the p&s troll
mich...@fromcardiff.com
respect even. As far as I can see he is doing spectacularly well in drawing
out responses from loads of people. He does seem to be good at what he is
doing. Why don't lots of us admit that he's good and politely ask him to
move on? There is;nt much point in him staying here if we all agree he 's a
pretty good troll. There are 1000's of other groups he might feel challenged
by. In fact, we could even ask him to drop us a line in a few months
directing us to the newsgroup he is currently dominating, that would be a
REAL buzz for him.
Paul Heslop
but by posting this you've given him more attention. :O)
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
TrollSpotter
Oh how one projects. The only "motive" is to get the truth past all the resident
DSLR trolls that are trying to justify why they wasted so much money in trying
to convince themselves that they could become "pro" photographers by buying a
the right camera.
LOL
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
Alan Browne
> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention
Stop feeding it, even with these posts.
exylphox
Then why are you "feeding it"?
Eric Stevens
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
Has anyone tried complaining to his ISP?
Eric Stevens
SamSpad
Which one? From what I deduce he's using over 20 of them.
No doubt they are all forged headers from any ISP that he likes to use. People
more intelligent, than resident-trolls like you, are like that. Yes they are.
You fucked-up fools and resident trolls.
Is this the only way that you can refute facts? LOL
Stick your fingers in your ears. It'll help when you try to poke your own eyes
out.
The bliss of self-induced ignorance prevails, sigh....
LOL
dj_nme
Mozilla Thunderbird rather than just the easily edited email address, I
would like to know.
Trolling email addresses which I've collected just today (8/11/08).
Killfile these, if you like:
ignoranc...@whyisitnotworking.org
fra...@usenet.org
hankt...@ipt.aol.org
marvin...@ipt.alol.com
keepyo...@myisp.org
azif...@antispam.org
trayj...@antispam.net
spam...@antispam.org
lies...@antispam.org
trolls...@noaddress.com
ccor...@spamstopper.com
had...@addressdeleted.com
zbig...@noaddress.gov
afarn...@domainwiththeld.net
aev...@spamnotwanted.com
con...@ddress.com
cgo...@sorryspamnotwanted.org
htow...@insertsomethinghere.org
todba...@xyz.gov
tshc...@ispamblocker.org
cca...@spamstop.com
ste...@steven.org
youjust...@smarterthanyou.com
exyp...@doestimattter.com
Nolan Mandel
wrote:
>WHY? Do YOU think it will do any good? Hint: In this day and age it will
>not matter. He knows enough to munge his header info... I know where he
>is posting from, and I'm not telling... due in a large part to my
>twisted sense of humor.
>
>Please STOP FEEDING him the ATTENTION he wants. I-G-N-O-R-E all posts
>that even remotely look like it might be posted by <insert sock name
>here>.
Really. For cryin' out loud, if you keep giving it attention it's just going to
keep reposting things like this:
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
IdiotAmplifier
Do read them all (below), I find your list most amusing. LOL
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:01:16 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Why don't you just use your real name and stay with it?
>
Good grief, the parade of resident-trolls never ends.
1. Because it drives resident-trolls up the wall and they're too amazingly
stupid to figure out why anyone would do it, even when just told why, so they
keep asking why.
2. Resident-trolls reveal themselves more rapidly so I know which ones they are
and then know to never take anything that they post seriously. They live on the
net with no real experiences, photographic or otherwise. Then I laugh when they
try to give advice to anyone. With luck, others might see how this works and
also realize who the resident-trolls are from the trolls having quickly outted
themselves.
3. I don't like promoting mindless followers. Let insecure need-to-be leaders
fall into that trap. They too are stupid enough.
4. To prove to others that your name is meaningless. What knowledge and wisdom
that you can convey is what matters. The ego of a public identity is of no real
use in life. The need for that is reserved for the terminally insecure.
5. I don't need any support from others to voice and back-up my opinions. The
moment that I find some mindless idiot applauding what I say from one day to the
next it's time to change names.
6. What good is a real name online. Are you coming for dinner? You'll bring the
wrong wine anyway. Just stay away because you're nothing but a fucking idiot.
You've already proved that. I don't allow idiots into my personal life. They're
for you to have as "friends". You deserve them, I don't.
