bloody CTC

[MJ Ray]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...] arbitrary
> binary files appearing without any covering description. Is this
> their normal way of using email?

Yes. Several CTC workers seemed completely incapable of sending plain
text - I think I encountered it about the early highway code drafts and
those files wouldn't open sensibly in antiword, catdoc or Openoffice.

I tried to explain the concepts of pasting text into the body of an
email to them and sent details of ethical email use training to them,
then gave up. Maybe I'll send them another request in ISO OpenDocument
to see how they like it.

CTC members - please stop your organisation using single-vendor IT
like Microsoft Office files. It's inefficient (up to 30% binary
attachment size expansion), unnecessary and unsustainable.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

 

[MJ Ray]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
> would thus be rather counterproductive. (in more than one way : it would
> divert the CTC bods from doing what they should be doing, and it would make
> them rather more likely to ignore you as some "microsoft-hating loony" or
> similar.)

Should CTC be supporting a convicted monopolist? I thought it was a cyclist
representative group, not a sales force.
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

 

[Daniel Barlow]

MJ Ray wrote:
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
>> would thus be rather counterproductive. (in more than one way : it would
>> divert the CTC bods from doing what they should be doing, and it would make
>> them rather more likely to ignore you as some "microsoft-hating loony" or
>> similar.)
>
> Should CTC be supporting a convicted monopolist? I thought it was a cyclist
> representative group, not a sales force.

It's the English way: "keep foo out of bar", where bar is whatever
you're interested in, and foo is anything else, especially if it
involves moral or ethical judgment. Thus politics/sport,
freedom/"open-source", religion/politics, and ethics/business (the
market will take care of the third world)

It could also be described as "concentrate on the task at hand", thobut.
I'm not a CTC member, but if someone sends me files I can't read, I
usually send them back saying "sorry, my computer won't read that, can
you send X instead?" and check the message again carefully before
sending in case there are involuntary references to the Evil Empire that
need deleting. Usually works.


-dan

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Peter Grange
[email protected] says...
> On 04 Jun 2007 19:23:44 GMT, Roos Eisma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >And there are the numpties who still call and respond surprised when you
> >mention the TPS. I got some of the local double glazing ones to hang up on
> >me when I started firing back questions about their company name, address,
> >etcetera.
> >
> >Roos
> Your mention of double glazing reminds me of my brother-in-law getting
> a cold call from a conservatory company. Much edited paraphrasing of
> the call goes like:
> Would you like a conservatory?
> No.
> They're very good and the quote is free. Are you sure?
> Absolutely.
> (continues in this vein for some time)
> Can we make an appointment for a saleman to call?
> OK, if you insist.
> (Salesman arrives)
> But it's a first floor flat!
> Told you I didn't want one.
>
The telesales people are paid for the number of leads they generate, the
salesman is paid commission on completed sales - I hope the salesman
gave the **** on the phone a hard time.

 

[Andy Key]

In message <[email protected]>, MJ Ray
<[email protected]> writes
>
>CTC members - please stop your organisation using single-vendor IT
>like Microsoft Office files. It's inefficient (up to 30% binary
>attachment size expansion), unnecessary and unsustainable.

<<Snap>> AAAAAAAUUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!!

I've seen a lot of criticism of the CTC in this group, some of which I'd
consider justified, some not - but this debate takes the cake for
mind-blowing propellor-beanie irrelevance. Do you really, *really* think
that's an important enough subject compared to everything else I, as a
member, could be talking to them about?

Get a life. Or a copy of OpenOffice.org. I don't mind which.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 6 Jun 200, Andy Key <> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, MJ Ray
> <[email protected]> writes
> >
> >CTC members - please stop your organisation using single-vendor IT
> >like Microsoft Office files. It's inefficient (up to 30% binary
> >attachment size expansion), unnecessary and unsustainable.
>
> <<Snap>> AAAAAAAUUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!!
>
> I've seen a lot of criticism of the CTC in this group, some of which I'd
> consider justified, some not - but this debate takes the cake for
> mind-blowing propellor-beanie irrelevance. Do you really, *really* think
> that's an important enough subject compared to everything else I, as a
> member, could be talking to them about?
>
> Get a life. Or a copy of OpenOffice.org. I don't mind which.

