Toadless
Jim Biancolo
didn't want to run a dedicated newsreader, I whipped up a little
script that hides Toads posts from me. You'll have to be running
Firefox with the Greasemonkey extension installed, but if you are (or
if you switch) you can go here to install the script:
http://www.biancolo.com/gm/toadless.user.js
I have a little more info and a screenshot here:
http://www.biancolo.com/articles/toadless
Jim
ulticritic
yes.....be gone spirit zealots
toady toaderson
jermleeds
3jane.
> umm...you guys hear something?
Nope, not anymore. Now if people will just stop quoting his posts,
things will be just fine.
jermleeds
Nice work! Should we want to, what are the steps to uninstall?
Jeremy
Sam TH
> Jim,
> Nice work! Should we want to, what are the steps to uninstall?
Go to the Tools menu, Greasemonkey, then "Manage User Scripts". Click
on Toadless, then hit Uninstall.
sam th
jermleeds
Thanks, Sam.
jermleeds
Jim, I am a project manager at an agency doing interactive
development, and I'm always on the lookout for good contractors,
particularly developers with experience with MVC frameworks etc. Our
shop primarily does open source deveopment, LAMP stack for the most
part. Do you take on freelance work? If so, got a resume?
On Jul 2, 12:26 pm, Jim Biancolo <j...@biancolo.com> wrote:
Jim Biancolo
> Nice work! Should we want to, what are the steps to uninstall?
> Jeremy
I see Sam has already passed along uninstall instructions. I also
wanted to mention that you can easily disable Greasemonkey temporarily
if there's a particular thread you want to read unfiltered (hard to
imagine :-). When you install GM it puts a little icon of a monkey
face in the lower-right corner of your browser window. Click it and
the face grays out, indicating GM is disabled. Click it again to re-
enable. You just have to refresh the page for the change in GM status
to take effect.
I'll drop you a line off-list about freelance work, thanks!
ulticritic
Hey!!! you idiots do know that there is another way to avoid being
subjected to my schtick.
AND theres no need for any instalation, setup or monkeys.
its the age old concept called IGNORING.
SO, like when elaine made more of a jesture to one of her many x-
boyfriends, jake jarmelle, when she went to his book signing dealie
JUST to tell him she DIDNT tell kramer to say "hi" to him for
her........so is you guys little plot to censor me from your thoughts
and minds.
jacob
boiling my kid's rabbit in that pot in my kitchen? That was fatal.
bil
Hi, Jack.
I'm not sure if there's anything funnier than toad.
He's the Sarah Palin of rsd. We can quit him, but
he can't quit us.
Toad, the Sarah Palin of RSD.
scpoulos
> Toad, the Sarah Palin of RSD.
Really? I am still confused why so many techno-geek computer dudes
like you try so hard to make fun of Toad. the sarah palin of rsd? what
does that even mean? you guys can go play your shitty version of
ultimate while the progressive minds start to come together to make
this sport better, especially for those that put a lot of time and
money into training and playing at a really competitive level.
spirit is for non-athletes, while sportsmanship is what the real
ballers adhere to. gonna be disagreements when opposing players have
full power as referees. why not make it so only a few people can make
the calls instead of having 14 plus the sideline fruitballs acting as
referees? makes sense to me but I do have a background of playing
competitive sports for awhile (and I know a lot of you out there do as
well).
also, read Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States. It
will make you discouraged about both parties.
ulticritic
bzzzt WRONG......i'm the bill maher of rsd.........as i'm pretty sure
sarah palin dosent smoke pot and does believe in jesus
ulticritic
>
> also, read Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States. It
> will make you discouraged about both parties.
fuckin A.....i sold out and voted for obama when my man ralph was
tellin me all along that democrats are really just republicans dressed
up as liberals........all owned and controled by the corporations that
help put them in office. RALPH IN 2012!!!!!!
Reggie Fanelli
---what's worse than being the sarah palin or rsd?.......being the
"bil" of anything.
Joe Seidler
scpoulos says "spirit is for non-athletes..." Will the real athletes
please stand up... oops, there are none in NC.
Toad is like Sarah Palin. No one has to make fun of either one; they
do a great job themselves.
Joe Seidler
Toad and Ralph have a lot in common... they both rail at windmills and
accomplish nothing.
Reggie Fanelli
> accomplish nothing.
---i don't know ralph.....but i'd be careful what you say....ultimate
ISN'T going to go BACK to never having observers and will probably one
day have refs....
and then there will be at least one person celebrating his efforts to
bring that idea into the consciousness of many people.
Reggie Fanelli
> scpoulos says "spirit is for non-athletes..." Will the real athletes
> please stand up... oops, there are none in NC.
--that's a queer thing to type.
i guess it's fitting....for you to have written it...
ulticritic
you know joe, theres somthing ive often wondered about you. most
people here on rsd are or were ultimate players, NOT fathers of
players. And while my ole man has read some of the stuff ive written,
and gotten a laugh from it, i cant help but wonder what the fuck your
son thinks about 1) you basically stickin your nose into somewhere it
dosent belong, and 2) you coming accros as the know it all prick that
you are.......especially when it seems you know absolutly nothing
about sports in general to begin with. How embarassing this all must
be for him.
I mean, it aint like my ole man has ANY connection to this sport (like
your son does/did?) so even if he did think i cross the line at times
here it aint like its any skin off his back. Do you have any idea of
the ramifications that your spouting off has on your sons rep? As a
competitive ultimate player i seriously doubt that he's even half as
spirity as you. I dont know about the rest of ya out there but i, for
one, would be very interested to know where HE stands on the ever
controversial ref/progression of ultimate issue(s)......as well as how
he feels about you blowin idiot wind here on rsd.
Joe Buck
I installed this yesterday and it works great. How can I edit it
myself so I don't have to read Gerics anymore?
Thanks for your work.
duder
"gerics", "ulticritic" to "Reggie Fanelli"
then create a new script and save the one with the changes as
"gerics".
