Home > Archive > C > October 2005 > OT: Whinging (was DJ Bernstein's str library)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT: Whinging (was DJ Bernstein's str library)
|
|
| Peter Davies 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:20:50 +0000, Kenny McCormack whinged:
> In article <qts633xocv.ln2@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>,
> Flash Gordon <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> whinged:
>
[schnip]
Please continue whinging here. It will help me and others who are
interested in the original thread to differentiate between usefulness and
fluff.
Note that you are not the first to complain about Google and its effect on
Usenet. However much I may agree with your opinions on that topic, it is
in my opinion extremely rude to hijack threads for the purposes of being
bitchy.
--
Peter Davies
| |
| Kenny McCormack 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| In article <pan.2005.10.27.13.42.41.647765@yahoo.co.uk>,
Peter Davies <peterhjr@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
....
>Note that you are not the first to complain about Google and its effect on
>Usenet. However much I may agree with your opinions on that topic, it is
>in my opinion extremely rude to hijack threads for the purposes of being
>bitchy.
Um, point taken. But my point is that's exactly what the repetitive
bitching, by the "regulars", which boils down to "Don't respond as if
you're responding from Google" (which, as they are, is obviously the
natural [and, dare I say, proper] thing for them to do), amounts to.
| |
| Default User 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| Peter Davies wrote:
> Please continue whinging here. It will help me and others who are
> interested in the original thread to differentiate between usefulness
> and fluff.
*plonk*
Brian
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-27, 6:56 pm |
| On 2005-10-27, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Peter Davies wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *plonk*
There is something inherently trollish about shouting "plonk!" as if
anyone cares. He had a very good point - you and others decided to
harp on this one technical mistake while ignoring the interesting
issue brought up in the thread itself. Also, there was no reason to
be as mean about it as - IIRC "Flash Gordon" - was in the first
response.
>
>
>
> Brian
Also, if you want to get technical about usenet etiquette, how about
putting a proper dash before your sig? it's "-- \n".
| |
| Dik T. Winter 2005-10-27, 9:55 pm |
| In article <slrndm2ovl.c87.jmabel@random.yi.org> Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu> writes:
....
> He had a very good point - you and others decided to
> harp on this one technical mistake while ignoring the interesting
> issue brought up in the thread itself.
But you and some others ignore the possibility that the posting to
which it was an answer never did arrive at the newsserver you are using.
Or where it arrives later, possibly after you have read the response.
There are other possibilities where a context-less reply is unreadable.
For instance when you read the original the day before and in the
plethora of threads you are following you have no idea what it is a
response to.
BTW, when you look in google groups you will find that even there some
threads are seriously broken.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
| |
| Flash Gordon 2005-10-28, 7:55 am |
| Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
> Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>
> The bulk of Flash's ire was directed at Google, not the OP.
The bulk was, and indeed is, directed at Google. IIRC I said something
along the lines of "complain at Google for making you look like..."
rather than "you are..."
> Frustration can set in at times.
Which, indeed, is why I am sometimes a bit short with people. Sometimes
I'm in a good enough mood to dig out the instructions and post them.
However, I try when possible to also provide feedback on what is said in
the post as well as pointing out the problem of lack of context.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-28, 7:55 am |
| On 2005-10-28, Flash Gordon <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> The bulk was, and indeed is, directed at Google. IIRC I said
> something along the lines of "complain at Google for making you
> look like..." rather than "you are..."
>
>
> Which, indeed, is why I am sometimes a bit short with people.
> Sometimes I'm in a good enough mood to dig out the instructions
> and post them.
>
> However, I try when possible to also provide feedback on what is
> said in the post as well as pointing out the problem of lack of
> context.
Regardless, the damage is done. I counted at least 3-4 people who
plonked him, when in this case I think he really didn't deserve it.
In any case, he seems to have learned his lesson about the quoting,
but the people who plonked him seemed to do so more due to his
reaction at being called on it than for the action itself, perhaps
assuming wrongly that he wouldn't have complained unless he intended
to continue his behavior in the future.