7. If I didn't make this entertaining for myself I couldn't stand to be here
trying to help those that might deserve the help. The resident-trolls like
yourself make this tedious enough. It's not much, but the entertainment quotient
of watching resident-trolls, like you, freak out and jump around helps offset
the drawbacks. It's fun knowing how much of their day they waste trying to hunt
down everyone's names, sort them out, and make their meaningless screen-name
lists that only reveals their emotional and psychiatric problems.
8. I'm not so insecure that I need your recognition nor the recognition of
anyone. In fact if I got continual recognition from an idiot like you I'd
probably want to kill myself for having any connection at all with something as
amazingly stupid as you.
9. Posers can be crafty, it's their only life. They have perfected the art of
deception, self-deception, and being a useless psychotic pretender. It's all
they have in life. It's fun to take away their only reason for being. With luck
they'll finally put that oft-considered suicide option higher on their "What to
do today..." list.
10. Why do just one thing? With this technique I can not only help others but
amuse myself and kill 10 resident-usenet-trolls with one stone. Win win win, all
around.
11. I like typing lists at 130wpm and wasting 4.37 minutes of my time each day.
Because, after all, in the sage advice of Willy Wonka, "A little nonsense now
and then is relished by the wisest of men."
12. And sarcasm, when used judiciously I like sarcasm.
Now copy this post, convert it to a raster-graphic file (GIF format suggested to
conserve file-space), load it into your photo editor, flip it on its vertical
axis--once, print it up, use a staple-gun to affix the resulting print-out to
your upper-lip, then go look in the mirror. Repeat whenever you feel the need to
ask again.
dj_nme
So, you have nothing else to do than spam the newsgroup and change your ID?
What pointless existence you have.
anthony-atkins
Just slightly less pointless than those that care.
LOL
Do read that list again, it reveals much more motive than you are willing to
acknowledge. For if you do, then it reveals even less uselessness of yourself,
you can't handle that. It means that you mean nothing, to no one. And I can
prove it.
LOL!
old....@cmaaccess.com
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>Has anyone tried complaining to his ISP?
Trolling isn't offence, spamming is, which he is not doing.
Use you Usenet Client to kill file him.
--
I hope you like my photos at www.myspace.com/osalt
If you would like to buy one, e-mail me, prints up
to 30x20 inches.
John McWilliams
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:10:50 +1300, Eric Stevens
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Has anyone tried complaining to his ISP?
>
> Trolling isn't offence, spamming is, which he is not doing.
> Use you Usenet Client to kill file him.
Reposting the same stuff is spamming and against the TOS of every News
Provider I know of.
It's not difficult to report: it's in the [full] Headers where to send it.
You can't k=f a nym shifting coward.
--
lsmft
StayOnTopic-Trolls
Then you'll have to report every DSLR troll that relentlessly posts the same
misinformed crap. Or how about I report all those that relentlessly sabotage
every thread by going off topic?
LOL
You are such a fuckin' useless moron.
Do try to stay on topic, won't you? Oh that's right, you don't know enough about
photography to be able to do that.
Here's a little something to get you started in your education:
SMS
ISPs don't care about Usenet. He's harmless. You can kill file him by
message ID if it bothers you. No one believes anything he posts anyway.
old....@cmaaccess.com
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Reposting the same stuff is spamming and against the TOS of every News
>Provider I know of.
I have not seen him reposting the same stuff, please point me
to the message IDs of his spam.
Mark Roberts
The solution is to killfile by message subject line. They're easy to
spot without reading even the first message in the thread.
It's the best way to deal with sociopaths like this morphing troll.
--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
old....@cmaaccess.com
<stayo...@usenet.com> wrote:
>Then you'll have to report every DSLR troll that relentlessly posts the same
>misinformed crap.
Good Idea, done.
old....@cmaaccess.com
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Reposting the same stuff is spamming and against the TOS of every News
>Provider I know of.
You are right, after reading your post I took a closer look at
what this guy is doing, and it is indeed spam.
Barry Evans
>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:02:12 -0800, John McWilliams
><jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Reposting the same stuff is spamming and against the TOS of every News
>>Provider I know of.
>
> You are right, after reading your post I took a closer look at
>what this guy is doing, and it is indeed spam.
Stay on topic for this newsgroup. Here's a closer look:
old....@cmaaccess.com
<spam...@addressblocked.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:22:56 -0800, old....@cmaaccess.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:02:12 -0800, John McWilliams
>><jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Reposting the same stuff is spamming and against the TOS of every News
>>>Provider I know of.
