On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:31:27 +0300, Anton <anton.usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>Gary L. Burnore kirjoitti:
>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:44:05 +0300, Anton <anton.usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>
>[Followup-To: set to n.a.n-a.u and s.c.n]
Restored and raised by alt.usenet.kooks
>
>>> You haven't come up with any strong counter argument, so your
>>> last resort is that you test if you can get away with just simply
>>> telling your opponent that "your analogy sucks" - without having any
>>> means to present any view of how and why it sucks. Lame, but no
surprise
>>> here.
>
>> YOU are the one making the claim. YOU need to prove it true. You've
>> not done so.
>
>I have been pretty clear in my argument.
Your argument is not proof.
>You're the one just saying "it sucks" without being able to point any
logical argument why it
>supposedly sucks.
You're making a claim you can't back up with facts.
>
>>> In 'real' life, and on usenet as well, indivuduals are liable for
their
>>> own actions - like posting to Usenet. Yes; YOU are resposnible of what
>>> you do, and not the others who might be affected by the impact of that
>>> action. Implying the opposite (like Gary here is doing) is one of the
>>> most ridiculous ideas presented for a long time.
>
>> Usenet isn't a private forum. Anyone anywhere can say anything they
>> want at any time. If you don't like it, you can ignore it. You can
>> sue if you feel libeled. You can run and hide.
>
>This is not so much an issue about what yo can do or you can't do,
Sure it is. Always has been, always will be.
>rather than it all relies on the poster having judgment of what is
>proper and what isn't.
It's proper to crosspost. It's not proper to multipost.
> Usenet is a free-to-use, self-policing medium.
Self policing? ****ing please.
>That means the community vaguely decides what is use and what is ABuse.
>Repeated, "bad judgment", like repeated, offtopic mass posting (that
>often has gone on for years), despite requests from SEVERAL ontopic,
>regular posters not do so, is abuse, and it will be disapproved by the
>others - sometimes leading to abuse complaints (rightfully so).
No, that's not what it means. Again, you're only stating your opinion.
Not fact.
>
>Nobody is asking offtopic posters to stop posting alltogether.
Doesn't matter WHAT you ask, tard.
>Usenet has tens of thousands of groups, so there certainly are groups to
be
>found where a message can be considered ontopic.
That's why I added one. You're on topic there.
>I have also provided you with several sources backing up my views, but
>since you apparently aren't able to come up with anything that can
>dismiss it you have abstained from commenting on it.
You've posted opinions. Nothing more. Opinions are like assholes.
Everyone has one and lots of them stink.
>
>
>>> The fact that (at present) one can get away with all kinds of
nastiness
>>> does not automatically mean that you have the consent of others for
your
>>> actions.
>
>> One doesn't need the consent of others. What part of that don't you
>> understand?
>
>There are several sources providing guidelines for what is proper
>conduct (and what isn't) on Usenet.
Guidelines. Provided as opinion, not law.
>It is pretty much an undisputed fact that different groups exist for
different topics. Repeated, offtopic
>posting is abuse
Again, you're lying. Not just mistaken, lying. Off topic is not
always abuse. Were it to be and were your NSP to take it as such,
YOUR account would be gone. Stop lying.
> and often people will object, and (sometimes) re****t
>that abuse. This is what it has been all about all along from the
>beginning of this thread.
Wrong again.
>
>So, while you don't "need the consent of others", but when you ignore
>all the others and **** on them, you submit yourself to criticism, and
>abuse complaints.
You can call anything you want abuse, doesn't make it so.
> Netiquette has beeen around for ages,
AGES? Fool.
>and it has it's root in common courtesy and rules of conduct. Those basic
rules of
>conduct apply in every medium where humans are interacting with each
>other. In short: you reap what you sow - so don't whine if your abuse
>gets re****ted.
Who's whining? I'm lkaughing at your sorry ass for calling something
abouse when it's not.
>
>
>>> If you don't like it, well perhaps you can find something
>>> else more meaningful for your life than posting on usenet ;)
>
>> You can't stop people from posting to Usenet. You can ignore it.
>
>I can't,
If so, only because you don't have the balls to do so.
>and it isn't anything I wish, but I (or in the case of s.c.n,
>we) can re****t abuse.
Re****t away, dip****. Your re****ts will go unanswered and ignored.
>I undertand that some irresponsible troll dollar
>collecting admins will ignore legitimate abuse re****ts, but that's life.
Again, just because YOU call it abuse, doesn't make it abuse.
Legitimate admins ignore false abuse complaints.
>Not all the apples in the bunch are good.
>
>>> My point is: if a killfile or some other form of filtering is a
>>> necessity in order to be able to truly enjoy Usenet at all, then it
>>> should be a valid question: is Usenet as a medium at present providing
a
>>> attractive enough user experience to the average user?
>
>> Our customers say yes.
>
>Both of them? Whoa!
More proof of your tendancy to make baseless claims noted.
>
>>> In my opinion - and I belive in most peoples opinion - "nice is
nicer".
>
>> Belive (aka believe) whatever you want. It's your right. I happen to
>> know that you're dead wrong. People don't want people like you
>> telling them what they can and can't read.
>
>Where have I told anyone what you can and can't read? Are you
>compensating lack of evidence with lies again?
When you try to silence people because YOU don't like it, you're
telling others what they can and can't read.
>
>> You try to tell them what
>> they can and can't read by trying to stop others from posting what YOU
>> don't like to read.
>
>Nonsense.
Liar.
>I'm not trying to tell anybody what you can or can't read.
See above.
>You're simply making this up. There are tends of thousands of groups to
>post to - some will fit the topic of your post and some don't. A
>clueless n00b might post to wrong groups at times, but only a complete
>asshole posts on a regular basis to groups where the message is offtopic.
Says an asshole. You are, of course, off topic.
>
>>> Respect others - and in all fairness the quite relaxed 'rules of
>>> conduct' of usenet - and the overall user experience shall be more
>>> pleasant for everybody.
>
>> Here's where a "**** you" would apply.
>
>Your "**** yous" speaks volumes about your argumentation skills.
It's "**** you", not "**** you".
>
>>> This is my 1,99 cents, and if you don't like 'em - fine! Killfile me,
>
>> Ah, you just spent days arguing that my statement that you can
>> killfile it isn't appropriate. Funny, that.
>
>I didn't say anything about killfiling not being appropriate
Right. You're incapable of it.
>< - I said it
>wasn't my cup of tea nor should it be a necessity for being able to
>enjoy Usenet.
Too bad for you.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
|
