AOL 6.0 problems
Laura
thing. AOL's 6.0 download has damaged our computers and AOL should do the
responsible thing and repair them.
Why should we pay to repair what this download has done?
I have a 2 year old ACER computer. Many other people who have ACER'S are
having the same problem when they downloaded 6.0 they cannot get onto the WWW
and AOL after many calls to them finely tells all of them the same thing their
Internet explorer is damaged call your vender or Microsoft. This is costing a
lot of people a lot of money and its funny none of these folks had any trouble
before downloading 6.0.
Maybe AOL should be sent the bills.
Read this article I found in the paper.
Bad news travels like wildfire and AOL is bad news and its all over the
newspapers and the net. Hello
"BLAME AOL IF COMPUTER KEEPS FREEZING
Q: I've tried suggestions from every tech person I could find, but nothing has
solved the problem. I use Windows 95 & AOL. After I spend any appreciable
time on the Internet, my "system resources" adruptly drop to zero. Unless I
reboot, the system freezes. Why does this keep happening? How can I stop it?
A: You can blame your problems on AOL, whose bosses have somewhat arrogantly
decided to continually upgrade whatever AOL software is running on any computer
that logs on to the service. Virtually all AOL users are familiar with this
process, where after they sign off from AOL a window pops up announcing that it
is updating the software.
As the upgrades get more complex, many older computers can't handle them
as well as they once could. Since you are running a now-antique Windows 95
machine, you probably started out with the AOL 3.0 software, and over the years
the software has been continually upgraded until it incorporates much of the
current AOL 6.0.
Since AOL 6.0 is designed for optimum use on today's Pentium 111 level
machines, it clearly is more than your PC's resources can accommodate. Only 2
solutions come to mind, and one of them is to drop your AOL subscription and
try a less resourse-hungry Internet service provider. You may be able to get
by, however, by making sure that the only software running when you go online
is AOL itself.
If that doesn'y work, and if you've just got to have your AOL, the only
solution is to cave in to the computer industry's planned obsolescence and
purchase a new computer." - Jim Coates from ASK JIM
Laura, Keeper of the Hounds
Servant to 4 Cats, Shadow, Terra, Storm, Shotzie.
AKA
Lady's and Boomer's Mom. Slave to the Cats.
ferret
fail due to technicallities.
When you signed up, you agreed that AOL would not be Liable for any
loss or damage to your computer caused by their software.
JM Hunter
(Laura) picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit smeared the following
cryptic message:
Ain't shit you can do. AOL has already said you signed away your right
to sue them if their software fucks up your computer in a suit filed
against them by its users and other ISPs. If the judge agrees, then
you have no legal recourse and are just SOL. I suggest you dump them
but if you persist in using them, anything that happens to your
machine is yoru own fault. Don't come back whining here because you'll
find no sympathy.
JM Hunter
Wurk
Laura wrote:
Well Dr. Laura, looks like your one of the two who bought Acers.
Hahaha
Wurk, holding three aces but folding
Adam Bailey
"ferret" <ab...@localhost.abuse.com> wrote:
Hardly a technicality.
If software developers had to start being responsible for the damage
they cause, it would crash the entire industry.
Ultimately, that might be a good thing, but I hardly thing AOL should
be the first company in court over an industry-wide practice.
--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
ad...@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP
ada...@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/
JM Hunter
Bidniz <apb...@w-link.net> picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit
smeared the following cryptic message:
>On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:10:45 -0600, Adam Bailey <ad...@lull.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <bx6l6.3481$v4.1...@ozemail.com.au>,
>> "ferret" <ab...@localhost.abuse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There are plenty of Lawsuit's re:AOL browsers and AOL practices but
>>> sadly most fail due to technicallities.
>>>
>>> When you signed up, you agreed that AOL would not be Liable for any
>>> loss or damage to your computer caused by their software.
>>
>>Hardly a technicality.
>>
>>If software developers had to start being responsible for the damage
>>they cause, it would crash the entire industry.
>
>Actually, they are held responsible. AOL has lost several court cases
>for is failures. Its up before a Federal Judge for its current bad
>programming now.
>
>>
>>Ultimately, that might be a good thing, but I hardly thing AOL should
>>be the first company in court over an industry-wide practice.
>
>
>No one else has a class action lawsuit for writing piss poor internet
>software...and BTW...
>
>you made another logical error
>Fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice
>
>The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following
>structure:
>
>
>X is a common action.
>Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
>The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do
>X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a
>fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not
>make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable
>
>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html
>
>You prove me right again Adam...rude, crude, unempathic, and logically
>wrong.
>
>AOL doesn't care.
Welcome to Adam's kill file. Of course, it's not a *real* kill file
because he'll still read your posts, he 'll just whine *plonk* and
refuse to debate you.
JM Hunter
Scott L
>In article <bx6l6.3481$v4.1...@ozemail.com.au>,
> "ferret" <ab...@localhost.abuse.com> wrote:
>
>> There are plenty of Lawsuit's re:AOL browsers and AOL practices but
>> sadly most fail due to technicallities.
>>
>> When you signed up, you agreed that AOL would not be Liable for any
>> loss or damage to your computer caused by their software.
>
>Hardly a technicality.
>
>If software developers had to start being responsible for the damage
>they cause, it would crash the entire industry.
>
>Ultimately, that might be a good thing, but I hardly thing AOL should
>be the first company in court over an industry-wide practice.
Most other software developers don't intentionally wreck one's system
and make it almost impossible to use other software (or in this case,
another ISP).
Now, they won't be held responsible by law, but they seriously fucked
up and *should" be held responsible for either intentionally harming
one's system or hiring extremely shitty programmers.
--
Scott L <sco...@oco.net>
Adam Bailey
Scott L <sco...@oNOOSPAMco.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:10:45 -0600, Adam Bailey <ad...@lull.org>
> decided to make it known in alt.aol-sucks that:
>
>> In article <bx6l6.3481$v4.1...@ozemail.com.au>,
>> "ferret" <ab...@localhost.abuse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There are plenty of Lawsuit's re:AOL browsers and AOL practices
>>> but sadly most fail due to technicallities.
>>>
>>> When you signed up, you agreed that AOL would not be Liable for
>>> any loss or damage to your computer caused by their software.
>>
>> Hardly a technicality.
>>
>> If software developers had to start being responsible for the
>> damage they cause, it would crash the entire industry.
>>
>> Ultimately, that might be a good thing, but I hardly thing AOL
>> should be the first company in court over an industry-wide
>> practice.
>
> Most other software developers don't intentionally wreck one's
> system
You can't prove such intent (fact). It's not there in the first place
(opinion).
> and make it almost impossible to use other software (or in this
> case, another ISP).
Almost impossible my ass.
Trippy
"Adam Bailey" <ad...@lull.org> wrote in message
news:adamb-7C7B3E....@flood.xnet.com...
