And now an explosion in TX! OT

[Julie Bove]

A fertilizer plant blew up. I am beginning to think that being a hermit is
not such a bad idea. Except that three days from now, I'll be itching to
get out. But seriously it seems like no place is safe any more! Might as
well just go on a Carnival Cruise!

[W. Baker]

Julie Bove <juli...@frontier.com> wrote:
: A fertilizer plant blew up. I am beginning to think that being a hermit is

: not such a bad idea. Except that three days from now, I'll be itching to
: get out. But seriously it seems like no place is safe any more! Might as
: well just go on a Carnival Cruise!

That's life! Peole get hit by cars everyday, cars have accident and people inside
get killed or injured, wlaking can cause problem, you could go to a restaurant and
get served bad food and get sick. Everything in life has some risk attached to it,
even livign as a hermit. You can't live in constant fear of the possible bad thing
happening. Don't to extra risky things, but life is full of surprises, good and
bad.

Wendy

[Cheri]

"W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:kkp67q$jef$3...@reader1.panix.com...

So true, like someone on TV said today...you never hear about the 380
million that make it home safely every day and nothing bad happened to them.
If you live in fear, it's really not living IMO, but be aware of your
surroundings at all times.

Cheri

[Julie Bove]

"W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:kkp67q$jef$3...@reader1.panix.com...

But all of those things are normal every day occurrences. Bombs and
explosions generally are not. Not for this area anyway. Perhaps for NY. I
lived in NY following 9/11 and lived on an military base. It was no fun.
Constant checks of vehicles for bombs, checks for I.D. Always being told to
be on the alert of unusual people or things. Wasn't fun. Was very happy to
get out of there.

[W. Baker]

Julie Bove <juli...@frontier.com> wrote:

: "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message

Volcanos, hurricains, floods, etc all natural,but unusual. NYC is no hysterical at
this time and we al go about out business quit normally. Sandy cause man
disruptions and for many, it is still verydifficult as descisions about whether to
rebuild the house on a high foundation or totake the buy-out offer from the state
orto try to repair what you have is very difficult and lots of people are still
living uncomfotably. One never knows when something weird might hppen but just be
careful and go along and enjoy life as it is all we have.

Wendy

[Don Roberto]

The problem is a lot of people don't see the big picture.
Like that 568 million people died on this planet last year - that's more
than 1.5 million per day, almost 65,000 per hour or 18 per second.

Of course, 1.35 billion were born in 2012 - that's 3.7 million per day
or 155,000 per hour or 43 per second.
And no, THAT is *NOT* good news either :-(

[BessieBee]

On 4/18/2013 5:51 PM, W. Baker wrote:
> One never knows when something weird might hppen but just be
> careful and go along and enjoy life as it is all we have.
>
> Wendy
>

I have always loved your attitude, Wendy. I'm very glad you share it
here. Thank you!

--
BessieBee

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going,
because you might not get there." Peter �Yogi� Berra

[Henry Mydlarz]

"Don Roberto" <anothas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:kkq5g1$edh$1...@dont-email.me...

Maybe what we need is a BIG third world war.... to restore the
ecosystem....... :(

Henry

[Don Roberto]

On 4/18/2013 7:17 PM, BessieBee wrote:
> On 4/18/2013 5:51 PM, W. Baker wrote:
>> One never knows when something weird might hppen but just be
>> careful and go along and enjoy life as it is all we have.
>>
>> Wendy
>>
> I have always loved your attitude, Wendy. I'm very glad you share it
> here. Thank you!
>

Yep. A real good one from her this time.
And she did it without a single mistype :-)

[Don Roberto]

Naah, the ecosystem won't be restored till homo locustus is extinct.
Then again - an efficient police force to keep the starving masses from
rioting may....
Naah, Henry, - and seriously now :-): restoring ain't an option.
Time is a one way trip.
Still...

Don Roberto
-------------------------
Time moves in one direction,
memory in another.
--William Gibson

[Henry Mydlarz]

"Don Roberto" wrote in message news:kkr4gl$9ok$1...@dont-email.me...

Maybe in WW3 diabetes will be thus eliminated... Actually - can frogs and
lizards, the only likely survivors, get diabetes???

