Gandalf 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.
>
> --
> -Gandalf
>
> Never meddle in the affairs of a dragon for you are crunchy and taste
> good with ketchup!
G
Back at you .... thanks for an honest and rational reply of the [facts] .... as you
see them
hell I agree with most of them
1 last reply.... no frill or flames
Nice to see a rational reply here for once
however the fact that you've felt the need to intercede on doc's behalf is possibly
more telling than what you say
as is the fact you seem to know his motives better than he does himself
I agree we are never going to agree about much.
We got off on the wrong foot .... and first impressions .....
but as for a vendetta .... you are making a similar mistake to doc ....
It's not about hate or anything approaching it
it's about the pedestal doc stands on when he speaks to the "little people"
.... and the fact that he can always be relied upon to "go off on one"
(I especially love the Korn argument .... truly an intellectual triumph in putdowns)
doc ***is*** one of the [real] spammers ....
But from the debate angle - he's the only one who feels he has to defend his
position
and does so in such a pleasingly slapstick way.
yEnc is indeed dead and gone ...
>>the author never imposed
true ... but his sor does say it was intended for large multimedia posts
again the point is - doc argues with the "popular kids" ***for*** yEnc .... but
won't use it himself
after all advertising spam must be available to all ...
no room for any restrictions of format there.
>>Yes, today he posts primarily for advertising his website.
>>Again, always on-topic.
spam is defined : unwanted, irrelevant, or inappropriate messages, especially
commercial advertising
So I still don't see how such doc's advertising isn't spam.or is any different to
the stuff high heels put out
and from the way doc reacts ... I suspect he doesn't either.
>>>No one in this [or any] group is as important to him as they are to themselves
Again nice that you defend doc
As for the archive - ***where*** it is isn't the issue ....
the issue is that D uses it .... constantly dredging the past for a toe hold
that's the point I picked up on .... his (now) famous back in 2004 opener
..... so he obviously researches or at least takes the time to search for things
that were said
I don't think google has a "show me a convincing reply to ...." search option yet
does it?
and when the facts don't fit his argument he (mis)quotes them out of context to make
his point.
I "know" what's been said ... or at least have a fair idea ... but doc always
provides ammunition on the fly .... I don't feel a need to go back in time for my
arguments. (google me and see!)
the rest .... well at the end of the day it's all bullshit I know
I know I'm not always right
and honestly ... if this were a vendetta to right past wrongs against my good
standing in the group ;-(
I'd be after you not doc .... lol - you did start the ball rolling after all.
Our exchange ... well it got said ... and it was left pretty much at that .... an
odd snipe ... but little else.
sleeping dogs.....
>>>I don't see you climbing up PHPlease's ass, or NDNOutlaw, or whatever
>>>that asshole's name is
what would be the point .... they never reply - and {{{{{{{{teaser}}}}}}}
has(had?) that angle covered.
but as you say .... doc joined in and used his own entertaining brand of [fact]
he was like a gift from heaven .... (stomp was pretty good too - but he faded after
a while ... doc has stamina)
It's as simple as poking a stick through the bars to see how high the monkey will
jump.
My branch of IT consists of a relatively short period of intense effort (the quiet
times here)
and then a longer period of monitoring and boredom .... when the stick comes out.
the better we do our job .... the more boring this period is.
and well .... it's not as if I'm insulting a real poster .... nor am I stretching
the capacity of this empty little group.
...... not now that the more "colourful" flamers have cleared out the real talent.
Google me by all means ... whatever he says - doc couldn't find a single quote from
me aimed at a real poster nor will anyone.
>>>The difference is, *we* can live with that
***me*** too old thing .... ***me*** too ....
difference is ***I*** speak (and argue) for myself
ac
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
|