Bad News about D-MAC
Annika1980
American Somoa.
Whether this had anything to do with the recent earthquake and Tsunami
in that area is unknown, but the photos rescued from one of the
cameras were all blurry, blown out, and poorly composed shots of ugly
brides so I fear the worst.
e-Tems
Savageduck
> WHO?
Another of those who's name shall remain unspoken.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John McWilliams
> On 2009-10-26 18:49:46 -0700, e-Tems <steveb...@live.com> said:
>
>> WHO?
>
> Another of those who's name shall remain unspoken.
Who's on first! But Idunno's on third.
--
john mcwilliams
Savageduck
What?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John McWilliams
--
john mcwilliams
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-10-26 20:42:01 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2009-10-26 18:49:46 -0700, e-Tems <steveb...@live.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> WHO?
>>>>
>>>> Another of those who's name shall remain unspoken.
>>>
>>> Who's on first! But Idunno's on third.
>>
>> What?
>>
> I tole ya, What's on second.
I don't care.
Later Bud.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
David Nebenzahl
Who's I?
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
Savageduck
> On 10/26/2009 10:37 PM Savageduck spake thus:
>
>> On 2009-10-26 23:02:16 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Savageduck wrote:
> >>
>>>> On 2009-10-26 20:42:01 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
> >>>>
>>>>>> On 2009-10-26 18:49:46 -0700, e-Tems <steveb...@live.com> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHO?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another of those who's name shall remain unspoken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who's on first! But Idunno's on third.
>>>>
>>>> What?
>>>>
>>> I tole ya, What's on second.
>>
>> I don't care.
>
> Who's I?
Who's on first.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Noons
To be or not to be?
Avery
So, what's the bad news?
David Nebenzahl
You know, it's just possible that this poor doofus you love to heap
abuse on is smarter than at least half the regulars on this group. At
least he knows when to keep his mouth shut, which tends to make those
who don't look like boors.
ColinD
about one or other of his imagined enemies, and holds possibly the world
record for the number of aliases he posts under. We don't need his
vitriolic gutter-level outbursts. For God's sake don't give him a
reason to come alive again.
Colin D.
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2009 7:30 AM Annika1980 spake thus:
>>
>>> I just heard that two old Crapasonic cameras washed up on the beach on
>>> American Somoa.
>>> Whether this had anything to do with the recent earthquake and Tsunami
>>> in that area is unknown, but the photos rescued from one of the
>>> cameras were all blurry, blown out, and poorly composed shots of ugly
>>> brides so I fear the worst.
>>
>> You know, it's just possible that this poor doofus you love to heap
>> abuse on is smarter than at least half the regulars on this group. At
>> least he knows when to keep his mouth shut, which tends to make those
>> who don't look like boors.
>>
> Wrong. Douggie is renowned for erupting onto the group with tirades
> about one or other of his imagined enemies, and holds possibly the world
> record for the number of aliases he posts under.
No, not wrong, since he hasn't posted here in, what? two months or more?
In the meantime, there've been plenty of posts abusing him. I'm just
sayin' ...
Atheist Chaplain
news:4ae76c8b$0$11300$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
on a percentage scale the number of "Douggie abuse" posts compared to his
abusing anyone and everyone posts, I say he wins by a considerable margin.
And lets face it, the only reason he is not here is not because of any
perceived intelligence (and lets face it, just going back through his claims
and *expert* comments shows that to be complete rubbish) but rather he has
been shown up as the clueless troll with delusions of adequacy, I suspect
that he will rear his ugly head some time in the future completely ignoring
his previous losses and probably claiming them as wins instead.
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Frank ess
Didn't he say he was moving to California? That might take a while. I
wonder how he would do at one of the Border Patrol inspection
stations.
Noons
> Wrong. Douggie is renowned for erupting onto the group with tirades
> about one or other of his imagined enemies, and holds possibly the world
> record for the number of aliases he posts under. We don't need his
> vitriolic gutter-level outbursts. For God's sake don't give him a
> reason to come alive again.
Of course the slightest, remotest posibility that some of "his" posts were
actually from other well known trolls would never cross your small mind, would it?