Henry

[outsider]

Here in the US is a TV series called "life after people." The earth
will recover once we're gone. In a few thousand years you'll be hard
put to find evidence of us. Then all the treehuggers can be happy.

[outsider]

I think roaches are pretty safe from our illness.

[W. Baker]

outsider <outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:
: >>> The problem is a lot of people don't see the big picture.

: >>> Like that 568 million people died on this planet last year - that's
: >>> more than 1.5 million per day, almost 65,000 per hour or 18 per second.
: >>>
: >>> Of course, 1.35 billion were born in 2012 - that's 3.7 million per day
: >>> or 155,000 per hour or 43 per second.
: >>> And no, THAT is *NOT* good news either :-(
: >>>
: >>>
: >> Maybe what we need is a BIG third world war.... to restore the
: >> ecosystem....... :(
: >
: > Naah, the ecosystem won't be restored till homo locustus is extinct.
: > Then again - an efficient police force to keep the starving masses from
: > rioting may....
: > Naah, Henry, - and seriously now :-): restoring ain't an option.
: > Time is a one way trip.
: > Still...

: Here in the US is a TV series called "life after people." The earth
: will recover once we're gone. In a few thousand years you'll be hard
: put to find evidence of us. Then all the treehuggers can be happy.

The closest thing to that is the zone between North and South Korea, now some 60 years of
no inhabitants . It has become something beautiful as it reverts to no human
interference. Let us hope that the new young KNorth Korean leader lets everybody keep it
so.

Wendy

[W. Baker]

Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

Somedays good and somedays bad with the eyes. Looks like a pretty good one today. I
better stop while I am ahead:-)

Wendy

[Don Roberto]

That's what I meant when I wrote: "The ecosystem won't be restored till

homo locustus is extinct".

[Opple0pad]

What does the suffering of others have to do with your drama?

[Don Roberto]

Come on! Cut her some slack.
Her post was quite poetic.

[Opple0pad]

No, it was not.

[Don Roberto]

What do *you* know about poetry?

[GysdeJongh]

Don Roberto wrote:
> On 4/20/2013 9:19 AM, Opple0pad wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:24:49 -0700, Don Roberto

>>> On 4/19/2013 6:49 PM, Opple0pad wrote:

>>>> What does the suffering of others have to do with your drama?

>>> Come on! Cut her some slack.
>>> Her post was quite poetic.

>> No, it was not.

> What do *you* know about poetry?

tends to rhyme (?)

[Don Roberto]

[Don Roberto]

On 4/20/2013 11:44 PM, GysdeJongh wrote:

If there were water
And no rock
And water
A spring
A pool among the rock
If there were the sound of water only
Not the cicada
And the dry grass singing
But the sound of water over a rock
Where the hermit-thrush sings in the pine trees
Drip drop drip drop drip drop drop
But there is no water
--T.S. Eliot, (from) The Wasteland

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Don Roberto stelde de volgende uitleg voor :

..from Ipad to 0pad?
M. zeropad that is..

[Don Roberto]

Okay. THAT way the comment makes sense.

[Trawley Trash]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:44:17 +0200
Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:

> ..from Ipad to 0pad?
> M. zeropad that is..

That's a thought.
Ovid he's not!

[Don Roberto]

That's because this is 2013, not the year 8, and the language is
American, not Latin.
Try to focuse, will ya?

[Trawley Trash]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 01:01:33 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> >> ..from Ipad to 0pad?
> >> M. zeropad that is..
> >
> > That's a thought.
> > Ovid he's not!
> >
>
> That's because this is 2013, not the year 8, and the language is
> American, not Latin.
> Try to focuse, will ya?

Ovid is timeless,
Your post is rhymeless.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Trawley Trash stelde de volgende uitleg voor :

lol

[Don Roberto]

Ee i ee i o.

Ovid you are not either.

Here, something just for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_mol6B9z00

[Trawley Trash]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:12:43 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> Ee i ee i o.
>
> Ovid you are not either.
>
> Here, something just for you:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_mol6B9z00

Did you know that you can inadvertently
load malware onto your computer just by
watching a video? Would you like me
to explain how it is done?

