[ Link here =
http://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters388.html#Paul_R2 ]
Date: Thu, January 23, 2014 9:54 am (answered 26 January 2014) Sir, Found this in 2 seconds on internet. This is a very partial list of notable scientific believers. Maybe you are smarter than these guys, but I notice a common thread they have that is essential to all of us regardless of intellect and gifts and opinions...humility. I believe science is a lens to see God's glory more clearly, not an argument to attempt to disprove it. Thanks,
1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
6. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
8. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
10. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
11. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
12. Max Planck (1858-1947)
13. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Paul R.
Hello Rob,
Thanks for the letter. That is a good demonstration of the propaganda trick of
Appeal to Authorities (Argumentum ad Verecundiam).
Those dead white men are all quite irrelevant.
It doesn't matter whether they believed in God or the Devil or Santa Claus.
They don't change what the Bible actually says.
In the previous letter, I pointed out that the Bible tells you to kill all of the non-Jewish
people with the sharp edge of the sword.
Why aren't you following the commands that Moses wrote in the Bible, if you really believe
that the Bible is the Word of God?
Kill them all, even the children and babies. Burn everything.
Jesus Christ was not a "god" whom Moses knew or recognized. Nor do the Jews recognize Him today. Moses would kill you for leading people away from Judaism and Jahweh, the one and only true religion.
I also pointed out that the Biblical description of a flat Earth covered by the Firmament was
untrue. You ignored that.
Citing Galileo is a laugh. Galileo got into trouble with the Church precisely because he
looked through his telescope and found
moons orbiting Jupiter, and the Bible makes no mention of any moons around Jupiter, so Galileo
was proving that the Bible was inaccurate and less than complete and perfect. And the Pope could not
tolerate that. So the Church threatened to burn Galileo at the stake unless he recanted.
So of course Galileo said that the Bible was correct. He didn't want to burn.
Claiming that his work was "an alternative interpretation of the Bible" is a cute piece of
double-talk, isn't it? And quite meaningless.
And Einstein's desire for there to be a God-created Universe doesn't suddenly
make the Bible correct. You are mixing up irrelevant things.
And Einstein was stuck in his own mind-set. After the General Theory of Relativity
he hit a wall and got no further.
He never made any progress on Quantum Mechanics
because he could not accept the idea that God plays with dice.
Einstein had very specific ideas about the nature of God and they held him back,
and he never solved the puzzle of the Grand Unified Theory.
Never even got close. Perhaps if he had believed
a little less he might have been a better physicist.
Likewise, all of the other guys whom you cited believed different things. Very different things.
And so what? They don't have any bearing on whether the Bible is the Word of God like you asserted.
Nor do they prove whether there is a God. The collected opinions of 13 dead old men
are the collected opinions of 13 dead old men, not an unquestionable truth.
Now I'm not saying that there is no "God" or "Higher Power"
or "Universal Superconsciousness" or whatever.
I'm simply saying that your arguments don't hold water.
You will have to do better than that.
Should I cite 13 famous atheists (dead or alive) who refute the idea of a God
running this world? Wouldn't they be equally valid evidence to prove that there
is no God? Well why not?
By the way, I told you before that I am not an atheist. You seem to keep missing that point and
trying to convert me to belief in your version of "God", which is pointless.
What I do not believe is preposterous claims like that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.
The Old Testament is the collected fairy tales of some Israeli goatherders who lived in
the Sinai Desert 3000 or 4000 years ago, and the New Testament is the collected fairy tales
and legends of Jesus Christ (and the Roman Sun God Ra who was born of virgin birth and died and
returned to life three days later 200 years before Christ).
And it's all about as reliable a historical document as The
Grimm Brothers Fairy Tales. If you want a really infallible book of truths, pick up
a book of mathematics. Two plus two equals four is about the most infallible truth you
will find in this world.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Thursday, 30 January 2014 08:41 (answered 3 February 2014) Call me if you want to as per my last email. 520-xxx-xxxx Not doing these emails. God bless Paul R.
