 | | | | | |
Sooooooooo, here’s a question for any independent LEGO groups out there…Does
anybody know of an independent LEGO group situated in Ontario CANADA,
preferably in Toronto??? I know of the NELUG (NewEngland Lego Users Group) and
I’ve seen the Vancouver LEGO group, but I’ve never herd of, or seen an
independent LEGO group in my area!!! Is there a LEGO group Web ring where
independent LEGO groups across the country collaborate. Perhaps if this
exists, I could check for a group in my area.
Any assistance will be greatly appreciated, and the first ten people to assist
me receives a cookie in the mail!!!
Thanks!
Richard,
You can reach me at shroud_of_kung_fu@hotmail.com
-Lego good, Canada great.-
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hi Richard!
for future reference, it's better to start a new thread instead of replying to
a current one (if you're not replying to it, that is).
In lugnet.castle, Richard Noeckel writes:
> Sooooooooo, here’s a question for any independent LEGO groups out there…Does
> anybody know of an independent LEGO group situated in Ontario CANADA,
> preferably in Toronto???
I haven't heard of one.
> Is there a LEGO group Web ring where
> independent LEGO groups across the country collaborate. Perhaps if this
> exists, I could check for a group in my area.
Yep, right here on lugnet:
http://www.lugnet.com/loc/ca/on/
Seems like there's even an event planned for May 27th!
> Any assistance will be greatly appreciated, and the first ten people to assist
> me receives a cookie in the mail!!!
I'll take a chocolate chip cookie, thank you. :-)
see ya,
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.castle, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > Sooooooooo, here’s a question for any independent LEGO groups out there…Does
> > anybody know of an independent LEGO group situated in Ontario CANADA,
> > preferably in Toronto???
> Yep, right here on lugnet:
> http://www.lugnet.com/loc/ca/on/
> Seems like there's even an event planned for May 27th!
Any assistance will be greatly appreciated, and the first ten people to assist
me receives a cookie in the mail!!!
> I'll take a chocolate chip cookie, thank you. :-)
>
> see ya,
> -Shiri
Thanks Shiri, your the best!!! The reason why I posted this message in
lugnet.castle is because this is my LEGO genre of choice, and I was hoping to
perhaps find another castle fan in my area.
P.S. it was very kind of you to respond to my question. I appreciate the time
and effort that you put into recovering this information for me. When everyone
else just disregarded the question or simple didn’t care, you Shiri
went ‘above and beyond,’ and for this, I am indebted to you.
P.P.S. my Father is the chairman of the Nabisco Brands Limited Division in
Canada, therefore, with the powers vested in me, I decree that an entire
truckload of ‘chocolate chip cookies’ be sent to your location. This is the
least I can do. If your ever in Canada and need a friend, just write me!
Thanks
Sincerely,
Richard
You can reach me at shroud_of_kung_fu@hotmail.com
-Lego good, Canada great.-
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > In lugnet.castle, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > > Sooooooooo, here’s a question for any independent LEGO groups out there…Does
> > > anybody know of an independent LEGO group situated in Ontario CANADA,
> > > preferably in Toronto???
>
> > Yep, right here on lugnet:
> > http://www.lugnet.com/loc/ca/on/
> > Seems like there's even an event planned for May 27th!
>
> Any assistance will be greatly appreciated, and the first ten people to assist
> me receives a cookie in the mail!!!
>
> > I'll take a chocolate chip cookie, thank you. :-)
> >
> > see ya,
> > -Shiri
>
> Thanks Shiri, your the best!!! The reason why I posted this message in
> lugnet.castle is because this is my LEGO genre of choice, and I was hoping to
> perhaps find another castle fan in my area.
>
> P.S. it was very kind of you to respond to my question. I appreciate the time
> and effort that you put into recovering this information for me. When everyone
> else just disregarded the question or simple didn’t care, you Shiri
> went ‘above and beyond,’ and for this, I am indebted to you.