[Opple0pad]

Please show me evidence, of malware being loaded through youtube, just
one real example.

[Don Roberto]

just by connecting to the internet?

[Trawley Trash]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:47:06 -0500
Opple0pad <Op...@Opple.com> wrote:

> > Did you know that you can inadvertently
> > load malware onto your computer just by
> > watching a video? Would you like me
> > to explain how it is done?
> >
>
>
> Please show me evidence, of malware being loaded through youtube, just
> one real example.

Youtube isn't hacked today. It has been in the past.

Clicking on blind links is dangerous. Especially so if they
lead to videos that require loading software onto your computer.

[Ozlover]

Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:47:06 -0500
> Opple0pad <Op...@Opple.com> wrote:
>
> > > Did you know that you can inadvertently
> > > load malware onto your computer just by
> > > watching a video? Would you like me
> > > to explain how it is done?
> >
> > Please show me evidence, of malware being loaded through youtube, just
> > one real example.
>
> Youtube isn't hacked today. It has been in the past.

Hacking YouTube and "inadvertently load malware onto your computer
just by watching a video" are two completely different things.

> Clicking on blind links is dangerous.

You meant "Blindy clicking on links is dangerous.", but by - probably
intentionally - wording it incorrectly, it's much more 'effective' FUD,
isn't it?

> Especially so if they
> lead to videos that require loading software onto your computer.

Which is not the case for YouTube.

Bottom line: Your 'warning' is just FUD and you - apparently - can't
prove your claim.

--
Frank Slootweg

[Julie Bove]

"Trawley Trash" <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:f6p25a-...@jammer.gnet...

Agreed!

[outsider]

Ignorance is bliss. How about adobe and pdf files? You people avoid
them as well?

[Henry Mydlarz]

"Don Roberto" <anothas...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:klllue$6kk$3...@dont-email.me...

I've had about 15 instances over the past few years (including one on my own
PC) where suddenly a message pops up saying that such and such virus checker
(for instance 'Windows Security 2013') pops up saying it detected scores of
infections, that your credit card has been compromised, etc. etc. It asks
you to register it and run a scan. It has already embedded itself in your
PC, but the more you click 'OK' to test, the more it infects the PC, and the
harder it is to remove. There are many variants of this malware, and most
are activated by nothing more than innocent browsing. I've had a sort of 60%
hit rate at removing this, the best program for doing so being Malwarebytes.
I instruct the teachers at my school not to respond to any message, but to
simply turn the PC/laptop off instantly when a message appears. then I have
a fighting chance to remove the infection.

henry

[Don Roberto]

Whew!

[Trawley Trash]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:05:04 -0500
outsider <outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:

> >> Clicking on blind links is dangerous. Especially so if they
> >> lead to videos that require loading software onto your
> >> computer.
> >
> > Agreed!
>
> Ignorance is bliss. How about adobe and pdf files? You people avoid
> them as well?

Whenever possible I prefer plain text. It is easier to read.
Anything that might contain or require loading custom code is
a potential hazard.

[Trawley Trash]

On 29 Apr 2013 19:40:39 GMT

Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > Clicking on blind links is dangerous.
>
> You meant "Blindy clicking on links is dangerous.", but by -
> probably intentionally - wording it incorrectly, it's much more
> 'effective' FUD, isn't it?

I meant exactly what I said: "blind links" not "blindly clicking".
Tinyurl can hide anything. Youtube often redirects to a an ad.

No, I am not going to take the time to check the url by hand to
see if I *think* it is safe: not unless the poster has the wits
to write something interesting about it.

[Ozlover]

Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2013 19:40:39 GMT
> Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

['Convenient' silent snip duly noted.]

> > > Clicking on blind links is dangerous.
> >
> > You meant "Blindy clicking on links is dangerous.", but by -
> > probably intentionally - wording it incorrectly, it's much more
> > 'effective' FUD, isn't it?
>
> I meant exactly what I said: "blind links" not "blindly clicking".
> Tinyurl can hide anything. Youtube often redirects to a an ad.

This was *not* a tinyurl (or similar) and it *was* a YouTube "watch?"
type URL, which does *not* direct you to a (non-video) ad. Perhaps some
time you can produce an argument which is actually relevant to the issue
at hand?