Hello Paul,
And as I explained in a previous email, I don't carry on private telephone debates
because it's a waste of time. No one else can listen in and learn or be entertained.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Thu, January 23, 2014 1:22 pm (answered 26 January 2014) [This is a copy of a letter to "Agent Green".] Green, You are struggling with Agent Orange through a combination of stupidity and ineptitude. First, you have read very little of his site. That is because you are lazy. It took me a few days to read it all. This is interesting because you fault agent O for sampling the data — reading books but not citing them in full. You are worse: sampling a small pool. That is fine, btw, but not robust. Your junky grammar and writing are no big deal, but they show you read little and are fearful of reading. Not a deal breaker but it makes your critical task harder. And your desire to see O quote sources in full and not tease out the data that is germane speaks to a flaw in your thinking: that all disagreements are resolved in a happy middle — no matter how far apart. That is "relatavism". Opinions on measurable phenomena are right or wrong and can be evaluated. O is making, on my read, three key points and secondary points that I may touch on. 1. AA is ineffective. This is evaluated on wide data. His point is that the cure rate is meaningless. One may like AA and not be cured by it. Pleasure in the company of AA is not the same as effective treatment. AAs own data, cited by O, show a cure rate, 5per cent, that is no better than the natural remission rate. 2. Since AA is ineffective it is harmful. Why so? Because an ineffective treatment crowds out effective treatment. It is like giving sugar water in place of antibiotics. 3. The culture of AA erodes critical thinking. The theme you object to is Os distaste for the culture of AA. That is the rich emotional theme of his site. But it is not the main thing. I submit that O has elaborated on the culture of AA to support an obvious (but superfluous) question. Why has an organization that fails its goal (treating alcoholism) grown so popular and "successful"? I think his answer would be that cults spread regardless of their intended benefit. They spread because they have been designed to. And, in my view, because man is fallen and fallible. This is a curious facet of AA. It purportedly treats the ill of alcholism but devotes most of its weight toward the incalculation of religious ideology and guru worship. My own question? If AA is curative where is the data in support? I submit that if AA had this data they would promulgate. But, on their own researching their is no cure rate. Their own executive sanhadrin describes this as "appalling". You may find this on Os site, if you read it. I invite you to provide data to the contrary. Recall: it is not a question of your liking AA but of its curative benefit. All the stuff about bill w being a scumbag counts for nothing here. I cc O here because I am speaking in support and he should have a say on if this gloss finds the mark. It may not. My four days of reading his site is our sole bond. But I found you, Green, dear fellow. That is because I can read. A useful bit of kit. ILR.
Hello again, ILR,
Thanks for the letter. Ah yes, Agent Green. So she is still around? I had not looked at her
web page in ages.
http://www.green-papers.org/rebuttal.htm
Readers: The previous letters from Green or about Green are here:
What you have said is pretty right on. I just want to clarify one thing:
Just to clarify, I don't consider the cure rate meaningless. I think that you
meant to type "the retention rate is meaningless", because then, in the following sentence,
you correctly stated that the cure rate was only 5%, which is just the same as
the recovery rate of people who quit alone, on their own. That is, the normal rate of
spontaneous remission.
(And on the bright side, remember that the spontaneous recovery rate is 5% per year,
so next year we get another 5%, and then another 5% the following year,
and then another, and another... until about half of the alcoholics have
recovered all on their own).
Another factor that makes the retention rate meaningless is the fact that many A.A. members
are not even alcoholics. Some of the most sober A.A. members are people who just like
the cult lifestyle. For example, see this letter:
"I know that in all probability, Dale drank only once in his entire life."
Your statement about the A.A. headquarters not having any positive information about the A.A. cure
rate is totally true. If they had anything good, they would be publicizing it loudly.
But they don't. They have nothing, and they try to ignore the question. I am reminded of
this jewel that Michael G. sent in
a few years ago. He searched the official A.A. web site, and got:
One fascinating fact about Agent Green that was not mentioned there is the fact that she is not even a member of Alcoholics Anonymous. She has never had to quit drinking. She is a true believer in Al-Anon, who just likes to believe that A.A. is the best cure for "alcoholism". The terrible irony is that A.A. members are quick to say, "You aren't an alcoholic. You don't know anything about alcoholism." (I've gotten that a lot, in spite of the fact that I am a fully-qualified alcoholic.) But when Agent Green speaks in praise of A.A., none of the A.A. members complain, "Hey! You aren't an alcoholic. You don't know what you are talking about." Funny how that works. Have a good day now. == Orange
This is the Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz. Sixty-nine years ago
today, the Russian Army liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland and saved the
remaining survivors. Over 1.5 million people died there, mostly Jews.
