On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:41:02 GMT, Gandalf <gandalf@rivendell.bog>
wrote:
>ac wrote:
>> Gandalf wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> One honest question looking for an honest answer;
>>>
>>> Do you really believe he archives your posts?
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Gandalf
>>>
>>> Never meddle in the affairs of a dragon for you are crunchy and taste
>>> good with ketchup!
>>
>> Gandalf
>> Honest answer ... obsession and flames aside
>> you know as well as anyone he's quoted from posts from as far back as 2004 on
>> more than one occasion
>> the last (as usual) ridiculously out of context excerpt being from a non flame
>> reply to sam i'm.
>>
>> this was presented and used as a straight quote to illustrate one of his
>> twisted threads
>> ****not**** as an impression of what had been said.
>>
>> So either he's a liar - and makes them up .... or the fruitcake keeps the
>> posts .... which do you choose?
>> I go for the christmas cake.
>>
>> obsession or not ... I only ever work with what I'm given ....
>>
>> even
>>>> ac himself posted in "yenc"
>> is out of context ... yEnc was always intended for large multimedia posting
>> (which I've never criticised) -
>> not for JPGs (which I have criticised).... and that's how I used it.
>> Doc on the other hand argues that yEnc is the best for any format of file ....
>>
>> but never uses it for either format himself.
>>
>> so Gandalf
>> that's my straight answer yes I think he archives
>>
>> and I am concerned about this group .... I prefer here to any of the other
>> groups
>> but ......
>>
>> now it's my turn .... what do you think about spam?
>> ....is it legitimate in this group or not?
>>
>> ac
>Thanks. That was an honest answer.
>Incorrect, but honest as you see it.
>
>I'm going to break one of my rules and lay out a few facts here, and
>that's the last of my time I'm going to waste on it.
>
>[Fact One]
>Doc does not archive your, nor anyone else's, posts.
>To think so is simple arrogance.
>No one in this [or any] group is as important to him as they are to
>themselves.
>
>When he needs to quote a previous post, or refresh his memory of an
>event or person, he does as most computer literates do and Google's the
>Usenet archive. [Since Google acquired DejaNews.]
>
>Being in the IT field, you do know that, barring a few exclusions, every
>Usenet text post since the beginning has been permanently archived, right?
>
>[Fact Two]
>The author of yEnc never imposed 'large multimedia posting' as a
>restriction, but simply made a tool for *binary* posts.
>
>Doc's involvement in the yEnc debates was essentially the same as mine.
>It's faster and more efficient, and [most importantly] it's the poster's
>choice.
>Use it or not, as you see fit.
>
>Where we [tinw] took exception was when leechers *demanded* posters not
>use it, for whatever silly reason/argument.
>
>The bottom line was, yEnc was here to stay whether any of us liked it or
>not. Therefore, the only logical [and intelligent] thing to do was to
>learn how to cope with it.
>
>Most lurkers adopted the free [and vastly superior] newsreaders that
>supported it internally. Others, while exercising their freedom of
>choice to remain with Outlook, were jumping on the yProxy bandwagon.
>
>Then there was a handful of ignorant, loudmouthed lusers, stuck in their
>8-track days, that demanded all of Usenet stay put to serve them.
>
>Well, it's 2007 now and they've all finally fucked off and died as near
>as I can tell.
>
>[Fact Three]
>Spam is not legitimate in this or any other newsgroup.
>
>[Opinion]
>Doc posts on-topic, and always has.
>Yes, in the days of yore he, like me, posted shitloads of ph pics from
>various sources. Time constraints/family/lives prohibit that today.
>
>Yes, today he posts primarily for advertising his website.
>Again, always on-topic.
>
>This group has always been about discussion as well.
>Name one [real] spammer that's ever been in a discussion here.
>There are plenty of spammers in here posting the same, old tired shit,
>day after day.
>I don't see you climbing up PHPlease's ass, or NDNOutlaw, or whatever
>that asshole's name is.
>Shit, even the much admired Hudson is off-topic half the time.
>
>I believe it's simply a personal vendetta stemming from the original
>problem you had when I said it was bad 'netiquette to flood without
>indexes, and Doc joined in. [No, I don't archive messages either.]
>
>[Fact Four]
>You will believe what you want to believe and will always see yourself
>as right and somehow wronged by me and Doc.
>
>The difference is, *we* can live with that.
"ac" has been mad ever since. It's over 2 years, working on a third.
How could a man waste so much time and energy on tripe like that?
Ya gotta move on or at least find a meaningful cause.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
|