> No, I am not going to take the time to check the url by hand to
> see if I *think* it is safe: not unless the poster has the wits
> to write something interesting about it.

Translation: "My 'warning' was indeed just FUD and I indeed can't
prove my claim. But because I can't bring myself to admit that, I change
my story as I go along and hope that people fall for it."

QED. HTH. HAND. EOD. NK.

[Another 'convenient' silent snip duly noted.]

--
Frank Slootweg

[Don Roberto]

I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a
paranoid little weirdo. In morse code.
--Emo Phillips

[Don Roberto]

On 4/30/2013 7:37 AM, Ozlover wrote:
> Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 29 Apr 2013 19:40:39 GMT
>> Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> ['Convenient' silent snip duly noted.]
>
>>>> Clicking on blind links is dangerous.
>>>
>>> You meant "Blindy clicking on links is dangerous.", but by -
>>> probably intentionally - wording it incorrectly, it's much more
>>> 'effective' FUD, isn't it?
>>
>> I meant exactly what I said: "blind links" not "blindly clicking".
>> Tinyurl can hide anything. Youtube often redirects to a an ad.
>
> This was *not* a tinyurl (or similar) and it *was* a YouTube "watch?"
> type URL, which does *not* direct you to a (non-video) ad. Perhaps some
> time you can produce an argument which is actually relevant to the issue
> at hand?
>

This issue is Trawley is just another paranoiac.

[Trawley Trash]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 05:15:01 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> > Whenever possible I prefer plain text. It is easier to read.
> > Anything that might contain or require loading custom code is
> > a potential hazard.
> >
> >
>
> I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me
> a paranoid little weirdo. In morse code.

_.. ___ _.
._. ___ _... . ._. _ ___
.. ...
._
.__. ._ ._. ._ _. ___ .. _..
._.. .. _ _ ._.. .
.__ . .. ._. _.. ___

[Trawley Trash]

On 30 Apr 2013 14:37:45 GMT

Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > Clicking on blind links is dangerous.
> > >
> > > You meant "Blindy clicking on links is dangerous.", but by -
> > > probably intentionally - wording it incorrectly, it's much more
> > > 'effective' FUD, isn't it?
> >
> > I meant exactly what I said: "blind links" not "blindly
> > clicking". Tinyurl can hide anything. Youtube often redirects to a
> > an ad.
>
> This was *not* a tinyurl (or similar) and it *was* a YouTube
> "watch?" type URL, which does *not* direct you to a (non-video) ad.
> Perhaps some time you can produce an argument which is actually
> relevant to the issue at hand?
>
> > No, I am not going to take the time to check the url by hand to
> > see if I *think* it is safe: not unless the poster has the wits
> > to write something interesting about it.
>
> Translation: "My 'warning' was indeed just FUD and I indeed can't
> prove my claim. But because I can't bring myself to admit that, I
> change my story as I go along and hope that people fall for it."
>
> QED. HTH. HAND. EOD. NK.
>
> [Another 'convenient' silent snip duly noted.]

As I pointed out youtube has been hacked in the past, and any
hacked page can redirect to something malicious. That is why we
use secure HTTP for dealing with credit card info and such.
Youtube is not secured. Furthermore it is difficult to tell
whether a link is OK without clicking on it. Yes there are
safe ways to do it, but there is nothing to suggest this link
is worth my time.

Anyone who is interested can scroll back through the thread
and see the context. I doubt anyone is.

[Trawley Trash]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 05:16:15 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> > This was *not* a tinyurl (or similar) and it *was* a YouTube
> > "watch?" type URL, which does *not* direct you to a (non-video) ad.
> > Perhaps some time you can produce an argument which is actually
> > relevant to the issue at hand?
> >
>
> This issue is Trawley is just another paranoiac.

I have been hacked in this way recently. A few commercial
sites I use have also been hacked recently. Ignorance is
bliss.