Works great, big props to Jim.
Peterson
Exactly which topics / people's posts are all of you dorks going to
read? Your topic options seem limited to:
Nike shoes cheap
How to do laundry and other clothing related questions
Tournament announcements
Tournament photos
Other people sharing their - I hate Toad stories
Computer frisbee games and other nerdy stuff
Gucci Gucci Gucci
I injured my _________ and I don't want to visit a doctor. Can any of
you computer programmers fix it?
I don't know the rules and I don't know how to read very well or find
the rules on these internets- so what happens when _____?
Can anyone pick a pair of ultimate shoes for me that will fit my feet
perfectly and be comfortable?
Happy RSD'ing. I wish all of you smarty programmers would just figure
out a way to filter the spam.
Peterson
jim
> fuckin A.....i sold out and voted for obama when my man ralph was
> tellin me all along that democrats are really just republicans dressed
> up as liberals........all owned and controled by the corporations that
> help put them in office. RALPH IN 2012!!!!!!
ummmm you just figured this out?
jim
how about...don't click on his posts?
you need help to do that?
3jane.
> just copy the toadless script and edit it - change all "toad" to
> "gerics", "ulticritic" to "Reggie Fanelli"
> then create a new script and save the one with the changes as
> "gerics".
> Works great, big props to Jim.
Now if someone could configure it for spam, life would be sweet. A
boy can always dream.
ulticritic
> On Jul 6, 1:21 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:.
>
> > fuckin A.....i sold out and voted for obama when my man ralph was
> > tellin me all along that democrats are really just republicans dressed
> > up as liberals........all owned and controled by the corporations that
> > help put them in office. RALPH IN 2012!!!!!!
>
> ummmm you just figured this out?
well, look what happened when a bunch of us voted for nader in 2000.
would you really want sarah palin to be the vp right now?
ulticritic
but what would you be left with.......threads about how to de stink
your cloths????
Joe Seidler
Hey Toad, if you don't like spectators gettin in your face, you should
back off your push for refs since according to you and your followers,
that will bring fans in droves to the sport. Then you'll have to put
up with thousands of us...
ulticritic
>
> Hey Toad, if you don't like spectators gettin in your face,
who says i got a problem with that?
---------------------------------------------------------
you should
> back off your push for refs since according to you and your followers,
> that will bring fans in droves to the sport.
i never said they would bring droves either........but it would be the
first step in improving the presentational aspect of the
sport.........that in turn, may bring moderate interest.
of course since i have no problems with spectators gettin in my face
this is all pointless
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you'll have to put
> up with thousands of us
us who? spirit zealots? i figured you guys would protest watching
since there were refs so why would i worry about any of ya.
and what does ANY of this have to do with how you embarass your son
everytime you post?
lastly, why dont you do us all a favor and set up that little dealie
wher you cant see my posts either
jermleeds
updateable version of toadless that calls in an XML containing spammer
IDs. Regular RSD readers could add spammer IDs to the XML via an
simple webform, and toadless could make a call at load time to that
XML, so that it has a fairly current list of spammer IDs and filters
them out, so long as the user has Greasemonkey enabled. Ideally, this
version would operate on the default
topic list view so as to eliminate the spam topics from view.
It's effectiveness might be a limited by how often the spammer IDs
change. There's also the potential for abuse, but it couldn't be worse
than the current spam situation.
Jim, how about it? In between work, ultimate and changing diapers,
think you could squeeze that in? Actually, this is something that
somebody at Google should implement, but I'm not holding my breath.
Again, toadless, as it exists currently, is double plus good.
Reggie Fanelli
> > I installed this yesterday and it works great. How can I edit it
> > myself so I don't have to read Gerics anymore?
---that'd be the dumbest thing you ever did.
Jim Biancolo
list, and not everyone would agree as to who they want to read or not
read. As it stands now, everybody can customize their own copy of the
script to ignore who they want to ignore. Speaking of which, I
updated the instructions for how to do this:
http://www.biancolo.com/articles/toadless
I have an idea about the spam problem, which is tougher. It's not
perfect, but it helps. I'll post under a new topic when I've ironed
it out.
Jim
ulticritic
>
> - Show quoted text -
would you guys mind keepin your private conversation off my thread?
jermleeds
> would you guys mind keepin your private conversation off my thread?
Yeah, god forbid we hijack YOUR thread. Oh wait...this isn't your
thread. The irony in your comment is so thick you could cut it with a
blowtorch.
ulticritic
> > would you guys mind keepin your private conversation off my thread?
>
> Yeah, god forbid we hijack YOUR thread. Oh wait...this isn't your
> thread.
its got my name on it
Jared Smith
I'm pretty sure it actually was a joke. On another note could one of
you guys also maybe respond in my thread about the new steps to
posting, it is tangentially related to this topic. Thanks
scpoulos
yeah definitely weak. wonder where this fruitball lives? makes me
wanna go play on the same field and crush him. them is fighting
words...
scpoulos
ah you guys are so cute. why don't you just start your own group and
call it "Spirit: where the disc never lies" or something to that
nature. good luck ignoring the natural progression of making the game
as least a little more legitimate for the players and fans.
Reggie Fanelli
> yeah definitely weak. wonder where this fruitball lives? makes me
> wanna go play on the same field and crush him. them is fighting
> words...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---there are no athletes where he lives.....(to be read in the
nerdiest rsd voice ya got)
Jim Biancolo
> call it "Spirit: where the disc never lies" or something to that
> nature. good luck ignoring the natural progression of making the game
> as least a little more legitimate for the players and fans.
After this I'll stick to the technical rather than the political, but
it's a mistake to assume not wanting to read the same arguments from
the same person over and over on Every.
Single. Thread. is the same thing as being anti-ref, anti-professional
packaging, "spirit zealot", whatever. Heck, maybe somebody who AGREES
with Toad would install this script simply because he's preaching to
the choir.
Not that that's me, I'm just saying.
jermleeds
No captcha required on a test post I just did. Not sure.