Noons
> And lets face it, the only reason he is not here is not because of any
> perceived intelligence (and lets face it, just going back through his
> claims and *expert* comments shows that to be complete rubbish) but
> rather he has been shown up as the clueless troll with delusions of
> adequacy, I suspect that he will rear his ugly head some time in the
The other possibility is that he might be genuinely sick, in which case your
post shows off a remarkable lack of sense...
Ah well, it's what happens when idiots gang up into mindless mobs. Shown
throughout history.
Bill Graham
"Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:45udnVHczY9c6nrX...@giganews.com...
Savageduck
I believe his intended target was Florida.
We haven't heard from him since he failed to come through on his threat
to sue in the last chapter of the "Great Pano" saga.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
e-Tems
Don't you have to make money to be taxed?
Bill Graham
"e-Tems" <steveb...@live.com> wrote in message
news:7kpf58F...@mid.individual.net...
Not in California. Those guys will figure out a way to tax a stone.
ColinD
No, there's no posibility (sic) of that. Douggie's posts are unique in
their lack of grammar, mis-spelling, gutter-level attacks, wild
accusations, and equally wild threats of legal action, not to mention
blatantly wrong statements about photography in general - like black
being carried in the green channel (or was it the blue channel?),
stepped out panoramas, software that manufactures real definition in
poster-size enlargements that he sold to an Asian company, and
demonstrably wrong understanding of depth-of-field calculations and
usage (there are more examples, but you get the point). Defend him if
you want, but you won't get many sympathisers.
Of course, the real reason for your post was another snipe at the
posters in this thread - you get off on sniping, don't you, Noons?
Anytime, fella. My grammar is better than yours, my spelling is better
than yours, and my ability to write coherent posts is better than yours,
as is also my vocabulary - unlike yours, which is mainly sex-based
profanity directed any anyone who riles you - which is pathetically easy
to do.
Suck on that,
Colin D.
David Nebenzahl
> Anytime, fella. My grammar is better than yours, my spelling is
> better than yours, and my ability to write coherent posts is better
> than yours, as is also my vocabulary - unlike yours, which is mainly
> sex-based profanity directed any anyone who riles you - which is
> pathetically easy to do.
And yet you are part of a mob (and quite an ill-behaved, boorish one at
that). How do you reconcile that?
--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?
- harvested from Usenet
Noons
> No, there's no posibility (sic) of that. Douggie's posts are unique in
> their lack of grammar, mis-spelling, gutter-level attacks, wild
> accusations, and equally wild threats of legal action, not to mention
> blatantly wrong statements about photography in general - like black
> being carried in the green channel (or was it the blue channel?),
> stepped out panoramas, software that manufactures real definition in
> poster-size enlargements that he sold to an Asian company, and
> demonstrably wrong understanding of depth-of-field calculations and
> usage (there are more examples, but you get the point).
No, I don't "get the point" becasue there ain't one. A troll would do precisely
that while using a different IP address. Which is precisely what has happened
in the past.
And given that you ascribe to Dougie a low level of intelligence and knowledge
of anything, the sophistication of using different IP addresses in different
physical locations would be an impossibility. But that simple incongruence has
never crossed your "detective" mind, has it?
> Defend him if
> you want, but you won't get many sympathisers.
I'm not defending anyone and the last thing I want in your group of sycophants
is sympathizers.
> Of course, the real reason for your post was another snipe at the
> posters in this thread - you get off on sniping, don't you, Noons?
I get off pointing out trolls and their actions. Of which there are heaps in
here. This entire thread is proof enough.
> Anytime, fella.
Really? Come to Sydney, then.
> My grammar is better than yours, my spelling is better
> than yours, and my ability to write coherent posts is better than yours,
> as is also my vocabulary - unlike yours, which is mainly sex-based
> profanity directed any anyone who riles you - which is pathetically easy
> to do.
"directed any anyone" is your idea of better spelling and vocabulary?
Right...
> Suck on that,
Pathetic, indeed.