Actually, you could prove intent, not by intentionally designing the program
to crash the system, but negligence. Aol has to know there's a problem with
their spoftware, they've been hearing the complaints for years, through
here, through dissatisfied customers, but they still refuse to do anything
about the problem. That's negligence, and they should be held financially
responsible for the damage their inaction causes. That's just common sense,
and just because you accepted the terms of service, (ie...clicked "I agree),
that doesn't give a company the right to run roughshod over your computer.
Sometimes it's the user's fault, they're are idiots everywhere, and that's w
hy we have things like "Coffee is hot", and "wash, rinse, repeat". There is
bound to be some of that in every instance. Fine, to those peeps I say,
solly, you's s.o.l. But for the rest, who really don't do anything wrong,
aol needs to make it right with them, or the lawsuits will keep coming. Why?
Aol is worth billions now, and so they're always gonna be a target for
lawyers, who of course take a percentage while striking a blow for the
little man.
Aol DOES NOT play well with the other programs, otherwise you wouldn't need
to change the modem string to make aol work, since it would work with dial
up networking. Good luck using outlook, or hell ANY newsreader with aol,
good luck sending pix, good luck trying to do a lot of things while using
aol. It's a proprietary system, and pretty much the only ones who care about
it are the people at aol, since most wouldn't use it if they had to. And
don't give me the 20 million people schtick, how many really stay without
scamming the free months time and time again? Probably way less than 20
million.
So when you sum it all up, the programming, the unfair consumer practices,
the inability of customers to get relief, plus the fact that aol is a big
paycheck to lawyers, you can assume that eventually, even though someone
clicked "I agree", because aol knew what the problems were, and didn't fix
them, they're gonna get tagged, hard.
I'll be giggling when they do, but I will feel bad for the people at
Time-Warner who are gonna lose their jobs when they do.
--
I must not fear, fear is the mind killer.
Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
When it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
Frank Herbert ---- "Dune"
.
JM Hunter
Bidniz <apb...@w-link.net> picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit
smeared the following cryptic message:
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:34:27 GMT, JM Hunter <james_m...@lycos.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>AOL doesn't care.
>>
>>Welcome to Adam's kill file. Of course, it's not a *real* kill file
>>because he'll still read your posts, he 'll just whine *plonk* and
>>refuse to debate you.
>>
>
>
>Arrgh! figures. He must have kill-filed you a long time ago. I am sure
>you spNaked his rear good enough times, he knows enough not to even
>try anymore!
>
>
I think he said he kill filed me sometime last fall. My sentence was
supposedly 6 months but he replied to one of my posts within a matter
of days. When I kidded him about it, he back pedaled profusely with
some bullshit that he hadn't kill filed me across the multi platformed
OS's he uses. Now, he won't reply to any of my posts because he got
caught in bullshit of his own making. This especially irks him because
he's been shilling AOL in aa-s since 1996 almost from the day the
group was created and thinks of me as a relative newbie because I
didn't start posting here until sometime in 1997, I believe. Watta
schmuck.
JM Hunter
Scott L
decided to make it known in alt.aol-sucks that:
>In article <eejb9tgu4jtd7le82...@4ax.com>,
> Scott L <sco...@oNOOSPAMco.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:10:45 -0600, Adam Bailey <ad...@lull.org>
>> decided to make it known in alt.aol-sucks that:
>>
>>> In article <bx6l6.3481$v4.1...@ozemail.com.au>,
>>> "ferret" <ab...@localhost.abuse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are plenty of Lawsuit's re:AOL browsers and AOL practices
>>>> but sadly most fail due to technicallities.
>>>>
>>>> When you signed up, you agreed that AOL would not be Liable for
>>>> any loss or damage to your computer caused by their software.
>>>
>>> Hardly a technicality.
>>>
>>> If software developers had to start being responsible for the
>>> damage they cause, it would crash the entire industry.
>>>
>>> Ultimately, that might be a good thing, but I hardly thing AOL
>>> should be the first company in court over an industry-wide
>>> practice.
>>
>> Most other software developers don't intentionally wreck one's
>> system
>
>You can't prove such intent (fact). It's not there in the first place
>(opinion).
You're right, I can't prove it, but I can prove that AOL hasn't done
jack shit about it. AOL hasn't fixed any of the problems, what does
that tell you?
>> and make it almost impossible to use other software (or in this
>> case, another ISP).
>
>Almost impossible my ass.
But it's true.
--
Scott L <sco...@oco.net>
Adam Bailey
Scott L <sco...@oNOOSPAMco.net> wrote:
AOL can argue that the software is working as intended, and is not
causing harm to anyone.
Besides, even if it were accepted as a problem, AOL is not obligated
to fix it. How many bugs does Windows ship with? How much data is lost
annually due to Windows bugs? Good luck suing Microsoft.
Like I said, AOL is no worse than the rest of the software industry,
which is run by marketers -- not software engineers.
derfy
So, you're saying AOL can justify its software screwing up computers,
DUN adapaters, and whatnot by saying, "Oh, it's working just like it was
intended."
Scott L
Yeah, but is that true? No, the software is not meant to take control
of the system and make it hell for users to switch ISPs.
>Besides, even if it were accepted as a problem, AOL is not obligated
>to fix it. How many bugs does Windows ship with? How much data is lost
>annually due to Windows bugs? Good luck suing Microsoft.
That's a whole different issue. You can easily switch from using
Wintendo to using Linux, switching from AOL to a different ISP is not
that easy with AOL5.
Oh, and isn't Microsoft experiencing some legal issues about now? Hmm,
wonder why...
>Like I said, AOL is no worse than the rest of the software industry,
>which is run by marketers -- not software engineers.
Give me one company in the software industry that released a product
which harms a user's computer making it harder to use a competitor's
software.
--
Scott L <sco...@oco.net>
Adam Bailey
AOL requires specifing networking settings in order for you to be able
to a) dial in, and b) access the Internet. Apparently a lot of users
were having problems with this. So with AOL 5.0, AOL started making
sure everything was configured properly *for AOL*, when the user said
they wanted AOL to be their primary access to the Internet.
Plenty of AOL members have no trouble switching back and forth between
AOL and an ISP. So obviously, whatever AOL does is not destructive --
if you know what you're doing.
>> Besides, even if it were accepted as a problem, AOL is not
>> obligated to fix it. How many bugs does Windows ship with? How much
>> data is lost annually due to Windows bugs? Good luck suing
>> Microsoft.
>
> That's a whole different issue. You can easily switch from using
> Wintendo to using Linux, switching from AOL to a different ISP is
> not that easy with AOL5.
Not if you know what you're doing.
> Oh, and isn't Microsoft experiencing some legal issues about now?
> Hmm, wonder why...
Can't keep track.
>> Like I said, AOL is no worse than the rest of the software
>> industry, which is run by marketers -- not software engineers.
>
> Give me one company in the software industry that released a product
> which harms a user's computer making it harder to use a competitor's
> software.
