P
V
Vrodok the Troll
R
Richard Steinfeld
| On 19 Feb 2004 15:24:20 -0800, in alt.comp.freeware,
(e-mail address removed) (*
| ProteanThread *), wondering whence the lambs & piglets, bleated
& squealed:
|
While the cows and bulls bellowed, the chimpanzees chimped, and
everyone got so tired of reading all the repetitive excess crap
that some people head their messages with... It's not
entertaining or cute: it's masturbation that gets excessive very,
very quickly!
| >http://www.wieringsoftware.nl/utils/
| --
|
| What portion of [the] below did you fail to comprehend?
| -
|
And what exactly is the "below" you're referring to? Perhaps you
are talking about "bleating and squealing." That seems to be the
subject of your post. No? I can't decipher any other subject
here.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:37:14 -0000, in alt.comp.freeware, "Steven
Burn"
| <[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs & piglets,
bleated &
| squealed:
|
Perhaps the reader was wondering what the post was actually about
other than bleating and squealing. I am also not clear about who
was saying what to whom; something seems to be edited out and I'm
coming in in the middle of the play.
| >| >> http://www.alstonlabs.com/
| >
| >ProteanThread,
| > Will you please start posting descriptions
(even if they're
| >just basic one's) instead of URL's on their own.
That's the point, my man. I concur with whoever made the request.
A message that consists of just a URL is too terse, confusing as
hell to read. For example, Protean created a post consisting of a
subject ("free dos utilities"), and the message, which consisted
of a URL, and nothing else. I mean, to read such a message is a
pain. Like, what kind of DOS utilities are they? Did he try any
of them. Did he test them for robustness? Did they cause his
computer to self destruct. And, like, what the hell do they do? I
mean, what the hell are you talking about?
I'd appreciate some descriptions, some text, you know. That's
what the poster you quoted said; the poster you ridiculed.
Always remember that someone at the other end of your post will
read what you wrote. Just because you threw something into the
ether doesn't mean that it is clear to that reader. I feel that
it is the responsibility of a writer to communicate clearly, or
at least make some effort to do so.
Otherwise, such a post is just so much bleating and squealing.
Richard
(e-mail address removed) (*
| ProteanThread *), wondering whence the lambs & piglets, bleated
& squealed:
|
While the cows and bulls bellowed, the chimpanzees chimped, and
everyone got so tired of reading all the repetitive excess crap
that some people head their messages with... It's not
entertaining or cute: it's masturbation that gets excessive very,
very quickly!
| >http://www.wieringsoftware.nl/utils/
| --
|
| What portion of [the] below did you fail to comprehend?
| -
|
And what exactly is the "below" you're referring to? Perhaps you
are talking about "bleating and squealing." That seems to be the
subject of your post. No? I can't decipher any other subject
here.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:37:14 -0000, in alt.comp.freeware, "Steven
Burn"
| <[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs & piglets,
bleated &
| squealed:
|
Perhaps the reader was wondering what the post was actually about
other than bleating and squealing. I am also not clear about who
was saying what to whom; something seems to be edited out and I'm
coming in in the middle of the play.
| >| >> http://www.alstonlabs.com/
| >
| >ProteanThread,
| > Will you please start posting descriptions
(even if they're
| >just basic one's) instead of URL's on their own.
That's the point, my man. I concur with whoever made the request.
A message that consists of just a URL is too terse, confusing as
hell to read. For example, Protean created a post consisting of a
subject ("free dos utilities"), and the message, which consisted
of a URL, and nothing else. I mean, to read such a message is a
pain. Like, what kind of DOS utilities are they? Did he try any
of them. Did he test them for robustness? Did they cause his
computer to self destruct. And, like, what the hell do they do? I
mean, what the hell are you talking about?
I'd appreciate some descriptions, some text, you know. That's
what the poster you quoted said; the poster you ridiculed.
Always remember that someone at the other end of your post will
read what you wrote. Just because you threw something into the
ether doesn't mean that it is clear to that reader. I feel that
it is the responsibility of a writer to communicate clearly, or
at least make some effort to do so.
