE. Anyone who
says different is a punk (see PUNK) and a sock puppet (see SOCK
PUPPET).

PRICELESSWARE LIST: A list of freeware programs recommended by the
members of ACF. The list cannot be relied upon at all, as the content
was arrived at by a democratic vote, rather than being decided solely
by John Corliss. In consequence, the list contains many programs which
ARE NOT TRUE FREEWARE and may seriously damage your computer.

SPAM: A welcome excuse for a little flexing of muscles, tough-guy
posturing, and general showing off.

FAQ: The sole and absolute authority concerning the immutable laws
governing the nature and purpose of alt.comp.freeware and the correct
deportment of subscribers, as received from Almighty God by John
Corliss Esquire, His chosen representative on Earth.

John Corliss, his mark: XXXX
=======================

 

[Sweet Andy Licious]

Tweety John wrote:
<snipped some stuff>
I really liked the song, how does that go again.

 

[Roger Hunt]

Tweety John wrote:
<snipped some stuff>
I really liked the song, how does that go again.

snippets from :
http://www.kessels.com/CatSounds/

 

[BobS]

I know you posted this tongue-in-cheek but I doubt John will ever give
consideration to anyone's opinion. And that's alright - I just don't want
him telling me or anyone else what is or is not freeware or what we can or
cannot post here.

I accept and adhere to the de facto purpose of the this ng which is to
"Discuss matters relating to freeware". Keyword being "relating". A
reasonable individual would have to agree that statement is open to
interpretation - as intended by the individual that started this group from
what I've read. Freeware is great and it's helped me and my clients on more
than one occasion but it is not a subject unto itself as some others would
like to have you to believe.

I also think that it's fine for someone to be so adamant about their
beliefs. But if he really thought about it, he would realize that freeware
always has a cost associated with it - it's only a matter of who is paying
those costs. It's certainly not free for the authors but it's obviously
alright with John that the authors alone shoulder that burden so he can
download the freeware at will, use it, abuse it, critique it, and/or make
derogatory remarks about it if the package doesn't meet his so-called
standards. The authors spend their time and their resources and then give
away their accomplishments so others may benefit. A worthy endeavor and one
many of us are grateful for but also understand that there is no free lunch.

I might feel different if I read about him offering some help to some of
these software authors. "Here's something I've found in your program that
needs fixing and I have an idea or two what the problem might be -or- I have
a suggestion to enhance your program".... Maybe he has and I've just not
read those posts but my point being is, he's willing to take but not give in
return. Why? What in the world do those software authors owe you or anyone
else John?

As I said, freeware is great and if it solved an issue for me, I have no
problem in offering the author some money to help defray his distribution or
other costs.

Bob S.

The John Corliss Usenet Glossary: EXPANDED AND UPDATED

OFF TOPIC: A post with no freeware content - UNLESS the poster in
question happens to be John Corliss gossiping about guns, bikes,
vacations, etc.

TROLL: Someone you don't like who makes as many off-topic posts as you
do.

SOCK PUPPET: Anyone who gets the better of you in an argument.

ALT.COMP.FREEWARE: A freeware newsgroup controlled and run by and for
John Corliss, who graciously permits other posters to participate
subject to their absolute respect for, and conformity with His Rules
and Restrictions (see FAQ).

PUNK: Anyone who refuses to accept the Divinely ordained authority of
John Corliss to reign supreme over alt.comp.freeware.

BASEBALL BAT: Instrument for beating spammers [see SPAM] to a bloody
pulp.

KILLFILE: A method of avoiding confrontations with posters more
intelligent than you are.

FREEWARE: There are many false definitions of "freeware" on the
internet. Only one definition is definitive and final: A program may
only be considered freeware if John Corliss says so. If the author has
the cheek to ask satisfied users to send him a cordial postcard, for
example, THEN THE PROGRAM CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FREEWARE. Anyone who
says different is a punk (see PUNK) and a sock puppet (see SOCK
PUPPET).

