Hi, my name is Doug and I'm new to this group. My interests include
acting, woodworking, humanities, and rallying against abortion. I'm
wondering if any of you are fellow believers of the word of Bartman.
Bartman completely changed my life. Without Bartman I was blind.
Well, hoping to make some new friends here :) And remember,
BARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMAN
who the hell is bartman????
"Corporal Doug H. Bartman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi, my name is Doug and I'm new to this group. My interests include
> acting, woodworking, humanities, and rallying against abortion. I'm
> wondering if any of you are fellow believers of the word of Bartman.
> Bartman completely changed my life. Without Bartman I was blind.
> Well, hoping to make some new friends here :) And remember,
>
> BARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMAN
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:28:36 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Hmmm?
>
>(Inserts finger into right dimple)
>
>I'm wondering. If an anti-trolls starts a troll, is it a
>troll?
>
>UA100
Aye, 'tis a sham of a mockery of a travesty of a sham.
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
I disagree. This is a public forum and responses can often be of
benefit to many more than the original poster. One reason doing a
google search is so oft recommended.
Renata
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:54:48 -0500, Trent© <[email protected]>
wrote:
--snip--
>
>The 'intended' purpose of the POST is to help the OP. Any benefit
>beyond that is simply ancillary.
>
--snip--
>
>Trent
>
>Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:06:28 +0000, [email protected]
>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>>>Yur idea...cross-posting on a reply...is ALWAYS a bad idea. That type
>>>of posting is mainly done by OE users.
>>>
>>>You should only reply within the group that yer reading.
>>
>>WRONGO! on both counts.
>>
>>A) Cross-posting (original articles *and* replies) was common *long* before
>> OE even existed. (I _know_, I've been reading USENET since the late 70's,
>> and have run newsservers.)
>
>Me, too...since the early 80's.
>
>And I didn't say the practice isn't common. Murder is common, too.
>
>But its wrong. Its the reason off-topic posts get carried on into
>perpetuity.
By *that* logic, RESPONDING AT ALL to the off-topic post is "wrong".
Thus, _your_ post was the "bad idea". *your* error.
By your own logic, you "done wrong", by responding.
There are three ways of dealing with off-topic postings:
1) *do*not*respond* at all.
2) Respond, but LEAVE THE 'STIGMATA' INTACT, so that others using
automatic filtering based on that stigmata, will *not* see it.
3) Be an ass, and remove the stigmata, so others -cannot- automatically
filter out your off-topic follow-up to an "unseen" off-topic original.
Those options _are_ listed in order of desirability.
Those who insist on employing "option 3" are likely to find that *everything*
they write gets thrown into the bit-bucket. Since they've removed any _other_
means of identifying 'garbage' from 'good stuff' that they write.
>If the question is legitimate...and proper for the group yer
>READING...there's no reason to send it to other groups.
FALSE TO FACT. a cross-post can be "legitimate... and proper" for
more than one group. 5+ years ago, the cabal (TINC) was discussing
cross-posting limits. "Contrived" examples of legitimate cross-posting
to 10+ groups were demonstrated. AND non-contrived ones -- pre-existent in
the real world -- involving six groups were readily located.
>Many readers...mine included...only allow cross-posting on a reply if
>you turn that feature on. The default is to post only to the group
>that yer reading.
AH. blame it on the mis-built software. That is *NOT* a 'feature' of
*any* of the traditional/classical news-readers from the UNIX environment.
('rn' and descendants)
>>B) The _correct_ procedure, netiquette-wise is to either:
>> a) trim the newsgroups line to *only* the 'relevant' (i.e. "on topic")
>> newsgroups, *IF* it was cross-posted to inappropriate ones.
>
>And, what...this would be YOUR or MY decision?! lol Just think about
>what you just wrote! lol
Nice "selective quoting". What happened to the _rest_ of that paragraph?
>
>BTW...you've just reinforced what I've been saying.
If only you'd bothered to follow the *rest* of the remark -- the part that
you "couldn't be bothered" to quote. About '.. if there aren't any on-topic
groups left _after_ removing the irrelevant ones ..."
>>The reason *NOT* to 'edit' the newsgroups on a follow-up posting, is that
>>when you *do* do it, it splits the context of the responses.
>
>And that's a BAD thing?
yes.
>
>>Somebody
>>reading the tread in a different newsgroup _doesn't_see_ your response,
>
>The response is for the *OP*...NOT especially for the rest of the
>world. The OP will need to visit the groups where he posted...to get
>his replies.
FALSE TO FACT. If the response is _only_ for the *OP*, then the proper thing
to do is *e-mail* the response, NOT post it thousands of machines world-wide.
"... costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars."
>>and decides to answer the question _also_. Since they *didn't*touch*
>>the newsgroups list, there are now *two* (redundant) replies in the group
>>-you- posted in.
>
>Hell...that happens in the SAME group! lol
That is justification for _deliberately_ doing something that aggravates a
bad situation? You _are_ asking to be added to people's permanent killfiles,
aren't you?
>>The *intended* purpose for cross-posting is for something that is on-topic
>>to multiple newsgroups, and the discussion would benefit from interaction
>>between the viewpoints in those multiple groups.
>
>The 'intended' purpose of the POST is to help the OP. Any benefit
>beyond that is simply ancillary.
FALSE TO FACT.
1) In the specific case of your 'reply', just what "help" to the OP was
it providing?
2) If it was only for the benefit of the OP, why didn't you e-mail it to
him, and him *only*?
>And that can easily be accomplished by simply posting ONLY to the
>group that yer reading.
Obviously fallacious.
>
>I don't think OE can even DO that.
I wouldn't know. I use real computers, running real operating systems.
>Have a nice week...
>
>Trent
>
>Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
>
"Frank McVey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> PM 6564,
>
> I've gone to certain amount of trouble with NFilter to get rid of shit
like
> this.
>
> Two points:
>
> 1. Why do you respond to this crap and
You have to ask????
you must be the Wooly Bully.
dave
Unisaw A100 wrote:
> Tom Watson:
>
>>>Aye, 'tis a sham of a mockery of a travesty of a sham.
>
>
> PM:
>
>>Now I'm confused. This is about pillowcases?
>
>
> Steve, Steve, Steve,
>
> Sam the Sham
> Colin Mockery
> Randy Travesty
>
> HoKay?
>
> Good.
>
> UA100, whose favorite trio for all time will always be Sammy
> Davis Jr., Ozzie Smith and Johnny Londoff...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:45:11 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>That is justification for _deliberately_ doing something that aggravates a
>bad situation? You _are_ asking to be added to people's permanent killfiles,
>aren't you?
Yup. TRollENTity has engaged in fallacio one too many times to suit
me and will be sucked down into the bowels of the killfile.
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania 19428
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:40:30 GMT, [email protected] (Renata)
wrote:
>I disagree. This is a public forum and responses can often be of
>benefit to many more than the original poster. One reason doing a
>google search is so oft recommended.
>
>Renata
Yeah...I forgot that part. Turn off Google, too! lol
I did.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:15:40 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "PM6564" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:9JSvb.12222$P%[email protected]...
>
>>> Permit me to add a third: if you feel compelled to respond to a
>>cross-posted
>>> troll, PRESERVE the cross-posting, so that those of us who filter out
>>> cross-posted crap won't see your stupid response.
>>
>>That's right - because the purpose of my life is to make yours easier.
>
>You could at least avoid actions that make it harder. I'm not asking you to
>actually _do_ anything -- I'm asking you to NOT do something, i.e. don't trim
>the crossposted groups from the header before you respond. So it makes your
>life easier too.
Yur idea...cross-posting on a reply...is ALWAYS a bad idea. That type
of posting is mainly done by OE users.
You should only reply within the group that yer reading.
And fix your tag line...its completely bogus.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
In article <[email protected]>, "Frank McVey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>PM 6564,
>
>I've gone to certain amount of trouble with NFilter to get rid of shit like
>this.
>
>Two points:
>
>1. Why do you respond to this crap and
>2. If you must engage the twat, why do you find it necessary to quote
>him/her?
>
Permit me to add a third: if you feel compelled to respond to a cross-posted
troll, PRESERVE the cross-posting, so that those of us who filter out
cross-posted crap won't see your stupid response.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, k wrote:
|Subject: Re: Hello
|
|who the hell is bartman????
|
|
|"Corporal Doug H. Bartman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
|news:[email protected]...
|> Hi, my name is Doug and I'm new to this group. My interests include
|> acting, woodworking, humanities, and rallying against abortion. I'm
|> wondering if any of you are fellow believers of the word of Bartman.
|> Bartman completely changed my life. Without Bartman I was blind.
|> Well, hoping to make some new friends here :) And remember,
|>
|> BARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMAN
Iirc, it's Bart Simpson wearing a superman cape.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:06:28 +0000, [email protected]
> >(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
Now see boys and girls what happens when you find computers to be more
interesting than women?
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:28:36 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Hmmm?
> >
> >(Inserts finger into right dimple)
> >
> >I'm wondering. If an anti-trolls starts a troll, is it a
> >troll?
> >
> >UA100
>
>
> Aye, 'tis a sham of a mockery of a travesty of a sham.