Auschwitz is infamous for having an efficient assembly line of death:
railroad tracks bring the victims into the selection area, which leads to the disrobing areas,
and gas chambers disguised as showers, which were followed by downhill slides for
the dead bodies going down to the crematoria with banks of ovens for burning the bodies.
The end of the line. Curiously, the philosophical father of Alcoholics Anonymous, the founder of the Oxford Group, Dr. Frank Nathan Daniel Buchman, had nothing to say against the Nazis, and he even thanked Heaven for giving us Adolf Hitler, and praised the Gestapo chief Heinrich Himmler as a wonderful lad. It was Heinrich Himmler who planned, oversaw, and commanded the program of extermination of the Jews. (See: Partying with the Nazi Party.) The A.A. founders Bill Wilson, Dr. Robert Smith, and Clarence Snyder got their religious training in Dr. Frank Buchman's Oxford Group cult religion:
"Early AA got its ideas of self-examination, acknowledgement of character defects, restitution for harm done, and working with others straight from the Oxford Groups and directly from Sam Shoemaker, their former leader in America, and nowhere else." (Bill Wilson mentioned the name of Rev. Sam Shoemaker, the number two man in the Oxford Group, because the leader Dr. Frank Buchman was so unpopular for his praise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.)
Where did the early AAs find the material for the remaining ten Steps? Where did we learn about moral inventory, amends for harm done, turning our wills and lives over to God? Where did we learn about meditation and prayer and all the rest of it? The spiritual substance of our remaining ten Steps came straight from Dr. Bob's and my own earlier association with the Oxford Groups, as they were then led in America by that Episcopal rector, Dr. Samuel Shoemaker.
In fact, Bill Wilson even praised dictatorships himself, and later bragged that Alcoholics Anonymous had "all of the advantages of the modern dictatorship".
"Then, too we have a dictatorship — and how! God constantly says to us, 'I trust you will find and do my will.' John Barleycorn, always at our elbow, says, 'If you don't conform, I'll kill you or drive you mad.' So we have all the advantages and more, of the modern dictatorship."
Therefore we [AA] have the full benefits of the murderous political dictatorships of today but none of their liabilities.The full benefits of murderous dictatorships? What benefits? Benefits for whom? And what liabilities of murderous dictatorships does Alcoholics Anonymous not have?
Pete Seeger passed away today. He was a national treasure.
On Wednesday, 22 January 2014, Orange <orange@orange-papers.info> wrote:
Hello, Yep. I collect pentax scremount lenses. Your gosling shots look like canon? Ian Yes, now. Although I also collect Pentax takumar lenses and use them with adapters. I have four of the 50mm F1.4 lenses, which I love.
I think I have the largest collection of super takumar lenses outside of japan and hong kong. Ready spares in 55mm f1.8 and 28mm f3.5. I am happy to send you both if you like. I have enjoyed your site and it would be my pleasure. I love the 50mm f1.4 but find it a difficult lens to shoot on the cropped platform, in my case the samsung nx. You can see my pedestrian efforts on flkr under "rikkitakka". Cheers, ILR
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:08:46 -0800
Hi again. thanks for the offer, but I've also already got spares of
the F1.8. I just didn't mention them because they aren't as sexy as
the F1.4.
I have a couple of beautiful 28mm F2.5 Vivitar lenses that were really
made by Kino Precision Optical Ltd. of Japan, so I have that covered.
But thanks for the offer.
I can't brag about having the largest collection outside of Japan,
but I think I might have one of the largest collections in Forest Grove.
I love those old manual focus lenses, and love the cheap prices too.
I don't know of any other way to get such good glass so cheap.
So I have a lot of them.
Have a good day now.
Date: Sat, January 25, 2014 3:34 pm (answered 27 January 2014) If your viv is the 67mm filter viv that is my day to day shooter. You can see a very small slice of my work on flkr "rikkitakka". The 55mm is not as sexy as the 50mm, but it is sharper. It is the older of the two lenses and a possibly more mature design. Since my go to shooter is the samsung nx I can mount just about any manual focus lens. These days I am shooting the 50mm f1.4 (as a portrait lens) and walking around with the big viv 28mm, the auto yashinon f2.5 28mm or the fantastic zukio 24mm f2. One day I will have a full frame and be able to shoot 50mm more regularly. I can not say enough good about the pentacon 30mm preset. Nothing in my collection has color rendition anything like it. I would be interested to know what you are shooting. You are a little fast and loose on your hebrew cosmology. It is more complicated than you credit and takes a fair bit of textual analysis. This does not excuse the excess. It just means the numbers are wrong. Ilr
Hello again, Ian,
I just looked, and the Vivitar 28mm F2.5 lens looks like the filter is smaller
than 67mm. But the Kiron version has a larger filter. Actually, both are made
by Kino Precision Optical Ltd of Japan. They are very similar, but the Kiron version
has a larger metal body. I'll have to find the Kiron version
to see how large the filter is.