Noons
> On 10/27/2009 8:30 PM ColinD spake thus:
>
>> Anytime, fella. My grammar is better than yours, my spelling is
>> better than yours, and my ability to write coherent posts is better
>> than yours, as is also my vocabulary - unlike yours, which is mainly
>> sex-based profanity directed any anyone who riles you - which is
>> pathetically easy to do.
>
> And yet you are part of a mob (and quite an ill-behaved, boorish one at
> that). How do you reconcile that?
Pathetically.
ColinD
I take it , then, that you agree with everything I said, and the only
nitpick you have is that typo?
That would be a rare moment of honesty from you, Noons.
Congratulations.
Colin D.
ColinD
> On 10/27/2009 8:30 PM ColinD spake thus:
>
>> Anytime, fella. My grammar is better than yours, my spelling is
>> better than yours, and my ability to write coherent posts is better
>> than yours, as is also my vocabulary - unlike yours, which is mainly
>> sex-based profanity directed any anyone who riles you - which is
>> pathetically easy to do.
>
> And yet you are part of a mob (and quite an ill-behaved, boorish one at
> that). How do you reconcile that?
>
>
not ill-behaved or boorish at all. The above, apart from a typo, is
accurate and provable, simply by googling some of my posts vs some of
Noons' posts.
I rarely use profanity in my posts (there is one notable exception where
I used some bad language against Douggie, when he accused Annika 1980 of
having sexual relations with one of my daughters, referring to an
earlier post full of unforgivable lies by a psychopath whom I upset);
Noons practically always does, leavened with more general name-calling
and ad hominem attacks on those he disagrees with - and that includes
most posters to this group at one time or another.
However, I must congratulate you on one thing; you appear to have given
up your Quixotic complaints against digital topics in this group. Have
you seen the light, or has the underwhelming support you garnered made
you give up?
Colin D.
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/2009 8:30 PM ColinD spake thus:
>>
>>> Anytime, fella. My grammar is better than yours, my spelling is
>>> better than yours, and my ability to write coherent posts is better
>>> than yours, as is also my vocabulary - unlike yours, which is mainly
>>> sex-based profanity directed any anyone who riles you - which is
>>> pathetically easy to do.
>>
>> And yet you are part of a mob (and quite an ill-behaved, boorish one at
>> that). How do you reconcile that?
>
> Your comprehension, David, appears to be somewhat wanting here. I am
> not ill-behaved or boorish at all. The above, apart from a typo, is
> accurate and provable, simply by googling some of my posts vs some of
> Noons' posts.
Read what I wrote again. I didn't say *you* were boorish or ill-behaved;
I said you were *part of a mob* that was those things.
John McWilliams
> On 10/28/2009 3:28 PM ColinD spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> >
>>> On 10/27/2009 8:30 PM ColinD spake thus:
>>>
>>>> Anytime, fella. My grammar is better than yours, my spelling is
>>>> better than yours, and my ability to write coherent posts is better
>>>> than yours, as is also my vocabulary - unlike yours, which is mainly
>>>> sex-based profanity directed any anyone who riles you - which is
>>>> pathetically easy to do.
>>>
>>> And yet you are part of a mob (and quite an ill-behaved, boorish one
>>> at that). How do you reconcile that?
>>
>> Your comprehension, David, appears to be somewhat wanting here. I am
>> not ill-behaved or boorish at all. The above, apart from a typo, is
>> accurate and provable, simply by googling some of my posts vs some of
>> Noons' posts.
>
> Read what I wrote again. I didn't say *you* were boorish or ill-behaved;
> I said you were *part of a mob* that was those things.
Half-dodged; not good enough.
I, too, take exception with most things noonsie, and am not part of a
mob. Nor are the other regulars who chide the lout from down under. I
may have told noons to go F*** himself, with or without the asterisks,
so if that makes me a boor, so be it.
--
John McWilliams
Noons
> Your comprehension, David, appears to be somewhat wanting here. I am
> not ill-behaved or boorish at all. The above, apart from a typo, is
BWAHAHAHA!
> accurate and provable, simply by googling some of my posts vs some of
> Noons' posts.
Comparisons, Colin? Would you like to compare lengths as well?