Windows Media Player. Look at the testimony from Apple about QuickTime.
Scott L
decided to make it known in alt.aol-sucks that:
<...>
>> Yeah, but is that true? No, the software is not meant to take
>> control of the system and make it hell for users to switch ISPs.
>
>AOL requires specifing networking settings in order for you to be able
>to a) dial in, and b) access the Internet. Apparently a lot of users
>were having problems with this. So with AOL 5.0, AOL started making
>sure everything was configured properly *for AOL*, when the user said
>they wanted AOL to be their primary access to the Internet.
>
>Plenty of AOL members have no trouble switching back and forth between
>AOL and an ISP. So obviously, whatever AOL does is not destructive --
>if you know what you're doing.
Thank you, Adam. That's exactly the information I'm looking for. How
many AOLers *do* know what they are doing, and how can AOL say it is
the easiest to use when they require the AOL user to actually have
some technical knowledge to use the software (to prevent it from
fucking up)? Adam?
>>> Besides, even if it were accepted as a problem, AOL is not
>>> obligated to fix it. How many bugs does Windows ship with? How much
>>> data is lost annually due to Windows bugs? Good luck suing
>>> Microsoft.
>>
>> That's a whole different issue. You can easily switch from using
>> Wintendo to using Linux, switching from AOL to a different ISP is
>> not that easy with AOL5.
>
>Not if you know what you're doing.
And of course, AOL exclaims it is the easiest to use, but in order to
keep a user's system from fucking up, that user needs to select the
right choice which actually requires knowledge.
Sure, it's legal, but is it right? Hell no.
>> Oh, and isn't Microsoft experiencing some legal issues about now?
>> Hmm, wonder why...
>
>Can't keep track.
Uh, yes, they are experiencing legal problems. They are about to be
split up. I'm surprised that you didn't hear about that, being a
crApple fan.
>>> Like I said, AOL is no worse than the rest of the software
>>> industry, which is run by marketers -- not software engineers.
>>
>> Give me one company in the software industry that released a product
>> which harms a user's computer making it harder to use a competitor's
>> software.
>
>Windows Media Player. Look at the testimony from Apple about QuickTime.
Yeah, and what is happening to Microsoft right now? And what kind of
reputation do they have in the industry?
--
Scott L <sco...@oco.net>
Adam Bailey
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:21:16 -0600, ad...@lull.org (Adam Bailey)
> decided to make it known in alt.aol-sucks that:
>
> <...>
>>> Yeah, but is that true? No, the software is not meant to take
>>> control of the system and make it hell for users to switch ISPs.
>>
>> AOL requires specifing networking settings in order for you to be
>> able to a) dial in, and b) access the Internet. Apparently a lot of
>> users were having problems with this. So with AOL 5.0, AOL started
>> making sure everything was configured properly *for AOL*, when the
>> user said they wanted AOL to be their primary access to the
>> Internet.
>>
>> Plenty of AOL members have no trouble switching back and forth
>> between AOL and an ISP. So obviously, whatever AOL does is not
>> destructive -- if you know what you're doing.
>
> Thank you, Adam. That's exactly the information I'm looking for. How
> many AOLers *do* know what they are doing, and how can AOL say it is
> the easiest to use when they require the AOL user to actually have
> some technical knowledge to use the software (to prevent it from
> fucking up)? Adam?
Most AOL members don't also have ISPs. If Windows Networking didn't
suck so bad, this wouldn't be an issue.
>>>> Besides, even if it were accepted as a problem, AOL is not
>>>> obligated to fix it. How many bugs does Windows ship with? How
>>>> much data is lost annually due to Windows bugs? Good luck suing
>>>> Microsoft.
>>>
>>> That's a whole different issue. You can easily switch from using
>>> Wintendo to using Linux, switching from AOL to a different ISP is
>>> not that easy with AOL5.
>>
>> Not if you know what you're doing.
>
> And of course, AOL exclaims it is the easiest to use, but in order
> to keep a user's system from fucking up, that user needs to select
> the right choice which actually requires knowledge.
>
> Sure, it's legal, but is it right? Hell no.
Legal? How about grammatical.
>>> Oh, and isn't Microsoft experiencing some legal issues about now?
>>> Hmm, wonder why...
>>
>> Can't keep track.
>
> Uh, yes, they are experiencing legal problems. They are about to be
> split up. I'm surprised that you didn't hear about that, being a
> crApple fan.
How much you want to bet MS won't be broken up?
>>>> Like I said, AOL is no worse than the rest of the software
>>>> industry, which is run by marketers -- not software engineers.
>>>
>>> Give me one company in the software industry that released a
>>> product which harms a user's computer making it harder to use a
>>> competitor's software.
>>
>> Windows Media Player. Look at the testimony from Apple about
>> QuickTime.
>
> Yeah, and what is happening to Microsoft right now? And what kind of
> reputation do they have in the industry?
They're considered the industry standard, whilst making more money
than they can count. Looks pretty rosey for them to me.
Trippy
<snip>
> They're considered the industry standard, whilst making more money
> than they can count. Looks pretty rosey for them to me.
If ao-hell is the industry standard, what the hell does that say about the
industry? There's a bleak picture indeed.
--
Get a life
Get a grip
Get away somewhere take a trip.
Shania Twain ---- "Come on over"
JM Hunter
ad...@lull.org (Adam Bailey) picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit
smeared the following cryptic message:
>Scott L <sco...@oNOOSPAMco.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:21:16 -0600, ad...@lull.org (Adam Bailey)
>> decided to make it known in alt.aol-sucks that:
>>
>> <...>
>>>> Yeah, but is that true? No, the software is not meant to take
>>>> control of the system and make it hell for users to switch ISPs.
>>>
>>> AOL requires specifing networking settings in order for you to be
>>> able to a) dial in, and b) access the Internet. Apparently a lot of
>>> users were having problems with this. So with AOL 5.0, AOL started
>>> making sure everything was configured properly *for AOL*, when the
>>> user said they wanted AOL to be their primary access to the
>>> Internet.
>>>
>>> Plenty of AOL members have no trouble switching back and forth
>>> between AOL and an ISP. So obviously, whatever AOL does is not
>>> destructive -- if you know what you're doing.
>>
>> Thank you, Adam. That's exactly the information I'm looking for. How
>> many AOLers *do* know what they are doing, and how can AOL say it is
>> the easiest to use when they require the AOL user to actually have
>> some technical knowledge to use the software (to prevent it from
>> fucking up)? Adam?
>
>Most AOL members don't also have ISPs. If Windows Networking didn't
>suck so bad, this wouldn't be an issue.
Hahaha! Blame MS when it's AOL's software that's causing the problems.
I've networked a few Windows machines in my time and I've never, ever
saw anything that'll dick a Windows network like anything AOL will do,
even Novell. How come so many ITs hate AOL, Ad-dumb? Because they get
dolts who load AOL's shit on a PC box and fuck up the networking
protocols. I've set up machines using TCP/IP, Novell and NetBEUI along
with a Window's DUN and they seem to function fine.
