Why does everyone hate AOL users ?
Joseph Betz
>In article <941024010...@jegelhof.dialup.cloud9.net>,
>James M. Egelhof <jege...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>>It would be nice if you supported this claim. You have not exactly
>>exemplified maturity (remember all those letters to postmasters?).
>Yeah, "all those letters." Stop skipping math class to post on Usenet so
>that you can learn to count. You have *ONE* letter. That's not exactly
>"all those." Move on.
Alllllllison.....Oh, Aaaaaalllison......
It's time for you to meet the "Clue Stick", Hon.
You didn't take a clue when it was GIVEN to you, you didn't catch a clue
that was TOSSED to you, and you didn't pick up the clue phone when it rang.
There's nothing left but the clue stick. Lean foreward and place you
forehead against the monitor, hon....
<SMACK><SMACK><SMACK><SMACK><SMACK>!!
Got your attention now? Good.
Let's look at the preceding exchange AGAIN, and MAYBE if you keep your wits
about you and keep your head away from your 'rhoids for just a few seconds,
we can get a clue to sink in. Maybe we can cram in TWO, and they might
start breeding.
ch...@ren.psy.jhu.edu (Alison Rosenstengel) writes:
>In article <941024010...@jegelhof.dialup.cloud9.net>,
>James M. Egelhof <jege...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>>It would be nice if you supported this claim. You have not exactly
>>exemplified maturity (remember all those letters to postmasters?).
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Yeah, "all those letters." Stop skipping math class to post on Usenet so
>that you can learn to count. You have *ONE* letter. That's not exactly
>"all those." Move on.
Now then, Allison, let's take a GOOD look at the text above the carets (^).
Postmasters. PLURAL, as in: "An ugly bitch net.cop from aol.com just sent
out a bunch of letters to a bunch of postmasterS bitching and whining and
spreading AOLs censorship like the disease that it is."
Let's reinforce our lesson for today.
James reminded you of all the letters that you have sent to different
postmasterS.
You countered by blithering: "Duuuuuuuhhh...Take more math classes...duhhh"
>>Fourteen-year-olds are prepubescents? That's a laugh; I'll tell that to all
>>the horny ninth grade boys floating around my HS.
>When I think of maturity, I don't think of 14-year-old boys.
Tomorrow, I'll come by again to teach you the meaning of the word
"non-sequitor", twit.
>2) I think I've taken plenty of abuse on this group without taking outside.
Taking WHAT outside. Your EMAIL? That's the only thing I've seen you go
public with.
>I can't say the same for all of you who keep trying to TOS me for every post
>that I write from my AOL account.
Whassamatter, hon? Censorship doesn't look like as fun when you're on the
RECEIVING end?
>3) Oh yes, an egotistical, foul-mouthed 16-year-old who can't restrict his
>babble to the one relevant group is lecturing ME on maturity. There ya go.
Hey, somebody's got to do it. I can't keep after you all by myself.
Oh, a P.S. for Stuart, since I've got the clue stick out of it's holster:
Stu, a little less whining, a little less excessive verbosity, a little more
common sense, and a little less megalomania would make your posts much more
effective. Hey, don't thank me, I'm HAPPY to help.
--
*************************************************************************
* Joseph Betz (bwa...@earth.execpc.com) * If stupidity was gold, AOL *
* -or- (Josep...@mixcom.com) * would be Fort Knox *
*************************************************************************
Thomas Parker
Stuart....@comp.vuw.ac.nz writes:
> The analogy still fits, and I'm struggling to see how the fact that one
> cannot change one's age (at whim) somehow negates the generalisation that
> all 16yr olds are losers, when the same logic is applied to the
generalisation
> on AOLers with no apparent problems.
Stuart, I can't agree with your analogies or opinions on this. I have an AOL
account, but rarely use it since I have decent access for less. If I read
newsgroups and posted from my AOL account, I _would_ be a moron. Period. There
is no reason to use that account for any Internet service whatsoever. If you'd
prefer we refine the statement to something like "all AOLers on the Internet
who have an alternative are losers," fine, but I think that's being overly
technical.
> Much of the abuse directed at AOLers is based on the opinion that they
> post much more rubbish per user than any other service. Now considering
> the numbers involved and the size of the net, I find this difficult to prove.
> Others apparently have no such problem with stating personal opinion and/or
> bias as some form of conclusive proof and justification for a generalisation
> of this nature.
In my experience, I see more crap from AOL than any other site. Granted, this
isn't based on any formal study; the evidence is entirely anecdotal. I'll
trust my eyes, you do the research.
thomas
Stuart Marshall
Joseph Betz <misc...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Stu, a little less whining, a little less excessive verbosity, a little more
>common sense, and a little less megalomania would make your posts much more
>effective. Hey, don't thank me, I'm HAPPY to help.