> I rarely use profanity in my posts (there is one notable exception where
> I used some bad language against Douggie, when he accused Annika 1980 of
Pack of lies, as usual.
> Noons practically always does, leavened with more general name-calling
> and ad hominem attacks on those he disagrees with - and that includes
> most posters to this group at one time or another.
No, liar. I NEVER use foul words first. Never.
But if you or any other twit decides to use them against me, then all bets are
open. This is a two way street and you're not above anyone, little man.
Facts don't lie, Colin. Unlike you.
Noons
>
> I, too, take exception with most things noonsie, and am not part of a
> mob.
Really? Why? Because I show you for the troll you are?
> Nor are the other regulars who chide the lout from down under.
Funny enough, the "regulars" are four well known trolls. Four. Some "crowd".
> I
> may have told noons to go F*** himself, with or without the asterisks,
> so if that makes me a boor, so be it.
Exactly, twit. And when you start a fight, don't go complaining that you got
your mouth slapped to the back of your head.
Noons
> I take it , then, that you agree with everything I said, and the only
> nitpick you have is that typo?
You are not intelligent enough to "take it". I did not agree with a single thing
you said. Take a course in basic English. Omitting criticisnm is not the same
as agreeing, in case you are feeling particularly thick today.
> That would be a rare moment of honesty from you, Noons.
Honesty is not a synonym for agreeing with anything you say, idiot. Get your
definitions right.
John McWilliams
> No, liar. I NEVER use foul words first. Never.
How noble!
--
lsmft
Noons
> Noons wrote:
>
>> No, liar. I NEVER use foul words first. Never.
>
> How noble!
>
and yet, strangely, true.
A status that is foreign to your mind, I know.
ColinD
There you go again. John's post was not directed to you; he merely
stated that he takes exception to your posts.
And out it comes, as predicted: the word 'twit' used abusively.
Case proved.
Colin D.
ColinD
knowingly lie, or exaggerate, or abuse those with whom I disagree -
except you. Even then, my 'abuse' is done with Queen's English, unlike
you; your vocabulary is so wanting that all you can do is use gutter
profanity, along with 'twit', 'dickhead' and 'moron', among others. You
would make rich pickings for a shrink.
Colin D.
Noons
>>
>> > I
>>> may have told noons to go F*** himself, with or without the
>>> asterisks, so if that makes me a boor, so be it.
>>
>> Exactly, twit. And when you start a fight, don't go complaining that
>> you got your mouth slapped to the back of your head.
>
> There you go again.
Really? How about there you go again, troll?
> John's post was not directed to you;
But it mentioned me, therefore I am in every right to reply and there is
preciously nothing you pack of trolls can do to stop me. Capice?
> he merely
> stated that he takes exception to your posts.
No, that's a lie. Read what he said. It had nothing to do with "exception".
That word is not even present anywhere in his reply. Once again, you let the
voices in your sick mind take over reality.
>
> And out it comes, as predicted: the word 'twit' used abusively.
>
> Case proved.
Only after he used the F*** one.
Case double proved.
But then again: reality is not your forte, is it, troll?
What's the problem, the recession affecting your flogging of rubbish digital p&s
gear? Go vent somewhere else, idiot.
Noons
>> Facts don't lie, Colin. Unlike you.
>>
>>
> Yes, Noonsie, 'facts' don't lie - but you do.
No, Colon. You see, this is not your house, this is a public venue: you can't
just get away with utterances like that and hope like crazy they'll stick.
You have to provide proof. No one died and promoted you to deity.
> On the contrary, I do not
> knowingly lie, or exaggerate, or abuse those with whom I disagree -
> except you.
In other words: you lied. Thank you.
> Even then, my 'abuse' is done with Queen's English,unlike you;
Really? The Queen says: ">> Suck on that, "?
Amazing!
And the lies continue...
> your vocabulary is so wanting that all you can do is use gutter
> profanity, along with 'twit', 'dickhead' and 'moron', among others.
As I said: only after your pack of trolls starts. Nothing to stop me from
replying in kind. Got it?
> You
> would make rich pickings for a shrink.
The shrink that can cope with me is not yet born.