PRICELESSWARE LIST: A list of freeware programs recommended by the
members of ACF. The list cannot be relied upon at all, as the content
was arrived at by a democratic vote, rather than being decided solely
by John Corliss. In consequence, the list contains many programs which
ARE NOT TRUE FREEWARE and may seriously damage your computer.

SPAM: A welcome excuse for a little flexing of muscles, tough-guy
posturing, and general showing off.

FAQ: The sole and absolute authority concerning the immutable laws
governing the nature and purpose of alt.comp.freeware and the correct
deportment of subscribers, as received from Almighty God by John
Corliss Esquire, His chosen representative on Earth.

John Corliss, his mark: XXXX
=======================

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:28:00 GMT, BobS wrote:

[Comments on John Corliss freeware definition and his huffiness about
non-freeware posts in acf]

Look at it this way, Bob: We honor freeware authors for the wealth they
throw upon us by devoting them an exclusive platform. No commercial soft
or shareware (and so on) should blur the vision upon these programs.
And as there are so many postings inside this group, it does well if
somebody acts a bit strict from time to time - when things seem to
slide off hands.

The deadline about what should be allowed isn't always a clear one
among the members of this group, as you know. I for one don't agree
to all definitions John Corliss uses. And if no *true* freeware for
a certain purpose is available, I don't have problems in pointing to
a shareware or commercial alternative, as long as this is done
mindful and in a way which should avoid farther OT discussions:
'Ask in alt.comp.shareware.' / 'Search around shareware XYZ.'
(Primarily, we want to *help* people asking in this group...)

But I felt extremely uneasy reading your appeal to John to remember
the expenses of the freeware authors, which result from the time and
other needs of the development, testing, providing, and so on. ISTM,
John (as most of us do) *always* keeps this fact on top of his mind.
And whether he sends bug reports or not is not crucial to me. As a
regular contributor of this group he does his share to support the
freeware authors in promoting their programs.

I always try to report bugs or ideas by personal mail or on special
support forums. (And sometimes even per snail mail.) As you will not
have noticed this fact, you most probably could not have noticed if
John handles it this way, too.

IMHO, we should not abate the generosity of all freeware authors
by thinking they want us to *pay* them singing thank-you mantras
every waking minute. An overall feeling of gratitude will do,
won't it? ;-)

If you give your posting an afterthought: Are there really so
important differences between your and Johns opinions? ;-)

BeAr

 

[dszady]

BobS wrote:
[...]

I might feel different if I read about him offering some help to some of
these software authors. "Here's something I've found in your program that
needs fixing and I have an idea or two what the problem might be -or- I
have

He has: Photofiltre being one.

[...]

 

[Vic Dura]

As I said, freeware is great and if it solved an issue for me, I have no
problem in offering the author some money to help defray his distribution or
other costs.

Good post Bob.

 

[John Corliss]

I know you posted this tongue-in-cheek but I doubt John will ever give
consideration to anyone's opinion. And that's alright - I just don't want
him telling me or anyone else what is or is not freeware or what we can or
cannot post here.

Let's dissect that paragraph:

1. My late F.A.Q. was derived from extensive discussion and voting in
this group. It was a reflection of the opinion of the majority. I'd
hardly call that "never giving consideration to anyone's opinion." And
of course I consider other people's opinion. Disagreeing with their
opinion is the RESULT of my "considering" somebody else's opinion.
Considering somebody else's opinion doesn't mean you have to agree
with it OR disagree with it. It simply means that you are considering it.

2. Do you understand the meaning of IMO? As in the subject line of my
post "What IS and what ISN'T freeware IMO"? IN MY OPINION. That post
was an expression OF MY OPINION. And where in that post did I say that
anybody HAD to share that opinion?

3. I never "tell" anyone what they can or can't post to this group.
This group is unmoderated. What I do is to tell people when they are
off topic, again IMO. And what you WANT regarding what I do is
irrelevant to me. I will do as I like, just as you do.

I accept and adhere to the de facto purpose of the this ng which is to
"Discuss matters relating to freeware". Keyword being "relating".

Where did you come up with that? De facto to who? This group is
charterless. Regardless, the purpose of the group is to *discuss
freeware*, not "matters relating to freeware". On that liberal basis,
shareware is "related" to freeware because it's also software.
However, discussion of shareware is inappropriate in this group not
only because it ISN'T freeware, but because it has it's own group
(alt.comp.shareware.)

At this link:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G19C329E8

on Dec. 19, 1995, Novmondo posted to alt.config this simple sentence:

"I propose the creation of the group alt.comp.freeware."

Some excerpts from the replies:

Richard G. Harper: "Where is freeware being discussed currently?

Judge: "Freeware isn't being discussed ANYWHERE because there is no
news group for it."

Novmondo: "Freeware is a specific topic."

Richard G. Harper again: "Yes, but the topic of discussion won't be
about FREEWARE, but about specific FREEWARE PRODUCTS."


The original control post for ACF stated the purpose for the group as
being "discussion and binaries of freeware". Since there were
objections to binaries being posted to a text only group, that means
that the only thing left is "discussion of freeware".
I see nothing there regarding "matters related to" freeware. If you
don't believe me, Google up that post yourself.

A reasonable individual would have to agree that statement is open to
interpretation - as intended by the individual that started this group from
what I've read.

And just out of curiosity, where exactly DID you read that?

Freeware is great and it's helped me and my clients on more
than one occasion but it is not a subject unto itself as some others would
like to have you to believe.

Again (for the millionth time) this group is named alt.comp.freeware,
not alt.comp.mattersrelatedtofreeware.

I also think that it's fine for someone to be so adamant about their
beliefs. But if he really thought about it, he would realize that freeware
always has a cost associated with it - it's only a matter of who is paying
those costs.

This illogical argument is so old that it has cobwebs on it.
What you seem to be proposing here is that there IS NO SUCH THING
AS FREEWARE. Ludicrous. Of *course* I realize that there is a cost of
time and effort involved in its development as well as making it
available. However, the "free" in freeware refers to the fact that
it's free for the *user* to use.

It's certainly not free for the authors but it's obviously
alright with John that the authors alone shoulder that burden so he can
download the freeware at will, use it, abuse it, critique it, and/or make
derogatory remarks about it if the package doesn't meet his so-called
standards.

What the HELL are you talking about? How in HELL would you have the
SLIGHTEST idea what's alright and what isn't alright with me regarding
ANYTHING unless I post such sentiments to this group? And what makes
you believe that I don't appreciate the efforts of freeware authors?
Putting such words into my mouth is an unacceptable affront.

The authors spend their time and their resources and then give
away their accomplishments so others may benefit. A worthy endeavor and one
many of us are grateful for but also understand that there is no free lunch.

Maybe for the authors, but there definitely IS a free lunch for the
end user. At least regarding licensing fees.

I might feel different if I read about him offering some help to some of
these software authors. "Here's something I've found in your program that
needs fixing and I have an idea or two what the problem might be -or- I have
a suggestion to enhance your program".... Maybe he has and I've just not
read those posts

Or better yet, maybe I have (and I have) via email with author after
author and you haven't read such communications because you don't have
access to either my or their email.

but my point being is, he's willing to take but not give in
return.

And just HOW in the HELL would you know whether or not I give anything
in return? Do you have some kind of keyboard monitor trojan planted
on my system? Do you have a video camera here in my house?

Why? What in the world do those software authors owe you or anyone
else John?

Well let's see if I follow your train of illogic:

1. Software authors don't owe me anything (agreed)
2. Freeware should cost something to the end user, which of course
means that it no longer could be considered to be freeware.
3. As a result, all software should be considered to be freeware
(commercial, share, warez, etc.) because the name freeware would have
no meaning whatsoever.

As I said, freeware is great and if it solved an issue for me, I have no
problem in offering the author some money to help defray his distribution or
other costs.

Fine Bob, and I respect that. However, that has absolutely NOTHING to
do with the definition of freeware:

"Freeware is programming that is offered for your use at no cost,
monetary or otherwise.
You may use freeware for as long as you wish. However, it is
usually copyrighted so that you can't incorporate its programming into
anything you may be developing. The least restrictive examples of
freeware are uncopyrighted programs in the public domain.
Freeware is simply written by generous people whose main rewards
are the satisfaction of knowing that they are both helping other
people and making other people happy!"

Why do you have a problem with that definition?

EOD since I've refined my killfile to filter your posts more
effectively. This one to which I'm responding just slipped through
somehow.

 

[John Corliss]

Good post Bob.

I certainly hope you aren't subject to the mistaken belief that I have
some sort of problem with that remark. But as far as Bob's post (which
*contained* that statement), it's rife with illogical argument and
other things bordering on slander against me. Supporting that kind of
garbage reflects poorly on you, Vic.

 

[jo]

EOD since I've refined my killfile to filter your posts more
effectively. This one to which I'm responding just slipped through
somehow.

LOL.

You and your kill file, and your newbie inability to drive it
properly.

This must be such a peaceful group for you most of the time.

Fascinating to watch such neurosis at work.

 

[Ira Levant]

LOL.

You and your kill file, and your newbie inability to drive it
properly.

This must be such a peaceful group for you most of the time.

Fascinating to watch such neurosis at work.

Indeed a textbook example of neurosis.

Ira

 

[John Corliss]

jo trolled:

Indeed a textbook example of neurosis.

Newbie? I've been posting to this group for years. Also been using PCs
since 1991 and computers since 1978. Get a grip. The filter failed
because I didn't notice a slight change from the way it used to work
in previous versions. I've noted this and adjusted to the change.

As for your psychobabble, that's real easy for you and Jo to do from
the safety of your keyboard, cowards.

If you'd ever like to meet IRL and see how long you get away with such
effrontery, let me know, punk. Otherwise, SYFM.

 

[jo]

Newbie? I've been posting to this group for years. Also been using PCs
since 1991 and computers since 1978. Get a grip. The filter failed
because I didn't notice a slight change from the way it used to work
in previous versions. I've noted this and adjusted to the change.

As for your psychobabble, that's real easy for you and Jo to do from
the safety of your keyboard, cowards.

If you'd ever like to meet IRL and see how long you get away with such
effrontery, let me know, punk. Otherwise, SYFM.

LOL.

Seems a rather OTT response to make in a text only medium. Must be
about time for a nice glass of warm milk to soothe the nerves.

 

[Chrissy Cruiser]

. But as far as Bob's post (which
*contained* that statement), it's rife with illogical argument and
other things bordering on slander against me. Supporting that kind of
garbage reflects poorly on you, Vic.

Uh, that would be libel Corliss but libel requires untruthfulness and
nothing said was untruthful, you Big Baby.

 

[Chrissy Cruiser]

EOD since I've refined my killfile to filter your posts more
effectively. This one to which I'm responding just slipped through
somehow.

LOL

Write yourself a freeware program to correct that.

 

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Uh, that would be libel Corliss but libel requires untruthfulness and
nothing said was untruthful, you Big Baby.

Just because I'm bored - Libel, and slander, in many jurisdictions has
_nothing_ to do with the concept of "truth," they are determined on
whether the statements cause "damage" to the subject.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

 

[Lester Horwinkle]

Libel, and slander, in many jurisdictions has
_nothing_ to do with the concept of "truth," they are determined on
whether the statements cause "damage" to the subject.

Damage is not sufficient to prove slander or libel.

Under US law, the offender must know, or have reason to know, that his
statements are false.

True statements cannot be found slanderous, regardless of damage.

 

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Damage is not sufficient to prove slander or libel.

Under US law, the offender must know, or have reason to know, that his
statements are false.

True statements cannot be found slanderous, regardless of damage.

And?

As I said, and have quoth above, in some jurisdictions true statements
can be found to be libellous (or slanderous).

There is far more to the world than the USA.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

 

[Reg Edit]

Seems a rather OTT response to make in a text only medium. Must be
about time for a nice glass of warm milk to soothe the nerves.

And another handful of pills John, they not working too good today.