[Bjørn Steensrud]

Don Roberto wrote:

> On 4/30/2013 7:37 AM, Ozlover wrote:
>> Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 29 Apr 2013 19:40:39 GMT
>>> Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> ['Convenient' silent snip duly noted.]
>>
>>>>> Clicking on blind links is dangerous.
>>>>
>>>> You meant "Blindy clicking on links is dangerous.", but by -
>>>> probably intentionally - wording it incorrectly, it's much more
>>>> 'effective' FUD, isn't it?
>>>
>>> I meant exactly what I said: "blind links" not "blindly clicking".
>>> Tinyurl can hide anything. Youtube often redirects to a an ad.
>>
>> This was *not* a tinyurl (or similar) and it *was* a YouTube "watch?"
>> type URL, which does *not* direct you to a (non-video) ad. Perhaps some
>> time you can produce an argument which is actually relevant to the issue
>> at hand?
>>
>
> This issue is Trawley is just another paranoiac.

When computer security is concerned, the question is not "are you paranoid?"
but "are you paranoid enough?"

[Ozlover]

More utter bollocks. You *really* should quit while you're - waaaaay -
behind.

> Furthermore it is difficult to tell
> whether a link is OK without clicking on it.

We're not talking about *a* 'link', we're talking about *this* 'link'
(BTW, it's a URL, not a link).

> Yes there are
> safe ways to do it, but there is nothing to suggest this link
> is worth my time.

If you think this 'link' is not worth your time, that's ofcourse fine,
but no reason/excuse for baseless FUD and claims.

> Anyone who is interested can scroll back through the thread
> and see the context. I doubt anyone is.

I'm not talking about old context, I'm talking about the fact that you
*silently* snip the refutals of your statements/claims, without having
the guts to *counter/acknowledge* said refutals. I.e. you silently snip
*active* context. Dishonest and pathetic. And stupid if you think people
won't notice/object.

--
Frank Slootweg

[Ozlover]

But being uninformed/ignorant/clueless/stupid/<whatever> is not a
suitable substitute for "paranoid enough".

--
Frank Slootweg

[GysdeJongh]

<http://imgur.com/gallery/0gnXi>

[Don Roberto]

On 5/1/2013 7:13 AM, Trawley Trash wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 05:16:15 -0700
> Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> This was *not* a tinyurl (or similar) and it *was* a YouTube
>>> "watch?" type URL, which does *not* direct you to a (non-video) ad.
>>> Perhaps some time you can produce an argument which is actually
>>> relevant to the issue at hand?
>>>
>>
>> This issue is Trawley is just another paranoiac.
>
> I have been hacked in this way recently.

So, what was the damage?
The hackers access pictures of your dirty underwear?

[Don Roberto]

-.-- --- ..-
.- .-. .
... --- --- --- --- --- ---
.. -. - . .-.. .-.. .. --. . -. -

[Don Roberto]

Silly, really, to let life's insecurities mess up your mind.
Yes, it's not just computers that are insecure.
As a very wise person said, and s/he said it more than once:
SHIT HAPPENS!

[Opple0pad]

The links were to youtube videos. Have a paranoid day.

[Opple0pad]

Well, that settles it, it has to be true. Are you dating a French
model as well?

[outsider]

The only secure thought is one that's never written or uttered.

And if you must pray, do so silently without moving your lips.

[Trawley Trash]

On 1 May 2013 17:43:18 GMT

Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > Furthermore it is difficult to tell
> > whether a link is OK without clicking on it.
>
> We're not talking about *a* 'link', we're talking about *this*
> 'link' (BTW, it's a URL, not a link).

This link is *a* link. And my newsreader turns any URL into a link.
And BTW when you click on an embedded URL inside an HTML document,
the displayed target can be completely different from what is
indicated in the visible text.

> > Yes there are
> > safe ways to do it, but there is nothing to suggest this link
> > is worth my time.
>
> If you think this 'link' is not worth your time, that's ofcourse
> fine, but no reason/excuse for baseless FUD and claims.

What I wrote is not baseless.

> > Anyone who is interested can scroll back through the thread
> > and see the context. I doubt anyone is.
>
> I'm not talking about old context, I'm talking about the fact that
> you *silently* snip the refutals of your statements/claims, without
> having the guts to *counter/acknowledge* said refutals. I.e. you
> silently snip *active* context. Dishonest and pathetic. And stupid if
> you think people won't notice/object.