Accumulated_Depreciation
> After this I'll stick to the technical rather than the political, but
> it's a mistake to assume not wanting to read the same arguments from
> the same person over and over on Every.
> Single. Thread. is the same thing as being anti-ref, anti-professional
> packaging, "spirit zealot", whatever. Heck, maybe somebody who AGREES
> with Toad would install this script simply because he's preaching to
> the choir.
5 stars to you...I don't like "spirit" and I want refs, yet still find
my self annoyed
ulticritic
wrote:
>
> 5 stars to you...I don't like "spirit" and I want refs, yet still find
> my self annoyed
good, now you know how i feel(ANNOYED!!!!). people like you arent
part of the problem.....YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!!!!!
the chris a.
> ultimate while the progressive minds start to come together to make
> this sport better,
this comment comes from the a guy who's ex-teammate described him a
human poison ivy. also, also, sorry you won't get to play any version
of ultimate this year. so suck it up, cowboy. or go play another 3rd
tier sport with a different rule set. it's not like you just found out
about the no ref policy.
sincerely,
chris a.
the chris a.
> Toad and Ralph have a lot in common... they both rail at windmills and
> accomplish nothing.
to suggest that nader has few accomplishments implies quite a bit
about you.
the chris a.
>
> its got my name on it
no, it doesn't. fool.
ulticritic
> > its got my name on it
>
> no, it doesn't. fool.
cant spell toadless without toad
Joe Seidler
I'm willing to admit I'm wrong about Nader if someone can show I'm
wrong. What has he accomplished since 2000? He did of course get Bush
elected by running for Prez and taking votes away from Gore.
Joe Seidler
I assume you are comparing athletes in CA vs NC. Even if you cut the
number of championships from CA in half, it appears most of the good
athletes appreciate our coast.
College Open Semifinalists since 2000:
California = 10
NC = 0
Club Open Semifinalists since 2000:
California = 10
NC = 2
AND IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THE OLD DAYS --
College Open Semifinalists 1984-1999:
California = 25
NC = 11
Club Open Semifinalists 1984-1999:
California = 16
NC = 1
Data compliments of:
http://www.ultimatehistory.com/championsnational/results
Joe Seidler
I doubt if you speak for most of the players, and I'm sure you don't
for the fans. If you kept your statements to something reasonable,
like "refs would make the game more legitimate for me," you might get
some respect. If you follow the lead of your apparent leader, you're
going down a dead-end road.
Reggie Fanelli
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---oooohhhh....you're a faggot
H
bump
ulticritic
>
> - Show quoted text -
could someone clarrify what "bump" actually means? does it mean that
you agree with the post you are bumping and want to signify that or
does it mean that you simply want to keep the thread alive?
In this case joe sideler warns poulos that "he is going down a dead
end road"........to which i respond, SO WHAT! I mean, if i were an
anti-ref spiritzealot like joe siedler THATS EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD
WANT. So why would a spirit zealot go out of his way to warn/advise
his advisary that he is doing somthing that will hurt his cause. It
would be like some one telling there opponent how tp better cover one
of their team mates. It just dosent make sense. THEREFORE.......my
common sense and logic tells me that the joe REALLY believes, deep
down, that this ISNT a dead end road and that joe is actually
threatened by the fact that others are joining me on said
road........that may have an abutment right now but we intend to clear
it, grade it and pave it. And i think THAT is the real threat behind
joe not wanting poulos to wander in that direction.
does anybody else see the contradictions and inconsistancies behind
spirit zealots CONSTANTLY warning the progressionists when or how they/
we are hurting our oun cause.
Being in the construction business i would NEVER convey to a
competitor when or if he was hurting his own cause by bidding a job
too high......and thus, hurting there own cause. That would be
suicide. So could someone please clue me in as to why spiritzealots
would try to offer us progressionists advice on how to reach our
goals. Would it be naive for me to actually take heed to their
warnings and/or advise or is ther some alterior motive behind them
wanting us to ease up with our campaighning.
I mean, if i'm such an asshole wouldnt a guy like joe sideler WANT
guys like poulos get in league with me???????
Jared Smith
Bump is just the addition of a meaningless post in order to send the
thread up to the top of the list in terms of recent activity. This can
be done because the person wants to keep a dying thread alive or, more
likely in our case, so it can jump up above all of the spam. By making
this post you are "bumping" the thread to the top of the reading list.
Joe Seidler
In NC, replies are either:
1. Say that to my face you coward...
2. You're a faggot...
3. You spirit zealot...
4. I don't give a f@#%
jermleeds
people that they may not actually have. Joe, myself and many other
posters here may not be reflexively opposed to refs, they are simply
opposed to lurching in any policy direction on the basis of your
bullshit arguments. So, there's a group of people out there who
_could_, potentially be convinced about a rational, methodical
exploration of how to implement refs, but who are so turned off by
your ranting, racism and homophobia, that they want nothing to do with
the topic at all. Rush Limbaugh thinks his show helps the Republican
party, when in fact he systematically undercuts the Republican party's
agenda every time he opens his mouth. Why? He alienates the marginally
committed by preaching to the base. I'll leave it to you to work out
who you are in this analogy.
Peterson
Joe,
I think you need to spend some time chatting with DTB about your
racist (or in this case state-centric) hate.
Oh, two things Nader has done in the last ten years:
1. Not wasted my (our) money on wars or bailouts
2. Not been an annoying, elitist acting, asshole here on RSD. You've
trounced him in that category.
Peterson
ulticritic
>
> - Show quoted text -
and his legacy, like mine, will be that hes a consumer advocate. i
belive i herd he himself say that his legacy was getting the
automobile industry to standardize seatbelts. Maybe mine will be
getting the ultimate industry to standardize 3rd party game management
and rule enforcement.
ulticritic
>
> In NC, replies are either:
> 1. Say that to my face you coward...
> 2. You're a faggot...
> 3. You spirit zealot...