>>>>> Besides, even if it were accepted as a problem, AOL is not
>>>>> obligated to fix it. How many bugs does Windows ship with? How
>>>>> much data is lost annually due to Windows bugs? Good luck suing
>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> That's a whole different issue. You can easily switch from using
>>>> Wintendo to using Linux, switching from AOL to a different ISP is
>>>> not that easy with AOL5.
>>>
>>> Not if you know what you're doing.
>>
>> And of course, AOL exclaims it is the easiest to use, but in order
>> to keep a user's system from fucking up, that user needs to select
>> the right choice which actually requires knowledge.
>>
>> Sure, it's legal, but is it right? Hell no.
>
>Legal? How about grammatical.
WTF is that suppose to mean, Ad-dumb? He was asking if it was ethical
for AOL to continue to put out software that causes the same known
problem and not even try to correct it. Honestly, name another company
that will make it impossible for you to connect with soemone else?
I've sset up machines with 5 or 6 different DUNs and they seem to
cooperate just fine.
>>>> Oh, and isn't Microsoft experiencing some legal issues about now?
>>>> Hmm, wonder why...
>>>
>>> Can't keep track.
>>
>> Uh, yes, they are experiencing legal problems. They are about to be
>> split up. I'm surprised that you didn't hear about that, being a
>> crApple fan.
>
>How much you want to bet MS won't be broken up?
If they would be wise not to. It would be sort of like cutting up
starfish. You know, each piece of starfich will grow into a complete
new individual and what a lot of people fail to realize is the
starfish is a voracious predator.
>>>>> Like I said, AOL is no worse than the rest of the software
>>>>> industry, which is run by marketers -- not software engineers.
>>>>
>>>> Give me one company in the software industry that released a
>>>> product which harms a user's computer making it harder to use a
>>>> competitor's software.
>>>
>>> Windows Media Player. Look at the testimony from Apple about
>>> QuickTime.
>>
>> Yeah, and what is happening to Microsoft right now? And what kind of
>> reputation do they have in the industry?
>
>They're considered the industry standard, whilst making more money
>than they can count. Looks pretty rosey for them to me.
Industry standard? Larry Ellison would like to know all about that.
JM Hunter
KnightHeart
<james_m...@lycos.com> dropped the remainder of the forbidden
donut, quaked in fear, and listened to the voices say:
<snip>
Sure is too bad Adam can't see your post, and therefore
attempt a rebuttal. Of course, if you're right, and he can, he can't
admit that he doesn't have you killfiled by rebutting. His only way
to do so and try to save face is to piggyback, but something tells me
he probably won't. Maybe it's the valid points you make....
--
KnightHeart
Click on "KnightHeart's Realm" at http://anti-aol.org/
for anti-AOL articles, pics, quotes and more. Last Update: 1/12/01
NEW SECTIONS: "Sites of Shame!!," "AOLamer Teck Hellp" and non-DHTML option.
And then catch up on *current* AOL News and on-topic
discussions of AOL and its pure suckiness.
In <90td7p$ff3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, me...@my-deja.com fesses up to reality:
>True, I'm an asshole.
Then, in <922j60$ach$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> I make his barely
literate hate list:
>3. KnightHeart aka K-Mar the discount flamer~ This guy had loser tatted
>to his forhead. He couldn't help a BIC with a flame. THe corny fuck is
>sooo lame he tries his li'l cute nerdy sayings in his inane posts.
>(godwin, spnak, fuckwit, plonk,etc,etc,etc....) Now if those words
>should ever come out of your mouth....rinse your mouth with Scope. ANd
>then pray you won't become a K-Mar student.
In article <20000924232625...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
desper...@aol.com (Patron Of America Online) finally breaks
down and pleads for mercy:
>But KnightHeart you're so much smarter then everyone, please have
>mercy on us idiots.
"Me" <ras...@uswest.net> shows that she thinks Usenet has
video capabilities in <zxUD5.22395$Sr.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net>:
>Do I really look like a damn dyke?
Wharf Rat details his dastardly scheme against me in
<8molvs$nti$1...@news.jump.net>:
>I'd write a script to post a long complaint about your assininely
>long signature 5 times a day. In a few weeks your articles will fail
>to propagate because they'll have too many lines.
hone...@my-deja.com expresses her raw, animal lust through
anger in <8kim17$4m0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Fuckwads like Cunter and Knightfart aren't even classifieds as trolls.
> They are much, much worse.
Your source for ominous foreshadowing since 2004.
Email Reply: Delete "REMOVE" from address.
Adam Bailey
<KnightHeart@The_Realm.com> wrote:
Since when are so-called IT professionals some kind of deities? I have
*huge* problems with the way many IT departments seem to operate.
>> Because they get dolts who load AOL's shit on a PC box and fuck up
>> the networking protocols. I've set up machines using TCP/IP, Novell
>> and NetBEUI along with a Window's DUN and they seem to function
>> fine.
And I've set up networked machines with AOL, and they continue to
function fine. Guess it takes more than a straw poll.
> <snip>
> Sure is too bad Adam can't see your post, and therefore attempt a
> rebuttal. Of course, if you're right, and he can, he can't admit
> that he doesn't have you killfiled by rebutting. His only way to do
> so and try to save face is to piggyback, but something tells me he
> probably won't. Maybe it's the valid points you make....
I'm tired of going round-and-round on this stupid topic, I never should
have stuck my nose back into it in the first place. I've made my
points. We'll see how the lawsuits shake out. (Not that the result of a
lawsuit proves anything, but that /was/ my original contention -- that
you can't prove malicious intent.)
eo...@ncf.ca
operating system. I always say this. No matter what software or operating
system or computer you are using, there are aways bugs. But one thing I
would like to point out and that is MS Windows 9x kenerl, is full of bugs.
It crashes everywhere.
"Scott L" <sco...@oNOOSPAMco.net> wrote in message
news:0fei9tksi81ofm3pb...@4ax.com...
JM Hunter
picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit smeared the following cryptic
message:
>Doesn't all software have bugs. I'm sure Linux has some bugs in their
>operating system. I always say this. No matter what software or operating
>system or computer you are using, there are aways bugs. But one thing I
>would like to point out and that is MS Windows 9x kenerl, is full of bugs.
>It crashes everywhere.
I would like to point out, you top posting fuckwit, that AOL 5.0 and
6.0 is the only software that comes from an ISP ( and I use the term
loosely with AOL, because it is *not* by any means a true ISP) that so
completely takes over a machines networking protocols, it makes it
near impossible to use a competitors connection. With Earthlink, AT&T,
Sprint, etc, all use Windows connection sfotware and you can use one
or all with multiple DUNs. AOL's use of proprietary software, OTH,
will and does render Windows connection software useless. Yes, AOL's
software can be removed but since the majority of AOL's users are clue
fucked newbies and AOL's remove program doesn't completely remove it
(ie, leaves all its bullshit networking protocols behind and doesn't
reinstall all the drivers it overwrites), a lot of users will still
find they are unable to connect even after AOL is "gone". Hell, this
is even more predatory than trying to get a system to triple boot into
Win 98, Win 2000 and Linux.
