Convert Wireless back to Wired...

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" ?

Datamon wrote:

> 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.
--
derek

> 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?

Happy?

tia...

Datamon wrote:

>> 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?
>
> 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:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Really, we're happy to help here, but you've got to ask intelligible
questions.
--
derek

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <o0s4b3-(E-Mail Removed)> on Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:56:39 -0400,
Derek Broughton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Datamon wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>>
>> 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:
>
>http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
>Really, we're happy to help here, but you've got to ask intelligible
>questions.

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.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:54:15 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>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

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
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:52:53
+0000, Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:54:15 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
>Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>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
>
>Maybe, but then datamon didn't need to be a smartass with his middle
>post, he could have instead posted a meaningful followup.

That doesn't make it right.

>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.

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 click the right buttons in that broken interface?

Is it so hard to maintain context? That's what most of us on Usenet do.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

John Navas wrote:

> 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.

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.

> 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.

Like I said - "yes".

In your - no less rude - response to Mark, you said:

> My own non-Google newsreader (Agent) keeps context, along with most others
> I've used. Perhaps you should consider a change?

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.
--
derek

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <e7f7b3-(E-Mail Removed)> on Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:36:46 -0400,
Derek Broughton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Oh twaddle. I asked him to please quote.

And continued: "Your question is meaningles." [sic] Which was rude. And you
went on to be pedantic.

>Yes, I think that's what he
>meant, but I shouldn't have to go to that much trouble.

What trouble?

>I didn't see _you_
>trying to answer his question.

How is that relevant to your conduct?

>Rudeness is met with rudeness.

No offense, but that's immature.

>Asking poor questions, failing to quote, and
>expecting you to mind-read is rude.

I respectfully disagree -- uninformed isn't rude. "There are no bad
questions, only bad answers."

>If people can't be bothered to learn
>to ask smart questions, they can't expect to get answers.

Of course they can.

>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?

It was judgmental and accusatory.

>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.

No offense, but that's pretty childish.

>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.

You got back what you dished out -- what a shock.

>In your - no less rude - response to Mark, you said:
>
>> My own non-Google newsreader (Agent) keeps context, along with most others
>> I've used. Perhaps you should consider a change?

Nothing rude about that -- he may not know that most readers can provide
context.

>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.

It doesn't have threading? Yuk.

>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.

He wasn't being impolite.

>It's not _terribly_ difficult for me to find the
>contexts, but even with that context Datamon's posts were not intelligible.

It's dead easy to have context -- use a threaded newsreader.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>