Gary Eickmeier writes:
> Not using Google, but I noticed that the forum in dpreview.com has > discussion threads that have a 150 post limit. This is programmed in by > their website, so it might not be possible here in Usenet.
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:10:49 -0400, Mxsmanic wrote
(in article <kqf8o75i6bhc9tcltb8rkkm9m782csb...@4ax.com>):
> Ty Ford writes:
>> Stop shitting where you eat.
> Are you interested in high-end audio?
childish talks like this dilute the power of the entire forum. Say, for example, someone stumbles in here who has a grain of sense and maybe something to add. They take a quick look around, presume it's a room inhabited by 10-year olds and split.
This is not your personal fucking chat room and sand box. So quit screwing around and screwing it up for other people who are here for the reasons in the charter. Get you head out of your ass, realize this newsgroup is not YOUR PERSONAL internet and get back on course or don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
>> On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:10:17 UTC+2, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> See above. Are you interested in talking about high-end audio, or do you
>>> prefer to talk only about me?
>> Hey, you're finaly to the point. Read carefully (I'll say it loud):
>> 1. THIS GROUP IS NOT ABOUT HIGH END AUDIO. >> 2. HIGH END AUDIO IS OFFTOPIC HERE. >> 3. PEOPLE STARTING SUCH THREADS ARE CONSIDERED TROLLS. >> 4. TAKE HIGH END AUDIO DISCUSSION TO APROPRIATE GROUP.
> You are free to ignore any thread that you find uninteresting or otherwise
> objectionable.
This is not your personal fucking chat room and sand box. So quit screwing around and screwing it up for other people who are here for the reasons in the charter. Get you head out of your ass, realize this newsgroup is not YOUR PERSONAL internet and get back on course or don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Ty Ford wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:10:49 -0400, Mxsmanic wrote
> (in article <kqf8o75i6bhc9tcltb8rkkm9m782csb...@4ax.com>):
>> Ty Ford writes:
>>> Stop shitting where you eat.
>> Are you interested in high-end audio?
> childish talks like this dilute the power of the entire forum. Say, for > example, someone stumbles in here who has a grain of sense and maybe > something to add. They take a quick look around, presume it's a room > inhabited by 10-year olds and split.
> This is not your personal fucking chat room and sand box. So quit screwing > around and screwing it up for other people who are here for the reasons in > the charter. Get you head out of your ass, realize this newsgroup is not YOUR > PERSONAL internet and get back on course or don't let the door hit your ass > on the way out.
The alternative is, of course, for everybody to just ignore it. My newsreader marks all its messages as read on arrival just in case an interesting point comes up, although it can be set to ignore any thread it posts in. It only took a few seconds to set up the filter.
> Ty Ford wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:10:49 -0400, Mxsmanic wrote
>> (in article <kqf8o75i6bhc9tcltb8rkkm9m782csb...@4ax.com>):
>>> Ty Ford writes:
>>>> Stop shitting where you eat.
>>> Are you interested in high-end audio?
>> childish talks like this dilute the power of the entire forum. Say, for >> example, someone stumbles in here who has a grain of sense and maybe >> something to add. They take a quick look around, presume it's a room >> inhabited by 10-year olds and split.
>> This is not your personal fucking chat room and sand box. So quit screwing >> around and screwing it up for other people who are here for the reasons in >> the charter. Get you head out of your ass, realize this newsgroup is not >> YOUR >> PERSONAL internet and get back on course or don't let the door hit your ass >> on the way out.
> The alternative is, of course, for everybody to just ignore it. My > newsreader marks all its messages as read on arrival just in case an > interesting point comes up, although it can be set to ignore any thread > it posts in. It only took a few seconds to set up the filter.
No, John, that's decidedly NOT the point. When prospective members happen on this newsgroup and see people acting like 10 year olds and BSing about everything but the topic, they shrug and leave.
Ty Ford wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:51:28 -0400, John Williamson wrote
> (in article <9uo8fpFr3...@mid.individual.net>):
>> Ty Ford wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:10:49 -0400, Mxsmanic wrote
>>> (in article <kqf8o75i6bhc9tcltb8rkkm9m782csb...@4ax.com>):
>>>> Ty Ford writes:
>>>>> Stop shitting where you eat.
>>>> Are you interested in high-end audio?
>>> childish talks like this dilute the power of the entire forum. Say, for >>> example, someone stumbles in here who has a grain of sense and maybe >>> something to add. They take a quick look around, presume it's a room >>> inhabited by 10-year olds and split.
>>> This is not your personal fucking chat room and sand box. So quit screwing >>> around and screwing it up for other people who are here for the reasons in >>> the charter. Get you head out of your ass, realize this newsgroup is not >>> YOUR >>> PERSONAL internet and get back on course or don't let the door hit your ass >>> on the way out.