JM Hunter
Trippy
<eo...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:Rm7n6.316629$f36.11...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Doesn't all software have bugs. I'm sure Linux has some bugs in their
> operating system. I always say this. No matter what software or
operating
> system or computer you are using, there are aways bugs. But one thing I
> would like to point out and that is MS Windows 9x kenerl, is full of bugs.
> It crashes everywhere.
It's a valid point. Yes, every software has bugs.However, most companies
actually FIX the bugs, rather than just let them go, because they're getting
a benefit (making cust. stay with them), or because acknowledging the
problem would refute what they've been saying (security problems? what
security problems?)
So if you make software, and it has bugs, wouldn't you want to make your
customers happy by fixing them?
Being the smart, caring person, you are, you probably would.
Aol doesn't have that same attitude, so what does that say about them?
--
I AM JESUS Mandy.
I don't judge with pride, Mandy, but with righteous
indignation, wrath, fury, a flame of fire, vengence,
CONFIDENCE, and a sword from my lips.
---- Dore Williamson
You are not special.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.
You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else.
---- Dean Humphries (Not in reference to the above)
PeterGopfert
Haaving now seen a number of messages from JM Hunter and everyone with its fair
share of rude swear words, I just wonder why anybody answers any of his stupid
messages..........!
He must be all of seven years old!
What a fuckhead (to use his own langauage!
JM Hunter
(PeterGopfert) picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit smeared the
following cryptic message:
>>I would like to point out, you top posting fuckwit, that AOL 5.0 and
If you don't like what I have to say, you fucking crybaby, use your
kill file. Now, that said, don't you have some one handed typing to do
in the chatpits?
JM Hunter
JM Hunter
Bidniz <apb...@w-link.net> picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit
smeared the following cryptic message:
>On 01 Mar 2001 10:47:18 GMT, peterg...@aol.com (PeterGopfert)
>wrote:
>Coming from an aOL employee, that really doesn't mean that much.
At least I'm literate.
JM Hunter
KnightHeart
peterg...@aol.com (PeterGopfert) dropped the remainder of the
forbidden donut, quaked in fear, and listened to the voices say:
>>I would like to point out, you top posting fuckwit, that AOL 5.0 and
>>6.0 is the only software that comes from an ISP.....etc, etc...
>
>Haaving now seen a number of messages from JM Hunter and everyone with its fair
>share of rude swear words, I just wonder why anybody answers any of his stupid
>messages..........!
>He must be all of seven years old!
Old enough to get you in a tizzy. Isn't this complaint ironic
coming from some dirty old man with a bunch of sixth grade sex jokes
on his website? I rather think it is.
>What a fuckhead (to use his own langauage!
Oh yeah, that's the way to prove your point: become exactly
what you are complaining about. Smooth move, AOLamer.
JM Hunter
Bidniz <apb...@w-link.net> picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit
smeared the following cryptic message:
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:11:14 GMT, JM Hunter <james_m...@lycos.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On The Day Of Our Lord: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:37:54 -0800, Nunnaya
>>Bidniz <apb...@w-link.net> picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit
>>smeared the following cryptic message:
>>
>>>On 01 Mar 2001 10:47:18 GMT, peterg...@aol.com (PeterGopfert)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I would like to point out, you top posting fuckwit, that AOL 5.0 and
>>>>>6.0 is the only software that comes from an ISP.....etc, etc...
>>>>
>>>>Haaving now seen a number of messages from JM Hunter and everyone with its fair
>>>>share of rude swear words, I just wonder why anybody answers any of his stupid
>>>>messages..........!
>>>>He must be all of seven years old!
>
>Well, given the fact that communication with you is rather one way,
>usually with you ignoring questions or else giving unsubstantiated
>lies for answers, don't you think you triggered that? I remember kids
>doing that in the 4th grade, and the teacher yelling at them to stop.
>They did, and were admonished to act like adults.
>
>Since water seeks its own level, he responded by SpnAking you, so
>you'd get some discipline and act like an adult.
>
>Perhaps thsi time you will learn!
*shake*shake*shake*----------> The "Magic Eight Ball"(TM) says "Highly
Doubtful".
JM Hunter
Shice Beoney
> On The Day Of Our Lord: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:50:41 GMT, <eo...@ncf.ca>
> picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit smeared the following cryptic
> message:
>
>>Doesn't all software have bugs. I'm sure Linux has some bugs in their
>>operating system. I always say this. No matter what software or operating
>>system or computer you are using, there are aways bugs. But one thing I
>>would like to point out and that is MS Windows 9x kenerl, is full of bugs.
>>It crashes everywhere.
>
> I would like to point out, you top posting fuckwit, that AOL 5.0 and
> 6.0 is the only software that comes from an ISP ( and I use the term
> loosely with AOL, because it is *not* by any means a true ISP) that so
> completely takes over a machines networking protocols, it makes it
> near impossible to use a competitors connection. With Earthlink, AT&T,
> Sprint, etc, all use Windows connection sfotware and you can use one
> or all with multiple DUNs. AOL's use of proprietary software, OTH,
> will and does render Windows connection software useless. Yes, AOL's
> software can be removed but since the majority of AOL's users are clue
> fucked newbies and AOL's remove program doesn't completely remove it
> (ie, leaves all its bullshit networking protocols behind and doesn't
> reinstall all the drivers it overwrites), a lot of users will still
> find they are unable to connect even after AOL is "gone".
In other words, ALL YOUR DUN ARE BELONG TO AOL!
> Hell, this is even more predatory than trying to get a system to triple
> boot into Win 98, Win 2000 and Linux.
Triple-booting is child's play compared to repairing an AOL-tainted Windows
install. Someone I know just installed AOL 6 on a Win2k Pro machine, it
seems to have hosed the ability to add an FTP site under "My Network
Places", as well as screwed up IE's ability to login to FTPs at all.
As for jackarse's comparing AOL's bugs to those in the Linux or Win9x
kernel, that's pretty laughable. The only thing that comes close is Win9x's
installer's nasty habbit of stomping all over the MBR. But that's
ridiculously simple to fix so long as you have a boot disk.
--
"Red wine and sleeping pills
Help me get back to your arms
Cheap sex and sad films
Help me get where I belong" -Radiohead
Shice Beoney
Wow, an age (f)lame, riddled with sloppy english no less. Oh, the irony.
Guess you haven't mastered the "langauage" yet.