Otherwise, such a post is just so much bleating and squealing.
Richard
V
Vrodok the Troll
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:15:43 GMT, in alt.comp.freeware, "Richard Steinfeld"
<[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs & piglets, bleated
& squealed:
[snipped "baiting" text]
Perhaps you should avail (yourself) of a time-honored internet practice;
reading messages in the order they were posted, as do I. Let us hope this may
sink in, before the next 120 days; I shall not be seeing you for that length of
time.
<[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs & piglets, bleated
& squealed:
[snipped "baiting" text]
Perhaps you should avail (yourself) of a time-honored internet practice;
reading messages in the order they were posted, as do I. Let us hope this may
sink in, before the next 120 days; I shall not be seeing you for that length of
time.
R
Richard Steinfeld
| On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:15:43 GMT, in alt.comp.freeware,
"Richard Steinfeld"
| <[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs &
piglets, bleated
| & squealed:
|
| [snipped "baiting" text]
|
| Perhaps you should avail (yourself) of a time-honored internet
practice;
| reading messages in the order they were posted, as do I. Let us
hope this may
| sink in, before the next 120 days; I shall not be seeing you
for that length of
| time.
Sorry to appear in your sight so quickly, Mr. Vrodok. I did
indeed avail myself of the entire thread as presented on my
system. That thread commences exactly as I said earlier, with a
post the subject of which is "free dos utilities" by
*ProteanThread*. The contents of that message is:
http://www.wieringsoftware.nl/utils/. In case it went by so fast
you missed it, the entire post consisted of that one URL. Wow.
Real informative, huh?
And that is the beginning of the entire sequence. I read all of
it. Sure says a lot, doesn't it. You have given me advice,
Vrodok, but have you taken your own advice before bleating and
squealing yet again?
And, please, I still don't know what the hell you're talking
about. Perhaps someone would be willing to clarify?
Richard
"Richard Steinfeld"
| <[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs &
piglets, bleated
| & squealed:
|
| [snipped "baiting" text]
|
| Perhaps you should avail (yourself) of a time-honored internet
practice;
| reading messages in the order they were posted, as do I. Let us
hope this may
| sink in, before the next 120 days; I shall not be seeing you
for that length of
| time.
Sorry to appear in your sight so quickly, Mr. Vrodok. I did
indeed avail myself of the entire thread as presented on my
system. That thread commences exactly as I said earlier, with a
post the subject of which is "free dos utilities" by
*ProteanThread*. The contents of that message is:
http://www.wieringsoftware.nl/utils/. In case it went by so fast
you missed it, the entire post consisted of that one URL. Wow.
Real informative, huh?
And that is the beginning of the entire sequence. I read all of
it. Sure says a lot, doesn't it. You have given me advice,
Vrodok, but have you taken your own advice before bleating and
squealing yet again?
And, please, I still don't know what the hell you're talking
about. Perhaps someone would be willing to clarify?
Richard
P
Phred
It seemed clear enough to me, provided you take note of the
conventional USENET "attrributions" symbols.
Spelled out: He and others are saying PT should tell us what the hell
his stuff is about, at least in summary, rather than simply posting an
URL (or is that "a U R L"
.Cheers, Phred.
R
Richard Steinfeld
Phred wrote:
| In article <[email protected]>,
||
|| And, please, I still don't know what the hell you're talking
|| about. Perhaps someone would be willing to clarify?
|
| It seemed clear enough to me, provided you take note of the
| conventional USENET "attrributions" symbols.
|
| Spelled out: He and others are saying PT should tell us what
| the hell his stuff is about, at least in summary, rather than
| simply posting an URL (or is that "a U R L".
|
| Cheers, Phred.
Phred,
Here is the content of the message in question. This is the post
that immediately followed the first cryptic one.
"On 19 Feb 2004 15:24:20 -0800, in alt.comp.freeware,
(e-mail address removed) (*
ProteanThread *), wondering whence the lambs & piglets, bleated &
squealed:
| http://www.wieringsoftware.nl/utils/
--
What portion of [the] below did you fail to comprehend?