>
> - Show quoted text -
so you are gonna impune a whole state just because of 3 people????
peterson is from nc and ive never herd him say any of that stuff
and i'm still curious to know if you own son is even in league with
you on the whole ref issue
ulticritic
> Toad, once again, you make the mistake of ascribing motivations to
> people that they may not actually have. Joe, myself and many other
> posters here may not be reflexively opposed to refs,
may not???? but dosent that presupose that you MAY????? the way i
look at it is....Your either with us or you are against us. And joe
has made it very clear more than once as to his preference for the
sotg system.......so dont try and bullshit me. you also might want to
get joe to clarify his opposition to refs in ulti to you prior to
speaking on his, or others, behalf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they are simply
> opposed to lurching in any policy direction on the basis of your
> bullshit arguments.
they arent really my arguments though. I'm just going by how things
work in the modern sports world........and since ultimate IS a
sport........well, you know, i'm just connecting the dots
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, there's a group of people out there who
> _could_, potentially be convinced about a rational, methodical
> exploration of how to implement refs,
correction.......theres agroup out there that already are/have been
convinced of the rational behind the ref facilitation.......which
probably occured when they statrted playing sports as a child.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but who are so turned off by
> your ranting, racism and homophobia,
but what does ANY of that have to do with refs. I know lots of peopl
that i think are dicks, including you. but that dosent mean i will
automatically disagree with everything you say or think just because
of that. Thats kinda a narrow minded way of thinking isnt it? and
again, thats a matter of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
isnt it. The baby being a modern ans sellable version of ultimate and
me being the bathwater.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that they want nothing to do with
> the topic at all.
well that says a lot more about them than it does me, dosent it? i
mean, what kinda of a man sells out his inner convictions and stunts
the growth and greatness of the sport they love just because of some
obnoxious lunitic on the internet that dosent even play the sport any
more shots off at the mouth about that and other controversial issues
in the sport? wouldnt that be considered cutting off your nose to
spit your face?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rush Limbaugh thinks his show helps the Republican
> party,
whos to say it dosent? and are you saying bill oriely hurts the
consevative movement too? If they do, as a liberal, i would WANT them
to keep up their campaigning, get it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
when in fact he systematically undercuts the Republican party's
> agenda every time he opens his mouth.
are you a republican or somthing?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? He alienates the marginally
> committed by preaching to the base. I'll leave it to you to work out
> who you are in this analogy.
i know who i am. I think its YOU that needs to figure out who the
fuck you are. are you a soft ass progressionist or a soft ass spirit
zealot. To me, you seem to be the fence dwelling, fair weather type
that just goes with the crowd. Of which, we'll (the progressionists)
will gladly take your votes (and donations) but we will probably still
think of you as the dick that you are.
JH
> Yeah, I was wondering about that. It would be cool to have a community
> updateable version of toadless that calls in an XML containing spammer
> IDs. Regular RSD readers could add spammer IDs to the XML via an
> simple webform, and toadless could make a call at load time to that
> XML, so that it has a fairly current list of spammer IDs and filters
> them out, so long as the user has Greasemonkey enabled. Ideally, this
> version would operate on the default
> topic list view so as to eliminate the spam topics from view.
>
> It's effectiveness might be a limited by how often the spammer IDs
> change. There's also the potential for abuse, but it couldn't be worse
> than the current spam situation.
>
> Jim, how about it? In between work, ultimate and changing diapers,
> think you could squeeze that in? Actually, this is something that
> somebody at Google should implement, but I'm not holding my breath.
> Again, toadless, as it exists currently, is double plus good.
>
> On Jul 7, 9:12 am, "3jane." <q3j...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 11:54 am, duder <sschmuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > just copy the toadless script and edit it - change all "toad" to
> > > "gerics", "ulticritic" to "Reggie Fanelli"
> > > then create a new script and save the one with the changes as
> > > "gerics".
> > > Works great, big props to Jim.
>
> > Now if someone could configure it for spam, life would be sweet. A
> > boy can always dream.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This sounds like a good idea in theory but the ID's are frequently
changed which makes our life harder on this end. The real way to get
it would be to have something that filtered out based on content and
visible URL. If you hit a few keywords and a few of the domains that
are always sprouting up I imagine you could do a pretty good job with
it. Keywords like: Marc Jacobs, Ed Hardy, Louis Vuitton, [a number of
non-alphanumeric characters often used for emphasis], nike shox,
etc...
The reason Google won't come in and do the sweeping is because this is
a USENET group that you're viewing through Google Groups, it's not
exactly their baby.
3jane.
I agree that google doesn't give a shit (no $) but one thing they
could easily do is block any post with say more than 5 links. The
spammers would probably adjust eventually but I have to think it would
go some way toward reducing it. The one thing that would suck for us
is that people couldn't post the 10 best pix of a tournament (and
those are always great posts) but it might be worth it. I can't
believe anyone buys this shit and makes the spamming worthwhile but
what do I know?
jermleeds
> On Jul 8, 11:27 am, jermleeds <jermle...@gmail.com> wrote:.
>
> > Toad, once again, you make the mistake of ascribing motivations to
> > people that they may not actually have. Joe, myself and many other
> > posters here may not be reflexively opposed to refs,
>
> may not???? but dosent that presupose that you MAY????? the way i
Obviously. They may, they may not. You don't know. I don't know. But
instead of accepting that uncertainty, and shaping your message
accordingly, you come out with stuff like:
> look at it is....Your either with us or you are against us. And joe
> has made it very clear more than once as to his preference for the
Your with us, or against us. No shades of grey for you, Toad. You are
demonstrating the same tin ear for politics and nuance that the
Republican party is currently. Their (your) demands for ideological
purity systematically lose them (you) a significant part of the
political middle.
> sotg system.......so dont try and bullshit me. you also might want to
> get joe to clarify his opposition to refs in ulti to you prior to
> speaking on his, or others, behalf
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> they are simply
>
> > opposed to lurching in any policy direction on the basis of your
> > bullshit arguments.