>
Now I'm confused. This is about pillowcases?
PM 6564,
I've gone to certain amount of trouble with NFilter to get rid of shit like
this.
Two points:
1. Why do you respond to this crap and
2. If you must engage the twat, why do you find it necessary to quote
him/her?
Stick with the woodworking - you give good value there. Responding to
puerile little wankers like this is just a waste of your time, my time and
the wreck's bandwidth.
Regards,
Frank
"Big Red Helmut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Corporal Doug H. Bartman <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> > Hi, my name is Doug and I'm new to this group. My interests include
> > acting, woodworking, humanities, and rallying against abortion. I'm
> > wondering if any of you are fellow believers of the word of Bartman.
> > Bartman completely changed my life. Without Bartman I was blind.
> > Well, hoping to make some new friends here :) And remember,
> >
> > BARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMAN
> >
> I used to be in the closet about my Bartman....
Was Homer there too? LOL
In article <[email protected]>,
Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:15:40 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, "PM6564"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:9JSvb.12222$P%[email protected]...
>>
>>>> Permit me to add a third: if you feel compelled to respond to a
>>>cross-posted
>>>> troll, PRESERVE the cross-posting, so that those of us who filter out
>>>> cross-posted crap won't see your stupid response.
>>>
>>>That's right - because the purpose of my life is to make yours easier.
>>
>>You could at least avoid actions that make it harder. I'm not asking you to
>>actually _do_ anything -- I'm asking you to NOT do something, i.e. don't trim
>>the crossposted groups from the header before you respond. So it makes your
>>life easier too.
>
>Yur idea...cross-posting on a reply...is ALWAYS a bad idea. That type
>of posting is mainly done by OE users.
>
>You should only reply within the group that yer reading.
WRONGO! on both counts.
A) Cross-posting (original articles *and* replies) was common *long* before
OE even existed. (I _know_, I've been reading USENET since the late 70's,
and have run newsservers.)
B) The _correct_ procedure, netiquette-wise is to either:
a) trim the newsgroups line to *only* the 'relevant' (i.e. "on topic")
newsgroups, *IF* it was cross-posted to inappropriate ones.
NOTE: if, after you eliminate the 'off-topic' newsgroups there
are *no* newsgroups left, that's a *good* indicator that you
shouldn't bother to post a follow-up message _at_all_.)
-or-
b) post the response to _all_ the same newsgroups, *but* make use
of the "Followup-To: " header, and specify only a limited set of
the newsgroups that the original was posted to. *WITH* a note in
the message that you have done so.
When you set the "Followup-To:" header, any reply to your message
goes *only* to the newsgroups listed in that header, unless somebody
manually changes things. Which is why it is 'polite' to announce what
you've done.
The reason *NOT* to 'edit' the newsgroups on a follow-up posting, is that
when you *do* do it, it splits the context of the responses. Somebody
reading the tread in a different newsgroup _doesn't_see_ your response,
and decides to answer the question _also_. Since they *didn't*touch*
the newsgroups list, there are now *two* (redundant) replies in the group
-you- posted in.
The *intended* purpose for cross-posting is for something that is on-topic
to multiple newsgroups, and the discussion would benefit from interaction
between the viewpoints in those multiple groups.
In article <[email protected]>, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:14:03 +0000, Tom Watson wrote:
>
>> Yup. TRollENTity has engaged in fallacio one too many times to suit
>> me and will be sucked down into the bowels of the killfile.
>
>Tried to tell youse guys, TIAFT.
>
Yes it is AFT -- posts are largely argumentative, and only rarely on-topic.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:06:28 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>Yur idea...cross-posting on a reply...is ALWAYS a bad idea. That type
>>of posting is mainly done by OE users.
>>
>>You should only reply within the group that yer reading.
>
>WRONGO! on both counts.
>
>A) Cross-posting (original articles *and* replies) was common *long* before
> OE even existed. (I _know_, I've been reading USENET since the late 70's,
> and have run newsservers.)
Me, too...since the early 80's.
And I didn't say the practice isn't common. Murder is common, too.
But its wrong. Its the reason off-topic posts get carried on into
perpetuity.
If the question is legitimate...and proper for the group yer
READING...there's no reason to send it to other groups.
Many readers...mine included...only allow cross-posting on a reply if
you turn that feature on. The default is to post only to the group
that yer reading.
>B) The _correct_ procedure, netiquette-wise is to either:
> a) trim the newsgroups line to *only* the 'relevant' (i.e. "on topic")
> newsgroups, *IF* it was cross-posted to inappropriate ones.