JM Hunter
<KnightHeart@The_Realm.com> picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit
smeared the following cryptic message:
>Behold!! In <20010301054718...@ng-mf1.aol.com>
>peterg...@aol.com (PeterGopfert) dropped the remainder of the
>forbidden donut, quaked in fear, and listened to the voices say:
>
>>>I would like to point out, you top posting fuckwit, that AOL 5.0 and
>>>6.0 is the only software that comes from an ISP.....etc, etc...
>>
>>Haaving now seen a number of messages from JM Hunter and everyone with its fair
>>share of rude swear words, I just wonder why anybody answers any of his stupid
>>messages..........!
>>He must be all of seven years old!
>
> Old enough to get you in a tizzy. Isn't this complaint ironic
>coming from some dirty old man with a bunch of sixth grade sex jokes
>on his website? I rather think it is.
I went to the old coot's webpage just to see what you were talking
about. All i have to say is, One big, big PKB Peter Gopherbutt. That
undulating stripper was stolen right out of "Duke Nukem", too, so
you're a thief.
>>What a fuckhead (to use his own langauage!
>
> Oh yeah, that's the way to prove your point: become exactly
>what you are complaining about. Smooth move, AOLamer.
I think they need to change the old bastard's Alzheimer's meds.
JM Hunter
Shice Beoney
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:19:15 -0800, KnightHeart
><KnightHeart@The_Realm.com> wrote:
>
>>Behold!! In <20010301054718...@ng-mf1.aol.com>
>>peterg...@aol.com (PeterGopfert) dropped the remainder of the
>>forbidden donut, quaked in fear, and listened to the voices say:
>>
>>>>I would like to point out, you top posting fuckwit, that AOL 5.0 and
>>>>6.0 is the only software that comes from an ISP.....etc, etc...
>>>
>>>Haaving now seen a number of messages from JM Hunter and everyone with its fair
>>>share of rude swear words, I just wonder why anybody answers any of his stupid
>>>messages..........!
>>>He must be all of seven years old!
>>
>> Old enough to get you in a tizzy. Isn't this complaint ironic
>>coming from some dirty old man with a bunch of sixth grade sex jokes
>>on his website? I rather think it is.
>>
>>>What a fuckhead (to use his own langauage!
>>
>> Oh yeah, that's the way to prove your point: become exactly
>>what you are complaining about. Smooth move, AOLamer.
>
>
> a beer.
I'm just waiting for him to post, "I craim victoly!"
KnightHeart
<james_m...@lycos.com> dropped the remainder of the forbidden
donut, quaked in fear, and listened to the voices say:
>On The Day Of Our Lord: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:19:15 -0800, KnightHeart
><KnightHeart@The_Realm.com> picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit
>smeared the following cryptic message:
>
>>Behold!! In <20010301054718...@ng-mf1.aol.com>
>>peterg...@aol.com (PeterGopfert) dropped the remainder of the
>>forbidden donut, quaked in fear, and listened to the voices say:
>>
>>>>I would like to point out, you top posting fuckwit, that AOL 5.0 and
>>>>6.0 is the only software that comes from an ISP.....etc, etc...
>>>
>>>Haaving now seen a number of messages from JM Hunter and everyone with its fair
>>>share of rude swear words, I just wonder why anybody answers any of his stupid
>>>messages..........!
>>>He must be all of seven years old!
>>
>> Old enough to get you in a tizzy. Isn't this complaint ironic
>>coming from some dirty old man with a bunch of sixth grade sex jokes
>>on his website? I rather think it is.
>
>I went to the old coot's webpage just to see what you were talking
>about. All i have to say is, One big, big PKB Peter Gopherbutt. That
>undulating stripper was stolen right out of "Duke Nukem", too, so
>you're a thief.
Yeah, the old fart wants to complain about a.a-s, but has no
problem putting up every freakin' dirty joke kids use to make
themselves giggle uncontrollably. Petey has been a study in P/K/B
ever since he set foot in alt.aol and branded himself as a dumbass
newbie.
>
>>>What a fuckhead (to use his own langauage!
>>
>> Oh yeah, that's the way to prove your point: become exactly
>>what you are complaining about. Smooth move, AOLamer.
>
>I think they need to change the old bastard's Alzheimer's meds.
To rat poison, probably....
JM Hunter
sbe...@flashmail.com (Shice Beoney) picked a plump bugger and in
sanskrit smeared the following cryptic message:
>Nunnaya Bidniz <apb...@w-link.net> wrote:
You really need to check out this refugee from a dementia clinic's
home page to truly understand why Peter Gopherbutt's a raging lunatic.
HTH
JM Hunter
JM Hunter
All I can say is thank God the fucker didn't breed. Maybe being born
without tecticles was a blessing to the world.
>>>>What a fuckhead (to use his own langauage!
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, that's the way to prove your point: become exactly
>>>what you are complaining about. Smooth move, AOLamer.
>>
>>I think they need to change the old bastard's Alzheimer's meds.
>
> To rat poison, probably....
Yeah, too bad he missed that Brit doctor who was euthanizing all those
old farts, though I think he only did in old ladies. I guess with
Gopherbutt he'd make an exception.
JM Hunter
KnightHeart
Maybe there is a bit of hope for the gene pool, then.
>
>>>>>What a fuckhead (to use his own langauage!
>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah, that's the way to prove your point: become exactly
>>>>what you are complaining about. Smooth move, AOLamer.
>>>
>>>I think they need to change the old bastard's Alzheimer's meds.
>>
>> To rat poison, probably....
>
>Yeah, too bad he missed that Brit doctor who was euthanizing all those
>old farts, though I think he only did in old ladies. I guess with
>Gopherbutt he'd make an exception.
Who says he missed him? He probably followed the guy around
and molested the women as they breathed their last. "Who the hell
cares, they're dead in a minute anyway. Besides, think of all the
hilarious 'cold fish' jokes I can make for my site."
Shice Beoney
Now... I'm an atheist, but... JESUS CHRIST, that man's got an obsession with
bulleted lits!!! Why, oh why did his site have to work in NetPositive?
> HTH
>
> JM Hunter
JM Hunter
I rest my case.
JM Hunter
JM Hunter
Nah, look at AOL. They're all joining it to spawn. Scary thought,
isn't it?
>>>>>>What a fuckhead (to use his own langauage!
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yeah, that's the way to prove your point: become exactly
>>>>>what you are complaining about. Smooth move, AOLamer.
>>>>
>>>>I think they need to change the old bastard's Alzheimer's meds.
>>>
>>> To rat poison, probably....
>>
>>Yeah, too bad he missed that Brit doctor who was euthanizing all those
>>old farts, though I think he only did in old ladies. I guess with
>>Gopherbutt he'd make an exception.
>
> Who says he missed him? He probably followed the guy around
>and molested the women as they breathed their last. "Who the hell
>cares, they're dead in a minute anyway. Besides, think of all the
>hilarious 'cold fish' jokes I can make for my site."
He says he's married. I wonder to what?
JM Hunter
KnightHeart
Stop, you're making me have nightmares.
