Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: ac <a@a.com>
Newsgroups: alt.pantyhose
Subject: Re: I know this is spam - but what the hell
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:26:57 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <438BCE6F.646CB1A7@a.com>
References: <438BA13E.1CD296E@a.com> <w9ajf.81403$gh1.76642@fe09.news.easynews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-159-230-130.range81-159.btcentralplus.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com 1133436417 27127 81.159.230.130 (1 Dec 2005 11:26:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:26:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Accept-Language: en
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.pantyhose:1498
Gandalf wrote:
> ac wrote:
> > All
> >
> > I know this is strictly against the rules .... In my defence - I'm not
> > getting anything out of this for myself - and I think some of you may
> > enjoy.
> >
> > It's a commercial lingerie website .... you have been warned ..... if
> > this offends you ... DON'T GO!
> > but they have some of the best quality pikkies I've found in a long time
> > (a little coy .... but ).
> >
> > If you're tempted spend a few minutes at the site of
> > www.jade.co.uk
> > The models and pikkies are very good .... you can even try to match the
> > faces to the legs .... oh and try to spot the boob job that left the
> > scar.
> >
> > If not .... send me a flame - and accept my apologies
> >
> > ac
> >
>
> OT...yes, but certainly not spam.
>
> There's nothing wrong with giving an occasional heads-up or pointer to
> another group or site you feel may be of interest to the group.
>
> The only netiquette I've ever encountered addressing this is you should
> be a semi-regular of the group. It's obviously bad for a newbie to just
> pop in and simply make an OT post in a group he has no experience with.
>
> Other than that, the only other thing is prefixing the post with "OT".
>
> It's pretty common and tolerated in the discussion groups I haunt, as
> long as it's infrequent and not disruptive.
>
> Although you'll invariably have some newbie scream "free speech",
> "alt=anarchy", "no rules", "you don't own this group" or some other such
> drivel.
>
> -Gandalf
I take your point - and glad not to be too far off base.
(Jeez common ground! ;-)
As an old newb not really poster .... I should have remembered OT.....
Still, I sympathise with the anarchy viewpoint .... but
also believe there are (or should be) parameters to the anarchy (?).
The don't like, too fat, too thin, ugly, etc etc non posting flamers should
just get new lives.
The incorrect label/no index ... I can see the point ....but
well - my view is that you can pretty quickly get the style of a poster.
for a series - (I think you said this) - the first couple say it all.
For the excellent scribble/spooky/sebastian style of semi-random posts ....
some of the older ones aren't much bigger than thumbs anyhow.
Many of the upper echelons bang on that they use superior readers which are
best suited to bulk downloads .... so the index is not vital - they've already
downloaded the pikkies - let them just index the whole directory for
themselves!
(My methods are dictated by need - and It's probably the least efficient and
time consuming method imaginable ....
When I retire ... I'll re-evaluate .... and probably try some regular
(re)posts).
If a poster regularly offends ....."kill" him - I do it manually in about 3
clicks and 2 keypress.
I dislike yEnc for philosophical reasons not practical.
(it's also still useful bait for stomp - even though he runs as soon as he's
asked to demonstrate it's superiority by actually posting).
For me the bottom line is that the regular posters rule .... the rest of us
are just static.
Problem is .... if the static is too loud {{{{{{{BARF!}}}}}}}.... the posters
shift to a new station.
So in my opinion the prime directive should be - don't upset the posters -
EVER!.
This is billed as a (the) pantyhose group so posts should be (at least mostly)
on topic .... no question ..... apart from the regular spammers (and the pede)
I think the group is pretty good on that point.
A close second is the ease to view - using zero extra tools (but let's not
open that again!).
Many other groups seem able to pull out some sort of charter .... if it states
"no fat birds on the third friday of the month" .... that's fair enough ....
in that case there is an "owner" and the rules are defined.
But here .... it's the opposite .... the anarchy is advertised (when it suits)
- only recently it was stated that the original discussion group was liberated
(stolen?) from it's original "fagot owners" .... but then the new "more
worthy owners" try to define their own "better" rules which break even the
usenet basic of pikkies belonging in binary groups.
(Why wasn't a new binaries group started rather than displacing the rightful
text based owners?)
(It's just struck me - the flamers are actually closer to function than the
posters)
That way the charter could have clearly stated "no skanks or hoes" - and there
would be no grounds for argument.
Just a thought - not a flame
(and worth less than the paper they are written on)
ac
|
|