Megalomania : insanity of self-exaltation, passion for grandiose things.
Ahh... in what way to any of my posts exemplify this concept?
*shrug*
And as for the charge of "verbosity", we all have our own ways of using
the English language, how would changing make my posts "more effective"?
Or is it your belief that I'm a.) misspelling to the point of
unintelligibility or
b.) Am using said words in an improper context?
Could you back this up with examples?
I'll leave the "whining" allegation unanswered, there is some bait that
is just to obvious to take up......
Stuart Marshall.
"I was so long writing my review that I never got round to reading the book."
Groucho Marx.
Stuart Marshall
Citizens Against Truth,,, <c...@va.pubnix.com> wrote:
>Every once in awhile, a flame comes along so artfully crafted that I
Artfully crafted?
>must laugh out loud. Joseph Betz just did it. And Joseph, your little
>followup secret is safe with me. We'll let the nimrods who want to
>insult you figure that one out. ;)
You mean the fact that it was set up to follow-up to the test groups?
Pretty obvious you know, pretty damned obvious...
*sigh*
Stuart Marshall.
"We take no pride in prejudice."
Advertisement in The Times.
Citizens Against Truth,,,
>Citizens Against Truth,,, <c...@va.pubnix.com> wrote:
>>Every once in awhile, a flame comes along so artfully crafted that I
> Artfully crafted?
Yeah, like the artful dodger, only different.
> You mean the fact that it was set up to follow-up to the test groups?
> Pretty obvious you know, pretty damned obvious...
> *sigh*
Given the general IQ level of your average AOL-er, I wouldn't expect
them to notice it. They hardly notice that which is directly in front
of their nose.
--
---------------...@va.pubnix.com----------------------------------
The main difference between genius & stupidity is that genius has its limits.
------------------------------Unknown-----------------------------------------
Stuart Marshall
Thomas Parker <par...@commodities.com> wrote:
>trust my eyes, you do the research.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually this is a damn fine idea.
I could probably dedicate a couple of weeks of my holidays to it,
(it won't be sunny all the time =) ).
(And I'm sure those few friends I have in the Stats department will
give me some ideas...)
Of course for this to work, I'll need some firm definitions of what exactly
constitutes a "bad" post in your (as in all of you) eyes.
Any suggestions on what aspects of 'netting and abuse of net protocol
you'd like taken into account in this (albeit unofficial) survey, feel free
to email me.
Due to the fact that my normal account takes a nap over the summer holidays,
you are probably best served emailing me at stua...@mu.its.vuw.ac.nz
Or post to alt.aol-sucks for discussion if you so please, I'll be reading and
will take note of it...
>thomas
Stuart Marshall.
"Education must have an end in view, for it is not an end in itself."
Sybil Marshall (no relation)
Citizens Against Truth,,,
followup secret is safe with me. We'll let the nimrods who want to
insult you figure that one out. ;)
Thanks for the laugh!
Joseph Betz <misc...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Alllllllison.....Oh, Aaaaaalllison......
>It's time for you to meet the "Clue Stick", Hon.
>
>You didn't take a clue when it was GIVEN to you, you didn't catch a clue
>that was TOSSED to you, and you didn't pick up the clue phone when it rang.
>
>There's nothing left but the clue stick. Lean foreward and place you
>forehead against the monitor, hon....
>
><SMACK><SMACK><SMACK><SMACK><SMACK>!!
>
>Got your attention now? Good.
>
>Let's look at the preceding exchange AGAIN, and MAYBE if you keep your wits
>about you and keep your head away from your 'rhoids for just a few seconds,
>we can get a clue to sink in. Maybe we can cram in TWO, and they might
>start breeding.
[...]
>Now then, Allison, let's take a GOOD look at the text above the carets (^).
>Postmasters. PLURAL, as in: "An ugly bitch net.cop from aol.com just sent
>out a bunch of letters to a bunch of postmasterS bitching and whining and
>spreading AOLs censorship like the disease that it is."
>
>Let's reinforce our lesson for today.
>
>James reminded you of all the letters that you have sent to different
>postmasterS.
>
[...]
>
>Tomorrow, I'll come by again to teach you the meaning of the word
>"non-sequitor", twit.
[...]
>
>Oh, a P.S. for Stuart, since I've got the clue stick out of it's holster:
>
>Stu, a little less whining, a little less excessive verbosity, a little more
>common sense, and a little less megalomania would make your posts much more
>effective. Hey, don't thank me, I'm HAPPY to help.
--
Tom Finley
: Of course for this to work, I'll need some firm definitions of what exactly
: constitutes a "bad" post in your (as in all of you) eyes.
To save everyone some time, if you don't care about what I don't like
in posts don't read any further. The whole post is just about me complaining
about what I hate in usenet posts and followups.