>
> they arent really my arguments though. I'm just going by how things
Nonsense. You start a thread in all caps, you own it. You want to back
it up with actual facts, go ahead. We're waiting. That's facts, Toad.
F-A-C-T-S. You can find 'em on Google.
> work in the modern sports world........and since ultimate IS a
> sport........well, you know, i'm just connecting the dots
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, there's a group of people out there who
>
> > _could_, potentially be convinced about a rational, methodical
> > exploration of how to implement refs,
>
> correction.......theres agroup out there that already are/have been
That's not a correction, as your statement and mine aren't mutually
exclusive. Want me to break out the hand puppets to explain it to you?
> convinced of the rational behind the ref facilitation.......which
> probably occured when they statrted playing sports as a child.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> but who are so turned off by
>
> > your ranting, racism and homophobia,
>
> but what does ANY of that have to do with refs. I know lots of peopl
> that i think are dicks, including you. but that dosent mean i will
It has to do with your ability to push a pro-ref agenda, which, as you
consistently fail to recognize, is a political exercise. Message
matters. Delivery matters. Tone matters. Emotional response matters.
> automatically disagree with everything you say or think just because
> of that. Thats kinda a narrow minded way of thinking isnt it? and
> again, thats a matter of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
> isnt it. The baby being a modern ans sellable version of ultimate and
> me being the bathwater.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> that they want nothing to do with
>
> > the topic at all.
>
> well that says a lot more about them than it does me, dosent it? i
> mean, what kinda of a man sells out his inner convictions and stunts
Again, many people may not have inner convictions one way or the other
wrt/ refs. If you weren't so immeasurably dense, you'd realize that
those are the people you need to be targeting, and that your current
MO systematically turns them off.
> the growth and greatness of the sport they love just because of some
> obnoxious lunitic on the internet that dosent even play the sport any
> more shots off at the mouth about that and other controversial issues
> in the sport? wouldnt that be considered cutting off your nose to
> spit your face?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Rush Limbaugh thinks his show helps the Republican
>
> > party,
>
> whos to say it dosent? and are you saying bill oriely hurts the
Who's to say? Anyone who follows politics closely enough to have an
extremely informed opinion on the matter, such as me. Try Googling
Republican party and Limbaugh approval ratings. Let me know what you
find out.
> consevative movement too? If they do, as a liberal, i would WANT them
> to keep up their campaigning, get it?
Oh, I absoultely get it. Let's say I was opposed to refs. There's no
better agent for preserving the status quo than you, Toad. You do good
work.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> when in fact he systematically undercuts the Republican party's
>
> > agenda every time he opens his mouth.
>
> are you a republican or somthing?
Nope, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal who is totally enjoying the death
throes of the Republican party. If I were opposed to refs, I'd be
watching the continual train wreck that is your RSD opus with great
satisfaction.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why? He alienates the marginally
>
> > committed by preaching to the base. I'll leave it to you to work out
> > who you are in this analogy.
>
> i know who i am. I think its YOU that needs to figure out who the
> fuck you are. are you a soft ass progressionist or a soft ass spirit
> zealot. To me, you seem to be the fence dwelling, fair weather type
> that just goes with the crowd. Of which, we'll (the progressionists)
Maybe I'm a moderate here wrt/ refs, Toad- let's say that's the case.
What you fail to realize is that you're never gonna get my votes or
donations. You ran for UPA board recently, IIRC. How'd that work out
for you?
JH
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey now, 98% of the things that Google does have no revenue involved,
including Docs, Analytics, Orkut, YouTube, Gmail, Google Talk, Google
Voice, Maps, World, (I could go on for hours), so don't chalk it up to
that, per se. The reality is, that with workarounds like Jim's, it's
not enough of a major problem to warrant engineer time. If it was
making the bulk of the groups unusable, there would be swift change.
As for people buying the stuff, there is no stuff, there 99.9%
phishing or malware scams coming out of China. At best they're
running counterfeit goods. But if you think that no one tries to
click on them then start looking around. There are tons of people in
the US who actually send money for the Nigerian prince scheme, still,
even though that's incredibly old. Now that the economy is hurting
people who normally would not have been affected are taking chances
they never would have. It's ugly, believe you me, because it works.
Hell, I don't know why people would start smoking crack, but that
doesn't mean that they don't do it in droves.
-Handy
scpoulos
not true my man, but it is funny how you try to apparently put
everyone from NC down with this kind of crap. When I replied to the
effect of #1 I was referring to this elitist, smart-ass kind of vibe
that a lot of people posting on rsd seem to be all about. Your ideas
about the sport are different than mine, no big deal. the problem I
have is you misinterpreted and/or took out of context what I said in a
previous post about the version of ultimate for pickup games should
not be the same as the one being played at the highest levels. I added
a little angst to it because I think it is frustrating for so many out
there to discount the notion of a 3rd party arbitration system being
implemented at the highest levels at all the big tournies. you
probably saw the post about the Goat vs. Truckstop semifinal game at
the Boston Invite. This is a tournament that people fly to and take
very seriously and in those elimination games, players are referring
to the sidelines for legitimacy of their calls. that is pretty damn
lame, and with some effort this can change.
ulticritic
>
> I agree that google doesn't give a shit (no $) but one thing they
> could easily do is block any post with say more than 5 links. The
> spammers would probably adjust eventually but I have to think it would
> go some way toward reducing it. The one thing that would suck for us
> is that people couldn't post the 10 best pix of a tournament (and
> those are always great posts) but it might be worth it. I can't
> believe anyone buys this shit and makes the spamming worthwhile but
> what do I know?
not much
jermleeds
homophobic retort just pretty much puts the exclamation point on it.
jermleeds
enabling the stealing of the 2000 election, and giving us 8 years of a
Bush presidency from which will be recovering for decades. You want to
compare yourself to Nader? Go right ahead.
scpoulos
> Hell, I don't know why people would start smoking crack, but that
> doesn't mean that they don't do it in droves.