Another factor in this is that google runs its own forums using the
same interface [I won't common on whether this was a good decision
on their part]
| |
| Poldie 2005-10-28, 7:55 am |
| > Regardless, the damage is done. I counted at least 3-4 people who
> plonked him, when in this case I think he really didn't deserve it.
> In any case, he seems to have learned his lesson about the quoting,
> but the people who plonked him seemed to do so more due to his
> reaction at being called on it than for the action itself, perhaps
> assuming wrongly that he wouldn't have complained unless he intended
> to continue his behavior in the future.
It is rather amazing, isn't it. The people who plonked me evidently
believe I was telling the group as a whole that I don't care for any of
the conventions of Usenet, rather than just telling one person who'd
insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
where to get off.
I've read and posted to Usenet for years now and usually quote and trim
posts I reply to, I don't top-post etc - I just lapsed because I wasn't
thinking about it too much and I was using Google rather than
Thunderbird.
I used to laugh at the `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is
due` sig-files but now it's being directed at me it's not so funny...!
Apologies to anyone I genuinely offended!
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-28, 7:55 am |
| On 2005-10-28, Poldie <Poldie@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is rather amazing, isn't it. The people who plonked me
> evidently believe I was telling the group as a whole that I don't
> care for any of the conventions of Usenet, rather than just
> telling one person who'd insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
> where to get off.
People are going to be pissed off at me for quoting this, but I feel
I have a duty to do so in light of the fact that [I believe] this
was a genuine misunderstanding.
| |
| Flash Gordon 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| Poldie wrote:
<snip>
> It is rather amazing, isn't it. The people who plonked me evidently
> believe I was telling the group as a whole that I don't care for any of
> the conventions of Usenet, rather than just telling one person who'd
> insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
> where to get off.
I said to complain at Google for making you look like a fool, I did not
say you are one (I've checked in Google). The fact that you already knew
how to post (based on what you say further down) makes it even more a
case of Google making you look like a fool. You then snipped it back to:
|> Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
|> sees your post
|
|etc etc
|
|Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.
Which reads as you saying that you don't care about whether other people
know what you are respond to. It was in response to that you received
your first plonk.
If you object to the way I phased it or think I insulted you then you
should say that rather than saying that you don't care about whether
people can tell when you are replying to.
> I've read and posted to Usenet for years now and usually quote and trim
> posts I reply to, I don't top-post etc - I just lapsed because I wasn't
> thinking about it too much and I was using Google rather than
> Thunderbird.
So complain at Google for providing a broken interface instead of at
people for calling you on bad posting style.
> I used to laugh at the `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is
> due` sig-files but now it's being directed at me it's not so funny...!
It is not `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is due` it is an
attempt to educate people in how to make their posts legible.
> Apologies to anyone I genuinely offended!
I'm not so easily offended.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.
| |
| Dave Vandervies 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| In article <Ip1pn6.G2G@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote:
>In article <slrndm2ovl.c87.jmabel@random.yi.org> Jordan Abel
><jmabel@purdue.edu> writes:
>...
>
>But you and some others ignore the possibility that the posting to
>which it was an answer never did arrive at the newsserver you are using.
>Or where it arrives later, possibly after you have read the response.
>
>There are other possibilities where a context-less reply is unreadable.
>For instance when you read the original the day before and in the
>plethora of threads you are following you have no idea what it is a
>response to.
....especially since a lot of nothing-quoted replies are actually
commenting on something other than the articles referred to in the
References header.
Yeah, my newsswerver has the article you[1] followed-up to. I've even
gone back to re-read that article (which I shouldn't have to do, because,
well, I can't if my newsswerver has been swerving far enough to miss it).
That hasn't helped me figure out what you're talking about. I could
go back and read all 200[2] articles in the thread, but if it's not
important enough to you[3] that you make your article comprehensible
(by providing context, or writing in some reasonable approximation to
standard English, or whatever), why should it be important enough to me
to try to decrypt it?
dave
[1] Generic 'you', not referring to anybody in this thread (at least not yet).
[2] Quite small, compared to a lot of interesting threads.
[3] Another generic 'you', often but not always the same one as in [1].