(I have boxes and boxes of lenses in the closet.)
I see that I have a Takumar 28mm F3.5 lens handy. I'm pretty sure
that I have a couple of the 50 or 55mm F1.8 Takumar lenses in the closet somewhere.
I shall have to experiment and double-check to see if the 55mm F1.8 lens is
sharper than the 50mm F1.4. Good thing to check. I'm very into sharpness
too.
Speaking of which, I lucked out at Goodwill last month. They had a G.Zuiko
50mm F1.4 lens in an Olympus 35mm-70mm F3.5-4.5 case, so maybe the guy
who was pricing the stuff didn't look it up right. They like to search
on ebay to find the going price for stuff. And there is a huge difference
in the price between those two lenses. On top of that, it looked awful,
dirty, and looked like the coating on the glass was messed up. I almost didn't buy it, until
I noticed that it was actually an Olympus F1.4 lens. They priced it at
$13. So I got it. Luck-out big time. The dirt cleaned right off and the
glass is flawless. I've been doing a bunch of shooting with it, testing
it, and it looks good.
Yes, I like to also collect old Olympus lenses. They are sharp. The new
ones are sharp too, but that 4/3 format is a big problem. They are "fly-by-wire"
— no manual control of iris or focus —
and only work on 4/3 Olympus bodies, and I don't plan to ever buy another
new Olympus body.
But since you mentioned that the F1.8 Takumar was sharper than the F1.4, I looked in a
web page about testing Zuikos, and it said the same thing about Zuikos.
So I pulled out an F.Zuiko 50mm F1.8 lens that I have handy, and I'm testing it now.
Thanks for the tip about Pentacon. I've been seeing that stuff on ebay,
and avoiding it because I thought it was cheap junk. I'll have to give
that stuff a second look.
Some of those old lenses are funny that way. I have an old J.C.Penney 80-200mm F2.9 PK-mount
lens that produces wonderful shots of a rusty steel railroad bridge. There is
just something about it that brings out the rust and age. You can
just feel the smoke and oil of old locomotives.
Some lenses produce very sweet pictures, and seem suited to women
and children and flowers. But such a lens is wrong for a rusty old steel railroad
bridge. It won't bring out the grit. The J.C.Penney lens is perfect
for that. Yes, lenses really have personalities.
You asked what I'm shooting with. My main squeeze is a Canon 5D full-frame DSLR.
I was using an Olympus E-510 — almost all of the earlier photographs were shot with it —
but it rattled apart and I'm going
to have to take it apart and fix it. The function switch (Auto/P/A/S, etc.) is loose
and the camera won't work unless I jiggle and hold the switch just right.
Olympus was a big disappointment. "Olympus build quality" is a pathetic joke.
Then, to add insult to injury, Olympus deliberately sabotaged the camera and
made functions like the internal image stabilization and focus confirmation
turn off if you dared to mount a legacy lens on the camera with an adapter.
Just pressuring you to buy new Olympus lenses.
That was after they advertised internal image stabilization that would work
with any existing lens.
It took me 6 months of posting complaints and derogatory messages all over the
Internet for them to relent and turn on the image stabilization. But they still
never turned on the focus confirmation. They could do it easily with a firmware update,
but they won't. It's corporate policy to not do favors for their customers.
I still like the Olympus glass — the lenses are sharp — but the Olympus
Board of Directors is a bunch of crooks who cheat everybody, especially
their customers, and even their own stockholders and their own president. Olympus President
Michael Woodford got fired for telling the truth about how Olympus had engaged in
financial fraud for the previous 20 years.)
I also have over 4 dozen old point-and-shoot digital cameras in all sizes.
I get them used at Goodwill.
Actually, several are pretty new. I carry around
the Canon SD780IS, Samsung TL105, and Polaroid t1031 cameras slung
from my belt. The Polaroid was a pleasant surprise. I got it at
Goodwill cheap, not expecting much, and it turned out to be far better than I expected.
Then, for saving books, I use a Fujifilm E-510 5.2 megapixels camera. Say what?