-
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:37:14 -0000, in alt.comp.freeware, "Steven
Burn"
<[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs & piglets,
bleated &
squealed:
| || http://www.alstonlabs.com/
|
| ProteanThread,
| Will you please start posting descriptions (even
if they're
| just basic one's) instead of URL's on their own.
-
Message-Id: [email protected]"
How am I supposed to make sense of this? Please explain.
It appears that there may have been something missing or that
netiquette order has been skewed. Or there's just too much
"potatoes" between the "meats."
From your explanation, it begins to dawn on me that Vrodok and I
have been in agreement! This was not obvious to me from the
content and the order of the content, and especially all the
clutter.
(Aside: to answer your question, "...or is that 'a U R L,'" In
essence, the sounds of speech often govern written text. "A
universal...." and "a URL" or "a U.R.L" are all correct. This can
get really complicated, so I'll quickly nip the grammer lesson
here.)
I say that things on usenet and emails would be easier to follow
if we all snipped clutter from our responses. However, I allow
that adding additional clutter to posts, especially when
repetitive, is something I don't like. I'm a fan of clear,
concise communication. I'll admit that the "pigs and sheep" stuff
gets to me; it gets to me fast, and it gets to me really really
fast when I see it for the second time, especially when it is
repeated in a quote. It just is not cute the second time: it is
annoying (to me, anyway).
This is one bit of feedback about how stuff like this is
received, at least, by some readers. Please everyone, don't add
irrelevant "entertainment," especially the automated variety, to
your posts! If you look at this post, you'll see lots of
clutter: quoted posters' addresses, article IDs, and, yes, the
pigs and sheep. To further confuse, many posters use one "handle"
for posting, and another name to sign their post. Somtimes this
is done for fun, sometimes to try to prevent spam. Added up, it
makes my head spin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------
There are built-in problems with "plain text" posting. The ASCII
character set and conventions that we all follow on usenet are,
in fact, very old. They evolved from the telegraph conventions
that superseded morse code. (we're probably going back to the
1930s here). Those conventions, with some enhancements, were
carried into the teletype systems used both by telegraph
companies and the news wire services. Those enhancements were
carried whole into IBM's "Extended ASCII Character Set," of the
first IBM PCs. For example, the symbol "BEL" means "Bell," a
physical bell in the teletype machine that went "Ding Ding Ding."
This is how the typist alerted the recipients of an important
breaking news story. The more "dings," the more important the
story. The teletype machines, essentially robust electric
typewriters, could not print underlines and bold without
backspacing. They could not backspace reliably and maintain text
synchronization. They had one font, in one size, like any other
typewriter. Therefore, text enhancements were never part of the
teletype tradition. You used ALL CAPS for enhancement, and that
was that. You rang the bell for attention.
What I've explained is the origins of the limited character set
that we use for standard usenet posting and email. The lack of
text enhancements cause confusion in comprehension. The type
conventions of Macintosh and Windows give us a lot more in the
way of comprehending text: here we can view italics, underline,
bold, fonts, font sizes, and other formatting, all of which
improve communication. These did not evolve from telegraph
origins, but from the printing and publishing trades. Quite a
difference.
Having said that, I believe in plain text, even though it is
often hard to sort out.
Why? Because it is universal! Plain text is standard among all
the platforms that I have ever known. (Please pardon me if you
are from a part of the world for which what I'm saying is
foreign; many special systems were incorporated, such as the "Al
Arabi" conversions, for adapting the PC for a different language
and region). Windows introduced us to enhanced text attributes in
their proprietary "Outlook" integrated office system, in turn
carried into "Outlook Express" for the peasants. But these text
enhancements are not standard: initially, no computer other than
a Windows machine, could render them on the screen. The internet
was already established when Windows 3.0 took flight. Well, we're
on the internet, so we can't use that stuff. OK.