I have yet to see any "refutals" in your posts. I snip so people
can read and move on without scrolling through a lot of blather.
I like it that way, and at least some other people do too. I was
taught that this is proper nettiquette.

If you want to follow the exchange, then scroll back and look at
it. If you make many posts that you lose track of what you are
replying to, this is not my problem.

[Don Roberto]

On 5/1/2013 8:43 PM, outsider wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 8:32 PM, Don Roberto wrote:

Yep.
But tell that to the sheep who can't help believing there is safety in
numbers.

[Bjørn Steensrud]

Ozlover wrote:

True. The <whatever> conditions are more likely to get one in trouble.

[outsider]

But then how about the schools of fish that dolphins surround and drive
into an ever smaller ball, all the better to eat them?

[Trawley Trash]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 16:58:09 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> > I have been hacked in this way recently.
>
> So, what was the damage?
> The hackers access pictures of your dirty underwear?

I am not going to tell you how to make bombs either.

[Ozlover]

Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 1 May 2013 17:43:18 GMT
> Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

[Dishonest 'convenient' silent snip duly noted.

> > > Furthermore it is difficult to tell
> > > whether a link is OK without clicking on it.
> >
> > We're not talking about *a* 'link', we're talking about *this*
> > 'link' (BTW, it's a URL, not a link).
>
> This link is *a* link. And my newsreader turns any URL into a link.

No, this 'link' is NOT a link. And yes, many newsreaders allows one to
click a *URL* in order to have their web-browser show the contents of
the pointed-to location. Such a thing is called a clickable URL, but it
is NOT a link.

So, as I said in the part you cowardly snipped: You *really* should

quit while you're - waaaaay - behind.

> And BTW when you click on an embedded URL inside an HTML document,
> the displayed target can be completely different from what is
> indicated in the visible text.

Duh! You don't say!? (And FYI, such a "embedded URL inside an HTML
document" *is* a link.)

> > > Yes there are
> > > safe ways to do it, but there is nothing to suggest this link
> > > is worth my time.
> >
> > If you think this 'link' is not worth your time, that's ofcourse

> > fine, but no reason/excuse for baseless FUD and claims.^M

>
> What I wrote is not baseless.

It had nothing to do with the URL which was posted, ergo baseless.

> > > Anyone who is interested can scroll back through the thread
> > > and see the context. I doubt anyone is.
> >
> > I'm not talking about old context, I'm talking about the fact that
> > you *silently* snip the refutals of your statements/claims, without
> > having the guts to *counter/acknowledge* said refutals. I.e. you
> > silently snip *active* context. Dishonest and pathetic. And stupid if
> > you think people won't notice/object.
>
> I have yet to see any "refutals" in your posts.

I don't doubt that for a minute. You're so uniformed/ignorant/clueless
that I don't doubt that you don't get it. But if you don't understand
something, you should ask questions or STFU.

> I snip so people
> can read and move on without scrolling through a lot of blather.
> I like it that way, and at least some other people do too. I was
> taught that this is proper nettiquette.

Well, if you think that dishonest/pathetic/stupid and silent
snipping of active context which you're unable to refute is "proper"
then that speaks volumes about your MO.

> If you want to follow the exchange, then scroll back and look at
> it. If you make many posts that you lose track of what you are
> replying to, this is not my problem.

No brainiac, it's not me who's "losing track", it's *you* who is too
gutless to counter/acknowledge the refutal of *your* statements/claims.

So what is it to be, gutless or stupid?

--
Frank Slootweg

[Ozlover]

GysdeJongh <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:

Are you COMPLETELY nuts!?

Don't you know that you can inadvertently load malware onto your
computer just by watching a video, that clicking on blind links is
dangerous, that your URL isn't a URL but a link, that it is difficult to
tell whether a link is OK without clicking on it, that everything is
hacked and will be hacked, that only HTTPs sites can not be hacked and
that if you're caught with your pants down, it's perfectly proper to
erase any evidence of such an event!?

Shame on you!

