New people: here are links to the *F.A.Q.*

[BillR]

(-:

Lately I haven't really been having "bad" days, but I'm often tired. I
work 45 hours a week now and since I don't have a car, it puts a
strain on my scheduled times for reading news and e-mails. I'm happy
to be working though, after being unemployed for almost two years.
(FYI, my website is out of date wrt personal data.)

Ouch. Hope all goes well (continues to go better?) for you.

BillR

 

[BillR]

I apologize for not snipping even a little but I don't want to give
»Q« the slightest additional pretext for accusing me of quoting out of
context. I leave that to him.

(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in


You have misrepresented what happened here. Anyone who likes can
look up the thread.

I SINCERELY HOPE THAT THEY DO "look up the thread" to see what I
originally wrote versus how you portrayed it with your choice of how
to snip and how I characterized that.

I wish that I had been more explicit and included the original
statement yesterday. I included a long page of quotes here but then
deleted it. I wanted to quote and comment on three long passages but
that was too confusing without some additional formatting capabilities
since the messages themselves contain overlapping quotes.

It's a phrase you have used many times. And it's quite in context.

Once again I refer all readers to the _full_ text in my prior reply in
the current thread. Much more importantly, I REFER ALL TO THE
MID-AUGUST THREAD where I used that phrase.

The google ng archive search I used follows. I include it so that
others can confirm its validity and the result. I can't prove I did
_not_ set the no archive flag on some post except negatively: can
anyone point to another post?
alt.comp.freeware billr "get it"

»Q«, I challenge you to defend "many times" with proof. There is only
_one_ (1)thread where I say that. On August 14th, I apply it directly
to two people. In a reply to your reply to that post, I extend its
applicability to include you explicitly.

A third reference on August 15th merely notes that someone quoted that
paragraph slightly out of context. Oh wait, who was that? Why it was
you, »Q«. How (_non_)coincidental.

So let's see. I make that two uses, but I can see someone arriving at
three uses -- all in the same thread. Perhaps I should have posted
again for a potential additional use, but I decided to let the thread
die despite more provocation.

Furthermore, I believe that most who read that mid-August thread and
have seen your other posts will come to the conclusion that I did --
it applies to you.

The above partially addresses the context claim as does my earlier
reply that you improperly elided.

Again, not out of context.

Sigh. No? The FAQ is too long to quote fully here. I found it to be
a gently satirical piece that used parody to make a few points.
Sounds like you were pricked by it. I'm glad you realized that it was
applicable to you.

"Fitting the literary style" has not previously been the cause you
claim to support, civility has. Calling people rude ****sticks seems
uncivil to me, but ymv obviously.


Is there some reason you incorrectly suppose I'm taking it
personally?

Ohhhh. And here I was struggling to have a meaningful conversation.
Just now realized you're trolling. You got me; you win: I am
"personally" offended when someone impugns my honesty and merely
offended when someone quotes out of context. (OK, I'm being a little
sarcastic -- I hope.) Maybe it is time for a moderated group -- as
long as someone _unlike_ you gets to be moderator of course.

BillR

 

[BillR]

As someone who has been given the "Still don't get it" treatment
I concur with the above.

Nicely put.

Put "nicely" (in the sense of adroitly done selective quoting) perhaps
but not put "accurately" by »Q«.

John F., if you are still smarting over being so characterized,
perhaps the nerve we hit is telling you something underneath your
outrage.

As I stated earlier in this thread and just repeated this morning, I
stand by that characterization. In reviewing that thread this morning
I found myself wishing to make a few changes (primarily small
additions to clarify or buttress), but I think most who read that
thread in the context of other replies in the ng will reach the same
conclusion I did.

BillR

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in
<
[about Bill's claims that people don't "get it"

I believe that most who read that mid-August thread and
have seen your other posts will come to the conclusion that I did
-- it applies to you.

You just said it again.

The FAQ is too long to quote fully here. I found it to
be a gently satirical piece that used parody to make a few points.
Sounds like you were pricked by it. I'm glad you realized that it
was applicable to you.

I don't, and I don't even know which part you think applies to me;
you have not said.

Ohhhh. And here I was struggling to have a meaningful
conversation. Just now realized you're trolling. You got me; you
win: I am "personally" offended when someone impugns my honesty

I didn't mean to impugn your honesty. When I said that you had
misrepresented what happened (which is what I suppose you are
talking about here), I did not imply that you were doing it on
purpose.

and merely offended when someone quotes out of context.

I haven't. I have quoted the parts of your posts to which I was
replying. I've done that again here.

As for my mention of the fact that the anti-faq calls posters here
"rude ****sticks," in the context of making a point about rudeness,
you have clarified that you don't find it rude within the context of
the anti-faq. I continue to believe that it is rude, but as I said
before, ymv.

 

[Glenn]

These things still showing up? Here's an answer for the disgusted ones...

Not freeware but free information for someone not aware of a feature that I
stumbled upon some time ago.

I assume everyone using OE knows that you can high-lite a whole string of
posts (like this one), hit delete, answer yes and the whole mess is history
as in not taking up wasted space. The diehards will keep posting to it but
all you have to do is high-lite them, delete them and they are gone too.

Glenn

 

[-½cut]

»Q« wrote in

As for my mention of the fact that the anti-faq calls posters here
"rude ****sticks," in the context of making a point about rudeness,
you have clarified that you don't find it rude within the context of
the anti-faq. I continue to believe that it is rude, but as I said
before, ymv.

It's not a fact that the anti-faq calls posters here "rude ****sticks,".
The anti-FAQ refers to *SOME* ACF posters as anal, rude bastards,
tosspots and (implied) egomaniacs. Working out which is which is left as
an exercise for the student.
=

Towards the bottom of the anti-FAQ I say I intend to work the word
"****sticks" into the anti-FAQ, which I do in the last part:

Q. Got any general advice?
A. Yeah. Be nice to people; don't take the abuse of rude ****sticks
(yay!) home with you, and read everything you see on newsgroups with a
pinch of salt. On the internet.... (image of "internet dogs" cartoon)

Don't take the abuse of rude ****sticks home with you. It's general
advice, and worth taking note of IMO. It also applies to the whole
internet and RL. If you take crap home with you and brood on it, you're
paving the way to ulcers, madness and an early death.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

It's not a fact that the anti-faq calls posters here "rude
****sticks,".

See below.

The anti-FAQ refers to *SOME* ACF posters as anal,
rude bastards, tosspots and (implied) egomaniacs.

I know. I chose the quote I did because I found it to be the rudest
of the namecalling. And I only took issue with BillR's defense of it
while he claims to promote civility.

[quoting the anti-faq]

Don't take the abuse of rude ****sticks home with you.

Again, why warn people about the alleged rude ****sticks unless you
mean they are here in a.c.f? I continue to take it as a reference
to (some, as you say) a.c.f posters, since you have called the
document "The alt.comp.freeware Anti-FAQ".