Actually, if you read the thread you'd see that is not an option - I
explicitly referred to openoffice and noted that it does not run on
text-based consoles. Further, that does not address the issue of CTC
sending out closed-format binary files with no indication what they
contain - indistinguishable from the behaviour of assorted computer
nasties.

I think it is very relevant when an organisation effectively mandates
the purchase of goods or services from one supplier - mandating that
CTC members who wish to communicate with the CTC electronically must
purchase computer systems from a single supplier or jump through
various hoops to circumvent the mandate is a very bad thing. Taking a
pretty-much universally usable medium (email) and arbitrarily
restricting it to a sub-set of users is not acceptable.

What next? CTC will only answer the telephone if you're signed up
with BT and not if you use one of the other suppliers? Do you really
think that would be an irrelevance?

CTC will only talk to you if you grant them (or anyone claiming to be
them) permission to execute arbitrary binaries on your computer? Do
you really think that prudent?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> I believe that some use random number generators. This could be urban
>> myth however.
>
> Well, if they do (and some do), they're breaking the law.

(Bona fide) market research companies are able to use this.

 

[David Hansen]

On 04 Jun 2007 18:38:28 GMT someone who may be Ian Smith
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Plus, you need to re-register periodically.

1) Why does one need to do this?

2) How does one do this, given that the last time I tried this on
the telephone preference service web site it came back with a
message saying the number was already registered?




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Peter Clinch]

David Hansen wrote:

> They are the ones being rude. They are the ones telephoning numbers
> registered with the TPS. Rude people shouldn't expect politeness
> back.

That the numbers are in TPS was a point you missed out from your
original rant, however.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Andy Key
[email protected]hisbitcom says...
> In message <[email protected]>, MJ Ray
> <[email protected]> writes
> >
> >CTC members - please stop your organisation using single-vendor IT
> >like Microsoft Office files. It's inefficient (up to 30% binary
> >attachment size expansion), unnecessary and unsustainable.
>
> <<Snap>> AAAAAAAUUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!!
>
> I've seen a lot of criticism of the CTC in this group, some of which I'd
> consider justified, some not - but this debate takes the cake for
> mind-blowing propellor-beanie irrelevance. Do you really, *really* think
> that's an important enough subject compared to everything else I, as a
> member, could be talking to them about?

If they don't use a communication medium that's compatible with your PC
then you'll have trouble talking to them about anything. These people
are paid to communicate information to their members - the fact that
they seem unable to grasp some of the basics doesn't reflect well on the
organisation.
>
> Get a life. Or a copy of OpenOffice.org. I don't mind which.
>
He already said he's using a text terminal, not a WIMP interface. Plain
text is the most basic format[1] - if it's not the default it should at
least be a readily available option.


[1] There is of course a number of variations even with plain text -
EOL tokens, encoding schemes, byte size and orientation ...

 

[Nick Austin]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:30:59 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 04 Jun 2007 18:38:28 GMT someone who may be Ian Smith
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>Plus, you need to re-register periodically.
>
>1) Why does one need to do this?
>
>2) How does one do this, given that the last time I tried this on
>the telephone preference service web site it came back with a
>message saying the number was already registered?

I think the rules have changed because it used to be every 6
years. Residential customers no longer need to renew. The
current rules are explained here:

http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tps/faq/#sixteen

Nick.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 06 Jun, Nick Austin <> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:30:59 +0100, David Hansen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 04 Jun 2007 18:38:28 GMT someone who may be Ian Smith
> ><[email protected]> wrote this:-
> >
> >>Plus, you need to re-register periodically.
> >
> >1) Why does one need to do this?
> >
> >2) How does one do this, given that the last time I tried this on
> >the telephone preference service web site it came back with a
> >message saying the number was already registered?
>
> I think the rules have changed because it used to be every 6
> years. Residential customers no longer need to renew.

It does indeed seem to be the case that you don't need to renew
TPS. I was sure you did, but I can't provide evidence as to when (or
whether) the rules changed.