BRINGING THIS ALL HOME
If we are going to read each others' posts on every possible
platform, we've got to send it out in plain text. In other words,
for sanity, one should switch the settings in Outlook Express to
"plain text" in both directions. One should also obey the
standard conventions of netiquette for the same reason. However,
as I've explained above, in doing so, we sacrifice reading
clarity to universality. This means that the system that we use
gets quickly confusing to the reader when the posts are complex.
More so when we try to improve things by top posting and snipping
stuff (I am as guilty as anyone else, I guess). We futz around
and it "sort-of works;" (and often doesn't).
So, I'm requesting that we all remove anything that adds clutter
or obfuscation. Let's start by eliminating all slogans and
phrases from the beginnings and endings of our posts (the pigs
and lambs have got to go). This includes the little nasties that
Yahoo tacks on to out posts: if you have a choice, please send
from your paid "real" internet account if there's no way to get
Yahoo to behave themselves.
I admit that I've given a long speech here about how we do
things. I figured that it might be nice to have given a context
and a history about why we post the way that we do, and how it
relates to clarity problems we still are stuck with. I hope that
this has been successful and that we can all get along with it.
Richard
| In article <[email protected]>,
||
|| And, please, I still don't know what the hell you're talking
|| about. Perhaps someone would be willing to clarify?
|
| It seemed clear enough to me, provided you take note of the
| conventional USENET "attrributions" symbols.
|
| Spelled out: He and others are saying PT should tell us what
| the hell his stuff is about, at least in summary, rather than
| simply posting an URL (or is that "a U R L"
.|
| Cheers, Phred.
Phred,
Here is the content of the message in question. This is the post
that immediately followed the first cryptic one.
"On 19 Feb 2004 15:24:20 -0800, in alt.comp.freeware,
(e-mail address removed) (*
ProteanThread *), wondering whence the lambs & piglets, bleated &
squealed:
| http://www.wieringsoftware.nl/utils/
--
What portion of [the] below did you fail to comprehend?
-
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:37:14 -0000, in alt.comp.freeware, "Steven
Burn"
<[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs & piglets,
bleated &
squealed:
| || http://www.alstonlabs.com/
|
| ProteanThread,
| Will you please start posting descriptions (even
if they're
| just basic one's) instead of URL's on their own.
-
Message-Id: [email protected]"
How am I supposed to make sense of this? Please explain.
It appears that there may have been something missing or that
netiquette order has been skewed. Or there's just too much
"potatoes" between the "meats."
From your explanation, it begins to dawn on me that Vrodok and I
have been in agreement! This was not obvious to me from the
content and the order of the content, and especially all the
clutter.
(Aside: to answer your question, "...or is that 'a U R L,'" In
essence, the sounds of speech often govern written text. "A
universal...." and "a URL" or "a U.R.L" are all correct. This can
get really complicated, so I'll quickly nip the grammer lesson
here.)
I say that things on usenet and emails would be easier to follow
if we all snipped clutter from our responses. However, I allow
that adding additional clutter to posts, especially when
repetitive, is something I don't like. I'm a fan of clear,
concise communication. I'll admit that the "pigs and sheep" stuff
gets to me; it gets to me fast, and it gets to me really really
fast when I see it for the second time, especially when it is
repeated in a quote. It just is not cute the second time: it is
annoying (to me, anyway).
This is one bit of feedback about how stuff like this is
received, at least, by some readers. Please everyone, don't add
irrelevant "entertainment," especially the automated variety, to
your posts! If you look at this post, you'll see lots of
clutter: quoted posters' addresses, article IDs, and, yes, the
pigs and sheep. To further confuse, many posters use one "handle"
for posting, and another name to sign their post. Somtimes this
is done for fun, sometimes to try to prevent spam. Added up, it
makes my head spin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------
There are built-in problems with "plain text" posting. The ASCII
character set and conventions that we all follow on usenet are,
in fact, very old. They evolved from the telegraph conventions
that superseded morse code. (we're probably going back to the
1930s here). Those conventions, with some enhancements, were
carried into the teletype systems used both by telegraph
companies and the news wire services. Those enhancements were
carried whole into IBM's "Extended ASCII Character Set," of the
first IBM PCs. For example, the symbol "BEL" means "Bell," a
physical bell in the teletype machine that went "Ding Ding Ding."
