The same posters are at the top as is usual, but normally David's post count is on par or higher with the other top posters. So, just as an estimate for the number of off-topic posts you could subtract David's total from the other totals and that would tell you about how many off topic posts the other top posters churned out last month. 'We' have been very bad.
From: kwes...@gmail.com (Ken Wesson) We've been slimed.
--------------------------------------
SN: David said that about on topic Oscar posts, which resulted in the
off-topic anti- Oscar thread about shopping, etc. So those of you who
participated gleefully have no one to blame but yourselves.
**********************************
"March went out like a lion, a whippin' up the water in the bay..."--
Oscar Hammerstein II
From: gmsi...@email.com (trotsky) Ken Wesson: I thought you represented a brand of cooking oil.
---------------------------------------
SN: And I thought he was a pops up from time to time sockpuppet.
**********************************
"March went out like a lion, a whippin' up the water in the bay..."--
Oscar Hammerstein II
From: Obve...@aol.com (Obveeus) normally David's post count is on par or higher with the other top
posters. -----------------------------------------
SN: And he's published these numbers before when his rating was lower.
He really thinks he runs the place. And you enable that.
**********************************
"March went out like a lion, a whippin' up the water in the bay..."--
Oscar Hammerstein II
> From: gmsi...@email.com (trotsky)
> Ken Wesson: I thought you represented a brand of cooking oil.
> ---------------------------------------
> SN: And I thought he was a pops up from time to time sockpuppet.
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 08:26:20 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message >news:jl8npc$vtk$1@news.albasani.net...
>> How does this count off topic posts?
>The same posters are at the top as is usual, but normally David's post count >is on par or higher with the other top posters. So, just as an estimate for >the number of off-topic posts you could subtract David's total from the >other totals and that would tell you about how many off topic posts the >other top posters churned out last month. 'We' have been very bad.
I think only one person ever passed 1,000 posts before - Newport.
Three did this month, with Mason topping 2,000.
Obveeus <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>And people say rec.arts.tv is dying...
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/about >>>Top posters
>>>This month
>>>2153 Mason Barge
>>>1021 anim8rfsk
>>>1007 Obveeus
>>>879 newportsre...@webtv.net
>>>832 a...@chinet.com
>>>654 atro...@mac.com
>>>627 David
>>>551 jimgy...@geemail.com
>>>530 web...@polaris.net
>>>378 gmsi...@email.com
>>How does this count off topic posts?
>The same posters are at the top as is usual, but normally David's post count >is on par or higher with the other top posters. So, just as an estimate for >the number of off-topic posts you could subtract David's total from the >other totals and that would tell you about how many off topic posts the >other top posters churned out last month. 'We' have been very bad.
It's not possible to count David's articles by that raw number, the vast
majority of which are full text quotes of articles written by others. I
don't count such things as Usenet discussion.
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:15:34 -0400, Steve Newport wrote:
> From: gmsi...@email.com (trotsky)
> Ken Wesson: I thought you represented a brand of cooking oil.
> --------------------------------------- SN: And I thought he was a pops
> up from time to time sockpuppet.
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:13:12 -0400, Steve Newport wrote:
> From: kwes...@gmail.com (Ken Wesson) We've been slimed.
> -------------------------------------- SN: David said that about on
> topic Oscar posts,
Oscars are *movie* awards. This is a *television* newsgroup.
> which resulted in the off-topic anti- Oscar thread about shopping, etc.
In which you gleefully participated, instead of, say, killfiling that thread and moving on.
> So those of you who participated gleefully have no one to blame but
> yourselves.
Since killfiles exist, those of you who read it have no one to blame but yourselves.
>>The same posters are at the top as is usual, but normally David's post count >>is on par or higher with the other top posters. So, just as an estimate for >>the number of off-topic posts you could subtract David's total from the >>other totals and that would tell you about how many off topic posts the >>other top posters churned out last month. 'We' have been very bad.
>It's not possible to count David's articles by that raw number, the vast
>majority of which are full text quotes of articles written by others. I
>don't count such things as Usenet discussion.
On the other hand, they are on-topic and often not utterly full of crap,
unlike several of the top posters :)
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 20:22:43 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>It's not possible to count David's articles by that raw number, the vast
>majority of which are full text quotes of articles written by others. I
>don't count such things as Usenet discussion.
I remember when they used to generate discussion, back when people
would come here to talk about TV. Now I would need to air out my
racial grievances to start a long thread.
David wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 20:22:43 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> It's not possible to count David's articles by that raw number, the vast
>> majority of which are full text quotes of articles written by others. I
>> don't count such things as Usenet discussion.
> I remember when they used to generate discussion, back when people
> would come here to talk about TV. Now I would need to air out my
> racial grievances to start a long thread.
Or one on the Oscars... You never know which ones are going to take off.
Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Obveeus <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>And people say rec.arts.tv is dying...
>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/about >>>>>Top posters
>>>>>This month
>>>>>2153 Mason Barge
>>>>>1021 anim8rfsk
>>>>>1007 Obveeus
>>>>>879 newportsre...@webtv.net
>>>>>832 a...@chinet.com
>>>>>654 atro...@mac.com
>>>>>627 David
>>>>>551 jimgy...@geemail.com
>>>>>530 web...@polaris.net
>>>>>378 gmsi...@email.com
>>>>How does this count off topic posts?
>>>The same posters are at the top as is usual, but normally David's
>>>post count is on par or higher with the other top posters. So, just
>>>as an estimate for the number of off-topic posts you could subtract
>>>David's total from the other totals and that would tell you about how
>>>many off topic posts the other top posters churned out last month.
>>>'We' have been very bad.
>>It's not possible to count David's articles by that raw number, the vast
>>majority of which are full text quotes of articles written by others. I
>>don't count such things as Usenet discussion.
>On the other hand, they are on-topic and often not utterly full of crap,
>unlike several of the top posters :)
I am utterly full of crap even when on topic, but I don't violate
copyright. This puts me hugely up on David.
David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>It's not possible to count David's articles by that raw number, the vast
>>majority of which are full text quotes of articles written by others. I
>>don't count such things as Usenet discussion.
>I remember when they used to generate discussion, back when people
>would come here to talk about TV. Now I would need to air out my
>racial grievances to start a long thread.
On Sunday, April 1, 2012 4:01:32 PM UTC-6, Ken Wesson wrote:
> We've been slimed!
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:13:12 -0400, Steve Newport wrote:
> > From: kwes...@gmail.com (Ken Wesson) We've been slimed.
> > -------------------------------------- SN: David said that about on
> > topic Oscar posts,
> Oscars are *movie* awards. This is a *television* newsgroup.
...but the show (and all the commercials for those nominated) is broadcast on *television*, how is that not an on topic subject?
> > which resulted in the off-topic anti- Oscar thread about shopping, etc.
> In which you gleefully participated, instead of, say, killfiling that > thread and moving on.
When there is nothing else... even crap shows get watched when the DVR runs out.
