On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:10:53 +0100, nobody
<nobody@nowhere.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:54:25 -0700, jimmy
><jimmyng@anonymousspeech.com> wrote:
>
>>the other day I read something where a person said I was on a ego trip
>>is this true? after 11+ years of posting now I am on a ego trip
>>because I want to be safe.
>
>The person (gu-----) is around for at least six years, maybe as long
>as you. I have not seen him calling names or posting inappropiate
>things. His posts were always thoughtful and the words well chosen.
>If such a person says you are on an ego-trip, then it could mean
>something.
>You are surely NOT on an ego-trip because of posting pw-protected
>stuff. That's a means of precaution needed in these times. But why the
>hell creating a new group (with your name), which is carried by only
>one newsserver, instead of using an old or totally unused group?
>That's it what I would call an ego-thingy!
>Another thing you have been critized for in the past (i.e. by Reb) is
>reposting stuff from another group, while this stuff was still
>available on servers with good retention. What's the purpose of it?
>Reposting is fine, but if things are simultaneously available in two
>or more groups, that's nonsense. You have been called an 'attention
>whore' for this, remember?
>
>>You know now there are 5 groups where one must be a friend to get the
>>password. Have any of you given thought on why?? If you have tell use
>>all your thoughts on why.
>
>Apart from all ponderings on security (which are valid too):
>Have you considered that one reason may be _YOUR_ behaviour? You have
>been told by Bill just recently, but you are unable to understand.
>
>>Jimmy,
>
>>I don't want to be praised.
>>When i reposted a vid i made in a 0 file the remark compliments to
>>original poster.
>>What i have posted in (snipped) was mostly never posted pixels.
>
>>But this kind of discussing made me sick.
>
>>So i stopped posting for lurkers not for friends.
>
>It takes much more to perform a 'first post' than to do a simple
>repost:
>1. getting the source material
>2. scanning/capturing/encoding it
>That's the reason, why a 'first post' is something special and rare.
>And all Bill asked for was a little 'thanks to the original poster'.
>You didn't get it, because you have not gone through the efforts
>described in 1. and 2. What you have done mostly so far is to throw
>things in your autoposter (=repost).
>
>Obviously (and intended), a general goal of pw-protected posts is to
>keep out certain people. Just look around:
>1. You have dummies like Blast who is unable (more correct: unwilling)
>to use quickpar for six years now (see his posts in this group).
>2. You have cohortes of ignorants unable/unwilling to read simple text
>messages. But they never fail to blame the poster for their inability.
>3. You have a gazillion of aggressive and demanding lurkes who
>instantly start calling names if a poster refuses to serve the stuff
>they want on a silver-tablet (like Boyfuzz or me@myhumbleabode in the
>bossy group).
>4. You have clueless posters like avoice with their infantile
>I-can-post-everything-so-I-do-it attitude.
>5. And finallly, to complete the list, you have the king-of-idiots, a
>doc, with a serious helper-syndrom, who seeks his meaning of life in
>guiding all these unwanted elements to the groups, so that the posters
>have to deal with all these nitwits. The number/name of groups is not
>the problem at all, it's the decreasing number of posters. But he is
>too dumb to realize.
>
>Whatever the content of those passworded files is, the above mentioned
>reasons are valid in general, just because you find these unwanted
>elements everywhere.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I never cease to be amazed at how a group of individuals, who above
all others in this world, should be unified, mutually supportive and
appreciative, are nonetheless mutually contentious and recriminatory
with their fellow boy lovers. I had the temerity, some years ago, to
point this out in chris, and was told to mind my own bloody business.
If wishing to be appreciated for the efforts at providing that for
which our hearts yearn is an "ego trip", then so be it. Do we not all
wish gratification? Are we not therefore all inherently selfish
egotists? I say, yes. At this table, we've been indeed fortunate to
have several fine cooks, and if one wishes to dine, one would best
compliment rather than harangue as to how the repast is delivered. As
for the chefs themselves, bickering over whom had stolen another's
recipe, will lead to an abandoned kitchen. The truth of the matter
is, of course, that none of these opstreperous fellows actually
invented the dish!
So much for culinary metaphors. I encourage any and all posters to
continue, and to do so in any manner they deem appropriate. I, for
one, am in debt to many ... and you have my deep appreciation.
Thank you.
HMS Victor Victorian NP-g18
God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
Rule Britannia!
|
|