Re: Google forgeries
Barbara's Cat
>
> Aratzio wrote:
>
> > You are an utter moron.
>
> So I never claimed to know all these details, but I do
> know a forgery of myself when I see one, /through/ a
> Google email /onto/ Google Groups.
No one can post /onto/ Google Groups because nothing exists
to post /onto/. The Google Groups web pages is nothing more
than an HTML-based newsreader used to write and read articles
(messages) to and from Usenet, an aggregation of newsgroups
located on a globally-connected network of computer servers.
To assist you in understanding how this /real/ world works,
I honestly searched for a /Classics Illustrated/ comic book
that covers the subject of Usenet; but unfortunate for you,
one was not to be found, so your being stupid about Usenet
is going to be a forever thing. As for the forging through
Google Groups, it *CAN'T BE DONE* because their HTML-based
newsreader does not give a user any abilities to alter its
headers. To summarize: Google Groups is not Usenet, Usenet
is not Google Groups. To falsify an article's headers a user
must use a /real/ newsreader and post the article directly
to a /real/ news server. Now, continue posting your quacks.
--
Cm~
"The Classics Illustrated comic version...
I don't really like all that retro stuff."
- Dockery, when asked if he'd read Hamlet
Aratzio
Meat Plow <me...@petitmorte.net> got double secret probation for
writing:
>On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:12:26 +0000, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> In rec.arts.poems on Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:05:59 -0500, Will Dockery
>> <doc...@knology.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Aratzio" wrote:
>>>> >> You are an utter moron.
>>>
>>> So I never claimed to know all these details, but I do know a forgery of
>>> myself when I see one, /through/ a Google email /onto/ Google Groups.
>>
>> You are indeed an utter moron. What's "/through/ a Google email"
>> supposed to mean?
>>
>>>> >> "news...@interware.hu"
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Now, prove that you can forge a post THROUGH google as you claim
>>>> >> happened
>>>
>>> I never ''claimed'' anything happened, I wondered if it had, though.
>>
>> You claimed that it was possible to post forgeries using Google
>> Groups. Since making that claim, you've danced entertainly but have
>> offered no evidence to support it.
>>
>>> Here's my post, in case someone has some /useful/ information about it -
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Reposting the same quack over and over again increases the likelihood
>> of being killfiled, not the likelihood of receiving an answer.
>>
>> I've just answered your quack in another post.
>
>What's the possibility of all this sinking in finally?
Hopefully zero.
--
Miguel, once again stating the obvious:
Message-ID: <9ukjs35elqfmo5p9l...@4ax.com>
"Yes, I must be impotent."
Peter J Ross
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
I've been trying to think of occasions since Dreckery's first
appearance in the poetry newsgroups more than five years ago when he's
acquired a clue after having something patiently explained to him.
It seems that such occasions are as rare as forgeries posted using
Google Groups.
If it were otherwise, he'd be a poor Village Idiot candidate.
--
PJR :-)
Colin Ward
wrote:
>I've been trying to think of occasions since Dreckery's first
>appearance in the poetry newsgroups more than five years ago when he's
>acquired a clue after having something patiently explained to him.
IMHO, only the Tommygummer is more clueproof.
Aratzio
Colin Ward <kal...@mts.net> got double secret probation for writing:
Yabbut, Tosser owned Yachts.
Aratzio
>You're such an optimist!
I dun does nuttin but wear glasses.
Dennis M. Hammes
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:12:26 +0000, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>
>>In rec.arts.poems on Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:05:59 -0500, Will Dockery
>><doc...@knology.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Aratzio" wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>You are an utter moron.
>>>
>>>So I never claimed to know all these details, but I do know a forgery of
>>>myself when I see one, /through/ a Google email /onto/ Google Groups.
>>
>>You are indeed an utter moron. What's "/through/ a Google email"
>>supposed to mean?
>>
>>
>>>>>>"news...@interware.hu"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now, prove that you can forge a post THROUGH google as you claim
>>>>>>happened
>>>
>>>I never ''claimed'' anything happened, I wondered if it had, though.
>>
>>You claimed that it was possible to post forgeries using Google
>>Groups. Since making that claim, you've danced entertainly but have
>>offered no evidence to support it.
>>
>>
>>>Here's my post, in case someone has some /useful/ information about it -
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Reposting the same quack over and over again increases the likelihood
>>of being killfiled, not the likelihood of receiving an answer.
>>
>>I've just answered your quack in another post.
>
>
> What's the possibility of all this sinking in finally?
>
If he tries to cross the swamp without the pontoon boat he never made...
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
Dennis M. Hammes
No wonder you make a spectacle of yourself.
Dennis M. Hammes
Can either beat George for sheer density and array of armor against a
single and relatively minor point?
Duck and Tommy keep trotting out the same piece of tinfoil, and
loudly hammering the edges of the hole shut.
Aratzio
Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> bloviated:
I view through the lens of truth.
Dennis M. Hammes
Ah, Spinoza. But he called it "the lens of philosophy" only because
he was a lens-grinder.
(Heaven knows what he would have called it had he invented the
InterNet or Jello Pudding instead.)
Aratzio
Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> bloviated:
Nah, Aratzio, grasping at allusion.
Dennis M. Hammes
Compared with George, Dockery, or chuckles' grasping at illusion,
it's sainthood.
When you put all three together in a bunch, you...
...puke.
Aratzio
Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> bloviated:
I must have a stronger stomach, I point and laugh.
Dennis M. Hammes
Oh, so do we. The balm of laughter is a shot of the pink poetitude
of Pepto-Bismol, soothing the delicate poetic psyche into believing
that they can't be serious or they'd already be dead, and if they're
not serious, they must be funny.
(I.e., if we didn't, we'd puke.)
Barbara's Cat
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> > Goober Duck Will "Cook Made ME Cry" Dockery quacked:
> >
> > > I wrote the crap, thus, I own the crap.
> >
> >
> > Mr Cook made the recording
>
>
> Using the crap
that you publicly gave Mr Cook permission to use.
--
Cm~
"Speaking of /whining/... how long
are you going to go on and on?"
- Dockery encountering Truth
Barbara's Cat
> Barbara's Cat wrote:
>
> > Goober Duck Will "Cook Totally Owns ME" Dockery quacked:
> >
> > > Peter J Ross wrote:
> > >
> > > > Goober Duck Will "Cook Made ME Cry" Dockery quacked:
> > > >
> > > > > I wrote the crap, thus, I own the crap.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mr Cook made the recording
> > >
> > >
> > > Using the crap
> >
> >
> > that you publicly gave Mr Cook permission to use.
>
>
> Wrong
On the contrary: unquestionably correct.
"Added music would be great, Michael!"
- MID 3fe77...@news2.knology.net
"have you added music to the Mp3, yet?"
- MID 3fe79e6b$1...@news1.knology.net
"I think it's kind of fun to go into the Google archives
with *another* "Collaboration with Michael Cook..."
- MID 3fe7842b$1...@news2.knology.net
--
Cm~
"Added music would be great, Michael!"
- Will Dockery begging Michael Cook
to help make his crap less crappy
Barbara's Cat
> ''Nuff said.'' -Rik Roots
The phrase's meaning escapes you, doesn't it, Goober?
--
Cm~
"but I didn't whine and complain"
- Goober Duck Will Dockery
Whining and Complaining