You on the other hand would make a fortune selling second hand goods.
Oh, hang on a tick...
John McWilliams
> Go vent somewhere else, idiot.
PKB!
Remember the stupid stream you put out, "Stay out of aus.photo!"?
--
lsmft
ColinD
Boy, you spilled a bib full there, Noonsie. You are admitting that your
case is so bad that orthodox medicine and/or psychotherapy cannot help you.
I'd agree with that, based on your overall pugilistically antagonistic
attitude displayed on this group.
What you need is nothing less than an exorcism. Go see a priest forthwith.
Colin D.
David Nebenzahl
> Noons wrote:
If this is what you consider "taking the high road", then you're a
bigger jerk than I gave you credit for.
You leave me no choice but to trot out some relevant doggerel:
'Twas the pig fair last September, the day I well remember
I was walking up and down in drunken pride
When my knees began to flutter and I sank down in the gutter
And a pig came up and lay down by my side.
As I sat there in the gutter, thinking thoughts I could not utter
I thought I heard a passing lady say
"You can tell the man who boozes by the company he chooses"
And with that the pig got up and walked away.
Annika1980
> No one died and promoted you to deity.
You mean besides D-Mac?
Noons
> Boy, you spilled a bib full there, Noonsie. You are admitting that your
> case is so bad that orthodox medicine and/or psychotherapy cannot help you.
I'm admitting that your Queen's English sounds awfully like a queens' english.
> I'd agree with that, based on your overall pugilistically antagonistic
> attitude displayed on this group.
Your agreement is irrelevant.
> What you need is nothing less than an exorcism. Go see a priest forthwith.
Oh yes! Can I be kinky?
Noons
Dunno, haven't heard from him in a while. I think he's seriously ill, as he was
about to go into some form of surgery. Regardless of some of his past
behaviour, I don't wish bad health on anyone.
Noons
>> Boy, you spilled a bib full there, Noonsie. You are admitting that
>> your case is so bad that orthodox medicine and/or psychotherapy cannot
>> help you.
>>
>> I'd agree with that, based on your overall pugilistically antagonistic
>> attitude displayed on this group.
>>
>> What you need is nothing less than an exorcism. Go see a priest
>> forthwith.
>
> If this is what you consider "taking the high road", then you're a
> bigger jerk than I gave you credit for.
He's always been nothing but a jerk, David. "high road" is something he once
read in a used pamphlet in a public toilet. Problem is he never realized it was
a mountain resort ad.
The guy redefines stupidity. And the funny thing is this bunch of inbreds
thinks they are on that road as well just because they frequent a list. Fools.
ColinD
> On 10/29/2009 1:17 PM ColinD spake thus:
>
>> Noons wrote:
> >
>>> ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 29/10/2009 5:17 PM:
>>>
>>>> You would make rich pickings for a shrink.
>>>
>>> The shrink that can cope with me is not yet born.
>>
>> Boy, you spilled a bib full there, Noonsie. You are admitting that
>> your case is so bad that orthodox medicine and/or psychotherapy cannot
>> help you.
>>
>> I'd agree with that, based on your overall pugilistically antagonistic
>> attitude displayed on this group.
>>
>> What you need is nothing less than an exorcism. Go see a priest
>> forthwith.
>
> If this is what you consider "taking the high road", then you're a
> bigger jerk than I gave you credit for.
First, Mr Nebenzahl, You are butting in on a dialogue between Noons and
myself, and I don't recall inviting you to insert your penny's worth.
Second, you come across as a Noons apologist, which brings into question
your judgment of character, at least the displayed signs of character
inherent in Noon's and my posts.
Third, your quote of the verse below is irrelevant and insulting to say
the least. That puts you lower than me, and about on a par with your
buddy Noons.
>
> You leave me no choice but to trot out some relevant doggerel:
Don't be so ridiculous. Of course you had a choice. You could have
chosen not to include that verse, but you did choose to include it. The
inference that I am beneath a pig's dignity is grossly insulting. As I
said in an earlier post, I very rarely resort to profanity but I am
tempted to here. But I do have a choice, and I choose not to. You are
beneath contempt, Nebenzahl, (to use a cliché).