--
Frank Slootweg

[GysdeJongh]

Don't worry Frank, where we live all hacking will be done by the police
itself. New legislation, no warrants needed. The police will switch on your
webcam and download your dirty underwear.
Gys

[outsider]

On 5/2/2013 5:32 PM, GysdeJongh wrote:

> Don't worry Frank, where we live all hacking will be done by the police
> itself. New legislation, no warrants needed. The police will switch on
> your webcam and download your dirty underwear.
> Gys

My webcam has a covering over the lens. I put it there.

Trust but verify. Well I verified!

[Opple0påd]

You have bomb making recipes on your computer?

I know just where to share that info.

[Opple0p�d]

On 2 May 2013 20:14:07 GMT, Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 1 May 2013 17:43:18 GMT
>> Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>[Dishonest 'convenient' silent snip duly noted.
>
>> > > Furthermore it is difficult to tell
>> > > whether a link is OK without clicking on it.
>> >
>> > We're not talking about *a* 'link', we're talking about *this*
>> > 'link' (BTW, it's a URL, not a link).
>>
>> This link is *a* link. And my newsreader turns any URL into a link.
>
> No, this 'link' is NOT a link. And yes, many newsreaders allows one to
>click a *URL* in order to have their web-browser show the contents of
>the pointed-to location. Such a thing is called a clickable URL, but it
>is NOT a link.

Dude, that is what a link is.

Don't get me wrong, I believe he is a paranoid twit. But on that one
miniscule item he is correct.

[GysdeJongh]

good outsider then we could do Skype and use Braille

[Bjørn Steensrud]

wrote:

:-)

I may have done something similar in my youth ...

[Don Roberto]

Blame it on the teachers in those fish schools

[Don Roberto]

Doesn't work that way.

One reason the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, is
that the skills required for competence often are the same skills
necessary to recognize competence.
--Erica Goode

[Trawley Trash]

On 2 May 2013 20:14:07 GMT

Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> No brainiac, it's not me who's "losing track", it's *you* who is too
> gutless to counter/acknowledge the refutal of *your*
> statements/claims.
>
> So what is it to be, gutless or stupid?

If you think the distinction between a link and a URL is important
in this context, then you are the idiot.

[Trawley Trash]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 01:49:17 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> > But then how about the schools of fish that dolphins surround and
> > drive into an ever smaller ball, all the better to eat them?
> >
>
> Blame it on the teachers in those fish schools

Better to draft fish into the military so they only
learn what you want them to know, eh?

[Trawley Trash]

A federal employee once tried to involve me
in a bomb-making sting. When I objected that I didn't know
first thing about making a bomb, he explained how to do
it.

Everything I learned from him is in recent news
stories about the Boston marathon. No need to store it anywhere.
Like the "secret" of the atom bomb it is broadcast around the
world.

America would be safer if we were protected by the Keystone Kops.

Don't ask me to explain.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

outsider gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :

> On 5/2/2013 1:17 AM, Don Roberto wrote:
>> On 5/1/2013 8:43 PM, outsider wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2013 8:32 PM, Don Roberto wrote:

Even then there is safety in numbers.
M.

[Ozlover]

Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/2013 1:14 PM, Ozlover wrote:
> > Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[...]

> >> I have yet to see any "refutals" in your posts.
> >
> > I don't doubt that for a minute. You're so uniformed/ignorant/clueless
> > that I don't doubt that you don't get it. But if you don't understand
> > something, you should ask questions or STFU.
>
> Doesn't work that way.
>
> One reason the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, is
> that the skills required for competence often are the same skills
> necessary to recognize competence.
> --Erica Goode

Yes, I'm very well aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect!

Watch :-) out, here comes a 'link':

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>

--
Frank Slootweg

[Ozlover]

Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2 May 2013 20:14:07 GMT
> Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

Silent concession of my main point(s) duly noted.

> > No brainiac, it's not me who's "losing track", it's *you* who is too
> > gutless to counter/acknowledge the refutal of *your*
> > statements/claims.
> >
> > So what is it to be, gutless or stupid?
>
> If you think the distinction between a link and a URL is important
> in this context, then you are the idiot.

No, it's not important, that's why it was clearly marked with "BTW"
("(BTW, it's a URL, not a link)"), i.e. just informative.

So the idiot is the one who feels the need to try to refute a BTW and
then acts as a spoiled brat when proven wrong.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>

I'm done.

