Subj : online fido application To : Janis Kracht From : August Abolins Date : Wed Mar 27 2019 10:18 pm Hello Janis, JK> You didn't upset me August :) I just figured you would know who created JK> that form. *After* I posted the original message, the "filegate" part looked familiar. Then, I realized the form was indeed a subpage of your site. The page/form was a good idea. JK> Well, you are the first to say that it is confusing. I think most people JK> just fill it in and don't wonder so much ? When their RCs get a copy, JK> they aren't confused either. :) A legit submission by a consciencious applicant would mostly likely be "complete" and all the fields would mostly likely have *something* so that the confusing "N/A" wouldn't even be a thought. But I was the rogue, the tyrant, the nefarious nuiscance demonstrating that I can send crap and fake information - and waste your time. ;) If was scoping out the status of Fidonet around 2010 and stumbled on your form, I would have probably sent you a few suggestions then. >> My concern was that I was allowed to fill in >> weird info and you have to waste time. JK> Doesn't happen. Huh? Ok. Whatever. I think there is something lost in this exchange. >> ..You have all the tools available for that. JK> So do you :) Yes. I get that. I can send in proper and honest info according to the instructions. But the form allows garbage too. >> Just send them instructions for all that in a standard pre-written email. JK> As I just said above your text, that is what happens.. Did you read that JK> paragraph? :) Of course I did. I thought that you meant constomized email for each applicant each and every time. If it's just a pre-written form-letter reply, very good! JK> Much ado about nothing ? :) Be careful when quoting Shakespear: https://www.zmescience.com/science/why-shakespeares-much-ado-about-nothing-is-a-brilliant-sneaky-innuendo/ Anyway, I thought you would be excited about improving "the form". Nevermind. Stay in the past. lol .../|ug --- WinPoint Beta 5 (359.1) * Origin: Reluctantly Revisiting Fidonet (2:221/1.58) .