K W Hart
"ColinD" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:hcef3d$te1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 10/29/2009 1:17 PM ColinD spake thus:
>
>> Noons wrote:
> >
>>> ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 29/10/2009 5:17 PM:
>>>
>>>> You would make rich pickings for a shrink.
>>>
>>> The shrink that can cope with me is not yet born.
>>
>> Boy, you spilled a bib full there, Noonsie. You are admitting that your
>> case is so bad that orthodox medicine and/or psychotherapy cannot help
>> you.
>>
>> I'd agree with that, based on your overall pugilistically antagonistic
>> attitude displayed on this group.
>>
>> What you need is nothing less than an exorcism. Go see a priest
>> forthwith.
>
> If this is what you consider "taking the high road", then you're a bigger
> jerk than I gave you credit for.
First, Mr Nebenzahl, You are butting in on a dialogue between Noons and
myself, and I don't recall inviting you to insert your penny's worth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is NOT a dialogue between Noons and ColinD; it is posted on Usenet, and
shoved down the bandwidth of everyone who subscribes to this newsgroup! If
it were a private conversation you would be using email between the two of
you, and no one else would be subjected to this drivel that belongs in the
schoolyard at recess.
BTW, your response is "Sez you!"
Noons
>
> First, Mr Nebenzahl, You are butting in on a dialogue between Noons and
> myself, and I don't recall inviting you to insert your penny's worth.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is NOT a dialogue between Noons and ColinD; it is posted on Usenet, and
> shoved down the bandwidth of everyone who subscribes to this newsgroup! If
> it were a private conversation you would be using email between the two of
> you, and no one else would be subjected to this drivel that belongs in the
> schoolyard at recess.
> BTW, your response is "Sez you!"
Thank you for trying to inject some sanity into this drivel generator.
Of course according to this troll, you are now my "buddy".
Sorry about that.
Annika1980
>
> > You mean besides D-Mac?
>
> Dunno, haven't heard from him in a while. I think he's seriously ill, as he was
> about to go into some form of surgery. Regardless of some of his past
> behaviour, I don't wish bad health on anyone.
That's funny. I seem to remember you wishing it on me a number of
times.
Noons
> That's funny. I seem to remember you wishing it on me a number of
> times.
Do you? Hey, I just found out why you don't have a clue how obvious your image
manipulations are: you don't recall them at all, do you?
Annika1980
Nothing wrong with my memory. Not only have you wished bad health on
me, you've often stated that you're the one who would like to
administer it.
ColinD
in what you say above.
The only bandwidth penalty is that required to bring down the header,
well under 100 bytes.
Your bandwidth usage increases only if you open the post and bring down
the contents. You will agree that that is entirely a voluntary decision
resting on your shoulders, as is the case when you open any post, not
just mine.
And compared to some of the threads in here running to more than 200
posts, my input is infinitesimal.
Of course, it's like a fight, two contestants and and a hundred
onlookers. Human nature.
I don't get the 'sez you' remark.
Colin D.
Noons
> Nothing wrong with my memory. Not only have you wished bad health on
> me, you've often stated that you're the one who would like to
> administer it.
In your case, a good clip around the ears is not a health issue: it's a health
improvement.
Noons
> The only bandwidth penalty is that required to bring down the header,
> well under 100 bytes.
> Your bandwidth usage increases only if you open the post and bring down
> the contents. You will agree that that is entirely a voluntary decision
> resting on your shoulders, as is the case when you open any post, not
> just mine.
See, KW? He knows a lot as well about the Usenet and how you use it. In
particular, that your bandwidth decreases when you open a message. If only he
had taught all network experts that pearl of wisdom!
Together with all the other subjects in which he's an expert, of course. One
wonders with such a wide range of abilities, what the heck is he doing scamming
his second rate digital gear on the Usenet: what a waste of talent!
Ah well, such is this world...
> And compared to some of the threads in here running to more than 200
> posts, my input is infinitesimal.
we could only wish...
> Of course, it's like a fight, two contestants and and a hundred
> onlookers. Human nature.
BWAHAHAHA!