Well, it's much faster and cheaper to photograph all of the pages of a book than to
Xerox it. The cost is near zero. Maybe a penny or two for electricity.
And the storage space is near zero. I get all kinds of books from the library that I want
to add to my own library for reference — some of them
are very rare old books that I cannot buy —
so I photograph them and then I can reread them whenever I wish, and look up quotes,
and double-check facts, and whatnot. That Fujifilm E-510
turns out to be the best tool that I've found. The autofocus just locks on book pages very well,
and the resolution is just right. I don't need to be using a 10- or 12- megapixel camera
to photograph each page. That just takes up more disk space. Five megapixels is perfectly readable.
I also have about 15 or 20 film cameras that I rarely use.
My favorites are the Nikon N8008 bodies, which feel so good in my
hands that I wish there was a solid-state insert or camera back that would convert
those cameras to digital.
I have a Sigma 70-300mm autofocus lens that I use a lot, for wildlife,
on the 5D.
I also have a Panagor 500mm mirror lens that is good for wildlife.
Panagor is another brand name for Kino Precision Optical.
(I also have a couple of Vivitar 500mm mirror lenses that are nearly
worthless — not sharp.)
I am leaning more and more towards the telephoto lenses because I
need them to get the wildlife. Some of those birds won't let you get
near them. Like hummingbirds are very shy.
I've even gone so far as to get a Meade 4.5-inch reflecting astronomical telescope
with a T2 adapter. It functions as a 900mm lens, I understand. I got it at Goodwill too,
with photographing those Eagle parents and their chick in mind.
And I have the usual 28-80mm or 35-80mm Canon autofocus kit lenses
for short- to medium-range work.
For low light, I use a variety of F1.4 lenses: Asahi Pentax Takumar, Olympus Zuiko, Sears,
Nikon, all 50 or 55mm.
All of them would fit on the Olympus E-510, but only about half fit on
the Canon 5D because that large full-frame mirror hits the back of
the lenses.
I am looking at getting another camera, like a Canon 60D, with an
APS-C-sized sensor and smaller mirror, so that I can use all of them.
Also, the smaller sensor automatically magnifies all of the telephoto lenses by about 1.6.
I also really like the Kiron 70-210mm F4.0 or F3.8 lenses. They also
made one version of the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm lens. I have a
couple of them too. One by Kino, and one by Tokina, I think.
I also like the Vivitar 200mm and 135mm prime lenses made by Komine (serial
number 28xxxxxxx.) They are sharp and clear.
By the way, you probably know about the secret coding system in Vivitar
serial numbers, don't you? Numbers beginning with 28 were made by
Komine, 22=Kino/Kiron, 37=Tokina. (Vivitar never made a single lens
themselves.) There were lots of other
subcontractors, but most of them weren't as good.
Although I'll bet that the Olympus-made lenses were good, but I've never
seen an Olympus-made Vivitar. (Number 06 or 6x.)
Strangely, Vivitar seems to have never subcontracted out lens-making to Pentax.
But Sears and J.C.Penney did.
Another favorite is the Asanuma 100-300mm F5 M42 telephoto lens. They
are quite sharp. Also very big and heavy. Which is why I'm using the
Panagor mirror lens more lately.
There is a sample shot from that lens here (along with commentary from an Olympus fan who thinks that
all non-Olympus lenses are bad):
And you can also see:
http://www.orange-papers.info/Dirty_Martini_Trio-0677_sml.jpg
http://www.orange-papers.info/20070915_0795-sml2.jpg
By the way, I'm "terrance13" on DPReview. But I never get in there
any more. The backbiting from the Olympus fan-boys got to be too
vicious. (Personally, I'm convinced that Olympus was paying fans and
shills to praise Olympus cameras and attack anyone who dared to
mention a flaw or shortcoming of an Olympus camera. Since Olympus stopped making
DSLR cameras, things sure quieted down in there. No more paychecks for the shills,
so there are far fewer worshippers at the Temple of Mount Olympus.)
I tried to see your pictures on Flickr, but couldn't find your gallery.
They wouldn't let me search for just one person.
They kept insisting that I should register, which I don't care to do because they seem
to be associated with Yahoo.
Yahoo erased my entire web site
without explanation years ago,
hinting that I had offended someone. So I don't have anything to do with Yahoo
or its properties now.
I'm curious about the Hebrew cosmology. What are you referring to?