>>
>> You are right, after reading your post I took a closer look at
>>what this guy is doing, and it is indeed spam.
>
>p.s. Your sig is a violation of every usenet charter. Usenet shall not be used
>for ANY commercial purposes. I guess I'll have to report you too.
>
>
I see you have no clue what a sig is.
tony cooper
<spam...@addressblocked.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:22:56 -0800, old....@cmaaccess.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:02:12 -0800, John McWilliams
>><jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Reposting the same stuff is spamming and against the TOS of every News
>>>Provider I know of.
>>
>> You are right, after reading your post I took a closer look at
>>what this guy is doing, and it is indeed spam.
>
>p.s. Your sig is a violation of every usenet charter. Usenet shall not be used
>for ANY commercial purposes. I guess I'll have to report you too.
>
Links to personal and commercial websites are generally permitted in
sigs, but that one seems a bit too hard-sell. However, that website
is *so* bad, so ugly, so garish, that it should be permitted to remain
just for the laughs.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
John McWilliams
News providers do, however. Harmless? Yes, probably toothless, too.
Ineffectual here except to lure only the new or the most bored into his
litttle, but lengthy posts on P+Ses.
If *no one* believes any thing he posts, why are there replies at all?
Sure'd be nice if we could completely ignore his foaming.
Lake MIchigan will freeze over first.
--
john mcwilliams
DigiGuy
The only reason it bothers them at all is that they can't refute one thing in
that lengthy P&S FAQ. That's what really irks them. It proves them all 100%
wrong all these years. They can't handle that. That's why they run around like
chickens with their heads cut off, jumping off-topic any chance they can. It's
all they have left. Resident know-nothing trolls are like that, yes they are.
Paul Furman
He posts from the anonymous Aioe.org NNTP Server
http://www.aioe.org/
which means no way to trace but I believe all aioe posts can be filtered
just like I do for google groups using newsproxy.
I just put this line in my newsproxy filter to flag/mark the subject titles:
* flag:|TROLL-Aioe.org| Organization:*Aioe.org*
for google groups I use this:
* flag:|GG| Message-ID:*googlegroups*
then I use thunderbird's filters to add a star & mark as read anything
with |GG| in the subject and save time not reading all that crap. The
messages stay with a star so I can see what people are replying to but
if nobody replies I never see them like most of the Chinese spam.
--
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
old....@cmaaccess.com
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>However, that website
>is *so* bad, so ugly, so garish,
Why thank you.
old....@cmaaccess.com
<justa...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>Why do YOU feel a need to FEED the P&S Troll!?!
What ever, if you can't tell real people who come here for
there intrest in photograph, from trolls, well get a seeing eye dog.
old....@cmaaccess.com
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>If *no one* believes any thing he posts, why are there replies at all?
Since some people who are comfortable with posting, can't help
themselves and reply. But you are right, if no one reply to him, he
would leave out of boredom.
savvo
> Mark Roberts wrote:
>>
>> The solution is to killfile by message subject line. They're easy to
>> spot without reading even the first message in the thread.
>> It's the best way to deal with sociopaths like this morphing troll.
>
> He posts from the anonymous Aioe.org NNTP Server
> http://www.aioe.org/
Except when he uses Giganews.
There is one of his headers that rarely changes and is pretty unique,
but I'm not about to throw him the clue what it is.
--
savvo orig. invib. man
savvo
More likely Superior and 9,999 others.
LD
news:amfku5-...@tog.savvo.co.uk...
> On 2008-11-08, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Lake MIchigan will freeze over first.
>>
>
> More likely Superior and 9,999 others.
John McWilliams
Nice ref. Thanks. I am betting Michigan will freeze before Hell. And I
meant a hard one, where trucks and stuff can drive from Chicago to
Mackinaw.
--
john mcwilliams
nospam
McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Lake MIchigan will freeze over first.
> >>>
> >> More likely Superior and 9,999 others.
> >
> > http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/brochures/ice/icecover.html
>
> Nice ref. Thanks. I am betting Michigan will freeze before Hell.
hell is in michigan
tony cooper
wrote:
More photographic is Hell in the Cayman Islands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hell_Grand_Cayman.JPG
LD
news:i-ednQGLkfjTVorU...@comcast.com...
I drove on it in the late 50s. Not Chicago to Mackinaw, but out a couple
miles from the lower peninsula of Michigan. In those days some fool was
always getting too far out and needing rescue.