> I don't get the 'sez you' remark
together with a lot of other things you don't get...
ColinD
> ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 2/11/2009 9:50 AM:
>
>
>> The only bandwidth penalty is that required to bring down the header,
>> well under 100 bytes.
>> Your bandwidth usage increases only if you open the post and bring
>> down the contents. You will agree that that is entirely a voluntary
>> decision resting on your shoulders, as is the case when you open any
>> post, not just mine.
>
> See, KW? He knows a lot as well about the Usenet and how you use it.
> In particular, that your bandwidth decreases when you open a message.
> If only he had taught all network experts that pearl of wisdom!
Noons, what don't you understand about "Your bandwidth usage *increases*
only if you open the post and bring down the contents."? Read it again,
and again, until your mind finally grasps the fact that you misread my
statement. Probably bamboozled by proper English without the epithets.
Clearly, you were so hell-bent on finding something to rubbish me with
that you made a stupid mistake that a five-year-old wouldn't have done.
A reasonable person would apologise for that error - but in your case I
won't hold my breath.
> Together with all the other subjects in which he's an expert, of
> course. One wonders with such a wide range of abilities, what the heck
> is he doing scamming his second rate digital gear on the Usenet: what a
> waste of talent!
A typical belligerent Noons remark, no truth in it and designed to
offend. Classic Noons.
>
> Ah well, such is this world...
unfortunately with you in it, Noonsie, I have to agree.
>
>> And compared to some of the threads in here running to more than 200
>> posts, my input is infinitesimal.
>
> we could only wish...
>
>
>
>
>> Of course, it's like a fight, two contestants and and a hundred
>> onlookers. Human nature.
>
> BWAHAHAHA!
What's to laugh at, Moron? It's a perfectly reasonable statement. Do
you usually shriek with laughter at ordinary remarks?
>
>> I don't get the 'sez you' remark
>
> together with a lot of other things you don't get...
After your little effort above, you can talk .. NOT.
Noons
> Noons, what don't you understand about "Your bandwidth usage *increases*
> only if you open the post and bring down the contents."? Read it again,
> and again, until your mind finally grasps the fact that you misread my
> statement. Probably bamboozled by proper English without the epithets.
Bandwidth is a constant of the connection, genius.
Usage is what you do with the connection, regardless of bandwidth.
Bandwidth only changes if you get shaped or there is a comms hiccup.
Your usage changes: the amount of data you are metered for.
Bandwidth has nothing to do with that other than time.
But don't let a simple fact spoil your hazy dreams.
It sounds kewl to use the word "bandwidth" together with usage,
doesn't it?
> unfortunately with you in it, Noonsie, I have to agree.
and there is preciously nothing you and your cohort of troll friends
can do about it. Ain't it exasperating?
Ah yes: the emails. As if...
> What's to laugh at, Moron? It's a perfectly reasonable statement. Do
> you usually shriek with laughter at ordinary remarks?
No, only at deranged and demented comments.
>
> After your little effort above, you can talk .. NOT.
I can always talk, Colon. Always. Get that through your thick mind.
Noons
> PKB!
>
> Remember the stupid stream you put out, "Stay out of aus.photo!"?
Yes,what of that? It worked, didn't it?
ColinD
> On Nov 2, 9:12 pm, ColinD <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> Noons, what don't you understand about "Your bandwidth usage *increases*
>> only if you open the post and bring down the contents."? Read it again,
>> and again, until your mind finally grasps the fact that you misread my
>> statement. Probably bamboozled by proper English without the epithets.
>
> Bandwidth is a constant of the connection, genius.
Of course, Noonsie. I said nothing about bandwidth per se (that means
'by itself')
> Usage is what you do with the connection, regardless of bandwidth.
Of course, again. Didn't I say 'bandwidth usage'?
??
> Bandwidth only changes if you get shaped or there is a comms hiccup.
> Your usage changes: the amount of data you are metered for.
Exactly. and *usage* is what KW was complaining about.
> Bandwidth has nothing to do with that other than time.
Of course, for the third time. Most people's connections are fast enough
that time ceases to be a factor when they download data from the net.
