Tiny Url?

B a r r y said:

Why do you guys screw around with Tiny Url, when all you
need to do is follow the age old RFC and bracket the url
like this?

Because sometimes the links don't wrap right

Quoted message said:

After ending up at some places I really didn't want to be,
with attempts to force feed scripts and spyware to me, I
refuse to click on blind links

Damn...where's Goatse when you need him! There's software
out there to protect yourself...hey, you can even select the
higher security options in your browser

Quoted message said:

It also takes far less time to paste a link between <>
than to set it up with a redirector.

Actually, no

cut and paste: control-c on link, control-v in doc

Tiny URL: Hit button on browser bar, control-v in doc

Quoted message said:

Am I missing some hidden benefit?

yep

Tom (not actually a geek)

tcmedara said:

B a r r y <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After ending up at some places I really didn't want to
be, with attempts to force feed scripts and spyware to
me, I refuse to click on blind links

Damn...where's Goatse when you need him! There's software
out there to protect yourself...hey, you can even select
the higher security options in your browser

Or do the "analog" version I use: click on link with head
turned to side, one eye barely opened, finger poised on
mouse button at little 'x' in upper right corner.

Bill "would still use WordPrefect 4.2 (DOS version) if it
worked on these durned newfangled boxes" S.

Quoted message said:

Or do the "analog" version I use: click on link with head
turned to side, one eye barely opened, finger poised on
mouse button at little 'x' in

upper

Quoted message said:

right corner.

??? I haven't seen a man's enlarged raw open [censored] in
years! Therefore, I don't hesitate to click on tinyurls...

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

ZeeExSixAre said:

I haven't seen a man's enlarged raw open [censored] in years!
Therefore, I don't hesitate to click on tinyurls...

Ah nostalgia...some things are just timeless.

Just for old time's sake. tinyurl.comb49cOpen ↗

C'mon Barry, ya know you want to click on it! Just do it, go
ahead. It won't hurt

Tom

tcmedara said:

ZeeExSixAre said:

I haven't seen a man's enlarged raw open [censored] in years!
Therefore, I don't hesitate to click on tinyurls...

Ah nostalgia...some things are just timeless.

Just for old time's sake. tinyurl.comb49cOpen ↗

C'mon Barry, ya know you want to click on it! Just do it,
go ahead. It won't hurt

Tom

Don't do it man... 'm telling ya, Don't Do It!!!
--
Slacker

B a r r y said:

Why do you guys screw around with Tiny Url, when all you
need to do is follow the age old RFC and bracket the url
like this?

Because not everyone has enough control/knowledge of their
newsreader to keep the url from wrapping.

On 2004-03-19, B a r r y penned:

Quoted message said:

Why do you guys screw around with Tiny Url, when all you
need to do is follow the age old RFC and bracket the url
like this?

<cgi.ebay.comeBayISAPI.dllOpen ↗
8728&category=34289&sspagename=STRK%3AMESSE%3AIT&rd=1>

or:

<amazon.comamazon.comOpen ↗
/B00005RHPD/qid=1079660316/sr=8-
3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl60/103-4390109-
1690268?v=glance&s=hi&n=507846>

After ending up at some places I really didn't want to be,
with attempts to force feed scripts and spyware to me, I
refuse to click on blind links

It also takes far less time to paste a link between <>
than to set it up with a redirector.

Am I missing some hidden benefit?

Yeah. People using text-only clients, like me.

--
monique

tcmedara said:

B a r r y said:

Why do you guys screw around with Tiny Url, when all you
need to do is follow the age old RFC and bracket the url
like this?

Because sometimes the links don't wrap right

The brackets protect the wrap.

Quoted message said:

Damn...where's Goatse when you need him! There's software
out there to protect yourself...hey, you can even select
the higher security options in your browser

How do you think I know the spyware is attempting to
download? <G> I use a several great products.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Am I missing some hidden benefit?

yep

Which is?

Quoted message said:

Tom (not actually a geek)

I can tell.

Barry

Monique Y. Herman said:

Yeah. People using text-only clients, like me.

???? <G>

For a minute there, I thought it was 1994.

