My (company) PC has a VPN card for LAN access, and wireless is disabled. (don't ask...).
When I travel, a lot of hotels have wireless only, which is useless to me w/ this laptop.
Does anyone know of a device that will convert the "wireless" bak to Wired?
tia...
Is it a "travel router" ?
Please quote. Your question is meaningles. This post has the appearance of being a reply to yourself - except that you didn't even mention routers.
Happy?
tia...
Not a bit. First you asked a question. Then you responded to it with another, apparently unrelated question, with no quoting to give an indication of what you meant.
To illustrate the problem. I could have just posted a message consisting of "Yes". It would completely answer one of your questions, and solve your problem, but would you be any wiser?
The full text of that second post was "Is it a travel router?". What is "it"?
Finally you responded to _me_, without quoting anything of what I wrote.
Please learn to use usenet before asking questions. This should help:
I think it's fairly clear with a bit of thinking that his 2nd post was simply asking if "a device that will convert the 'wireless' bak to Wired" was called "a travel router" and that your responses were excessively harsh -- if you didn't understand what he meant then you should have asked, or even just answered his first question, rather than being pedantic and a bit rude. What he's looking for is a client wireless-to-Ethernet bridge. A "travel router" might indeed do the job if it supports that mode of operation.
Maybe, but then datamon didn't need to be a smartass with his middle post, he could have instead posted a meaningful followup.
And for what is worth, those of us not using Ghastly Google Groups do appreciate some context. I'm certainly not going to go to my web browser and retrieve old messages via google just so I can make sense of some random post, so all the poster is doing is reducing his audience.
Is it so hard to click the right buttons in that broken interface?
Mark McIntyre
That doesn't make it right.
My own non-Google newsreader (Agent) keeps context, along with most others I've used. Perhaps you should consider a change?
Is it so hard to maintain context? That's what most of us on Usenet do. ;)
Oh twaddle. I asked him to please quote. Yes, I think that's what he meant, but I shouldn't have to go to that much trouble. I didn't see _you_ trying to answer his question.
Rudeness is met with rudeness. Asking poor questions, failing to quote, and expecting you to mind-read is rude. If people can't be bothered to learn to ask smart questions, they can't expect to get answers. However, my entire response was "Please quote. Your question is meaningles. This post has the appearance of being a reply to yourself - except that you didn't even mention routers." How on Earth does that constitute being rude? My second response might have been a little rude, but we've been through this before: if someone wants to be rude to me, I'm not a saint - I'll give as good as I get. He didn't bother to quote as asked, didn't clarify his question, and offered only a sarcastic "is that good enough for you?" to add to his original poor question.
Like I said - "yes".
Mine does too (In fact, if a message in the thread has dropped of my news server, it'll even take me to google groups to find it). But it won't show the context in-line. The average google (or any web forum) reader expects that we're all reading responses in-line, like he is, and so doesn't bother to politely quote. It's not _terribly_ difficult for me to find the contexts, but even with that context Datamon's posts were not intelligible.
And continued: "Your question is meaningles." [sic] Which was rude. And you went on to be pedantic.
What trouble?
How is that relevant to your conduct?
No offense, but that's immature.
I respectfully disagree -- uninformed isn't rude. "There are no bad questions, only bad answers."
Of course they can.
It was judgmental and accusatory.
No offense, but that's pretty childish.
You got back what you dished out -- what a shock.
Nothing rude about that -- he may not know that most readers can provide context.
It doesn't have threading? Yuk.
He wasn't being impolite.
It's dead easy to have context -- use a threaded newsreader.
More twaddle. The question was semantically without content. IE, meaningless. It's entirely not my fault if you can't understand English.
I was trying to get enough information to answer him. You'd rather just attack me.
Thank you, John Navas. I, for one, appreciate the effort to maintain civility on usenet.
Too many posters seem to feel their weewees will get bigger if they jsut berate and abuse those who know less than they do. Gotta tell you, folks, ain't gonna happen. You'd do better to answer the spammers.
Thank you, John Navas. I, for one, appreciate the effort to maintain civility on usenet.
Too many posters seem to feel their weewees will get bigger if they jsut berate and abuse those who know less than they do. Gotta tell you, folks, ain't gonna happen. You'd do better to answer the spammers.
I understand English just fine, and had no problem understanding his question; i.e., it wasn't meaningless, and it was rude to say so.
I'm not attacking anyone -- I'm simply pointing out that you attacked him.
How childish.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.