F*** Off All Microsoft Users

Enough of your bickering!

Unconditional Surrender!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"



Nick Boalch wrote:

On 2004-06-27, David Candy wrote:

When you scum reply remove our groups from the To line and we
won't know and you can continue your fights without involving us.
[...]
(2) I, and several others, have repeatedly tried to set
Followup-To: on messages such that discussion can be directed
out of your groups. This has been ignored by respondents.

But YOU reply only to acorn. I certainly don't, and I would guess
most others don't either, subscribe to your groups. I can't post to
acorn.

But I thought you didn't want to prolong this argument, and didn't
want it on your groups? So why is the fact that you don't read or
post to csa.*
a problem?

But if you remove our groups we won't see your internal fight.

Feel free to set Followup-To:!

Cheers,

N.

SHUT UP!

Unconditional Surrender!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"



Nick Boalch wrote:

On 2004-06-27, David Candy wrote:

So when is Fire trUCKER Drucker going to apologise for his spam. He
is your leader according to an earlier post.

He is certainly /not/ my (our) leader. He /has/ contributed a lot of
valuable time, advice and software to the Acorn community but has a
lamentable lack of skill in communicating with people who don't agree
with his world-view, as far as I can see.

I wish he wouldn't mail everyone who does something he doesn't like in
the Acorn groups: a quick, public message on the group to the effect
that custom and convention in csa.* is to interleave quoting would be
much more appropriate in my opinion.

Cheers,

N.

Unconditional Surrender!


Nick Boalch wrote:

Fair enough: that will be the different posting styles of the groups
raising their heads again.

Where it is customary for the whole post to be quoted, I can see how
it would come to be considered disingenuous for parts to be snipped.

Nothing wrong with snipping, MORON! It's snipping without acknowledging it!

Where
it is customary for all but the most relevant sections to be removed,
though, I hope you can appreciate that it becomes unnecessary more
often that not to explicitly flag every removal.

It's just different styles of posting, that's all.


Disingenuousness is not a "style," it's an act of a scumbag, scoundrel,
conman!

Not surprising it is an acceptable practice in a group of people like yours.
Just a bunch of Trolls!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

In Australia we have Artist Moral Rights. A thing quite seperate to =
copyright. The artist of a piece of work can control what happens to it. =
I've maintained that this is my creative work and I do claim AMR. That =
means it can't be used by the copyright holder in a way not intended by =
the artist.

I always assign copyright to the public domain and reserve my AMR. I =
never give permission for my work to be snipped.

http://www.dcita.gov.au/Printer_Frie...15599-LIVE_1,=
00.html

a.. material distortion, mutilation or alteration of a literary, =
dramatic or musical work;=20
b.. material distortion, destruction, mutilation or alteration of an =
artistic work or building, or the exhibiting of the work in a derogatory =
manner or place;=20
c.. material distortion, mutilation or alteration of a film; or=20
d.. the doing of anything in relation to a work or film that is =
prejudicial to the creator or film maker's honour or reputation.=20

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant06132004.html
"kurttrail" wrote in =
message ...
And to me, it is not only "considered extremely bad manners" to snip =
up
other peoples words without acknowledging it, but it is considered a
disingenuous act too.
=20
--=20
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
=20
=20
=20
Nick Boalch wrote:
=20
On 2004-06-27, Noel Paton wrote:

If a hypothetical message were to say:

I'm a particular fan of badgers. Badgers are yellow-furred
creatures. They are short-legged and heavy-set. The lower jaw
is articulated to the upper, by means of a transverse condyle
firmly locked into a long cavity of the cranium, so that
dislocation of the jaw is all but impossible.

I might want to reply to point out that badgers are actually black
and white, so I'd reply:

Rufus T. Firefly wrote:
Badgers are yellow-furred creatures.

All the badgers I've ever seen are striped in black and white!

This removes the bits of the quoted message that aren't relevant =
to
my reply.

Ah - but the original may have read....

"Under our home-planet lighting conditions, Badgers are =
yellow-furred
creatures. - but seen under 'normal' Sol III sunlight they're
actually..............."

in which case, all you're really doing is showing how much of a
pratt you are, by selectively snipping without flagging it.

I agree. But that isn't what I've been doing in this thread, it =
isn't
what most posters who quote interleaved do, and it is something I've
already categorically stated to be considered extremely bad manners.

=20

Enough of your groups bottom posting propaganda!

Unconditional Surrender!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
alan.calder wrote:

In article , Mike
wrote:
Sorry, Alan, but I fail to see why it is so important to bottom
post.. I do not accept the argument that USENET has always been that
way anymore than I call the operator every time that I need to call
somebody just because that is the way that it was always done in the
past..