This is how the typist alerted the recipients of an important
breaking news story. The more "dings," the more important the
story. The teletype machines, essentially robust electric
typewriters, could not print underlines and bold without
backspacing. They could not backspace reliably and maintain text
synchronization. They had one font, in one size, like any other
typewriter. Therefore, text enhancements were never part of the
teletype tradition. You used ALL CAPS for enhancement, and that
was that. You rang the bell for attention.
What I've explained is the origins of the limited character set
that we use for standard usenet posting and email. The lack of
text enhancements cause confusion in comprehension. The type
conventions of Macintosh and Windows give us a lot more in the
way of comprehending text: here we can view italics, underline,
bold, fonts, font sizes, and other formatting, all of which
improve communication. These did not evolve from telegraph
origins, but from the printing and publishing trades. Quite a
difference.
Having said that, I believe in plain text, even though it is
often hard to sort out.
Why? Because it is universal! Plain text is standard among all
the platforms that I have ever known. (Please pardon me if you
are from a part of the world for which what I'm saying is
foreign; many special systems were incorporated, such as the "Al
Arabi" conversions, for adapting the PC for a different language
and region). Windows introduced us to enhanced text attributes in
their proprietary "Outlook" integrated office system, in turn
carried into "Outlook Express" for the peasants. But these text
enhancements are not standard: initially, no computer other than
a Windows machine, could render them on the screen. The internet
was already established when Windows 3.0 took flight. Well, we're
on the internet, so we can't use that stuff. OK.
BRINGING THIS ALL HOME
If we are going to read each others' posts on every possible
platform, we've got to send it out in plain text. In other words,
for sanity, one should switch the settings in Outlook Express to
"plain text" in both directions. One should also obey the
standard conventions of netiquette for the same reason. However,
as I've explained above, in doing so, we sacrifice reading
clarity to universality. This means that the system that we use
gets quickly confusing to the reader when the posts are complex.
More so when we try to improve things by top posting and snipping
stuff (I am as guilty as anyone else, I guess). We futz around
and it "sort-of works;" (and often doesn't).
So, I'm requesting that we all remove anything that adds clutter
or obfuscation. Let's start by eliminating all slogans and
phrases from the beginnings and endings of our posts (the pigs
and lambs have got to go). This includes the little nasties that
Yahoo tacks on to out posts: if you have a choice, please send
from your paid "real" internet account if there's no way to get
Yahoo to behave themselves.
I admit that I've given a long speech here about how we do
things. I figured that it might be nice to have given a context
and a history about why we post the way that we do, and how it
relates to clarity problems we still are stuck with. I hope that
this has been successful and that we can all get along with it.
Richard
R
Roger Johansson
Richard Steinfeld said:
The problem is that a lot of people are in a state of mind which is very
active, very alert, and they feel very confident, they can afford to joke
and add all sorts of fancy additions to their messages.
Other people are in another state of mind, getting irritated at all these
useless and often very disturbing additions.
This problem has a cultural background.
We see the same problem in schools. Some kids have been accustomed to being
very active, very tough and alert, and they joke without much concern for
others feelings.
Other kids are more sensitive and feel attacked and think that they are
subjected to mobbing.
The socially strengthened, hardened souls, feel attacked in their turn when
the more sensitive kid backs off in horror, and tries to repair the
relation by breaking the ice, by wrestling or some cruel joke, the more
sensitive kid feels even more attacked, and we have a fullblown crash of
cultures.
The sensitive kid feels very much subjected to mobbing, the tougher kid
feels unrightly attacked for being a bully, he just wanted to joke and have
some friendly wrestling to become friends with the other kid.
The solution to this problem could be that we humans could agree on how to
handle our minds, are we going to use a lot of speed in our brains or not,
are we going to train our kids to be tough and strong, or natural and
relaxed?