Have a good day now.
== Orange
[The next letter from Ian_R is here.]
Some misguided people in New York State have decided that they want to kill all of the Mute Swans in New York State.
There are only about 2200 such swans in the whole of the state, but the would-be killers claim that
the swans are doing all kinds of damage to the environment, and they want them gone.
They are labeling the swans "an invasive species", and making all kinds of inaccurate claims, like
that the swans take away food and territory from the Canada Geese.
But they also want to wipe out the Canada Geese because they get sucked into jet engines. Remember Capt.
Sully Sullenberger's great landing of his jet airliner in the Hudson River?
His plane suffered a "double bird strike" — both
engines sucked in Canada Geese at the same time and were wrecked. So the nuts with the guns when on
a killing spree to wipe out Canada Geese. And killed a lot of them.
Now the same nuts want to wipe out the Mute Swans, and actually have the nerve to cite the welfare of the
Canada Geese as one of the reasons why they want to wipe out the swans.
Mute Swans are beautiful creatures. This web page give some heart-warming pictures of a mother Mute Swan
caring for her babies:
You can sign a petition against the slaughter here:
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:13:12 -0500 (EST) (answered 3 February 2014) Mister T, Today at an aa meeting a 40ish woman shared she is visiting Long Island from Massachusetts and aa saved her life. I waited for the meeting to end and I offered her a meeting list with your address on it. She refused the list saying "This has been working for me". I am encouraged that the truth is spreading and even a new member knows of your work. Gandhi said "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Thank you for all you do.
Hi again, Bob,
Thanks again for all that you do too. I've been hearing that from other people too.
It seems that a lot of Steppers know about the Orange Papers, and most of them are
hostile to the information contained therein.
Well, since I've been writing this stuff for almost 13 years now, I guess that is time enough
for the word to get out.
Now the people whom we really need to educate are the politicians who control the purse strings
for funding for rehab and who also write the regulations for rehabs,
and the judges who still sentence people to A.A., as well as the general
populace who elect those politicians and judges.
Upwards and onwards.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:02:33 +0000 (answered 3 February 2014) Terry, Something is weird. I re-uploaded my avatar as soon as it was lost and brought it back. Strange thing is that many other people did so also. Now for some reason the people that lost them in the move that did not re-upload have the avatars back and the people that fixed it don't anymore. The system won't allow access to the temporary directory on an upload now. Here is the error- "The specified file temporary://scale.jpeg could not be copied, because the destination directory is not properly configured. This may be caused by a problem with file or directory permissions. More information is available in the system log." Take care, JR H.
Hello JH,
Thanks for the heads-up. I know that part of the problem is that when the system owner
installed the Drupal and MySQL systems for me, he used a fresh clean installation of Drupal.
That wiped out all past customizations and modules installed, like the anti-spam stuff, and apparently,
also the avatars.
I had to get that back so I carefully imported my backup copy of the one Drupal subdirectory that contains all
local changes, which got back the CAPTCHA and anti-spam stuff, while also
carefully preserving his customizations
to adapt the system to its new environment (like names of locations of files).
And that had something to do
with getting back some of the avatar pictures too. I think that people who had just re-uploaded
their pictures got them erased in the process, while some other people got their old pictures back.
Still, I'm puzzled by the result that some subdirectory is misconfigured. I'll have to sleuth
and investigate and see what is going on.
Thanks again for the tip. Have a good day now.
== Orange
The move to the new host has gone well, with only a few gotchas, but the email is still a big
problem. The new host doesn't run cpanel or anything that lets me run one of the standard
email programs like Squirrel. So right now all of my email is going to just one account.
I normally use about 20 accounts to separate things out. Just the forum registrations alone
generate a few hundred bogus registrations from spammers each day. (And without the anti-spam
software installed, it got up into the thousands per day.)
So what I'm doing right now, until I get something better installed, is just downloading the
email file and reading it with a text editor brute force. What that means is, there is a 2- or 3-megabyte
text file that is in MIME email format that contains all email files concatenated into just one
huge mess. I'm looking for the important stuff and then copy and paste it into another file.
The possibily of errors and overlooking emails are enormous. So if your email seems to be ignored
for a week or more, please resend it.
I'm working on some programs (fetchmail and procmail) that will solve the problem locally.
I'll just download the giant email file daily and let some smart computer programs sort everything
out.
Have a good day.
== Orange
Last updated 17 July 2014. |