>> The alternative is, of course, for everybody to just ignore it. My >> newsreader marks all its messages as read on arrival just in case an >> interesting point comes up, although it can be set to ignore any thread >> it posts in. It only took a few seconds to set up the filter.
> No, John, that's decidedly NOT the point. When prospective members happen on > this newsgroup and see people acting like 10 year olds and BSing about > everything but the topic, they shrug and leave.
> It damages the group.
The point I was trying to make is that if everybody ignored this mxsmanic character, which, for all the use its posts are, might as well just be a chatbot, it would disappear quite quickly. I am possibly as exasperated and annoyed as you that so many posters have spent so much time and effort on a number of threads which have now degenerated into personal abuse on all sides, when it could all have been avoided by a bit of common sense all round. For what it's worth, mxsmanic seems to have now found out which buttons to push to get people wound up, which, given its use of a pseudonym and its childish reaction to criticism, may well have been its intention all along.
Still, that's usenet for you. Sometimes the lack of moderation and censorship means that things get out of hand. Sometimes, the same lacks mean that a thread goes in an unexpectedly useful direction.
Ty Ford writes:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:10:49 -0400, Mxsmanic wrote
> (in article <kqf8o75i6bhc9tcltb8rkkm9m782csb...@4ax.com>):
> > Are you interested in high-end audio?
> childish talks like this dilute the power of the entire forum.
If you find my simple question childish, what sort of impression do you think
that your statement maeks below:
> This is not your personal fucking chat room and sand box. So quit screwing > around and screwing it up for other people who are here for the reasons in > the charter. Get you head out of your ass, realize this newsgroup is not YOUR > PERSONAL internet and get back on course or don't let the door hit your ass > on the way out.
> Say, for > example, someone stumbles in here who has a grain of sense and maybe > something to add. They take a quick look around, presume it's a room > inhabited by 10-year olds and split.
There are times when I wonder about the ages of some potty-mouthed
participants on Usenet myself.
John Williamson writes:
> The alternative is, of course, for everybody to just ignore it.
The ones who are the quickest to engage in personal attacks can never just
ignore it. They are too worried about what someone might say about them, and
they are afraid that someone will toss some perceived invective their way
without them having an opportunity to "fight back," in battles that exist only
in their imaginations.
Ty Ford writes:
> No, John, that's decidedly NOT the point. When prospective members happen on > this newsgroup and see people acting like 10 year olds and BSing about > everything but the topic, they shrug and leave.
I've read your posts, but I haven't left. There are other people here who can
sustain a useful conversation.
>> The alternative is, of course, for everybody to just ignore it.
>The ones who are the quickest to engage in personal attacks can never just
>ignore it. They are too worried about what someone might say about them, and
>they are afraid that someone will toss some perceived invective their way
>without them having an opportunity to "fight back," in battles that exist only
>in their imaginations.
Perhaps you should just go away and leave this a quieter newsgroup. I
think you would be happier, and so would others.
--scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>> No, John, that's decidedly NOT the point. When prospective members happen on
>> this newsgroup and see people acting like 10 year olds and BSing about
>> everything but the topic, they shrug and leave.
>> It damages the group.
> The point I was trying to make is that if everybody ignored this
> mxsmanic character, which, for all the use its posts are, might as
> well just be a chatbot, it would disappear quite quickly. I am
> possibly as exasperated and annoyed as you that so many posters
> have spent so much time and effort on a number of threads which
> have now degenerated into personal abuse on all sides, when it
> could all have been avoided by a bit of common sense all round. For
> what it's worth, mxsmanic seems to have now found out which buttons
> to push to get people wound up, which, given its use of a pseudonym
> and its childish reaction to criticism, may well have been its
> intention all along.
Agreed, at first i was thinking the character was just a bit misinformed or misguided. Trying to help inform and educate got hostility and more ignorance however, which is why a
couple weeks ago it entered my killfile.
I'm proud to have run Bill graham off, but think this
creature is a bit more persistent than Graham was.
Killfiles are the only answer.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
> On Thu 2012-Apr-12 13:29, John Williamson writes:
>>> No, John, that's decidedly NOT the point. When prospective members happen on
>>> this newsgroup and see people acting like 10 year olds and BSing about
>>> everything but the topic, they shrug and leave.
>>> It damages the group.
>> The point I was trying to make is that if everybody ignored this
>> mxsmanic character, which, for all the use its posts are, might as
>> well just be a chatbot, it would disappear quite quickly. I am
>> possibly as exasperated and annoyed as you that so many posters
>> have spent so much time and effort on a number of threads which
>> have now degenerated into personal abuse on all sides, when it
>> could all have been avoided by a bit of common sense all round. For
>> what it's worth, mxsmanic seems to have now found out which buttons
>> to push to get people wound up, which, given its use of a pseudonym
>> and its childish reaction to criticism, may well have been its
>> intention all along.
> Agreed, at first i was thinking the character was just a bit misinformed or misguided. Trying to help inform and educate got hostility and more ignorance however, which is why a
> couple weeks ago it entered my killfile.