--
Frank Slootweg

[Ozlover]

Opple0p?d <Op...@oppple.com> wrote:
> On 2 May 2013 20:14:07 GMT, Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 1 May 2013 17:43:18 GMT
> >> Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >[Dishonest 'convenient' silent snip duly noted.
> >
> >> > > Furthermore it is difficult to tell
> >> > > whether a link is OK without clicking on it.
> >> >
> >> > We're not talking about *a* 'link', we're talking about *this*
> >> > 'link' (BTW, it's a URL, not a link).
> >>
> >> This link is *a* link. And my newsreader turns any URL into a link.
> >
> > No, this 'link' is NOT a link. And yes, many newsreaders allows one to
> >click a *URL* in order to have their web-browser show the contents of
> >the pointed-to location. Such a thing is called a clickable URL, but it
> >is NOT a link.
>
> Dude, that is what a link is.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I believe he is a paranoid twit. But on that one
> miniscule item he is correct.

Sigh! Please read what is written. His *newsreader* *turns* a URL, i.e.
a piece of text, *into* a clickable URL.

What we were talking about was this URL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_mol6B9z00

When posted as is, i.e. as text, it's just a URL, but many
(displaying) newsreaders recognize URLs such as this one and *make* them
clickable, i.e. they *become* a "clickable URL". I.e. *what goes over the
wire* is a URL, what is *displayed* is a clickable URL.

A *link* is a piece of HTML, such as a "<a href=...>...</a>" tag.

Without HTML no 'link' and since these are text postings they do not
contain any HTML [1].

[1] Yes, some postings contain are multipart/alternative with (first) a
text/plain and (then) a text/html part, but for News/Usenet only the
text/plain part is relevant/used.

--
Frank Slootweg

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Ozlover stelde dit idée voor :

NIBD, STW ICPAL
M.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Ozlover formuleerde de vraag :

Ye olde bard was earlier.
And: NIBD, this aint no link but an URL, but: ICPAUE.. :/

M.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Ozlover formuleerde op vrijdag :

BTW is higher than it should be :')
M.

[GysdeJongh]

which is much fun and published by Diederik Stapel :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel

know as a WC Eend investigation : We from the WC Eend Company advice WC Eend

WC= Water Closet
WC Eend is is product to thouroughly clean the "bathroom"

[GysdeJongh]

Trawley Trash wrote:

> If you think the distinction between a link and a URL is important
> in this context, then you are the idiot.

Thx, I will use my new laser cutter to burn that text in my wooden shoes

[GysdeJongh]

RobertPatrick wrote:

> Plz link me to a URL.

www.RobertPatrick.com

hth
Gys

[Maya Zuiderweg]

GysdeJongh plaatste dit op zijn scherm :

Dont set mainframetech off
M.

[Don Roberto]

On 5/3/2013 12:02 PM, Maya Zuiderweg wrote:
> outsider gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :
>> On 5/2/2013 1:17 AM, Don Roberto wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2013 8:43 PM, outsider wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2013 8:32 PM, Don Roberto wrote:

Yeah. For the dolphins.

[Don Roberto]

I - for one - won't.

[Don Roberto]

Damn, you *iz* an edumacated feller!

Wasn't aware a couple of contemporary shrinks have *effect*ively laid
claim to the Bard's, Darwin's and Russell's notion that stupid people
are too stupid to know they are stupid.

[Don Roberto]

Now that you have a king - is it still illegal to tiptoe through the
tulips without wooden shoes?

[GysdeJongh]

we now have a Queen. She in charge of all tulips

<http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Gardening/2009/0910/dutch-princess-visits-new-york-to-name-tulip-for-henry-hudson>

[Don Roberto]

You haven't answered my question.

[GysdeJongh]

<http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/ExerciseFitness/38854>

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Don Roberto schreef op 4-5-2013 :

Nope. For the li'l fish. Little fish swim in schools - not for the fun
of dolphins - but for the safety in numbers.
M.

[Opple0p�d]

I won't, your wild fictions and paranoia only make you look like a
fool. Since everyone here already knows that you are said fool,
no-one needs further convincing.

[Trawley Trash]

I notice the risky material has been pulled from cnn today.