>
> -Handy
It's called trying to have a little pleasure in a life of despair for
most of the folks that do it. This kind of thing can be attractive
for those that feel put down by the man and are having a hard time
dealing with our system of everyman for himself in the lovely
capitalistic American society. this kind of lame-ass comment makes me
think you have never hung around with folks that are dealing with some
tough shit. really, you don't know why? man you sound like an idiot.
open your eyes Handy. life ain't all strawberries and cream, but maybe
it is for you. With so many people that play ultimate coming from the
higher classes of society then good chance you can't conceive how
someone might resort to finding a way to a high when they are not in a
great place to be "high on life".
You ever seen those bumper stickers that say "life is good". the thing
is I see them on brand new SUV's driven by the tennis moms that I
teach. no shit life is good when you got it good, but that is not the
case for many out there in america and especially the world. I've
been to Haiti twice and seen some people going through a really tough
and downtrodden life. Kind of easy to see why many people resort to
drugs as an escape. On the other hand, they can be fun to do!! feels
good to rant a little. just found that comment you said to be really
niave.
the chris a.
> elected by running for Prez and taking votes away from Gore.
blaming nader for gore, or bush is as unsophisticated as asserting
refs are ultimate's magic bullet.
Joe Seidler
Toad is not worth arguing with; he wants replies only so he can rant
some more. He is immune to normal human interaction.
You are right of course that many rsd readers are frustrated with the
quantity and tone of Toad's posts (unfortunately that is the exact
reaction he wants because his only goal is to get a reaction). You are
also right that the UPA board is following the results of the recent
major evaluation of member feedback. If the majority of the members
wanted refs, the UPA would be implementing them now. As a spectator, I
don't care whether refs are used or not. The sport is great to watch
now, and I would probably like it just as much with refs. The decision
only impacts the players. The use of refs would IMO have no impact on
the number of spectators.
scpoulos
you actually think that had anything to do with nader? you are a
fool. being from Florida and living there at the time, I understand
that having Jeb Bush as the governor and Kathryn Harris as the
overseer of the elections recount really helped out G.W. The
problem is you see what Nader did in that light and not the fact that
what he did was very admirable. would be awesome to have a 3rd party
candidate running more often that is at least trying to look out for
those that actually need the government's assistance. I assume you
don't fall into that category, so I guess it makes sense that you
would put down Nader. that is a damn shame.
the chris a.
> enabling the stealing of the 2000 election, and giving us 8 years of a
> Bush presidency from which will be recovering for decades. You want to
> compare yourself to Nader? Go right ahead.
if the 2000 election was indeed stolen,the onus of blame does not
befall nader. also, nader had a bunch of support in 2000. people say-
ah-you know what? fuck it. fuck your perpetuated dogma. question: is
perpetuated dogma redundant? i gotta know.
scpoulos
just reminding you to send me an email at scpo...@gmail.com
Joe Seidler
then wasted your money on wars.
> 2. Not been an annoying, elitist acting, asshole here on RSD. You've
> trounced him in that category.
You post over 300 times every month... I post less than 10. Let's take
a vote who everyone thinks is the biggest asshole on rsd...
You really are funny.
ulticritic
> On Jul 8, 9:20 am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 11:27 am, jermleeds <jermle...@gmail.com> wrote:.
>
> > > Toad, once again, you make the mistake of ascribing motivations to
> > > people that they may not actually have. Joe, myself and many other
> > > posters here may not be reflexively opposed to refs,
>
> > may not???? but dosent that presupose that you MAY????? the way i
>
> Obviously. They may, they may not.
so then i'm NOT MAKING A MISTAKE THEN, EH?
-----------------------------------------------------------
You don't know. I don't know. But
> instead of accepting that uncertainty, and shaping your message
> accordingly, you come out with stuff like:
dont worry about what the fuck i do
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Your with us, or against us. No shades of grey for you, Toad. You are
> demonstrating the same tin ear for politics and nuance that the
> Republican party is currently. Their (your) demands for ideological
> purity systematically lose them (you) a significant part of the
> political middle.
oh well, as long as spineless chumps like you are part of that middle,
good riddins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nonsense. You start a thread in all caps, you own it.
i just represent the mainstream sports world though. i'm just a
condeuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You want to back
> it up with actual facts, go ahead. We're waiting.
facts???? the writing is on the wall. just check out any espn sports
presentation, college or hs athletic association or even little league
organization. theres your facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > correction.......theres agroup out there that already are/have been
>
> That's not a correction, as your statement and mine aren't mutually
> exclusive. Want me to break out the hand puppets to explain it to you?
please do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > but what does ANY of that have to do with refs. I know lots of peopl
> > that i think are dicks, including you. but that dosent mean i will
>
> It has to do with your ability to push a pro-ref agenda, which, as you
> consistently fail to recognize, is a political exercise. Message
> matters. Delivery matters. Tone matters. Emotional response matters.
well lets here how you would campain for it if you were me? and
clarify for us again your stance on refs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Again, many people may not have inner convictions one way or the other
> wrt/ refs. If you weren't so immeasurably dense, you'd realize that
> those are the people you need to be targeting, and that your current
> MO systematically turns them off.
thats your opinion......and i dont trust it. In fact, anybody that
thinks that is a flimflammer imo and i dont give a fuck about em.
They are all fence dwellers imo......weak hearts. got no use for em.
Of course, once the progressionists gain control all you chumps will
come runnin up, wanting to be in with the in crowd. but we all know
thats the nature of flimflammers, dont we?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Who's to say? Anyone who follows politics closely enough to have an
> extremely informed opinion on the matter, such as me.
so you think everyone that follows politics, dems and reps alike all
agree with you on this issue? thats quite presumtuious in itself
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Oh, I absoultely get it. Let's say I was opposed to refs. There's no
> better agent for preserving the status quo than you, Toad. You do good
> work.
c'mon.......little ole me does that all by myself. So all i would
have to do is be equally obnoxious towards the spirit zealot movement
and everyone would automatically favor refs????? thats a pretty
pretty pretty pretty crazy contention. What % of members would you say
even frequent rsd again? or is it that my reputation extends past
rsd?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nope, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal who is totally enjoying the death
> throes of the Republican party. If I were opposed to refs, I'd be
> watching the continual train wreck that is your RSD opus with great
> satisfaction.
so are you a nadar liberal or a sellout obama liberal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Maybe I'm a moderate here wrt/ refs, Toad- let's say that's the case.