>
> P.P.S. my Father is the chairman of the Nabisco Brands Limited Division in
> Canada, therefore, with the powers vested in me, I decree that an entire
> truckload of ‘chocolate chip cookies’ be sent to your location. This is the
> least I can do. If your ever in Canada and need a friend, just write me!
>
> Thanks
>
> Sincerely,
> Richard
>
> You can reach me at shroud_of_kung_fu@hotmail.com
> -Lego good, Canada great.-
Hit him up for double-stuffed Oreos! :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Richard Noeckel writes:
> >
> > P.S. it was very kind of you to respond to my question. I appreciate the time
> > and effort that you put into recovering this information for me. When
> > everyone
> > else just disregarded the question or simple didn’t care, you Shiri
> > went ‘above and beyond,’ and for this, I am indebted to you.
Hey, no problem. Like Gary mentioned, not everyone might know the answers. And
I still remember what it was like to be a newbie, most people here forget
quickly... while I have good memory... :-)
> > P.P.S. my Father is the chairman of the Nabisco Brands Limited Division in
> > Canada, therefore, with the powers vested in me, I decree that an entire
> > truckload of ‘chocolate chip cookies’ be sent to your location. This is the
> > least I can do. If your ever in Canada and need a friend, just write me!
>
> Hit him up for double-stuffed Oreos! :-)
Oh I will. ;-)
Hey, wait, what's that big truck doing in front of my house? Hmm...
Aah! Cookies!!!
<grin>
-Shiri
XFUT lugnet.off-topic.fun
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Richard Noeckel wrote:
> > In lugnet.castle, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > > Sooooooooo, here’s a question for any independent LEGO groups out there…Does
> > > anybody know of an independent LEGO group situated in Ontario CANADA,
> > > preferably in Toronto???
>
> > Yep, right here on lugnet:
> > http://www.lugnet.com/loc/ca/on/
> > Seems like there's even an event planned for May 27th!
>
> Any assistance will be greatly appreciated, and the first ten people to assist
> me receives a cookie in the mail!!!
>
> > I'll take a chocolate chip cookie, thank you. :-)
> >
> > see ya,
> > -Shiri
>
> Thanks Shiri, your the best!!! The reason why I posted this message in
> lugnet.castle is because this is my LEGO genre of choice, and I was hoping to
> perhaps find another castle fan in my area.
>
> P.S. it was very kind of you to respond to my question. I appreciate the time
> and effort that you put into recovering this information for me. When everyone
> else just disregarded the question or simply didn’t care, you
..... Or just didn't know!!! (option 3).
>
> Shiri went ‘above and beyond,’ and for this, I am indebted to you.
>
> P.P.S. my Father is the chairman of the Nabisco Brands Limited Division in
> Canada, therefore, with the powers vested in me, I decree that an entire
> truckload of ‘chocolate chip cookies’ be sent to your location. This is the
> least I can do. If your ever in Canada and need a friend, just write me!
>
> Thanks
>
> Sincerely,
> Richard
>
> You can reach me at shroud_of_kung_fu@hotmail.com
> -Lego good, Canada great.-
Don't eat too many, and go heaving your cookies, Shiri!!
Hey! How come no one ever offered me free food? :-)
On a diet anyway,
Gary Istok
P.S. And speaking of Canada..... on a clear day Canada can be seen across the
waters from my hometown (St. Clair Shores).
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Richard Noeckel <Shroud_of_kung_fu@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Sooooooooo, here’s a question for any independent LEGO groups out there…Does
> anybody know of an independent LEGO group situated in Ontario CANADA,
> preferably in Toronto??? I know of the NELUG (NewEngland Lego Users Group) and
> I’ve seen the Vancouver LEGO group, but I’ve never herd of, or seen an
Urg. It may not be obvious to those of you viewing this message with MS
Windows, but the above message isn't ascii text (or ISO 8859-1 Latin-1,
either -- even though the header claims it is!). It's Microsoft's
non-standard [1] character set. This makes the message look pretty weird
when viewed on a non-MS system -- all of the apostrophes show up as question
marks (or don't show up at all).