>
>>>>>>>What a fuckhead (to use his own langauage!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh yeah, that's the way to prove your point: become exactly
>>>>>>what you are complaining about. Smooth move, AOLamer.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think they need to change the old bastard's Alzheimer's meds.
>>>>
>>>> To rat poison, probably....
>>>
>>>Yeah, too bad he missed that Brit doctor who was euthanizing all those
>>>old farts, though I think he only did in old ladies. I guess with
>>>Gopherbutt he'd make an exception.
>>
>> Who says he missed him? He probably followed the guy around
>>and molested the women as they breathed their last. "Who the hell
>>cares, they're dead in a minute anyway. Besides, think of all the
>>hilarious 'cold fish' jokes I can make for my site."
>
>He says he's married. I wonder to what?
Probably one of those 'stereotypical' Brit chicks with
scratchy voices, yellow teeth with gaps, and the mental capacity of
the average earthworm. He probably tests out all his "great" material
on her before putting it up on his site, which should be considered
abuse by any decent government. heh.
Zaku II
>Haaving now seen a number of messages from JM Hunter and everyone with its
>fair
>share of rude swear words, I just wonder why anybody answers any of his
>stupid
>messages..........!
>He must be all of seven years old!
Even if this were so, he'd be a HELLUVA lot more mature than you.
>What a fuckhead (to use his own langauage!
Thank you, you've been SO insightful! Now go change your depends and get to
bed, before you collapse from the strain of the mental barrage that you've
managed thus far.
-Sean Kneeland
http://members.aol.com/zaku2ms06/main.html
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought
which they seldom use.
Shice Beoney
I agree with thsi psot.
JM Hunter
Bidniz <apb...@w-link.net> picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit
smeared the following cryptic message:
>On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 03:41:58 GMT, JM Hunter <james_m...@lycos.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>All I can say is thank God the fucker didn't breed. Maybe being born
>>without tecticles was a blessing to the world.
>
>Perhaps it was due to a condition of parole. Look at what was written,
>next to a pic of a half naked cartoon:
>
>Peters Notes on Life: Daughters
>10 Simple Rules for dating my daughter
>
>Rule Six:
>
>I have no doubt you are a popular fellow, with many opportunities
>to date other girls. This is fine with me as long as it is okay
>with my daughter. Otherwise, once you have gone out with my little
>girl, you will continue to date no one but her until she is finished
>with you. If you make her cry, I will make you cry.
>
>*****************
>Great, daughter is a control freak, Peter lives up to his name.
Peter notes in his little web bio he *has* no children. Taking advice
from him about children would be like taking advice from a priest
about sex.
JM Hunter
Shice Beoney
Well, unless it's advice from priests in Newfoundland on how t have sex with
choir boys.
Hahaha
Shice
--
"God - whatever one chooses to call God - is one's highest conception of the
highest possible. And whoever places that highest conception above his own
possibility must think very little of his life." -Ayn Rand
JM Hunter
sbe...@flashmail.com (Shice Beoney) picked a plump bugger and in
Is that what they mean by "communion" up there?
Hahaha
JM Hunter
KnightHeart
<apb...@w-link.net> dropped the remainder of the forbidden donut,
quaked in fear, and listened to the voices say:
>On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 03:41:58 GMT, JM Hunter <james_m...@lycos.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>All I can say is thank God the fucker didn't breed. Maybe being born
>>without tecticles was a blessing to the world.
>
>Perhaps it was due to a condition of parole. Look at what was written,
>next to a pic of a half naked cartoon:
>
>Peters Notes on Life: Daughters
>10 Simple Rules for dating my daughter
>
>Rule Six:
>
>I have no doubt you are a popular fellow, with many opportunities
>to date other girls. This is fine with me as long as it is okay
>with my daughter. Otherwise, once you have gone out with my little
>girl, you will continue to date no one but her until she is finished
>with you. If you make her cry, I will make you cry.
>
>*****************
>Great, daughter is a control freak, Peter lives up to his name.
What's even worse is that it looks like Petey-O is taking
credit for that little article, which has been forwarded via email
thousands of times. I recall it from about a year or so ago.
KnightHeart
<apb...@w-link.net> dropped the remainder of the forbidden donut,
quaked in fear, and listened to the voices say:
>
>
>I went to Gopfert's page. Couple things. First, he looks like a cool
>old guy. Two, it doesn't mention aOL.
<snip>
Yeah it does. Try looking at his "computer tech help"
section.
Shice Beoney
There were rumours going around that they were planning on replacing the
pews with fruit stands.
JM Hunter
I'm sure they'll keep the knee pads.
Hahaha
JM Hunter
PeterGopfert
>>>> home page to truly understand why Peter Gopherbutt's a raging lunatic.
>>>>
>>>> http://i.am/pgopfert
Thanks for advertising my Pages!
By reding your pages from the lunatic asylum, the readers are quite able to see
who comes from the "dementia clinic"
I still dont understand why people have to
use rude words and stupid tags like "
>picked a plump bugger and in
>> sanskrit smeared the following cryptic message:or:
>dropped the remainder of the
>>>>>>>forbidden donut, quaked in fear, and listened to the voices say:
Just how stupid can anyone get...?
This forum seems to have a disproportunate amount of such idiotes!
Peter Gopfert
PeterG...@aol.com
Web:http://i.am/pgopfert (Pages for Senior Citizens)
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make
their life fulfilled.
JM Hunter
(PeterGopfert) picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit smeared the
following cryptic message:
>>>>> You really need to check out this refugee from a dementia clinic's
>>>>> home page to truly understand why Peter Gopherbutt's a raging lunatic.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://i.am/pgopfert
>
>Thanks for advertising my Pages!
You're welcome. I always like to point out some idiot's poorly
designed monstrosity for the world to chortle at. Seems I've been
quite successful with this one as much attention it's received. Too
bad it's been all negative.
>By reding your pages from the lunatic asylum, the readers are quite able to see
>who comes from the "dementia clinic"
>
>I still dont understand why people have to
>use rude words and stupid tags like "
>
>>picked a plump bugger and in
>>> sanskrit smeared the following cryptic message:or:
>
>>dropped the remainder of the
>>>>>>>>forbidden donut, quaked in fear, and listened to the voices say:
>
>Just how stupid can anyone get...?
>This forum seems to have a disproportunate amount of such idiotes!
^^^^^^^^^^^^
YM:
Main Entry: dis·pro·por·tion·ate
Pronunciation: -sh(&-)n&t
Function: adjective
Date: 1555
: being out of proportion <a disproportionate share>
- dis·pro·por·tion·ate·ly adverb
YM:
Main Entry: id·i·ot
Pronunciation: 'i-dE-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin idiota ignorant person, from
Greek idiOtEs one in a private station, layman, ignorant person, from
idios one's own, private; akin to Latin suus one's own -- more at
SUICIDE
Date: 14th century
1 : a person affected with idiocy; especially : a feebleminded person
having a mental age not exceeding three years and requiring complete
custodial care
2 : a foolish or stupid person
- idiot adjective
I think you should look inward before you try to start name calling,
you ignorant old goat. You're quickly boring everyone with these
atrocious PKBs.