The silent call blocking system BT suggested I use at one stage needs
an annual renewal.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[MJ Ray]

Andy Key <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]> writes
> >CTC members - please stop your organisation using single-vendor IT
> >like Microsoft Office files. It's inefficient (up to 30% binary
> >attachment size expansion), unnecessary and unsustainable. [...]
>
> I've seen a lot of criticism of the CTC in this group, some of which I'd
> consider justified, some not - but this debate takes the cake for
> mind-blowing propellor-beanie irrelevance. Do you really, *really* think
> that's an important enough subject compared to everything else I, as a
> member, could be talking to them about?

I think CTC members should take an interest in how their body is currently
failing to communicate. They aren't using email well (this thread), they
aren't using their web site well (see recent complaints about the
invisibility of the Highway Code campaign) and they aren't using media
appearances well (see past comments about Jon Snow's newspaper pieces).

While I think all of those and maybe more need fixing, the best way to
eat an elephant is one bite at a time and emailing text instead of Word
should be a very easy bite to swallow! This isn't brain surgery - it's
email, for crying out loud.

It's disappointing that a CTC member actually *flames* people who would
like to listen to CTC but can't because of their bad communication skills.
Why don't you put that energy into talking to CTC?

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Andy Key
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>, MJ Ray
> <[email protected]> writes
>>
>>CTC members - please stop your organisation using single-vendor IT
>>like Microsoft Office files. It's inefficient (up to 30% binary
>>attachment size expansion), unnecessary and unsustainable.
>
> <<Snap>> AAAAAAAUUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!!
>
> I've seen a lot of criticism of the CTC in this group, some of which I'd
> consider justified, some not - but this debate takes the cake for
> mind-blowing propellor-beanie irrelevance. Do you really, *really* think
> that's an important enough subject compared to everything else I, as a
> member, could be talking to them about?

Actually, I've defended the CTC on this group (and will on balance continue
to do so, although I'm unimpressed by their actions over the Highway Code
issue). But yes, I do think this is an issue which merits getting /very/
hot under the collar about - not, of course, just with the CTC.

Monopoly proprietary file formats are, ultimately, incompatible with
democracy. Stated baldly like that it may seem extreme, but once all your
essential data is locked up in someone else's proprietary format, you have
no freedom left. This may be a problem only the geeks have seen as yet,
but believe me it's serious.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"The result is a language that... not even its mother could
love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
committee. Camels do have their uses."
;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995

 

[Andy Key]

In message <[email protected]>, MJ Ray
<[email protected]> writes
>
>It's disappointing that a CTC member actually *flames* people who would
>like to listen to CTC but can't because of their bad communication skills.
>Why don't you put that energy into talking to CTC?

I have done before now, actually, since you mention it. I was
buttonholing one member of HQ staff about the Highway Code only a few
weeks ago.

So I feel justified in speaking up when I think someone's being
unreasonable with them. By all means ask the CTC to send you plain-text
equivalents if you, personally, cannot (or will not) read Word
documents. (My level of sympathy here depends on whether the recipient
has a disability that prevents them reading the format, or whether they
just like showing off their techie cred by refusing to use the same kit
as everyone else.) By all means offer the CTC training in how to do this
- though what exactly you would prove by sending the offer in a format
THEY can't read, I don't know. Doesn't sound like a good example of
communication to me.

What you haven't justified is why you think you can call on the wider
membership to campaign to get the CTC to stop sending information in a
format which would be perfectly readable and more user-friendly than
plain text to 99.9% of its recipients. If you *genuinely* have
difficulty in reading .doc files then by all means insist on a plain
text version for yourself. To try to force that on every other recipient
of CTC messages, regardless of those recipients' own preferences, just
seems silly to me.

Even on the limited IT aspect, there are much more urgent issues - as
you've said yourself, the website needs a lot of attention - that come
much, much, MUCH higher up the scale than word documents in emails.

There is as ever a fascinating (to you or me) debate to be had about the
rights and wrongs of proprietary file formats and their commercial
implications, but the CTC is not the place to have that debate. Let's
face it, it is a debate that is of little interest to all but a tiny,
tiny minority. Sorry. That's how it is.

--

 

[Andy Key]

In message <[email protected]>, MJ Ray
<[email protected]> writes
>
>It's disappointing that a CTC member actually *flames* people who would
>like to listen to CTC but can't because of their bad communication skills.
>Why don't you put that energy into talking to CTC?
>
[Damn. Answered this once then cancelled it due to email address slip,
but not sure if it's actually cancelled. Apologies to all if I seem to
be repeating myself in slightly different words.]