Since asking everyone to not use Microsoft products to read LUGnet is
probably a bit harsh [2], Todd, how about automatically scanning for this
and correcting it when messages are posted?
There's an already existing tool:
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/webtools/demoroniser/>
(That page also has more good info on the problem.)
[1] and pretty much overtly evil -- there's no good reason to do this other
than to balkanize the internet.
[2] personal feelings aside
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Matthew Miller writes:
> Urg. It may not be obvious to those of you viewing this message with MS
> Windows, but the above message isn't ascii text (or ISO 8859-1 Latin-1,
> either -- even though the header claims it is!). It's Microsoft's
> non-standard [1] character set. This makes the message look pretty weird
> when viewed on a non-MS system -- all of the apostrophes show up as question
> marks (or don't show up at all).
>
> Since asking everyone to not use Microsoft products to read LUGnet is
> probably a bit harsh [2], Todd, how about automatically scanning for this
> and correcting it when messages are posted?
Hmmmm. I agree that it's pretty horrendous for plaintext, but I think that
so-called "smart quotes" are a pretty great thing for HTML (as long as the
correct standard character entities are output, of course! :) when done
properly.
What currently happens in the web interface when someone views a message with
these is that they get mapped into HTML entities like this:
145 --> ‘
146 --> ’
147 --> “
148 --> ”
Unfortunately, those positions don't seem to be defined in HTML 3.2, so
they'll only show up "correctly" (meaning, as intended by the author of
the message) on non-MS systems when someone uses MS fonts or fonts with
equivalent character mappings.
I'm happy to see that HTML 4.0 defines[1] these...
‘ <==> ‘ (equivalent to 145)
’ <==> ’ (equivalent to 146)
“ <==> “ (equivalent to 147)
” <==> ” (equivalent to 148)
...but I haven't tested these in popular browsers to see if they're worth
using yet. I switched from ™ to ™ for the TM symbol a while back
and that has worked well.
> There's an already existing tool:
> <http://www.fourmilab.ch/webtools/demoroniser/>
> (That page also has more good info on the problem.)
I looked quickly at the source (admittedly, not a thorough scouring); it
looks like the mapping it applies is non-invertible, especially in the case
of 147 and 148. :-(
It may be better simply to reject MS-moronised messages altogether than to
attempt to convert it at the receiving end, because at least that way the
original meaning isn't destroyed. (Actually, I'm not in favor of either of
those options anywhere near as much leaving the conversion up to each
individual client on-the-fly at display-time.)
--Todd
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/sgml/entities.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
do we need a admin.geek group?
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Matthew Miller writes:
> > Urg. It may not be obvious to those of you viewing this message with MS
> > Windows, but the above message isn't ascii text (or ISO 8859-1 Latin-1,
> > either -- even though the header claims it is!). It's Microsoft's
> > non-standard [1] character set. This makes the message look pretty weird
> > when viewed on a non-MS system -- all of the apostrophes show up as question
> > marks (or don't show up at all).
> >
> > Since asking everyone to not use Microsoft products to read LUGnet is
> > probably a bit harsh [2], Todd, how about automatically scanning for this
> > and correcting it when messages are posted?
>
> Hmmmm. I agree that it's pretty horrendous for plaintext, but I think that
> so-called "smart quotes" are a pretty great thing for HTML (as long as the
> correct standard character entities are output, of course! :) when done
> properly.
>
> What currently happens in the web interface when someone views a message with
> these is that they get mapped into HTML entities like this:
>
> 145 --> ‘
> 146 --> ’
> 147 --> “
> 148 --> ”
>
> Unfortunately, those positions don't seem to be defined in HTML 3.2, so
> they'll only show up "correctly" (meaning, as intended by the author of
> the message) on non-MS systems when someone uses MS fonts or fonts with
> equivalent character mappings.