--
Dave Vandervies dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Since we like to argue a lot on comp.lang.c figuring out who said what
and when is very important, so we can properly scoff at the right person.
--Daniel Fox in comp.lang.c
| |
| Default User 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| Jordan Abel wrote:
> Regardless, the damage is done. I counted at least 3-4 people who
> plonked him, when in this case I think he really didn't deserve it.
He absolutely deserved it.
> In any case, he seems to have learned his lesson about the quoting,
> but the people who plonked him seemed to do so more due to his
> reaction at being called on it than for the action itself, perhaps
> assuming wrongly that he wouldn't have complained unless he intended
> to continue his behavior in the future.
It's my experience that if someone is a jackass when you nicely ask
them to stop something annoying, that person will continue to be a
jackass about other things.
Brian
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.
| |
| Keith Thompson 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| "Poldie" <Poldie@gmail.com> writes:
>
> It is rather amazing, isn't it. The people who plonked me evidently
> believe I was telling the group as a whole that I don't care for any of
> the conventions of Usenet, rather than just telling one person who'd
> insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
> where to get off.
That was indeed the impression I got; I'm glad to see that wasn't your
intent.
One more thing: please don't snip attributions. The quoted text
starting with "Regardless, the damage is done" was written by Jordan
Abel, but I couldn't tell that from your followup. I know Google
provides proper attribution lines if you jump through their hoops.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| On 28 Oct 2005 04:13:21 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "Poldie"
<Poldie@gmail.com> wrote:
>the conventions of Usenet, rather than just telling one person who'd
>insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
>where to get off.
You need to remember that usenet is not a point-to-point personal
messaging system. You post a rude message, it gets read by everyone.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Poldie 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| Flash Gordon wrote:
>You then snipped it back to:
>
> |> Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
> |> sees your post
> |
> |etc etc
> |
> |Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.
>
> Which reads as you saying that you don't care about whether other people
> know what you are respond to.
It's ambiguous as to how many people I don't care about - there isn't
enough information to determine this with any degree of accuracy.
> If you object to the way I phased it or think I insulted you then you
> should say that rather than saying that you don't care about whether
> people can tell when you are replying to.
People respond to (what they perceive as) abuse directed towards them
in different ways. Clearly if I'd known that I would start a chain of
events that resulted in 58 (and counting) posts, many of which are far
more insulting than your or my post and resulted in several people
being killfiled I would have phrased it slightly differently - not even
the most deranged of trolls could have dreamed of such a result from 6
little words! (I'm still one of only four people who have actually
addressed the post which started this thread, which amuses me.)
>
> It is not `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is due` it is an
> attempt to educate people in how to make their posts legible.
Don't worry - perhaps you weren't reading this group back then.
>
> I'm not so easily offended.
Sweet. Sadly however it seems that several other people have become
offended on your behalf.
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-29, 7:55 am |
| On 2005-10-28, Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:33:31 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
> <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Jordan, you started off making some quite useful postings here.
> However you're rapidly becoming persona non grata due to your
> attitude. Perhaps you might want to reconsider the wisdom of attacking
> the regulars and gurus in a group?
Public notice of a "*plonk*ing" is at best entirely unnecessary and
at worse an attempt to hurt the 'victim' more through groupthink.
>
> He has one. Your newsreader is broken.
It's in the middle of his sig, rather than preceding it, and the
section below it is [by his admission] sometimes not present.
| |
| Mike Wahler 2005-10-29, 6:58 pm |
|
"Jordan Abel" <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:slrndm6eop.l6k.jmabel@random.yi.org...
> On 2005-10-28, Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> Public notice of a "*plonk*ing" is at best entirely unnecessary and
> at worse an attempt to hurt the 'victim' more through groupthink.
>
>
> It's in the middle of his sig,
Any text preceding the "-- \n" delimiter is *not*
part of a sig, so no, it's *not* "in the middle"
of his sig. *He* gets to decide what goes in his
sig, not you.
> rather than preceding it, and the
> section below it is [by his admission] sometimes not present.
It's also *his* decision, not yours, whether to always
use the same sig, or use one at all.
Get a clue.
-Mike
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-29, 6:58 pm |
| On 2005-10-29, Mike Wahler <mkwahler@mkwahler.net> wrote:
> Any text preceding the "-- \n" delimiter is *not* part of a sig,
> so no, it's *not* "in the middle" of his sig. *He* gets to decide
> what goes in his sig, not you.
You know what? I've dropped it. I don't care. I never really cared,
and I explained at the time my reason why, *despite* not caring, I
pointed it out.
However, your claim is basically defining the issue out of
existence, along with ALL instances of people failing to include the
sig-dash - why have the rule - or indeed any rules, at all, if we're
going to define all rulebreaking cases out of existence? One could
just as well say that posts that don't quote text aren't really in
reply, and therefore aren't required to quote text.
> -Mike
That is a sig.
--
And this is not. Though I admit it was indeed a mistake, my mistake
about the second half of his sig was a matter of the facts, not of
the principle.
| |
| Mike Wahler 2005-10-29, 6:58 pm |
| "Jordan Abel" <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:slrndm7dni.oj0.jmabel@random.yi.org...
> On 2005-10-29, Mike Wahler <mkwahler@mkwahler.net> wrote:
>
> You know what? I've dropped it. I don't care. I never really cared,
> and I explained at the time my reason why, *despite* not caring, I
> pointed it out.
>
> However, your claim is basically defining the issue out of
> existence, along with ALL instances of people failing to include the
> sig-dash - why have the rule - or indeed any rules, at all, if we're
> going to define all rulebreaking cases out of existence? One could
> just as well say that posts that don't quote text aren't really in
> reply, and therefore aren't required to quote text.
>
> That is a sig.
Not it is not, using the Usenet definition of 'sig'. But
feel free to perpetuate your ignorance.
The text below (beginning with "-- ") does comprise a 'sig', regardless of
the
content or meaning of that text.
-Mike
> --
> And this is not. Though I admit it was indeed a mistake, my mistake
> about the second half of his sig was a matter of the facts, not of
> the principle.
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-29, 6:58 pm |
| On 2005-10-29, Mike Wahler <mkwahler@mkwahler.net> wrote:
> "Jordan Abel" <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote in message
> news:slrndm7dni.oj0.jmabel@random.yi.org...
>
> Not it is not, using the Usenet definition of 'sig'. But
> feel free to perpetuate your ignorance.
I would like to see a cite for your "Usenet definition" - Yours is
the extraordinary claim since it invalidates an entire section of
commonly-observed etiquette rules, but I'll cite evidence for my
case anyway:
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/sig-block.html does not mention
the dash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block lists the dash as a
requirement, not a prerequisite. [i.e. (paraphrase) "Sig blocks must
be delimited from the message with the dash" NOT "a sig block is any
text preceded by the dash"]
It is arguable that if either yours or his are not automatically
inserted they do not fit the letter of the definition, but let's
keep in mind the _spirit_ i.e. the actual reason for requiring the
dash - it's so that content which is not part of the message and not
generally considered to be something someone would reply to will be
automatically removed from the quoted text when hitting reply.
I'm also unconvinced by his rationale for having his name above the
sig line.
> The text below (beginning with "-- ") does comprise a 'sig', regardless of
> the content or meaning of that text.
--
You have not provided evidence for that other assertion, either.
| |
| Keith Thompson 2005-10-29, 6:58 pm |
| Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu> writes:
> On 2005-10-29, Mike Wahler <mkwahler@mkwahler.net> wrote:
>
> You know what? I've dropped it. I don't care. I never really cared,
> and I explained at the time my reason why, *despite* not caring, I
> pointed it out.
[...]
No, you haven't dropped it, but I encourage you to do so.
"I've dropped it" followed by more discussion is not dropping it.
"I've dropped it." not followed by anything is dropping it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-10-29, 6:58 pm |
| On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:03:36 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
>On 2005-10-28, Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>Public notice of a "*plonk*ing" is at best entirely unnecessary and
>at worse an attempt to hurt the 'victim' more through groupthink.
You're quite wrong. Ask yourself how else the plonkee would know
they'd been plonked. Which surely they ought to be made aware of?
>
>It's in the middle of his sig, rather than preceding it, and the
>section below it is [by his admission] sometimes not present.
By definition, his sig is the bit below the "-- ". The fact that he
chooses to ALSO put his human readable name at teh foot of each
message is irrelevant.
Many people's sigs don't contain their actual name but for them its
less relevant as they've chosen to make their moniker visible through
their posting ID.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-10-29, 6:58 pm |
| On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:33:14 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block
That font of unproofread, opinionated pseudo-knowledge...
>lists the dash as a
>requirement, not a prerequisite.
When you can explain the difference between a requirement and a
prerequisite in this context, I'll understand your point.
>[i.e. (paraphrase) "Sig blocks must
>be delimited from the message with the dash" NOT "a sig block is any
>text preceded by the dash"]
Hm? By definition ,if a sig block must be delimited by the dash, then
any text /after/ the dash must be a sig block.
>I'm also unconvinced by his rationale for having his name above the
>sig line.
Since when was it your choice where he chooses to type his name?
Arrogant idiot.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-29, 6:58 pm |
| On 2005-10-29, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu> writes:
> [...]
>
> No, you haven't dropped it, but I encourage you to do so.
>
> "I've dropped it" followed by more discussion is not dropping it.
>
> "I've dropped it." not followed by anything is dropping it.
I dropped it and he brought it back up.
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-29, 6:58 pm |
| On 2005-10-29, Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Hm? By definition ,if a sig block must be delimited by the dash,
> then any text /after/ the dash must be a sig block.
And thus any text after the dash which is not a sig block is in
violation of the standard.
--
Like this text. See?
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-29, 6:58 pm |
| On 2005-10-29, Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> You're quite wrong. Ask yourself how else the plonkee would know
> they'd been plonked. Which surely they ought to be made aware of?
Surely there are more polite ways than a public "*plonk*"
How about "You have irritated me and thus are added to my
newsreader's ignore list for thirty (30) days, ending 28 November
2005"? ...via email. because it's really nobody else's business.
> By definition, his sig is the bit below the "-- ". The fact that
> he chooses to ALSO put his human readable name at teh foot of each
> message is irrelevant.
>
> Many people's sigs don't contain their actual name but for them
> its less relevant as they've chosen to make their moniker visible
> through their posting ID.
Except that the requirement that a sig be preceded by "-- " is
meaningless if nothing can be considered a "sig" for purposes of
that rule without already being preceded by it, nor to be considered
not to be a sig if...--
You know what? Screw it. I give up. I will no longer attempt to
convince people not to use spurious circular reasoning to define
etiquette rules out of existence. Happy?
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-10-30, 6:56 pm |
| On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:41:34 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
>On 2005-10-29, Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>And thus any text after the dash which is not a sig block is in
>violation of the standard.
You have this about-face. /ANY/ text appearing after "-- " is a sig
block.
What you put in it is entirely up to you - many people use it for
humorous quotes, or pointers to useful info. A sig block need not be
merely ones signature. Mine isn't.
>--
>Like this text. See?
This is a sig block .
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-10-30, 6:56 pm |
| On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:50:03 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
>Surely there are more polite ways than a public "*plonk*"
None that work.
>How about "You have irritated me and thus are added to my
>newsreader's ignore list for thirty (30) days, ending 28 November
>2005"? ...via email.
And when their email is set to "president@whitehouse.gov" or
"nospam@nowhere.com"? Or not set at all? Or they junk all mail from
unknown senders?
>because it's really nobody else's business.
On the contrary.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-10-30, 6:56 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:35:43 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Netocrat
<netocrat@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>Jordan Abel : Any content following '-- ' is required to be a signature.
>Mark McIntyre: Any content following '-- ' is defined to be a signature.
>
>The egg has wings.
>Implicit meaning and convention collide in ambiguity.
:-)
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Netocrat 2005-10-30, 6:56 pm |
| Jordan Abel : Any content following '-- ' is required to be a signature.
Mark McIntyre: Any content following '-- ' is defined to be a signature.
The egg has wings.
Implicit meaning and convention collide in ambiguity.
--
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat
|
|
|
|
|