Now that I think about it, a couple miles sounds pretty stupid. :(
Stephen Bishop
<paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>mich...@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>>
>> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention, he wants recognition,
>> respect even. As far as I can see he is doing spectacularly well in drawing
>> out responses from loads of people. He does seem to be good at what he is
>> doing. Why don't lots of us admit that he's good and politely ask him to
>> move on? There is;nt much point in him staying here if we all agree he 's a
>> pretty good troll. There are 1000's of other groups he might feel challenged
>> by. In fact, we could even ask him to drop us a line in a few months
>> directing us to the newsgroup he is currently dominating, that would be a
>> REAL buzz for him.
>
>but by posting this you've given him more attention. :O)
We are doing the world a service by keeping him off the streets at
night.
Stephen Bishop
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:46:53 -0500, Alan Browne
><alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>mich...@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>>> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention
>>
>>Stop feeding it, even with these posts.
>
>Has anyone tried complaining to his ISP?
Why complain? This is the cheapest entertainment I've had in months.
>
>
>
>Eric Stevens
Stephen Bishop
<stayo...@usenet.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:02:12 -0800, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>old....@cmaaccess.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:10:50 +1300, Eric Stevens
>>> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has anyone tried complaining to his ISP?
>>>
>>> Trolling isn't offence, spamming is, which he is not doing.
>>> Use you Usenet Client to kill file him.
>>
>>Reposting the same stuff is spamming and against the TOS of every News
>>Provider I know of.
>>
>>It's not difficult to report: it's in the [full] Headers where to send it.
>>
>>You can't k=f a nym shifting coward.
>
>Then you'll have to report every DSLR troll that relentlessly posts the same
>misinformed crap. Or how about I report all those that relentlessly sabotage
>every thread by going off topic?
>
>LOL
>
>You are such a fuckin' useless moron.
>
>Do try to stay on topic, won't you? Oh that's right, you don't know enough about
>photography to be able to do that.
Then please stay on topic by posting your own brilliant work that
demonstrates these priceless bits of technical insight that you
continue to teach us with.
Please, professor. We want to see a master at work.
>
>Here's a little something to get you started in your education:
>
>Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
>bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
>continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
>newsgroup-troll and a fool.
Herod McCalister
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
begin with. The irony is that, by them thinking that they only need to throw
bobby vinten
Stephen Bishop
I thought Michigan WAS hell?
Stephen Bishop
<aanoc...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 14:03:39 +1100, dj_nme <dj_...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>>IdiotAmplifier wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:18:15 +1100, dj_nme <dj_...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If there is a way to killfile messages from a particular IP address in
>>>> Mozilla Thunderbird rather than just the easily edited email address, I
>>>> would like to know.
>>>> Trolling email addresses which I've collected just today (8/11/08).
>>>> Killfile these, if you like:
>>>>
>>>> ignoranc...@whyisitnotworking.org
>>>> fra...@usenet.org
>>>> hankt...@ipt.aol.org
>>>> marvin...@ipt.alol.com
>>>> keepyo...@myisp.org
>>>> azif...@antispam.org
>>>> trayj...@antispam.net
>>>> spam...@antispam.org
>>>> lies...@antispam.org
>>>> trolls...@noaddress.com
>>>> ccor...@spamstopper.com
>>>> had...@addressdeleted.com
>>>> zbig...@noaddress.gov
>>>> afarn...@domainwiththeld.net
>>>> aev...@spamnotwanted.com
>>>> con...@ddress.com
>>>> cgo...@sorryspamnotwanted.org
>>>> htow...@insertsomethinghere.org
>>>> todba...@xyz.gov
>>>> tshc...@ispamblocker.org
>>>> cca...@spamstop.com
>>>> ste...@steven.org
>>>> youjust...@smarterthanyou.com
>>>> exyp...@doestimattter.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Do read them all (below), I find your list most amusing. LOL
>><snip mindless repetitive drivel>
>>
>>So, you have nothing else to do than spam the newsgroup and change your ID?
>>What pointless existence you have.
>
>Just slightly less pointless than those that care.
>
>LOL
>
>Do read that list again, it reveals much more motive than you are willing to
>acknowledge. For if you do, then it reveals even less uselessness of yourself,
>you can't handle that. It means that you mean nothing, to no one. And I can
>prove it.
>
>LOL!