>
> I'm happy to see that HTML 4.0 defines[1] these...
>
> ‘ <==> ‘ (equivalent to 145)
> ’ <==> ’ (equivalent to 146)
> “ <==> “ (equivalent to 147)
> ” <==> ” (equivalent to 148)
>
> ...but I haven't tested these in popular browsers to see if they're worth
> using yet. I switched from ™ to ™ for the TM symbol a while back
> and that has worked well.
>
>
> > There's an already existing tool:
> > <http://www.fourmilab.ch/webtools/demoroniser/>
> > (That page also has more good info on the problem.)
>
> I looked quickly at the source (admittedly, not a thorough scouring); it
> looks like the mapping it applies is non-invertible, especially in the case
> of 147 and 148. :-(
>
> It may be better simply to reject MS-moronised messages altogether than to
> attempt to convert it at the receiving end, because at least that way the
> original meaning isn't destroyed. (Actually, I'm not in favor of either of
> those options anywhere near as much leaving the conversion up to each
> individual client on-the-fly at display-time.)
>
> --Todd
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/sgml/entities.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> 145 --> ‘
> 146 --> ’
> 147 --> “
> 148 --> ”
> Unfortunately, those positions don't seem to be defined in HTML 3.2, so
> they'll only show up "correctly" (meaning, as intended by the author of
> the message) on non-MS systems when someone uses MS fonts or fonts with
> equivalent character mappings.
My understanding is that the ISO Latin 1 8-bit character set reserves those
characters (among others) for control codes. I can't actually check, because
the standard isn't available online (paper version costs about 56 CHF....).
But this is certainly the case for Unicode. Those characters are:
145 -> Private use one
146 -> Private use two
147 -> Set Transmit State
148 -> Cancel Character
(Ref: <http://charts.unicode.org/PDF/U0080.pdf>)
> I'm happy to see that HTML 4.0 defines[1] these...
> ‘ <==> ‘ (equivalent to 145)
> ’ <==> ’ (equivalent to 146)
> “ <==> “ (equivalent to 147)
> ” <==> ” (equivalent to 148)
= Unicode <http://charts.unicode.org/PDF/U2000.pdf>.
> I looked quickly at the source (admittedly, not a thorough scouring); it
> looks like the mapping it applies is non-invertible, especially in the case
> of 147 and 148. :-(
Mapping them to the Unicode entities may be preferable. They work for me in
Navigator 4.7 on Win98 (have to wait til I get home to test on Linux). But
even if it doesn't work on some platforms yet, at least it's breaking
because the client isn't yet up to standards.
One the news side -- NNTP is technically 7-bit ascii, but almost always is
8-bit clean, and people certainly treat it that way. RFC 2130 (is there a
more recent document on this topic?) suggests that news messages specify the
charater set they are using in the header -- unfortunately, MS products
actually *lie*.
> It may be better simply to reject MS-moronised messages altogether than to
> attempt to convert it at the receiving end, because at least that way the
> original meaning isn't destroyed. (Actually, I'm not in favor of either of
> those options anywhere near as much leaving the conversion up to each
> individual client on-the-fly at display-time.)
How is the client supposed to know that it is to do conversion?
One partial fix would be to correct wrong headers to say "MS-Latin-1"....
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
PS: if my tone seems annoyed or even antagonistic in the past few messages,
it's not at anyone here -- it's at Microsoft. I try to avoid MS-bashing as
much as I can, but this is blatently evil [1]. It's like the Kerberos thing,
but arguably worse -- far more widespread, and I think most sysadmins
understand that ms-kerberos isn't going to actually work with anything else,
whereas almost everyone assumes that Microsoft's web/news/e-mail software
can interoperate with the Internet.
[1] not illegal; just evil.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | |
