Billabong wrote:

> It IS effective!
>
> hXXp:// tinyurl.com/ y8fcpimp

Stop pimping your colorless personal website, pretending it was a cite
for your answer to Caesar.

And you've been advised by a few to do away with the "tinyurl" and put
the real URL in your signature (only).

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:59:21 +0800, "Billabong" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Are you ordering me to put some specific site or name? Other are telling me
>that I am within my rights, as concerning the sig.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yzlu8odfgsdfhsgfdh6

The URL was not in your sig and people may see it as an abuse if you
keep posting it. This is apart from the fact the site it leads to is,
IMO, a POS.
Please report yourself to Uncle Bruno.

Billabong wrote:

> Maybe it is alright now.
> See www.hrvat.name/usenet1

I see you have posted original material written *by me* on that page. I
am requesting you remove all references to me, now. Thank you.

--
-bts

"Billabong" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "PajaP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:59:21 +0800, "Billabong" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Are you ordering me to put some specific site or name? Other are
>>>telling me
>>>that I am within my rights, as concerning the sig.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yzlu8odfgsdfhsgfdh6
>>
>> The URL was not in your sig and people may see it as an abuse if you
>> keep posting it. This is apart from the fact the site it leads to is,
>> IMO, a POS.
>> Please report yourself to Uncle Bruno.
>
> Maybe it is alright now.
> See www.hrvat.name/usenet1

That works for me!

Much easier now to avoid the blather.

Is this going to be yet another POS usenet web thingy?

Billabong wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Billabong wrote:
>>> Maybe it is alright now.
>>> See www.hrvat.name/usenet1
>>
>> I see you have posted original material written *by me* on that page.
>> I am requesting you remove all references to me, now. Thank you.
>
> Done as requested.

I see you have removed my name, but left the content. It is a small
content, one wonders why you need it at all.

But thank you for removing my name.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul

Billabong wrote:

> Other are telling me that I am within my rights, as concerning the sig.

What signature? You don't have one! Go back and look at your posts. Just
where is the sigdash line ("-- \n") that delineates the start of signature?
You are adding the spammed URL into the *body* of your post.

You are trying to hide the destination behind a short URL service despite
that the actual URL is no longer than the redirect short URL. That is the
tactic of a TROLL! You also don't include the "preview" host in the URL to
let users see to where they would be redirected BEFORE they visit the site,
another TROLL tactic.

If you behave like a spammer, you get treated like one.
If you behave like a troll, you get treated like one.
It's up to you as to what reputation you earn in Usenet.

Wolf K wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Billabong wrote:
>>
>>> Others are telling me that I am within my rights, as concerning the sig.
>>
>> What signature? You don't have one! Go back and look at your posts. Just
>> where is the sigdash line ("-- \n") that delineates the start of signature?
>> You are adding the spammed URL into the *body* of your post.
>
> With no reference to whatever caused your ire at Billabong's posts:

You haven't realize that this poster continually nymshifts and his intent is
to spam his disorganized web site. He discovered Usenet and realized he can
spam in it. You haven't realized that this nymshifting troll doesn't use a
signature for an intended purpose? Just keep watching for posts where the
poster spams the hrvat garbage site and notice how many nyms under which he
posts.

> Unfortunately, if you use the standard sig separator, then on a majority
> of machines the sig and everything after it (such as the body of
> messages to which the answer was top-posted) will not display.

Yay! How wonderful not to see that ego-stroking and off-topic fluff. My
newsreader strips signatures on replies (it's part of the trimming you
should always do when reply). It can also strip out signatures when reading
posts but instead I have it colorize the signature (to a light gray).

> Reason: Microshmuck's cavalier attitude towards standards. And the
> Average User's unwillingness to replace Outlook Express, or change its
> defaults.

Or could it be boobs that add signatures that are off-topic (to the thread
itself) and are cutsy, ego-stroking, or spamming fluff?

Billabong wrote:

> Now Mister, did I ever offend you personally? Did I ever say that your
> writing is a garbage? Where has that "netikette" gone,

From one that doesn't practice netiquette. Uh huh.