BTW, do you always whine so much when you don't understand the
rules of the game, you old wanker? Waah! I don't understand *why* I'm
being flamed so much! Waah! You must all be stupid! Waah! Could be you
just aren't as smart as you think you are, you barren git.
>Peter Gopfert
>PeterG...@aol.com
>Web:http://i.am/pgopfert (Pages for Senior Citizens)
>Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make
>their life fulfilled.
YM:
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in out of pure unadulterated laziness
and ignorance.
HTH
JM Hunter
KnightHeart
peterg...@aol.com (PeterGopfert) dropped the remainder of the
forbidden donut, quaked in fear, and listened to the voices say:
>>>>> You really need to check out this refugee from a dementia clinic's
>>>>> home page to truly understand why Peter Gopherbutt's a raging lunatic.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://i.am/pgopfert
>
>Thanks for advertising my Pages!
Somebody has to get your site ready for insertion into "Web
Pages That Suck."
>By reding your pages from the lunatic asylum, the readers are quite able to see
>who comes from the "dementia clinic"
I'm sure anyone here will put their sites against yours any
day for "lunacy." I think your site is geared towards little boys and
newbies.
>I still dont understand why people have to
>use rude words and stupid tags like "
>
>>picked a plump bugger and in
>>> sanskrit smeared the following cryptic message:or:
>
>>dropped the remainder of the
>>>>>>>>forbidden donut, quaked in fear, and listened to the voices say:
Still making with the lameass attribution insults, Petey?
FYI, it's called "humor," something which is sorely lacking on your
site.
>
>Just how stupid can anyone get...?
About as stupid as some old man who has a problem with
attribution lines, but no problem putting up juvenile jokes suitable
for horny, giggly teenage boys. Oh wait....is that whom you're trying
to attract? Readers, insert your own "hmmmm" here.
>This forum seems to have a disproportunate amount of such idiotes!
Free hint, Petey: when calling someone an idiot, make sure you
at least spell it correctly.
>Peter Gopfert
>PeterG...@aol.com
>Web:http://i.am/pgopfert (Pages for Senior Citizens)
>Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make
>their life fulfilled.
Translation: My crap software can't correct errors, and I'm
too stupid and lazy to use a word processing program to check my text.
Trippy
"PeterGopfert" <peterg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010303063118...@ng-mk1.aol.com...
(shice) You really need to check out this refugee from a dementia clinic's
> >>>> home page to truly understand why Peter Gopherbutt's a raging
lunatic.
> >>>>
>
> Thanks for advertising my Pages!
You should thank him. You should thank him that it didn't come with a
disclaimer, but then again, since people knew it came from you, they pretty
much figured out that it had to suck. Those people would be correct.
> By reding your pages from the lunatic asylum, the readers are quite able
to see
> who comes from the "dementia clinic"
>
> I still dont understand why people have to
> use rude words and stupid tags like "
You want to talk about stupid, lets take some examples from your website,
shall we?
Two pages of jokes (allegedly), not a single one made me lauigh. I guess
engineering jokes ain't what they use to be, huh funboi?
2 pages of useless facts? Yeah, pretty much.
Howitworks.com? Try thestraightdope.com. muuuch better, but that's personal
preference I guess.
> Just how stupid can anyone get...?
Since you're the one with the crappy website, you tell me.
content : pathetic
ease of use: slow is the most charitable word I can use to describe it.
Learn from flagship1 of the paranormal, now that k00k can build a website.
Insane content, plus ease of use, makes for a positive web browsing
experience, Be warned, you will be left in awe by the arrogance and
paranoia.
> This forum seems to have a disproportunate amount of such idiotes!
This is exactly why I don't have my own website. I don't fel the need to
mentally masturbate all over the internet with dunbass jokes, and shit that
people have glommed from Ripley's believe it or not.
> Peter Gopfert
> PeterG...@aol.com
> Web:http://i.am/pgopfert (Pages for Senior Citizens)
> Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make
> their life fulfilled.
Oh yeah, you misspelled idiot, idiot.
HTH.....oh wait, no I don't. I just want to show you once again what a
retard you are.
--
I AM JESUS Mandy.
I don't judge with pride, Mandy, but with righteous
indignation, wrath, fury, a flame of fire, vengence,
CONFIDENCE, and a sword from my lips.
---- Dore Williamson
You are not special.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.
You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else.
---- "Fight Club"
JM Hunter
(PeterGopfert) picked a plump bugger and in sanskrit smeared the
following cryptic message:
>>Gooood one, Peter.
>>
>>Go play with yourself.
>
>"I bet your mother never saw the irony in calling you a son-of-a-bitch."
Aw, did he hurt the old fucks feelings? You dried and dusty old dog
turd, are you nothing but a seven decade old tape recorder that spews
repeats of someone else's one liners? When was the last time you had
one original thought?
>Now YOU go and play with yourself again!
I'd tell you to go play with yourself, but what's the use when all you
have a limp flag with no wind? Gopherbutt, buy yourself some Viagra.
>Peter Gopfert
>PeterG...@aol.com
>Web:http://i.am/pgopfert (Pages for Senior Citizens)
>Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make
>their life fulfilled.
Notice: Gopherbutt: Still too dense to buy a dictionary, still
futilely making excuses for ignorance.
JM Hunter
plateshutoverlock
process, where after they sign off from AOL a window
pops up announcing that it is updating the software"
'Amazing' how history repeats itself through
forced updates to Windows 10, and others.
Except this time around it's not AOHell that's at
stake, but the entire operating system or even
your device if you need to shut down and unplug
for whatever reason- such as the raging incoming
thunderstorm that is dropping CG bolts left
and right and causing the lights to flicker all over
the house which prompted you to shut down your
computer in the first place.
plateshutoverlock
regarding the "Win update while thunderstorm is
rolling in" issue which I suspect is very common
in the summer time. A poster suggested using
a UPS so Windows can update while the computer
is unplugged. I see a few problems with this:
- Consumer grade UPSes typically are designed
to give enough power/time for the user to close
out all documents and do a proper shut down, but
that's it. Depending on the update, this battery
could die long before the update is complete.
- I'm sure they use large Lithium-Ion batteries
instead if the sealed lead acid batteries of the
olden days. I would not feel safe having such
a big Li-Ion battery on my desk, citing the numerous
battery fires in recent years.
- Not everyone has their desktop connected
to WiFi, instead using a hard wired ethernet connection.
So this too is a way for a computer. to get fried by lightning.
That said, M$'s priorities takes a back seat to
mine for this and other reasons. And this is
why I took a risk and used a 3rd party utility
to disable all autoupdating.
M$'s taking over my computer is more of a risk
than malware.