>
>
He is really starting to sound like a random text generating program
that some bored graduate students came up with over a case of beer.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
><mich...@fromCardiff.com> wrote:
>
>>I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention, he wants recognition,
>>respect even. As far as I can see he is doing spectacularly well in drawing
>>out responses from loads of people. He does seem to be good at what he is
>>doing. Why don't lots of us admit that he's good and politely ask him to
>>move on? There is;nt much point in him staying here if we all agree he 's a
>>pretty good troll. There are 1000's of other groups he might feel challenged
>>by. In fact, we could even ask him to drop us a line in a few months
>>directing us to the newsgroup he is currently dominating, that would be a
>>REAL buzz for him.
>
>The solution is to killfile by message subject line. They're easy to
>spot without reading even the first message in the thread.
>It's the best way to deal with sociopaths like this morphing troll.
>
> \
Actually, the best way is to not take him seriously and don't let
anything he says upset you.
Tommy E
>Then please stay on topic by posting your own brilliant work that
>demonstrates these priceless bits of technical insight that you
>continue to teach us with.
>
>Please, professor. We want to see a master at work.
For free? Free lessons to a piece of shit resident troll on usenet? You prove
yourself to be an even bigger idiot than once first though.
SayWhat?
CarltonAdams
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:01:16 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Why don't you just use your real name and stay with it?
>
Good grief, the parade of resident-trolls never ends.
1. Because it drives resident-trolls up the wall and they're too amazingly
stupid to figure out why anyone would do it, even when just told why, so they
keep asking why.
2. Resident-trolls reveal themselves more rapidly so I know which ones they are
and then know to never take anything that they post seriously. They live on the
net with no real experiences, photographic or otherwise. Then I laugh when they
try to give advice to anyone. With luck, others might see how this works and
also realize who the resident-trolls are from the trolls having quickly outted
themselves.
3. I don't like promoting mindless followers. Let insecure need-to-be leaders
fall into that trap. They too are stupid enough.
4. To prove to others that your name is meaningless. What knowledge and wisdom
that you can convey is what matters. The ego of a public identity is of no real
use in life. The need for that is reserved for the terminally insecure.
5. I don't need any support from others to voice and back-up my opinions. The
moment that I find some mindless idiot applauding what I say from one day to the
next it's time to change names.
6. What good is a real name online. Are you coming for dinner? You'll bring the
wrong wine anyway. Just stay away because you're nothing but a fucking idiot.
You've already proved that. I don't allow idiots into my personal life. They're
for you to have as "friends". You deserve them, I don't.
7. If I didn't make this entertaining for myself I couldn't stand to be here
trying to help those that might deserve the help. The resident-trolls like
yourself make this tedious enough. It's not much, but the entertainment quotient
of watching resident-trolls, like you, freak out and jump around helps offset
the drawbacks. It's fun knowing how much of their day they waste trying to hunt
down everyone's names, sort them out, and make their meaningless screen-name
lists that only reveals their emotional and psychiatric problems.
8. I'm not so insecure that I need your recognition nor the recognition of
anyone. In fact if I got continual recognition from an idiot like you I'd
probably want to kill myself for having any connection at all with something as
amazingly stupid as you.
9. Posers can be crafty, it's their only life. They have perfected the art of
deception, self-deception, and being a useless psychotic pretender. It's all
they have in life. It's fun to take away their only reason for being. With luck
they'll finally put that oft-considered suicide option higher on their "What to
do today..." list.
10. Why do just one thing? With this technique I can not only help others but
amuse myself and kill 10 resident-usenet-trolls with one stone. Win win win, all
around.
11. I like typing lists at 130wpm and wasting 4.37 minutes of my time each day.
Because, after all, in the sage advice of Willy Wonka, "A little nonsense now
and then is relished by the wisest of men."
12. And sarcasm, when used judiciously I like sarcasm.
Now copy this post, convert it to a raster-graphic file (GIF format suggested to
conserve file-space), load it into your photo editor, flip it on its vertical
axis--once, print it up, use a staple-gun to affix the resulting print-out to
your upper-lip, then go look in the mirror. Repeat whenever you feel the need to
ask again.
sam_thompson
>
>Actually, the best way is to not take him seriously and don't let
>anything he says upset you.
>
Paul Heslop
or in the day
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Paul Heslop
he's certainly stalking you. maybe he's just lonely and in need of
some TLC.
