Hum from phone wires running next to mains?

[Ivor Jones]

in message

[snip]

: Trolling and obnoxious behavior is something only yo can
: stop. Meanwhile others are free to call you a social
: crossposting misfit.

Yes mother.

Ivor

 

[kony]

: On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:27:11 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
:
:
: >: In such a case, I think convention
: >: is what applies.
: >
: >But is not binding. And you have no authority to demand
: >that I follow your conventions.
: >
:
: So you're going to act like a 5 year old child thinking
: "you can't make me!"?

Not at all. I am merely stating fact, you are free to interpret it as you
wish.

It is only when people lack common sense and courtesy that
society has to take extra measure to force or compell
compliance. As you might note by looking at other posts,
the vast majority have no problem figuring out how to post.
Surely you're not deluded enough to think you're doing it
the right way versus everyone else has for years?

Are you stupid?
(It's not really a question.)
It should be obvious to anyone why using two characters
instead of one is problematic.

:
: Grow up and accept when you've done something wrong. It
: doesn't take a genius to see why one character and only
: one should be used to denote a quote line.

In an unregulated environment such as Usenet, I can't do anything wrong as
there are no rules.

Want to bet whether a google search for "usenet rules" turns
up anything? What exactly is it that would be necessary for
your compliance? Loss of ISP or news account? A fine?
Imprisonment? They all seem rather ridiculous things to
have to do when there is no compelling reason to do it wrong
as you do.

 

[kony]

[snip]

: Convention and standard, it's a fine line you're trying to
: draw mainly for an argumentative state to support a
: position that is obviously not agreeable to others and
: obviously not what was intended for usenet by your own
: observations.

So explain to me just why, in 10+ years, this is the first time a
"complaint" has arisen. It's been "agreeable to others" until now, what
has suddenly happened..?

Ivor

Incorrect. Someone not saying it's disagreeable is no more
evidence that it's agreeable to them than that it wasn't.

When someone didn't say anything they were being patient,
courteous, thinking you must just be ignorant and a bit slow
in the mind but will figure it out eventually. When you
start acknowledging you do it and trying to defend it, NOW
you actually see what people think. It can't just be
coincidence that more than one person has something to say
about it when you've never had anyone say it was acceptible
or a good idea.

 

[krw]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:35:13 -0000, "Ivor Jones"


Want to bet whether a google search for "usenet rules" turns
up anything? What exactly is it that would be necessary for
your compliance? Loss of ISP or news account? A fine?
Imprisonment? They all seem rather ridiculous things to
have to do when there is no compelling reason to do it wrong
as you do.

Nonconformity is all some have to prove (to themselves) that they're
an individual.

 

[Ivor Jones]

: On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:36:48 -0000, "Ivor Jones"

[snip]

: >So explain to me just why, in 10+ years, this is the
: >first time a "complaint" has arisen. It's been
: >"agreeable to others" until now, what has suddenly
: >happened..?
: >
: >Ivor
:
: Incorrect. Someone not saying it's disagreeable is no
: more evidence that it's agreeable to them than that it
: wasn't.

Incorrect. No evidence is precisely that. If there is no evidence against
someone then a conviction is not possible.

: When someone didn't say anything they were being patient,
: courteous, thinking you must just be ignorant and a bit
: slow in the mind but will figure it out eventually.

Or they didn't have a problem with it.

I'm getting bored now, please go away.

Ivor

 

[kony]

: On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:36:48 -0000, "Ivor Jones"

[snip]

: >So explain to me just why, in 10+ years, this is the
: >first time a "complaint" has arisen. It's been
: >"agreeable to others" until now, what has suddenly
: >happened..?
: >
: >Ivor
:
: Incorrect. Someone not saying it's disagreeable is no
: more evidence that it's agreeable to them than that it
: wasn't.

Incorrect. No evidence is precisely that.

If there were no evidence, but THERE IS, WE'RE TELLING YOU!

I'm getting bored now, please go away.

Wouldn't that be even more boring?