A lot of people like speed, and think it is the ultimate meaning of life,
so they create speed with social methods.
They create a lot of violent movies, intensive feelings of love and hate, a
lot of strong convictions and strong willed minds.
They are exciting our minds, training us to handle a lot of excitation.
They are the fundamentalists and traditionalists, they want to keep the
gender roles, the male honor, the socially created eternal love, the
traditional marriage, the holy ghost, etc..
(the holy ghost = speed brain)
Other, more modern people think that these traditions and gender roles
create a lot of negative consequences, a lot of violence and fear, a lot of
disturbing crap in usenet, so we ought to abolish these old cultural
patterns.
The modern people are slowly winning this struggle, they have managed to
abolish traditional ideas from the official laws in most industrialized
nations, they have broken the power of the church.
Theoretically they are superior to the traditionalists.
But in the social life we still see that the traditionalists are having the
power.
In social life the power of mental strength is still winning over the
weaker and more relaxed minds.
It is like Einstein and Mad Max. Einstein wins the theoretical discussions,
but Mad Max wins in the social field, because he has more muscles, more
will power.
Hollywood is clearly still dominated by the traditionalists, creating
enormous amounts of violence, strong and tough male faces, a lot of
traditional love and gender roles.
The common Hollywood vision of the future, a Mad Max world which is the
result of some global war or some horrible catastrophy, a world dominated
by strong men with a lot of muscles, is the traditionalists dream of a
return to the stone age, or at least to the old testament world, where
everything was easy to understand, where a man was a real man and he could
take his woman, his gun and his dog and go west, out into the big
wilderness, free from all laws and concerns for others.
It is a question of how much adrenaline a human being is supposed to run
on. In our past as apes we needed as much adrenaline as possible to become
socially dominant. The females loved strong men, and the other men had
respect for stronger men.
But we need to use our brains for more advanced tasks in a modern world, we
cannot afford to fight physically or mentally with each other anymore.
We are intelligent beings now, not adrenaline driven apes.
We could have much better lives if people stopped using violence, fear,
anger, social dominance, adrenaline, strong convictions, a lot of will
power, traditional gender roles, and the social processes which create and
uphold this old culture.
We could relax and enjoy real peace of mind if we abolished these old
cultural traditions and violence.
V
Vrodok the Troll
[snip]
Perhaps the 'Default' sig should be re-activated (much addition to clutter).
Nah.
Perhaps the 'Default' sig should be re-activated (much addition to clutter).
Nah.
V
Vrodok the Troll
Then again, he has quite the sense of humor
R
Richard Steinfeld
| On 20 Feb 2004 21:42:22 -0600, in alt.comp.freeware, Vrodok the
Troll
| <[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs &
piglets, bleated &
| squealed:
|
| >On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:44:44 +0100, in alt.comp.freeware,
Roger Johansson
| ><[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs & piglets,
bleated & squealed:
| >
| >>
| >>> the system that we use
| >>> gets quickly confusing to the reader when the posts are
complex.
| >>> More so when we try to improve things by top posting and
snipping
| >>> stuff (I am as guilty as anyone else, I guess). We futz
around
| >>> and it "sort-of works;" (and often doesn't).
| >>>
| >>> So, I'm requesting that we all remove anything that adds
clutter
| >>> or obfuscation. Let's start by eliminating all slogans and
| >>> phrases from the beginnings and endings of our posts (the
pigs
| >>> and lambs have got to go).
|
| Then again, he has quite the sense of humor
|
| >This includes the little nasties that
| >>> Yahoo tacks on to out posts:
| >>
| >[snip]
| >
| > Perhaps the 'Default' sig should be re-activated (much
addition to clutter).
| >Nah.
You lost me. What's a "default sig?" But "he" does indeed have a
sense of humor.
Richard
-------------------------
Hey Vrodok!
Do you Yahoo?
Come on, Vrodok. This is your Yahoo friend.
Get Yahoo, Vrodok. Then you can Yahoo, too!
Don't get left out. Don't miss the boat. Everyone is Yohooing.