> I'm proud to have run Bill graham off, but think this
> creature is a bit more persistent than Graham was.
> Killfiles are the only answer.
Speaking of Usenet etiquette, Richard, is there some reason why you refuse to
set your computer clock to the correct time? Posts having incorrect times cause
sorting problems in many news reader.
mcp6453 wrote:
> Speaking of Usenet etiquette, Richard, is there some reason why you
> refuse to set your computer clock to the correct time? Posts having
> incorrect times cause sorting problems in many news reader.
Dunno about Richard, but I refuse to set my computers to daylight saving time.
Peter Larsen <digi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>mcp6453 wrote:
>> Speaking of Usenet etiquette, Richard, is there some reason why you
>> refuse to set your computer clock to the correct time? Posts having
>> incorrect times cause sorting problems in many news reader.
>Dunno about Richard, but I refuse to set my computers to daylight saving >time.
That's just fine as long as the timestamp in the header indicates this.
They all get turned into UTC time for sorting anyway.
--scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>> Not using Google, but I noticed that the forum in dpreview.com has
>> discussion threads that have a 150 post limit. This is programmed in by
>> their website, so it might not be possible here in Usenet.
> It is not possible on Usenet.
Of course it's possible. There are many moderated Usenet newsgroups,
and many of them are moderated by bots.A mod-bot can easily be
configured to limit the number of posts on a thread. This group will
never be moderated, bit it's certainly possible to limit post count on a
thread in a Usenet nuwsgroup.
You're just waxing moronic on yet another subject on the long list
of things you don't understand. If your head weren't so far up your
asshole you'd consider shutting your fry hole on subjects that you
know nothing about, but making a spectacle of your ignorance is
what you do. Dude.
> Speaking of Usenet etiquette, Richard, is there some reason why you
> refuse to set your computer clock to the correct time? Posts having
> incorrect times cause sorting problems in many news reader.
IT is set to correct time, coordinated universal time.
IT doesn't do daylight savings time, etc. etc. IT's set
with national bureau of standards 3 times weekly.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
On 12 Apr 2012, Richard.Webb.my.f...@116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com (Richard Webb) wrote in rec.audio.pro:
> IT is set to correct time, coordinated universal time.
> IT doesn't do daylight savings time, etc. etc. IT's set
> with national bureau of standards 3 times weekly.
Since the subject of your posting style has already been raised, why do you intentionally change the subject line to remove the "re:" portion? I don't like it - it makes my reader present it as a new topic.
> On Thu 2012-Apr-12 17:08, mcp6453 writes;
>> Speaking of Usenet etiquette, Richard, is there some reason why you
>> refuse to set your computer clock to the correct time? Posts having
>> incorrect times cause sorting problems in many news reader.
> IT is set to correct time, coordinated universal time.
> IT doesn't do daylight savings time, etc. etc. IT's set
> with national bureau of standards 3 times weekly.
So it appears that you don't want to get in sync with the rest of the world.
>> IT is set to correct time, coordinated universal time.
>> IT doesn't do daylight savings time, etc. etc. IT's set
>> with national bureau of standards 3 times weekly.
> Since the subject of your posting style has already been raised, why
> do you intentionally change the subject line to remove the "re:"
> portion? I don't like it - it makes my reader present it as a new
> topic.
I don't see a re: here, the gateway might strip that before i see it. I'm posting from my dial-up bbs.
And no, I'm not going to set the clock to cdt or cst when a
lot of other functions this machine does are handled easier
in utc. I've been running machines with clocks set to utc
for over a decade now.
I think the other reader I use strips the re: a lot of times as well. No I'm not using outlook, and have no intention of doing so.
I post from my dial-up bbs for a lot of reasons. Better
spam filtration; better killfile capabilities, and I archive this group via the bbs, at least people who are worth
archiving. I read this group also via Albasani
unfiltered but prefer to post from this one the mail server
has much better junk filtration, and those who wish to reply by email have a better chance of reaching me via this route.
What happens to posts going through the gateway from which I participate in this group I have no control over. Last i
knew it was basically what we call abandonware. ITs
operator could provide you more insight into that, if he
deigns to do so, but it probably isn't high on his priority
list.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
None writes:
> Of course it's possible. There are many moderated Usenet newsgroups,
> and many of them are moderated by bots.
Only a handful of Usenet newsgroups are moderated, and most of them are
deserted. Additionally, Usenet servers are individually and autonomously
managed, and server operators are not required to recognize or act upon any
specific directives, although most do (except for cancel requests, as I
recall).
> Speaking of Usenet etiquette, Richard, is there some reason why you
> refuse to set your computer clock to the correct time? Posts having
> incorrect times cause sorting problems in many news reader.
The time stamp problem may not be on the users' end, as the usenet server
has ultimate control over the logging and displaying of the file.
