Bird and Bob

[Sir Tim]

85 posts when I opened up and about half of them continuing this pathetic
feud.

Anybody else thinking of leaving?

--
Henry Birkin, Bt.

[News]

On 7/27/2012 3:02 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
> 85 posts when I opened up and about half of them continuing this pathetic
> feud.
>
> Anybody else thinking of leaving?
>

filter posts to: r.a.s.f1.pathetic-feud

[Mike P]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:02:14 -0500, Sir Tim wrote:

> 85 posts when I opened up and about half of them continuing this
> pathetic feud.
>
> Anybody else thinking of leaving?

Just killfile the pair of idiots.


--
Mike P

[AC]

Sir Tim wrote:
> 85 posts when I opened up and about half of them continuing this pathetic
> feud.
>
> Anybody else thinking of leaving?
>

No. It will fade out as per.

TBH, its wouldn't be the same if the Bird wasn't having a feud with some
one. Dunno why its bothering you this time. Im just glad its not
moi.............

--
AC

[Bigbird]

Sir Tim wrote:

> 85 posts when I opened up and about half of them continuing this
> pathetic feud.
>
> Anybody else thinking of leaving?

WTF did you have to open 85 posts no matter count them?

I say you got what you deserved.

A brighter person might have gathered the way things were going after
one or two posts and ignored the rest.

Your motives are suspect...or is your intelligence. :p

[Geoff May]

On 27/07/2012 20:02, Sir Tim wrote:
> 85 posts when I opened up and about half of them continuing this pathetic
> feud.
>
> Anybody else thinking of leaving?

Yes.

Cheers

Geoff

[Dave Baker]

Sir Tim wrote:
> 85 posts when I opened up and about half of them continuing this
> pathetic feud.
>
> Anybody else thinking of leaving?

No but I find it massively annoying when such drivel completely takes over
threads that some people have hopefully been finding helpful and no doubt
stops them bothering to read past a certain point. That means I can't even
go back in and add an addendum to my own thread because I'd just be wasting
my time from then on.

The only option seems to be the killfile although I dislike using that.
--
Dave Baker

[Bigbird]

If they don't have the intelligence to hit the "next" button until the
drop on a non-feudal post or temporarily filter the posters there is
shit chance they will get through one of your self involved
explanations.

...but not to worry I covered for you in my summary a couple of days
ago.

It's very irritating when you keep making new threads about the same
old subject but that's just my arsehole.

[Mike P]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 23:52:09 +0100, Dave Baker wrote:

> Sir Tim wrote:
>> 85 posts when I opened up and about half of them continuing this
>> pathetic feud.
>>
>> Anybody else thinking of leaving?
>
> No but I find it massively annoying when such drivel completely takes
> over threads that some people have hopefully been finding helpful and no
> doubt stops them bothering to read past a certain point.

I find your posts very interesting Dave. I'm not an engineer but have
rebuilt a few cars and engines. Have to replace a split turbo pipe on my
Xantia this afternoon..

That means I
> can't even go back in and add an addendum to my own thread because I'd
> just be wasting my time from then on.
>
> The only option seems to be the killfile although I dislike using that.

Same here, but fuck it, I've had enough of the drivel this time.





--
Mike P

[AC]

From my POV, its piss easy to differentiate the various forks in a
thread. Dont let that put you off.

--
AC

[AC]

Also, that "tree" view is one of the things that makes usenet so much
better than web forums.

--
AC

[David Melville]

+1,000,000

Drives me up the wall how it's impossible to reply directly to a comment
on a Facebook thread.

Cheers,
Dave

[CatharticF1]

Sir Tim <ben...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote in
news:2071706862365108355.14200...@news.plus.net:

> 85 posts when I opened up and about half of them continuing this pathetic
> feud.
>
> Anybody else thinking of leaving?

They'll settle down. I hadn't noticed until you pointed it out actually.

--
CatharticF1

I can't resist no crossing signs

[Alessandro D. Petaccia]

I'll never get this. When half of the posts are about something that
doesn't interest me, I simply don't read them - or delete them
altoghether. I don't know what kind of newsreader you guys are using
(yes, I could check the headers, but I *am* lazy) but old faithful
Agent here makes it pretty simple to figure out when a thread has
derailed into a flame war*. Select all, delete - done. Oh look, the
next thread is Dave explaining something about, er, nuclear power
plants or something, I'm reading that! I mean, it's not like we're in
a pub, forced to endure the high-volume conversations of the drunken
idiots at the next table, is it..?

ADP.


(*) although to be perfectly honest, I find the occasional flame war
rather amusing. But, that's my alt.flame background rearing its ugly
head.

[David Melville]

You're a compleat arsehole, forcing me to read all that drivel and
wasting my time. I'm going to killfile you now, but just to make sure
that my level of indignation is apparent I'm going to tell you and
everyone else that I've killfiled you. I'm sure I could just do it
without a rant but that just wouldn't be usenet.

Once again, I'm so angry you made me read your post.