We'll protect you from other-peoples' spam.
We'll even throw in some nice warm and fuzzy web beacons so
you'll never be alone.
We'll be looking over your shoulder, watching, watching...
Troll
| <[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs &
piglets, bleated &
| squealed:
|
| >On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:44:44 +0100, in alt.comp.freeware,
Roger Johansson
| ><[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs & piglets,
bleated & squealed:
| >
| >>
| >>> the system that we use
| >>> gets quickly confusing to the reader when the posts are
complex.
| >>> More so when we try to improve things by top posting and
snipping
| >>> stuff (I am as guilty as anyone else, I guess). We futz
around
| >>> and it "sort-of works;" (and often doesn't).
| >>>
| >>> So, I'm requesting that we all remove anything that adds
clutter
| >>> or obfuscation. Let's start by eliminating all slogans and
| >>> phrases from the beginnings and endings of our posts (the
pigs
| >>> and lambs have got to go).
|
| Then again, he has quite the sense of humor
|
| >This includes the little nasties that
| >>> Yahoo tacks on to out posts:
| >>
| >[snip]
| >
| > Perhaps the 'Default' sig should be re-activated (much
addition to clutter).
| >Nah.
You lost me. What's a "default sig?" But "he" does indeed have a
sense of humor.
Richard
-------------------------
Hey Vrodok!
Do you Yahoo?
Come on, Vrodok. This is your Yahoo friend.
Get Yahoo, Vrodok. Then you can Yahoo, too!
Don't get left out. Don't miss the boat. Everyone is Yohooing.
We'll protect you from other-peoples' spam.
We'll even throw in some nice warm and fuzzy web beacons so
you'll never be alone.
We'll be looking over your shoulder, watching, watching...
W
WD
Yeah, let's just pump them young kids full of drugs [ritalin, prozac]
and put a stop to this bad human behaviour.
-WufDog
V
Vrodok the Troll
| On 20 Feb 2004 21:42:22 -0600, in alt.comp.freeware, Vrodok the
Troll
| <[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs &
piglets, bleated &
| squealed:
|
| >On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:44:44 +0100, in alt.comp.freeware,
Roger Johansson
| ><[email protected]>, wondering whence the lambs & piglets,
bleated & squealed:
| >
| >>
| >>> the system that we use
| >>> gets quickly confusing to the reader when the posts are
complex.
| >>> More so when we try to improve things by top posting and
snipping
| >>> stuff (I am as guilty as anyone else, I guess). We futz
around
| >>> and it "sort-of works;" (and often doesn't).
| >>>
| >>> So, I'm requesting that we all remove anything that adds
clutter
| >>> or obfuscation. Let's start by eliminating all slogans and
| >>> phrases from the beginnings and endings of our posts (the
pigs
| >>> and lambs have got to go).
|
| Then again, he has quite the sense of humor
|
| >This includes the little nasties that
| >>> Yahoo tacks on to out posts:
| >>
| >[snip]
| >
| > Perhaps the 'Default' sig should be re-activated (much
addition to clutter).
| >Nah.
You lost me. What's a "default sig?"
"Signature". Default = one of several (48, at last count <g>). At the request
of someone in this group (sorry; forget who asked), I run no 'sig', while
posting here.
Maybe I should have said (typed) 's/he' said:
Google is your friend
)Shudder <g>....
A
Andrew Kennedy
Using them big words is wasting bandwidth.
Let's start by eliminating all slogans and
Those phrases we add are part of our individuality and it often
brightens up other's day.
In short Mr. Troll could have made his post more efficient by posting this
message.
I just feel like complaining today. Send me an email if you want
more details.
Let's start by eliminating all slogans and
Those phrases we add are part of our individuality and it often
brightens up other's day.
In short Mr. Troll could have made his post more efficient by posting this
message.
I just feel like complaining today. Send me an email if you want
more details.
V
Vrodok the Troll
Verily & forsooth said:
Hmmm said:I just feel like complaining today. Send me an email if you want
more details.
Helen Waite <g> is on your staff?