> What you fail to realize is that you're never gonna get my votes or
> donations. You ran for UPA board recently, IIRC. How'd that work out
> for you?
if you are that spineless and arent on fire for the advancement of
ultimate than you can piss off for all i care.
Jared Smith
Well actually Nader did have the effect of throwing the election from
one party to the other. If you look at the election results from the
Federal Election Commission the officially counted difference between
Bush and Gore in Florida was 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes
from Florida. So yes it is possible that having a Republican-counted
state government allowed enough votes discounted or doubly counted (or
whatever people believe happened) to allow for a slight victory from
Bush. However had Nader not won it would be unlikely that the State
government could make a vote swing of tens of thousands. And before
you say, "Well it's not like if you don't vote for the Green Party
you'd automatically vote Democrat." True, however I would say it is
much more likely that an environmental party member would vote for the
greenest potential president in history rather than an oil tycoon. So
yes Nader did in fact have the effect of getting Bush elected instead
of Gore.
However that being said that is in fact the professed goal of the
Green Party. Smaller parties such as that are known as Pressure
Groups. They seek to pull the major parties away from just the center
of the electorate by threatening to (or actually) enter into the
election and steal votes from the more extreme members of those
parties' electoral base. So by running Nader forgoes a present
Democratic victory in the hopes that he will force them to adopt more
environmental policies in order to appease him and recapture those
voters. So whether you agree with his strategy or not, it was quite
successful. Perhaps in the end Nader would've done better to just
allow a president who subsequently won a nobel prize for environmental
activism to get elected rather than punish that party with 8 years of
a Bush presidency, but that is really a matter of opinion...
Joe Seidler
If Nader had run for a State office or perhaps US Representative where
he might have had a chance, he would be more admired. But when he
jumped over all of the positions where he might have had an impact on
the issues important to him and ran for Prez knowing he had no chance,
he made it clear that his ego got in the way of reasonable thinking.
Nader knew he could not win the Prez race, and he did it anyway. His
few % points definitely was the major reason Gore lost and Bush won.
The fiasco in Florida was bad, but it would have never to come to that
if Nader had really tried to help consumers and run for a lower office
where he might have won. But I suspect his ego requires more
attention... hmmm, sound familiar with someone here on rsd?
Joe Seidler
yep
Jared Smith
Sorry Joe, even though we sort of agree on the subject this post shows
you clearly have no idea about what you're talking about in terms of
the science and strategy politics. Posts like that do a disservice to
your argument by being so painfully naive...
Joe Seidler
I disagree. Nader ran for Prez knowing he could not win, and his few %
made the Gore/Bush so close. I lost respect for Nader when he chose
not to run for an office where he had a chance and could have really
helped the consumer. He could have run for a State office or perhaps
the US House of Representatives and put in some time gaining
credibility with the public at large. But he chose to run for Prez
just to have his 15 minutes of fame and lose any opportunity to really
help in the causes he supports.
Joe Seidler
Please explain. You make a claim but it's missing any information to
substantiate it. My assertion states: Nader's few % votes caused the
2000 election to be so close. If Nader had not run, Gore would have
won IMO. Where am I wrong?
scpoulos
the problem with your argument is that in Florida they discounted a
lot of votes that would have given Gore the majority. just an example
of what Jeb did to help his brother out is in Tallahassee where I am
from and was living at the time. on the south side of town in the
predominantly black neighborhoods they set up speed traps and
roadblocks that in effect scared many of those folks away from the
voting stations. Kathryn Harris had a lot of votes thrown out from ex-
cons who had gotten the right to vote back but got lost in the
bureaucracy of the system so to speak. those are votes that would have
favored Gore. also the Miami districts where all the mess was about
the recount in the past had voted predominantly for the Democratic
Party.
It was really convenient and beneficial for the Republicans to get the
US supreme court to rule against a recount because they knew it would
change the election. So I guess you can have the opinion that Nader
is at fault for having G.W. as our president for 8 yrs or you can look
a little deeper past the surface and see that there was a very strong
force that caused the election to turn out like it did and that is
those that were leaders of the Republican party at the time.
did you not follow the news then or something because the Florida
Supreme court ruled for the recount and the Republicans took it to the
U.S. Supreme Court where they had the majority stop the recount. put
the dots together. It is easy to say that Nader took votes away from
the Democrats which is understandable, but on the flip side the
corrupt motives of the Republican Party is the real reason the
election was "stolen".
Jared Smith
Refer to my earlier post for clarification. Nader did indeed cause
Gore to lose the election but not for any stupid reason such as his
ego.
scpoulos
that is a good point Joe. I did really like the guy though ya know.
jermleeds
Maybe it's the argumentative east coast Jew in me. Maybe it's that I'm
old enough to remember when RSD seemed more vibrant and varied.
Jared Smith
I feel like you didn't read my post... I agreed Gore would've likely
won irrespective of Nader had there not been shenanigans. HOWEVER
given the unchangeable circumstances Nader did cause Bush to win and
Gore to lose, which is in fact his goal. Anyone who thinks that Nader
could've won the presidency, or that Nader thought he could've won is
incredibly naive. Pressure parties seek to punish mainstream parties
by entering into the election and stealing votes from the fringes.