Hal Alversen
wrote:
>Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:23:05 GMT, Paul Heslop
>> <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >mich...@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention, he wants recognition,
>> >> respect even. As far as I can see he is doing spectacularly well in drawing
>> >> out responses from loads of people. He does seem to be good at what he is
>> >> doing. Why don't lots of us admit that he's good and politely ask him to
>> >> move on? There is;nt much point in him staying here if we all agree he 's a
>> >> pretty good troll. There are 1000's of other groups he might feel challenged
>> >> by. In fact, we could even ask him to drop us a line in a few months
>> >> directing us to the newsgroup he is currently dominating, that would be a
>> >> REAL buzz for him.
>> >
>> >but by posting this you've given him more attention. :O)
>>
>> We are doing the world a service by keeping him off the streets at
>> night.
>
>or in the day
Dear Resident-Troll,
TheyreNotTooBright
wrote:
>Stephen Bishop wrote:
John McWilliams
You may be amused, "Stephen", but everyone but a handful are bored
and/or refraining from replying. So, would you please lay off?
--
lsmft
Pastor Aldwin Thomas
Stephen Bishop
<hmcca...@keepyourspam.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:44:46 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:23:05 GMT, Paul Heslop
>><paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>mich...@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention, he wants recognition,
>>>> respect even. As far as I can see he is doing spectacularly well in drawing
>>>> out responses from loads of people. He does seem to be good at what he is
>>>> doing. Why don't lots of us admit that he's good and politely ask him to
>>>> move on? There is;nt much point in him staying here if we all agree he 's a
>>>> pretty good troll. There are 1000's of other groups he might feel challenged
>>>> by. In fact, we could even ask him to drop us a line in a few months
>>>> directing us to the newsgroup he is currently dominating, that would be a
>>>> REAL buzz for him.
>>>
>>>but by posting this you've given him more attention. :O)
>>
>>
>>We are doing the world a service by keeping him off the streets at
>>night.
>>
>
>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings
Notice how when tested according to real-world conditions, even the
best p&s cameras fall FAR short of even the cheapest dslrs.
>
>
>
Stephen Bishop
<halv...@removeforspam.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:33:01 GMT, Paul Heslop <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:23:05 GMT, Paul Heslop
>>> <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >mich...@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention, he wants recognition,
>>> >> respect even. As far as I can see he is doing spectacularly well in drawing
>>> >> out responses from loads of people. He does seem to be good at what he is
>>> >> doing. Why don't lots of us admit that he's good and politely ask him to
>>> >> move on? There is;nt much point in him staying here if we all agree he 's a
>>> >> pretty good troll. There are 1000's of other groups he might feel challenged
>>> >> by. In fact, we could even ask him to drop us a line in a few months
>>> >> directing us to the newsgroup he is currently dominating, that would be a
>>> >> REAL buzz for him.
>>> >
>>> >but by posting this you've given him more attention. :O)
>>>
>>> We are doing the world a service by keeping him off the streets at
>>> night.
>>
>>or in the day
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>
>
>
Stephen Bishop
Oh. Then what is your fee?
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:51:56 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:49:02 -0800, John McWilliams
>><jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>LD wrote:
>>>> "savvo" <spam.go...@devnull.savvo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:amfku5-...@tog.savvo.co.uk...
>>>>> On 2008-11-08, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lake MIchigan will freeze over first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More likely Superior and 9,999 others.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/brochures/ice/icecover.html
>>>
>>>Nice ref. Thanks. I am betting Michigan will freeze before Hell. And I
>>>meant a hard one, where trucks and stuff can drive from Chicago to
>>>Mackinaw.
>>
>>I thought Michigan WAS hell?
>>
>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>
>
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:45:28 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:10:50 +1300, Eric Stevens
>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:46:53 -0500, Alan Browne
>>><alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>mich...@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>>>>> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention
>>>>
>>>>Stop feeding it, even with these posts.
>>>
>>>Has anyone tried complaining to his ISP?
>>
>>
>>Why complain? This is the cheapest entertainment I've had in months.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Eric Stevens
>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>
>
This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.
Stephen Bishop
<ath...@learnedtodelete.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:31:56 -0800, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:10:50 +1300, Eric Stevens
>>> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:46:53 -0500, Alan Browne
>>>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> mich...@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>>>>>> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention
>>>>> Stop feeding it, even with these posts.
>>>> Has anyone tried complaining to his ISP?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why complain? This is the cheapest entertainment I've had in months.