Cheers,
Dave

[Alessandro D. Petaccia]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:58:54 +0000 (UTC), David Melville
<davidm...@nospam.exemail.com.au> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:41:18 +0200, Alessandro D. Petaccia wrote:
>

>> (*) although to be perfectly honest, I find the occasional flame war
>> rather amusing. But, that's my alt.flame background rearing its ugly
>> head.
>
>You're a compleat arsehole, forcing me to read all that drivel and
>wasting my time.

(half a sec while I stop laughing)

...Right. YOU are the arsehole, for reasons that'll become apparent
once I've misquoted the relevant posts from five threads ago, when you
were replying to a perfectly innocent question posed by someone else
entirely. Of course I could quote them right now, but it'd shorten the
thread's lifespan and really, who'd want that?

> I'm going to killfile you now, but just to make sure
>that my level of indignation is apparent I'm going to tell you and
>everyone else that I've killfiled you.

Oh, yeah?! Well then, you leave me no choice but to reply to you,
which is obviously what everyone should do as soon as they've been
killfiled. Ha, what, you thought I was a newbie or something?!

ADP.

[Bigbird]

David Melville wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:41:18 +0200, Alessandro D. Petaccia wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 23:47:52 +0100, Geoff May
> > <GeoffMay_do...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 27/07/2012 20:02, Sir Tim wrote:
> >>> 85 posts when I opened up and about half of them continuing this
> >>> pathetic feud.
> > > >
> >>> Anybody else thinking of leaving?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > I'll never get this. When half of the posts are about something that
> > doesn't interest me, I simply don't read them - or delete them
> > altoghether. I don't know what kind of newsreader you guys are using

> > (yes, I could check the headers, but I am lazy) but old faithful

> > Agent here makes it pretty simple to figure out when a thread has
> > derailed into a flame war*. Select all, delete - done. Oh look, the
> > next thread is Dave explaining something about, er, nuclear power
> > plants or something, I'm reading that! I mean, it's not like we're
> > in a pub, forced to endure the high-volume conversations of the
> > drunken idiots at the next table, is it..?
> >
> > ADP.
> >
> >
> > (*) although to be perfectly honest, I find the occasional flame war
> > rather amusing. But, that's my alt.flame background rearing its ugly
> > head.
>
> You're a compleat arsehole, forcing me to read all that drivel and
> wasting my time. I'm going to killfile you now, but just to make sure
> that my level of indignation is apparent I'm going to tell you and
> everyone else that I've killfiled you. I'm sure I could just do it
> without a rant but that just wouldn't be usenet.
>
> Once again, I'm so angry you made me read your post.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave

PLONK*

*Now I shall have to take a full page ad out in the Times to explain
why. Your so damn inconsiderate.

[Bobster]

All right. I'll come quietly..

AC made an interesting point earlier about indenting. I post via
Google Groups (until I can be arsed to get my other PC fixed, which
may or may not be this weekend), and the new format they've foisted
upon an unsuspecting world does not indent properly (even when you
choose tree view). One or two of my posts (42? Over what time period?)
might not have happened and thus caused me a little less embarrassment
if it were not for that new "feature" making it harder than necessary
to keep track of who said what to who. But
a) I would have spotted them anyway if I'd paid more attention.
b) There are other things that were going on that I could offer as a
partial defence but they're only likely to be taken down and used as
evidence against me, and they're nobody else's business (or fault), so
I'll just say "sorry... will try harder". That's my story, and I'm
sticking to it.

The GG interface seems to be changing all the time. The latest
"feature" I've found is a return to the "classic" layout. Which also
gives you things like a choice of proportional or fixed fond that are
missing from the new thing.

I think that usenet groups in general are dying. The ones I've
followed over the years showed a rotating membership. People came,
people went. As long as at least as many came as went then the group
thrived, but these days people seem to head more for twitter, FB and
that disqus things that so many papers use. There's a lot of
competition. Most of these things don't make for better discussion.
Some of them aren't designed for it. A lot of them get used for
nothing more profound than "if brains were gunpowder then David
Cameron / Barack Obama / Nick Clegg wouldn't be able to blow his
nose". Plus it seems to be monumentally bad form these days to actual
voice disagreement over anything with anybody. Everybody's opinion has
to be treated as if it's worth something even if it is isn't. Which
kind of is the opposite of what usenet is about.

Within a decade all usenet groups will merge into just three\
1) rel.the.koran.is.the.way
2) alt.kikes.blew.up.the.wtc
3) alt.quick.money.using.your.computer.for.five.minutes.a.day

OK, maybe a couple more like alt.brangelina.news and
alt.brangelina.adoptions.new and alt.brangelina.adoptions.rumored (not
to mention alt.brangelina.holidaying.in.namibia.uh.gain)

[Bigbird]

There's that stereotypical latin temperament again AC.

Don't blame them they can't help it.

[David Melville]

HA! I win. I can't see your post cos I've killfiled you.

Ner ner.

Cheers,
Dave