USAGE is what counts, because you pay for that, and that is what KW was
meaning. Get it now, Noonshit?? (probably not, I imagine)
> But don't let a simple fact spoil your hazy dreams.
The only simple fact here is your mind, Noonso.
> It sounds kewl to use the word "bandwidth" together with usage,
> doesn't it?
>
Maybe to your laboured mind, weary from putting two words together. To
anyone else, it's just a phrase. Get over it, take an aspirin or something.
>
You removed a relevant sentence of yours here. Are you wriggling again,
Noonswot? Here, I'll put it in again for you. Noonslop wrote:
>>> "Ah well, such is this world..."
>
>> unfortunately with you in it, Noonsie, I have to agree.
>
>>> and there is preciously nothing you and your cohort of troll friends
>>> can do about it. Ain't it exasperating?
There is nothing to be done, or can be done. It was an observation,
Noons, nothing more. Boy, you sure are hell-bent on making arguments,
aren't you. Better see that shrink I mentioned earlier.
> Ah yes: the emails. As if... ?
That email remark was made by KW, not me. Why bring it up here, other
than to reinforce your abysmal lack of comprehension skills?
Oops, Noonsie, another slip; you left out this relevant piece as well:
>>> "Of course, it's like a fight, two contestants and and a hundred
>>> onlookers. Human nature.
>>> BWAHAHAHA!"
>
>> What's to laugh at, Moron? It's a perfectly reasonable statement. Do
>> you usually shriek with laughter at ordinary remarks?
>
> No, only at deranged and demented comments.
You can't tell the difference between reasonable and deranged?
>
>> After your little effort above, you can talk .. NOT.
>
> I can always talk, Colon. Always. Get that through your thick mind.
Sure. Talk is cheap, Noonswallop, and your talk is even cheaper. When
(if ever) your mouthings contain useful information, I'll congratulate you.
Colin D.
Noons
> Of course, again. Didn't I say 'bandwidth usage'?
> ??
Yes, you did. And wrongly. But don't let that stop you further down from
denying you said it.
> Exactly. and *usage* is what KW was complaining about.
Make up your mind, Colon: is it "bandwidth usage" or "usage" now?
KW complained about usage of his total capacity. After which he gets shaped.
Nothing to do with your "bandwidth". Capice, or is it all too hard?
Stay with me here: no "bandwidth". It's "usage". Got it?
> USAGE is what counts, because you pay for that, and that is what KW was
> meaning. Get it now, Noonshit?? (probably not, I imagine)
You on the other hand, said "bandwidth usage". Which makes no sense.
Check it out at the top, the first quote from you.
Your words, Colon. Not mine.
> The only simple fact here is your mind, Noonso.
Exactly. That is why it doesn't fail. KISS. You on the other hand, are so
over the capacity of your single neuron, it's frightening...
> Maybe to your laboured mind, weary from putting two words together.
It sounds kewl to you to use the word "bandwidth" together with "usage" as if it
meant something, doesn't it?
> To
> anyone else, it's just a phrase.
Yes, and a nonsense one. That's why you are the *only* one still using it.
> Get over it, take an aspirin or
> something.
I'm well over it. You on the other hand, have kept digging your grave. Be my
guest.
> There is nothing to be done, or can be done. It was an observation,
> Noons, nothing more. Boy, you sure are hell-bent on making arguments,
> aren't you. Better see that shrink I mentioned earlier.
For someone who has done nothing but argue nonsense, you have a lot of nerve
calling others. But then again, that is the hallmark of the low-life troll and
you are certainly in that class.
> That email remark was made by KW, not me. Why bring it up here, other
> than to reinforce your abysmal lack of comprehension skills?
To hammer your thick head with it. Why, isn't it clear?
> You can't tell the difference between reasonable and deranged?
Why should I? All I have to do is point out nonsense, uninformed, deranged
remarks such as yours.
> Sure. Talk is cheap, Noonswallop, and your talk is even cheaper. When
> (if ever) your mouthings contain useful information, I'll congratulate you.
I'd consider a personal failure any reason for a "congratulation" from a
low-life uninformed troll such as you, Colon.