These are a few examples which I consider to be bad posts. ALL CAPS
POSTS, all lower case posts, posts with !!!s instead of a ! or ., posts that
waste my time when what they said in a few pages could have been said in a
few paragraphs, posts irrelavent to the newsgroup/current thread, any posts
that break net protocal (except in flame groups). Posts that ask simple
questions where the answers have been posted over and over again (see comp.
sys.mac.games... people say "Is Marathon out yet?" and there are thousands
of posts saying "No it's not." in other threads). I also don't like posts
with simple spelling mistakes (a few are okay, but seeing the same mistakes
over and over again get annoying, for instance I was reading this one post
where the writer misspelled the word "looking" over and over. "Locking at
the posts in this group..." "You should lock to the fact that..." Not
even a typo. Just locking over and over. Messages that say "me too!!!" I
find terribly annoying.
What about everyone else?
--
Tom Finley
tfi...@en.com
Stuart Marshall
Thomas Parker <par...@commodities.com> wrote:
>Is it in front of their noses? Isn't Marshall way off base here--I didn't
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Eh?
Since the orginal post mentioned both myself and Allison, I presumed
it was meant to catch us both out. Since neither of us (to my knowledge)
use the AOL newsreader, what has this got to do with anything?
Stuart Marshall.
Thomas Parker
c...@va.pubnix.com writes:
> > You mean the fact that it was set up to follow-up to the test groups?
> > Pretty obvious you know, pretty damned obvious...
> > *sigh*
>
> Given the general IQ level of your average AOL-er, I wouldn't expect
> them to notice it. They hardly notice that which is directly in front
> of their nose.
Is it in front of their noses? Isn't Marshall way off base here--I didn't
think AOL displayed the follow-ups, I thought it just posted. I keep as far
away from that newsreader as possible, so I could be wrong. But I thought the
point was that it certainly wouldn't be obvious to an AOLer using the severely
crippled newsreader...
thomas
Godless
>Stuart Marshall <Stuart....@comp.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
>> You mean the fact that it was set up to follow-up to the test groups?
>> Pretty obvious you know, pretty damned obvious...
>> *sigh*
>Given the general IQ level of your average AOL-er, I wouldn't expect
>them to notice it. They hardly notice that which is directly in front
>of their nose.
Don't waste your time. I've tried and AOL's shitty newsreader can not
crosspost. If they reply to an article, their reply is posted to and
only to the newsgroup that they are reading it in.
Sorry to spoil the fun, keep trying.
--
Bob Trieger
god...@netcom.com
"If you finger me, may I suggest washing your hands afterwards?"
As Above So Below.....Forever Still The First Law Of Magic
: So I sell pajamas, lingerie, and toiletries to earn a little spare cash. I
: still don't see how this has anything to do with calling me a bimbo because
: James couldn't understand an English sentence. I also don't see why you
: take it to mean that I would be a bimbo just because I work there. Maybe
: you're lacking a dimension in your life if you think that lingerie is dirty
: or taboo . . .
You are correct. Lingerie in general is not dirty or taboo. It can be
dirty. It can be taboo. But what I want to know is---What do you
suggest to all the fat-chicks that come in for something rather spicy?
Because you have experience in being fat-headed--You might even be fat
yourself. I do not know. It's just so damn hard to tell exactly what
you are from where I stand. You might be a Federal agent. You could
work for the department of justice. You might be a renegadde Net-Cop.
You work for Victoria's Secret?
I know what her secret is.
She likes to munch rug.
Or.....
She likes to watch others munch rug.
Or....
She likes to watch her employees try on things that are a little too
small for them and laugh her ass off.
Pretty sneaky with all those follow-ups to lines there Net-Kook.
--
.sig found to be unobtrusive
.sig lost but soon reclaimed
.sig was a figment of your imagination
.sig freud was actually a woman
Spatch
>
>Don't waste your time. I've tried and AOL's shitty newsreader can not
>crosspost. If they reply to an article, their reply is posted to and
>only to the newsgroup that they are reading it in.
Probably the only good thing the newsreader has going for it.
>
>Sorry to spoil the fun, keep trying.
Thank you, drive through (tm).
- spatch, the above is trademarked Jason Nafzinger (HI JASON!) -
Stuart Marshall
James M. Egelhof <jege...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>Well, when one has a gif (Costomiris) that evidences these two attributes, I
>think they are fair game.
Although the question does beg to be asked: What do you hope to achieve
by bringing into the debate "fat" and "ugly" flames?
Both stopped being original and/or amusing the moment the first flamers
used them for the first time way back when....
It would show a remarkable lack of originality on your part if you were
forced to fall back even further on tired old "troll" techniques....
Stuart Marshall.
"Mrs Teasdale: He's had a change of heart."
"Firefly (Groucho): A lot of good that'll do. He's still got the same
face...."
Groucho Marx.