This happens with the Republicans too at the hands of parties like the
Right to Life party. Obviously they don't go into the election
thinking, "This is our time!" But they enter in the hopes that they
can pull a bunch of really conservative religious voters away from
Republicans. Then in the next election the Republicans can either
continue to bear this loss of voters, or they can adopt more
conservative, pro-religion policies, thus appeasing the Right to
Lifers. This was the same case for Nader. Whether or not he got help
in his cause from Republican electoral fraud, his goal was to force
the Democrats to take environmental causes more seriously, and he was
successful for it. Not everything about politics is being elected into
office, you can affect just as much change in national policy by being
able to force those elected to listen and take you seriously.
Peterson
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not sure who you are replying to here. I'm pretty sure I haven't
posted over 300 times.
Oh, funny you mentioned Gore. He is likely the only person that could
match your level of elitist dorkiness.
Peterson
jermleeds
that Google has continually poured money into improving Gmail,
including back end work on spam detection and filtering. Their
motivation for doing so is that they want to promote gmail and other
products as commercial, enterprise scale applications, to compete with
MS and other established players. (Which is behind the fact that they
just now finally removed the 'beta' tag from gmail). So they have the
financial incentive for doing so for those products, obviously,
whereas they do not for Groups. It's just frustrating to see Groups
languish behind their other, impressive development efforts
jermleeds
> you actually think that had anything to do with nader? you are a
As Jared points out downthread, Nader's participation in Florida
indisputably created a situation in which the vote count was close
enough for Harris and Jeb Bush to weild their respective power. Nader
understood the electoral calculus perfectly, and knew that Florida
(and other swingstates) were decisive in 2000. He sold many on the
obvious lie that there was no material difference between the 2 main
parties, and kept himself in the Florida election knowing full well he
would be increasing the likelihood of Bush carrying the state. Whether
or not this was due to his enormous ego is a matter of debate, but the
fact that he manoevered to be a 3rd party candidate again 4 years
later, despite at least one year of disastrous Bush governance at that
point, suggests that he was far more interested in his own ambition
than the well being of the country in general. To me, that is a
massive stain on his legacy, and completely outweighs the ubiquity of
seat belts.
Joe Seidler
I get your point, but I disagree with depicting Nader as an
"effective" force for change. He, and the Green Party, would have had
(and still can have) more influence on the issues important to them by
running Nader for a lower office (perhaps US House of Representatives)
where he would have had a chance of winning and a multi-year voice. He
also would not have jeopardized the election for Prez to the GOP which
of course they knew they were doing.
I can't help but believe Nader and the Green Party acted like "spoiled
kids" who know trashing the house is wrong, but they are so angry with
their parents that they do it anyway. I'm not so naive to think the
DEMs are "all good" or don't sometimes vote for whoever donated the
most $$$ to their campaign, but they are far and away better than the
ideology of the right. When a credible Independent runs (no, not
Lieberman), I will gladly be open to voting for her.
Joe Seidler
Thanks. I replied to your earlier post.
BSlade
> Hey now, 98% of the things that Google does have no revenue involved,
> including Docs, Analytics, Orkut, YouTube, Gmail, Google Talk, Google
> Voice, Maps, World, (I could go on for hours), so don't chalk it up to
> that, per se. The reality is, that with workarounds like Jim's, it's
> not enough of a major problem to warrant engineer time. If it was
> making the bulk of the groups unusable, there would be swift change.
Gmail is revenue-driven: the chance to scan people's personal emails
for any keywords which will help them customize ads based on the email
content is a dream come true! Same thing as facebook- the more
information you disclose about yourself, the more likely it is that
the ads will accurately target what you might spend money on.
jermleeds
> if the 2000 election was indeed stolen,the onus of blame does not
> befall nader. also, nader had a bunch of support in 2000. people say-
> ah-you know what? fuck it. fuck your perpetuated dogma. question: is
> perpetuated dogma redundant? i gotta know.
When it comes from Toad it sure is.
ulticritic
so givin this perspective jared, which i completely buy into, how does
this relate to the upa, the progressionist movement and the comparison
between me and ralph. of whch, is joe suggesting i run for sectional
coordinator or somthing? what a waste that would be as i'm more of a
HNIC kinda guy.
ulticritic
> On Jul 8, 12:15 pm, scpoulos <scpou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > you actually think that had anything to do with nader? you are a
>
> As Jared points out downthread, Nader's participation in Florida
> indisputably created a situation in which the vote count was close
> enough for Harris and Jeb Bush to weild their respective power. Nader
> understood the electoral calculus perfectly, and knew that Florida
> (and other swingstates) were decisive in 2000. He sold many on the
> obvious lie that there was no material difference between the 2 main
> parties,
how is that a lie.....they are both in debt to the corps that put them
in office(or at least funded their campaign) arent they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and kept himself in the Florida election knowing full well he
> would be increasing the likelihood of Bush carrying the state. Whether
> or not this was due to his enormous ego is a matter of debate, but the
> fact that he manoevered to be a 3rd party candidate again 4 years
> later, despite at least one year of disastrous Bush governance at that
> point, suggests that he was far more interested in his own ambition
> than the well being of the country in general.
fuck of you oretentious prick. this is america and anybody can use
their ambition to "go for it", whatever "it" may be. I voted for
nadar twice and would have likely voted for him again had there not
ben a qualified black man running. dont blame him cause bush scared
most of america into voting for him. and your boy obama better fuckin
deliver.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To me, that is a
> massive stain on his legacy, and completely outweighs the ubiquity of
> seat belts.
well that isnt the least bit surprising coming from a fair weathered
prick like you
ulticritic
> On Jul 8, 12:17 pm, "the chris a." <chrisdatkins...@gmail.com> wrote:.
>
> > if the 2000 election was indeed stolen,the onus of blame does not
> > befall nader. also, nader had a bunch of support in 2000. people say-
> > ah-you know what? fuck it. fuck your perpetuated dogma. question: is
> > perpetuated dogma redundant? i gotta know.
>
> When it comes from Toad it sure is.
eh, time will tell whether or not thats the case........and with the
recent trends with more pro-ref talk and observers making active
calls, the scales already seem to be tipping in my favor. so, like i
said, we'll see.