# Circulating diagrams

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/circulating-diagrams/2547>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [January 6, 1999, 7:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/circulating-diagrams/2547 "1999-01-06T19:24:18Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor)\
**Post date:** [January 6, 1999, 7:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/circulating-diagrams/2547/1 "1999-01-06T19:24:18Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 990106 14:20]

For years we have been including ASCII diagrams of control loops, some  
quite complex. These are often hard to follow and difficult to draw  
(I wanted to make one for my posting of a few minutes ago about beliefs,  
but decided the complexity made it not worth while).

What I would like to know is whether at this stage most recipients of  
CSGNet could interpret attached GIFs or JPEGs, or better yet, HTML pages?  
If so, then we could circulate diagrams that are more readily interpreted,  
and in the form of HTML, those that were deemed worthy of being kept  
could be added (by Rick?) to a Web site.

Just a thought.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![KENNETH\_J\_KITZKE1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/b2d939/32.png) [@KENNETH\_J\_KITZKE1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/KENNETH_J_KITZKE1)\
**Post date:** [January 7, 1999, 1:52pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/circulating-diagrams/2547/2 "1999-01-07T13:52:05Z")

</div>

[from Kenny Kitzke 990107 8:20 EST]

\<Martin Taylor 990106 14:20\>

\<Just a thought.\>

A good one.

I perceive my capability to interpret GIFs or JPEGs, or better yet, HTML  
pages is presently zero. I also perceive this to be a \*right\* direction  
for the CSG. I also \*believe\* it would be good for me to have a reference  
perception that I can interpret and communicate in these formats.

Right now, based upon that reference perception, I am being disturbed every  
day. When I open my email, there are always a number of messages that I  
cannot open. It usually says this is a binary file. I have a Retrieve  
button that seems to download that post to a File.

If I open that File, I may find the words of the message, but usually, it  
is intermixed with keyboard symbols for spaces, quotation marks, etc., and  
is very hard to read. And, of course, these files are no longer active  
emails that I can edit, reply to, forward, etc.,

Now some of these posts (ones that will not open and which I have to  
"retrieve" to a file), when I go to open the file, still can't be read!  
Worst of all, when I am not able to open them, they seem to stay in my  
mailbox and I cannot delete them. They actually accumulate in and clog my  
mailbox which has a 100 post limit that does not seem to be adjustable.

I know that html, pict, vcard, gif, mime, etc., transmittals seem to be the  
culprits. Posts sent in PLAIN TEXT work fine. I think ASCII formats work  
but am not sure as I do not ever receive a diagram that is not from  
keyboard items such as -- or || constructions.

I am using a Power PC Performa Mac.  
For email, I am on both CS (CSG-NET) and AOL.  
I still use CS 3.0.1 software.

I have 4.0 but have not installed it. My son Chris who used to work for me  
would do all the computer systems. He said the newer CS version would  
probably solve most of these problems. But, when he tried to install it,  
there were connect incompatibilities between CS and AOL. I would have to  
restart my computer going from one to the other (something about PPP?).

Slowly, I became computer illiterate and the technology and terms are  
beyond me now. So, I feel stuck. If you or anyone can make sense out of  
my predicament and advise what course I should take to be able to receive  
such formats as you are recommending, it would not only advance CSG-Net  
communication, it would help me read mail that I receive from many sources  
that I cannot open.

A Frustrated and Desparate Computer Illiterate (who does not really want to  
be a computer expert, just a user) and an effective (or is it "good" as in  
moral or righteous? 🕶 adherent of PCT.

HELP!

Kenny

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor)\
**Post date:** [January 7, 1999, 3:03pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/circulating-diagrams/2547/3 "1999-01-07T15:03:58Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 990107 9:57]

> [from Kenny Kitzke 990107 8:20 EST]
> 
> \<Martin Taylor 990106 14:20\>
> 
> \<Just a thought.\>
> 
> A good one.
> 
> I perceive my capability to interpret GIFs or JPEGs, or better yet, HTML  
> pages is presently zero. I also perceive this to be a \*right\* direction  
> for the CSG. I also \*believe\* it would be good for me to have a reference  
> perception that I can interpret and communicate in these formats.

> I am using a Power PC Performa Mac.  
> For email, I am on both CS (CSG-NET) and AOL.  
> I still use CS 3.0.1 software.

> If you or anyone can make sense out of  
> my predicament and advise what course I should take to be able to receive  
> such formats as you are recommending, it would not only advance CSG-Net  
> communication, it would help me read mail that I receive from many sources  
> that I cannot open.

Both Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer are freeware,  
available for download for both Macs and PCs. Either one allows you to  
read any of the formats mentioned above, and to send and receive e-mail.  
There are also free specialized viewers for the Mac (and presumably for  
PCs) for JPEGs and GIFs. Up-to-date word processors and graphic  
programs often allow you to read all those formats.

The only concern would be whether any of these alternatives demand more  
RAM or hard disk space than you have to spare, but more does not cost very  
much these days.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Acree_Mike)\
**Post date:** [January 7, 1999, 5:36pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/circulating-diagrams/2547/4 "1999-01-07T17:36:33Z")

</div>

[From Mike Acree (990107.0930 PST)]

Martin Taylor 990106 14:20--

> What I would like to know is whether at this stage most recipients of  
> CSGNet could interpret attached GIFs or JPEGs, or better yet, HTML

pages?

> If so, then we could circulate diagrams that are more readily

interpreted,

> and in the form of HTML, those that were deemed worthy of being kept  
> could be added (by Rick?) to a Web site.

FWIW: No attachments of any sort have ever come through for me as a  
digest subscriber. I receive direct e-mails with HTML pages with no  
difficulty, but the resend converts them to something that looks more  
like hex code. That needn't, of course, affect any decisions about  
submitting attachments.

Mike

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fred\_Nickols3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/9de053/32.png) [@Fred\_Nickols3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Fred_Nickols3)\
**Post date:** [January 7, 1999, 10:53pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/circulating-diagrams/2547/5 "1999-01-07T22:53:52Z")

</div>

[From Fred Nickols (990107.1747 EST)]--

Martin Taylor 990106 14:20

> What I would like to know is whether at this stage most recipients of  
> CSGNet could interpret attached GIFs or JPEGs, or better yet, HTML pages?  
> If so, then we could circulate diagrams that are more readily interpreted,  
> and in the form of HTML, those that were deemed worthy of being kept  
> could be added (by Rick?) to a Web site.

I recently switched from my free version of Eudora Lite 3 to Eudora Pro  
4.0. From what I can tell, it will handle just about anything. I also did  
a two-step upgrade from Windows 3.1 through Windows 95 to Windows 98 and it  
seems Microsoft Outlook will do the same. Fancy diagrams are fine by me.

Regards,

Fred Nickols  
Distance Consulting  
[http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm](http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm)  
nickols@worldnet.att.net  
(609) 490-0095

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [January 8, 1999, 1:21am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/circulating-diagrams/2547/6 "1999-01-08T01:21:58Z")

</div>

> [From Bruce Gregory (990107.2020 EST)]

Fred Nickols

> Martin Taylor 990106 14:20
> 
> I recently switched from my free version of Eudora Lite 3 to Eudora Pro  
> 4.0. From what I can tell, it will handle just about anything.  
> I also did  
> a two-step upgrade from Windows 3.1 through Windows 95 to Windows  
> 98 and it  
> seems Microsoft Outlook will do the same. Fancy diagrams are fine by me.

I too use Outlook. HTML is fine with me as well

Bruce Gregory