I don't think the question is really 'top or bottom'. It is more
about clarity. So interleaving answers amongst points in the
original message seems to be the best way all round - except for very
short messages where it doesn't really matter.

The trouble seems to be that OE doesn't deal with this very well,
putting attributions in the body of the message rather than
collecting them at the top. At least that is what it seems to do from
here.

The other point is snipping unneccessary text to improve readability
- too many people seem to just post back everything having stuck
their one line response at the top - so the recipient has to search
through the whole thing trying to find the part the sender is
referring to.

Rather like quoting a piece from an author in a review - you don't
put in the whole book to make the point.

Cheers

Alan

[Snip]

Don't you get this is a technical support group. I keep 24 hours =
messages. I need a full record of the past posts. We diagnose here not =
sludge slide drucker.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant06132004.html
"alan.calder" wrote in message =
...
In article , Mike
wrote:
Sorry, Alan, but I fail to see why it is so important to bottom =
post.. I
do not accept the argument that USENET has always been that way =
anymore
than I call the operator every time that I need to call somebody =
just
because that is the way that it was always done in the past..
=20
I don't think the question is really 'top or bottom'. It is more =
about
clarity. So interleaving answers amongst points in the original =
message
seems to be the best way all round - except for very short messages =
where
it doesn't really matter.
=20
The trouble seems to be that OE doesn't deal with this very well, =
putting
attributions in the body of the message rather than collecting them at =
the
top. At least that is what it seems to do from here.
=20
The other point is snipping unneccessary text to improve readability - =
too
many people seem to just post back everything having stuck their one =
line
response at the top - so the recipient has to search through the whole
thing trying to find the part the sender is referring to.
=20
Rather like quoting a piece from an author in a review - you don't put =
in
the whole book to make the point.
=20
Cheers
=20
Alan
=20
[Snip]
=20
--=20
Alan Calder, Milton Keynes, UK.

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.acorn.misc]

On 2004-06-27, David Candy wrote:

But if you remove our groups we won't see your internal fight.

Feel free to set Followup-To:!

Because I won't see my message.

Um, you'd see your message, just not any replies to it.

Cheers,

N.

--
kyourek There was a 23% drop in temperature.
nappyjallapy That's almost 25%!
kyourek ... That was one of the most worthless comments I've ever heard.

On 2004-06-27, kurttrail wrote:

(2) I, and several others, have repeatedly tried to set Followup-To:
on messages such that discussion can be directed out of your
groups. This has been ignored by respondents.

Dickhead, you are still posting here in our groups! You would not have to
play silly "Followup-To:" games, if you just remove our groups from your
"Newsgroups:" line!

Feel free to set Followup-To: yourself, if you don't want replies to your
posts to be directed to the microsoft.* groups.

N.B. 'Followup-To:' is not a 'game', just another part of USENET etiquette
that you seem to be unfamiliar with.

Cheers,

N.

--
Giles: Alright, I'll just jump in my time machine, go back to the twelfth
century and ask the vampires to postpone their ancient prophecy for a few days
while you take in dinner and a show.
-- Rob Des Hotel & Dean Batali, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", 'Never Kill...'

What?

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant06132004.html
"Nick Boalch" wrote in message =
.. .
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.acorn.misc]
=20
On 2004-06-27, David Candy wrote:
=20
But if you remove our groups we won't see your internal fight.

Feel free to set Followup-To:!

Because I won't see my message.
=20
Um, you'd see your message, just not any replies to it.
=20
Cheers,
=20
N.
=20
--=20
kyourek There was a 23% drop in temperature.
nappyjallapy That's almost 25%!
kyourek ... That was one of the most worthless comments I've ever =
heard.

On 2004-06-27, kurttrail wrote:
[Marking snipping or not marking snipping: I think it's a consequence of
the quoting style you adopt. Kurt, unsurprisingly, disagrees in the
charming style with which we've now become familiar.]
It's just different styles of posting, that's all.

Disingenuousness is not a "style," it's an act of a scumbag, scoundrel,
conman!

Snipping without explicit acknowledgement is a style of posting widespread
across USENET.

*Altering the meaning of a post when responding* is the act of a conman.

These two things are not the same.

Not surprising it is an acceptable practice in a group of people like yours.
Just a bunch of Trolls!

It's an acceptable practice, or THE accepted practice, across much of
USENET. I can to a certain extent see why Tarquin Mills's actions could
cause you to consider csa.* readers as 'a bunch of Trolls' (though I hope
that my own postings on this subject have not been inflammatory). But
do you think, to pick a random example from my newsfeed, the posters to
news.admin.technical are a bunch of Trolls?

Cheers,

N.

--
ascian why do you guys need a car?
Odat cause people look at you funny when you run down the highway making
vroom noises with your mouth