>>>
>>
>>You may be amused, "Stephen", but everyone but a handful are bored
>>and/or refraining from replying. So, would you please lay off?
>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>
>
This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.
Stephen Bishop
<stho...@thompson.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:56:13 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Actually, the best way is to not take him seriously and don't let
>>anything he says upset you.
>>
>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>
Paul Heslop
>
> Stephen Bishop wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:23:05 GMT, Paul Heslop
> > <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >mich...@fromCardiff.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention, he wants recognition,
> > >> respect even. As far as I can see he is doing spectacularly well in drawing
> > >> out responses from loads of people. He does seem to be good at what he is
> > >> doing. Why don't lots of us admit that he's good and politely ask him to
> > >> move on? There is;nt much point in him staying here if we all agree he 's a
> > >> pretty good troll. There are 1000's of other groups he might feel challenged
> > >> by. In fact, we could even ask him to drop us a line in a few months
> > >> directing us to the newsgroup he is currently dominating, that would be a
> > >> REAL buzz for him.
> > >
> > >but by posting this you've given him more attention. :O)
> >
> > We are doing the world a service by keeping him off the streets at
> > night.
>
> or in the day
He also thinks that it is hard to spot his posts with the name
changing, but the size of his post makes it so easy, I don't even have
to look to see it's the same drivel.
John McWilliams
Did you think about the part where folks have said the equivalent of:
You may be amused, "Stephen", but everyone but a handful are bored
and/or refraining from replying. So, would you please lay off?
--
john mcwilliams
Ivan Brown
No it doesn't. LOL
Wait til you find out the huge errors everyone found in DxO's tests. No wonder
their software is crap too.
LOL
Pako Temms
wrote:
>
>He also thinks that it is hard to spot his posts with the name
>changing, but the size of his post makes it so easy, I don't even have
>to look to see it's the same drivel.
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
Paul Heslop
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Bishop wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:23:05 GMT, Paul Heslop
> > > <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >mich...@fromCardiff.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention, he wants recognition,
> > > >> respect even. As far as I can see he is doing spectacularly well in drawing
> > > >> out responses from loads of people. He does seem to be good at what he is
> > > >> doing. Why don't lots of us admit that he's good and politely ask him to
> > > >> move on? There is;nt much point in him staying here if we all agree he 's a
> > > >> pretty good troll. There are 1000's of other groups he might feel challenged
> > > >> by. In fact, we could even ask him to drop us a line in a few months
> > > >> directing us to the newsgroup he is currently dominating, that would be a
> > > >> REAL buzz for him.
> > > >
> > > >but by posting this you've given him more attention. :O)
> > >
> > > We are doing the world a service by keeping him off the streets at
> > > night.
> >
> > or in the day
>
> He also thinks that it is hard to spot his posts with the name
> changing, but the size of his post makes it so easy, I don't even have
> to look to see it's the same drivel.
>
CapMeyer
wrote:
>Paul Heslop wrote:
>>
>> Paul Heslop wrote:
>> >
>> > Stephen Bishop wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:23:05 GMT, Paul Heslop
>> > > <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >mich...@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention, he wants recognition,
>> > > >> respect even. As far as I can see he is doing spectacularly well in drawing
>> > > >> out responses from loads of people. He does seem to be good at what he is
>> > > >> doing. Why don't lots of us admit that he's good and politely ask him to
>> > > >> move on? There is;nt much point in him staying here if we all agree he 's a
>> > > >> pretty good troll. There are 1000's of other groups he might feel challenged
>> > > >> by. In fact, we could even ask him to drop us a line in a few months
>> > > >> directing us to the newsgroup he is currently dominating, that would be a
>> > > >> REAL buzz for him.
>> > > >
>> > > >but by posting this you've given him more attention. :O)
>> > >
>> > > We are doing the world a service by keeping him off the streets at
>> > > night.
>> >
>> > or in the day
>>
>> He also thinks that it is hard to spot his posts with the name
>> changing, but the size of his post makes it so easy, I don't even have
>> to look to see it's the same drivel.
>>
>ah, the proof of the pudding.
Deep Reset
"CapMeyer" <cme...@trollsneednotreply.org> wrote in message
news:6u4ei4p58njvkqqft...@4ax.com...
Yup, 21KB on the nose. Thanks for the tip.
Fish in a barrel.
Deep