And, what...this would be YOUR or MY decision?! lol Just think about
what you just wrote! lol
BTW...you've just reinforced what I've been saying.
>The reason *NOT* to 'edit' the newsgroups on a follow-up posting, is that
>when you *do* do it, it splits the context of the responses.
And that's a BAD thing?
>Somebody
>reading the tread in a different newsgroup _doesn't_see_ your response,
The response is for the *OP*...NOT especially for the rest of the
world. The OP will need to visit the groups where he posted...to get
his replies.
>and decides to answer the question _also_. Since they *didn't*touch*
>the newsgroups list, there are now *two* (redundant) replies in the group
>-you- posted in.
Hell...that happens in the SAME group! lol
>The *intended* purpose for cross-posting is for something that is on-topic
>to multiple newsgroups, and the discussion would benefit from interaction
>between the viewpoints in those multiple groups.
The 'intended' purpose of the POST is to help the OP. Any benefit
beyond that is simply ancillary.
And that can easily be accomplished by simply posting ONLY to the
group that yer reading.
I don't think OE can even DO that.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Corporal Doug H. Bartman <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
> Hi, my name is Doug and I'm new to this group. My interests include
> acting, woodworking, humanities, and rallying against abortion. I'm
> wondering if any of you are fellow believers of the word of Bartman.
> Bartman completely changed my life. Without Bartman I was blind.
> Well, hoping to make some new friends here :) And remember,
>
> BARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMAN
>
I used to be in the closet about my Bartman....
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:11:33 GMT, "Caractacus Potts"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:06:28 +0000, [email protected]
>> >(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>Now see boys and girls what happens when you find computers to be more
>interesting than women?
>
Computers are less complicated! lol
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
In article <[email protected]>, "PM6564" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:9JSvb.12222$P%[email protected]...
>> Permit me to add a third: if you feel compelled to respond to a
>cross-posted
>> troll, PRESERVE the cross-posting, so that those of us who filter out
>> cross-posted crap won't see your stupid response.
>
>That's right - because the purpose of my life is to make yours easier.
You could at least avoid actions that make it harder. I'm not asking you to
actually _do_ anything -- I'm asking you to NOT do something, i.e. don't trim
the crossposted groups from the header before you respond. So it makes your
life easier too.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:45:11 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>FALSE TO FACT. a cross-post can be "legitimate... and proper" for
>more than one group. 5+ years ago, the cabal (TINC) was discussing
>cross-posting limits. "Contrived" examples of legitimate cross-posting
>to 10+ groups were demonstrated. AND non-contrived ones -- pre-existent in
>the real world -- involving six groups were readily located.
I never said it COULDN'T. I *OFTEN* cross post...on an ORIGINAL
post....not on a reply. And I often SINGLE post the message...to more
than one group.
For instance...if I have a question about a power tool, I might post
it to rec.woodworking and alt.home.repairs. I would see the replies
by reading each of the newsgroups. And the replies in the repairs
group would already be marked as being read by me...that's the way
I've got the newsreader set up to work.
Now...suppose someone has a question about wood grain...and he posts
to rec.woodworking, alt.repair.mustang, and alt.geneology. I read it
in rec.woodworking. Why would I want to reply to the other
groups?...groups that I never even read.
Now do you see why you should only reply to the group in which yer
reading?
>You _are_ asking to be added to people's permanent killfiles,
>aren't you?
Why do folks think that bothers the person that's been KILL FILED?
lol
Kill files are great...and usually for both sides. Makes Usenet go a
lot smoother. lol Do you honestly think I care if you ever read one
of my posts ever again? lol
I feel sorry for you...if your post worries so much about others'
opinion.
Obviously...I don't worry about such things.
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9JSvb.12222$P%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Frank McVey"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >PM 6564,
> >
> >I've gone to certain amount of trouble with NFilter to get rid of shit
like
> >this.
> >
> >Two points:
> >
> >1. Why do you respond to this crap and
> >2. If you must engage the twat, why do you find it necessary to quote
> >him/her?
> >
> Permit me to add a third: if you feel compelled to respond to a
cross-posted
> troll, PRESERVE the cross-posting, so that those of us who filter out
> cross-posted crap won't see your stupid response.
>
> --
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for
Miss America?
That's right - because the purpose of my life is to make yours easier.
"Corporal Doug H. Bartman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi, my name is Doug and I'm new to this group. My interests include
> acting, woodworking, humanities, and rallying against abortion. I'm
> wondering if any of you are fellow believers of the word of Bartman.
> Bartman completely changed my life. Without Bartman I was blind.
> Well, hoping to make some new friends here :) And remember,
>
> BARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMANBARTMAN
The curse of the goat lives.