I have done (for instance I buttonholed a CTC HQ staff member about the
Highway Code only a few weeks ago). So I feel justified in speaking up
when they're being criticised unreasonably. As you pointed out yourself,
even in the limited area of IT, sorting out the website would be time
much better spent.

If you are unable to read the format of an email the CTC has sent you,
by all means ask the sender to provide it in a different format. If you
can't read it because of some disability or other, you are doubly (nay,
triply) justified in asking. But bear in mind that the format you're
complaining about will be readable by almost EVERY other person on the
mailing list.

So I don't see that you're justified in calling for CTC members to
campaign for a blanket change to plain text communication, for your own
convenience but to the inconvenience of the other recipients who would
find the document format more comfortably readable than plain text.
Sorry. It might matter to you but it doesn't matter to those people out
there who are more interested in advancing cyclists' rights on the road
than they are in a format war that is of limited interest to anyone who
isn't a computer buff.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 00:34:59 +0100, Andy Key <> wrote:

> If you are unable to read the format of an email the CTC has sent you,
> by all means ask the sender to provide it in a different format. If you
> can't read it because of some disability or other, you are doubly (nay,
> triply) justified in asking. But bear in mind that the format you're
> complaining about will be readable by almost EVERY other person on the
> mailing list.

You are talking bollocks. I guarantee that not one person the message
was sent to could read it. 100% failure rate.

It wasn't a mailing list post - it was an email from one CTC bod to me
alone - one CTC member. Sent with no plain text translation and no
indication what the .doc file contained. No way whatsoever to
distinguish it from any number of viral infections (in fact, it was
rather less convincing than many virus attempts).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[longwayround]

On 7 Jun, 00:04, Andy Key <[email protected]> wrote:

> What you haven't justified is why you think you can call on the wider
> membership to campaign to get the CTC to stop sending information in a
> format which would be perfectly readable and more user-friendly than
> plain text to 99.9% of its recipients.

It is not true to say that 99.9% of people can easily read Word files.
If the CTC want to send fancy-looking emails then PDF and HTML are two
open formats that would be more convenient.

Sorry, that's how it is.

Cheers,
Luke

 

[MJ Ray]

Andy Key <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have done (for instance I buttonholed a CTC HQ staff member about the
> Highway Code only a few weeks ago). [...]

Well done!

> If you are unable to read the format of an email the CTC has sent you,
> by all means ask the sender to provide it in a different format. [...]

I did and they either weren't capable or weren't willing to do so, as
I previously mentioned in news:[email protected]

[...]
> So I don't see that you're justified in calling for CTC members to
> campaign for a blanket change to plain text communication, [...]

Actually, I called 'please stop your organisation using single-vendor
IT like Microsoft Office files.'

If this is a demonstration of communication skills, then sorry, but I
can see why you don't think CTC have problems... :-/

> [...] It might matter to you but it doesn't matter to those people out
> there who are more interested in advancing cyclists' rights on the road
> than they are in a format war that is of limited interest to anyone who
> isn't a computer buff.

While this should be of interest to every computer user (but some might
not realise it yet), I'm more interested in advancing cycling on the
road and this silliness with recent CTC emails hinders it. If we didn't
care about advancing cycling, why would we care that we can't read CTC's
messages? How stupid is it to suggest otherwise? Gagh!

Fortunately, others are stepping in to fill this gap, but aren't CTC
members at all worried about how they're wasting their membership fees?

One of the biggest barriers against advancing cycling is the tendency
of some councils to put their plans in the modern equivalents of a
locked filing cabinet in an unlit basement loo behind a beware of the
leopard sign. Now CTC does it too and I think it's getting itself a
bad name from this, combined with its other recent stupidities.

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

 

[Peter Scandrett]

Roos Eisma wrote on 04/06/2007 20:23:
> I got some of the local double glazing ones to hang up on
> me when I started firing back questions about their company name, address,
> etcetera.

The easiest way to get rid of double glazing, mortgage, conservatory etc
salesman (in person and on the phone) is to say (truthfully, in my case)
"I rent". They realise there's no point continuing.

Peter


--
http://www.scandrett.net/lx/
http://www.scandrett.net/bike/