Pine?

Barry

ZeeExSixAre said:

??? I haven't seen a man's enlarged raw open [censored] in
years! Therefore, I don't hesitate to click on tinyurls...

Gross stuff dosen' bother me. I see plenty of that on web
sites I WANT to visit, like Consumption Junction. <G>

Script kiddies annoy me, and it seems like Tiny Url is a
perfect tool for them.

Barry

Monique Y. Herman said:

Yeah. People using text-only clients, like me.

That would be what, .0000001% of people on any given
newsgroup?

=8^)

Are you a retro-geek? Surely there's got to be some modern
readers available for Linux.

Barry

B a r r y said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah. People using text-only clients, like me.

That would be what, .0000001% of people on any given
newsgroup?

Actually, I think there are a few regs here that use text-
only clients.

Quoted message said:

Are you a retro-geek? Surely there's got to be some modern
readers available for Linux.

Why do you assume text-only clients are backwards? And why
do you need a fancy reader for reading a group that is
specifically text-only?

--
a.m-b FAQ: j-harris.netambfaq.htmOpen ↗

b.bmx FAQ: t-online.debmx faq.htmOpen ↗

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:12:12 +0100, bomba <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Why do you assume text-only clients are backwards?

I've used them when that's all that was available, and on
systems with little to no resources. In fact _I_ prefer text-
only over Outlook, web-based news readers, and many of the
dumbed down readers.

Quoted message said:

And why do you need a fancy reader for reading a group that
is specifically text-only?

You don't need one at all. Readers like Agent simply add
many useful features at little to no cost, of money or
'puter resources. I apologize for the slam on text readers,
and agree it's personal preference. Nothing wrong with
personal preference.

Back to the subject line.

How does Tiny Url make things easier for those using a
text-only reader? A link to TU still shows up as "<a
href....", correct?

On another note, don't you agree that anyone considering
themselves geeky enough to set up and use a text-only reader
over Linux should know how to bracket a URL according to the
RFC? The brackets protect the wrap on just about any
properly set up readers.

Barry

On 2004-03-19, B a r r y penned:

Quoted message said:

bomba said:

Why do you assume text-only clients are backwards?

I've used them when that's all that was available, and on
systems with little to no resources. In fact _I_ prefer
text-only over Outlook, web-based news readers, and many
of the dumbed down readers.

I use them because text interfaces allow me to avoid the
mouse as much as possible. I also like to use them because
it provides portability -- no matter where I am, I can ssh
home and view my mail, my news, etc. Everything's already
set up and the stuff I've already read is actually marked as
such. Even better, I can leave the process running on
screen, go to work, load up screen again, and see the same
edit window I had at home. Which is what I've just done.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And why do you need a fancy reader for reading a group
that is specifically text-only?

You don't need one at all. Readers like Agent simply add
many useful features at little to no cost, of money or
'puter resources. I apologize for the slam on text
readers, and agree it's personal preference. Nothing wrong
with personal preference.

Again, if you want to keep your own configuration on any
machine you encounter, the bandwidth resources involved in
viewing a GUI across most connections isn't really worth it
compared to the speed of a text interface.

Quoted message said:

Back to the subject line.

How does Tiny Url make things easier for those using a text-
only reader? A link to TU still shows up as "<a href....",
correct?

Yes, but if the url is short enough, I don't need to copy,
paste, copy second part, paste, copy third part, paste ...

Btw, there are programs like urlview that allow you to
extract urls and view them with a gui app through your
console app. The problem is that many urls arrive truncated
(I assume the sending client is responsible) and thereby
ruin that ability.

Quoted message said:

On another note, don't you agree that anyone considering
themselves geeky enough to set up and use a text-only
reader over Linux should know how to bracket a URL
according to the RFC? The brackets protect the wrap on
just about any properly set up readers.

I hope no one chooses an interface based on how "geeky" they
consider myself. I use the one that works best for me, which
often but not always is command-line or console.

Me, I didn't know about that rfc, although I have seen the
notation. It's now duly noted =)

--
monique

On 2004-03-19, B a r r y penned:

Quoted message said:

Monique Y. Herman said:

Again, if you want to keep your own configuration on any
machine you encounter, the bandwidth resources involved in
viewing a GUI across most connections isn't really worth
it compared to the speed of a text interface.

That makes good sense.

I can suck down my prefs from one machine to another with
Agent. Of course, I need Agent on all the machines. <G>

Yeah. I don't necessarily want to install apps on every
machine I might use -- and besides, I'd rather not have any
record of my reading habits on machines I can't control. You
never know.

(Yes, I know it's all archived on google anyway. But my mail
isn't ... I don't think ... )

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Me, I didn't know about that rfc, although I have seen the
notation. It's now duly noted =)

It's really old. <G>

I'm sure I can find lots of really old RFCs whose contents
you haven't memorized.

--
monique

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Why do you guys screw around with Tiny Url, when all you
need to do is follow the age old RFC and bracket the url
like this?

<cgi.ebay.comeBayISAPI.dllOpen ↗
68728&category=34289&sspagename=STRK%3AMESSE%3AIT&rd=1>

or:

<amazon.comamazon.comOpen ↗
/B00005RHPD/qid=1079660316/sr=8-
3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl60/103-4390109-
1690268?v=glance&s=hi&n=507846>

After ending up at some places I really didn't want to be,
with attempts to force feed scripts and spyware to me, I
refuse to click on blind links

It also takes far less time to paste a link between <>
than to set it up with a redirector.

Am I missing some hidden benefit?

Barry

I'mn not sure what your point was but those two lonks are
just as broken as any other two liners I've seen.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-ramsays-Open ↗
online.com

* B a r r y <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

ZeeExSixAre said:

??? I haven't seen a man's enlarged raw open [censored] in
years! Therefore, I don't hesitate to click on tinyurls...

Gross stuff dosen' bother me. I see plenty of that on web
sites I WANT to visit, like Consumption Junction. <G>

Script kiddies annoy me, and it seems like Tiny Url is a
perfect tool for them.

Barry

Tiny url is a script kiddie tool? This I have to hear, how
did you jump to that conclusion?

Jason

Using a text reader and damn proud of it.

On 2004-03-19, Jason penned:

Quoted message said:

* B a r r y <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

ZeeExSixAre said:

??? I haven't seen a man's enlarged raw open [censored] in
years! Therefore, I don't hesitate to click on
tinyurls...

Gross stuff dosen' bother me. I see plenty of that on web
sites I WANT to visit, like Consumption Junction. <G>

Script kiddies annoy me, and it seems like Tiny Url is a
perfect tool for them.

Barry

Tiny url is a script kiddie tool? This I have to hear, how
did you jump to that conclusion?

Not necessarily, but it can be used to obfuscate a link to
dangerous or simply undesirable websites.

I do understand Barry's point here. I always guage a link in
terms of the person posting it. After all, I could take a
picture of my cat's ass and name it
natalie_portman_naked.jpg ...

Quoted message said:

Jason

Using a text reader and damn proud of it.

--
monique

* Monique Y. Herman <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

On 2004-03-19, Jason penned:

Quoted message said:

* B a r r y <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:48:16 -0500, "ZeeExSixAre"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>??? I haven't seen a man's enlarged raw open [censored] in
>years! Therefore, I don't hesitate to click on
>tinyurls...

Gross stuff dosen' bother me. I see plenty of that
on web sites I WANT to visit, like Consumption
Junction. <G>

Script kiddies annoy me, and it seems like Tiny Url is a
perfect tool for them.

Barry

Tiny url is a script kiddie tool? This I have to hear,
how did you jump to that conclusion?

Not necessarily, but it can be used to obfuscate a link to
dangerous or simply undesirable websites.

I do understand Barry's point here. I always guage a link
in terms of the person posting it. After all, I could take
a picture of my cat's ass and name it
natalie_portman_naked.jpg ...

Quoted message said:

Jason

Using a text reader and damn proud of it.

But if thats his reasoning he should stay off the internet.
Just about anything can be misused nowadays in that respect.

And I can't belive my self control here not making a joke
about natalie and your cat. 🙂

Jason