Re: RISC OS Forums Posting Guidelines
someone
Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a
> series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
> It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
> -- Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please Reply Properly |
> http://www.riscos.info/posting/
Conceited little sh*t
--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.
Chika
someone <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
> Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a
> > series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
> > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
<snip>
Peter's sig sep isn't correctly handled, so it seems.
> Conceited little sh*t
That's a bit strong! Having read through it, most of it is just a
rehashing of all the various versions of netiquette. The version I started
with was the one that appeared on zfc from Richard Travers, which can be
seen at http://crashnet.org.uk/zfc/sixt.html. There are a few extra bits
in this new guide that appear to be tailored to the authors' own tastes
(the car analogy bit, for example), but it's nothing special otherwise.
Maybe a little high-handed, if you will.
I just believe that what goes around, comes around, and there are a lot
worse places on Usenet than the csa groups.
While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google as if
it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in these groups
that have been around on the net since before Google became so big, I
should point out that other search engines are available, from old
favourites such as AltaVista (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as
Beegoo (http://www.beegoo.com/), each of which may contain ready links to
whatever you need. I see no reason to provide Google with yet more free
endorsement.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!
... Boldly going Forward because we can't find Reverse!
Peter Naulls
someone <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
> Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a
> > series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
>
> > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
>
> > -- Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Please Reply Properly |
> > http://www.riscos.info/posting/
>
> Conceited little sh*t
There's always one isn't there? But I'm glad you felt the need to make
construstive comments. With offensive users like you, why do developers
bother?
--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unix Programs on RISC OS | http://www.riscos.info/unix/
Steve Fryatt
<4d746301e...@ukgateway.net>:
> In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
> Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
>
> > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a series
> > of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
>
> > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
>
> Conceited little sh*t
Did you mean to contribute something /useful/ there?
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England
Liz
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google as if
> it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in these groups
> that have been around on the net since before Google became so big, I
> should point out that other search engines are available, from old
> favourites such as AltaVista (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as
> Beegoo (http://www.beegoo.com/), each of which may contain ready links to
> whatever you need. I see no reason to provide Google with yet more free
> endorsement.
>
I'd never heard of beegoo before, so moseyed over.
I've got a particular keyword, which is 6th "of around 61,600" on
Google. It's not top 50 in beegoo.
Any idea what beegoo's bot is called? I've never noticed it in my
stats.
Slainte
Liz
--
Virtual Liz now at http://www.v-liz.com
Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
"I speak of Africa and golden joys"
Peter Naulls
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google as if
> it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in these groups
> that have been around on the net since before Google became so big, I
> should point out that other search engines are available, from old
> favourites such as AltaVista (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as
> Beegoo (http://www.beegoo.com/),
Problem is, after AltaVista's 1999 facelift, they really did suck, and
Google was increasingly useful. I appreciate that much has changed since
then, and they've undergone at least one more since then, and search
technology continues to improve. But the irony now is that the most
recent AV incarnation looks very much like Google. And if you take a
look at Yahoo! search, it too bears an uncanny resemblance. The
conspiracy deepens if you look at the new Google personalised pages -
looks rather like Yahoo!'s front page, doesn't it?
> each of which may contain ready links to whatever you need. I see no
> reason to provide Google with yet more free endorsement.
Never mind that Google has provided me with literally thousands (perhaps
10s of thousands) of searches for free, or that Google searches often
turn up RISC OS pages for computing topics that you might at first think
ought to rank elsewhere higher (try "unix ports" in a search engine).
Chika
<inv...@v-liz.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4d74647e...@no.spam.here> Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google
> > as if it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in
> > these groups that have been around on the net since before Google
> > became so big, I should point out that other search engines are
> > available, from old favourites such as AltaVista
> > (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as Beegoo
> > (http://www.beegoo.com/), each of which may contain ready links to
> > whatever you need. I see no reason to provide Google with yet more
> > free endorsement.
> >
> I'd never heard of beegoo before, so moseyed over. I've got a particular
> keyword, which is 6th "of around 61,600" on Google. It's not top 50 in
> beegoo. Any idea what beegoo's bot is called? I've never noticed it in
> my stats.
Offhand, I couldn't tell you. I stumbled across them recently after
mistyping "google" and have only used them a couple of times.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!
... A trampoline is for cunning stunts, a truncheon for apprehending criminals
Chika
wrote:
> In message <4d74647e...@no.spam.here> Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google
> > as if it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in
> > these groups that have been around on the net since before Google
> > became so big, I should point out that other search engines are
> > available, from old favourites such as AltaVista
> > (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as Beegoo
> > (http://www.beegoo.com/),
> Problem is, after AltaVista's 1999 facelift, they really did suck, and
> Google was increasingly useful. I appreciate that much has changed since
> then, and they've undergone at least one more since then, and search
> technology continues to improve. But the irony now is that the most
> recent AV incarnation looks very much like Google. And if you take a
> look at Yahoo! search, it too bears an uncanny resemblance. The
> conspiracy deepens if you look at the new Google personalised pages -
> looks rather like Yahoo!'s front page, doesn't it?
Quite so, but considering that Google's original layout looked very
similar to the old AV, the question is whether there is much you can do to
a search engine site to make it look sufficiently different. One thing I
tend to find with using different engines is that each prioritises its
results in a different way, hence finding some things on one engine will
be somewhat easier than on another.
> > each of which may contain ready links to whatever you need. I see no
> > reason to provide Google with yet more free endorsement.
> Never mind that Google has provided me with literally thousands (perhaps
> 10s of thousands) of searches for free, or that Google searches often
> turn up RISC OS pages for computing topics that you might at first think
> ought to rank elsewhere higher (try "unix ports" in a search engine).
I don't mind, but then this page isn't about you, it is about the way in
which we, the people that participate in this group, should be posting.
It's bad enough where some sites say that we must use a particular
browser, without them then telling us to arbitrarily use a specific web
resource without fair mention of other available resources.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!
... I can't think of anything witty to say right now.
Peter Naulls
In message <4d746cf6...@no.spam.here>
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
No, I don't agree - this is a contrived comparison from your dislike of
Google. The problem with browsers is a question of accessibility,
security and perhaps of open source and closed standards - none of
which really applies here. Google is readily avilable to anyone with
even some archaic browsers - by all means use other resources if you
want to, but making a fuss and suggesting we ought to be for no other
reason than there happens to be choice is just silly.
Chika
wrote:
> In message <4d746cf6...@no.spam.here> Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <9f896b74...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> > <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > > Never mind that Google has provided me with literally thousands
> > > (perhaps 10s of thousands) of searches for free, or that Google
> > > searches often turn up RISC OS pages for computing topics that you
> > > might at first think ought to rank elsewhere higher (try "unix
> > > ports" in a search engine).
> >
> > I don't mind, but then this page isn't about you, it is about the way
> > in which we, the people that participate in this group, should be
> > posting. It's bad enough where some sites say that we must use a
> > particular browser, without them then telling us to arbitrarily use a
> > specific web resource without fair mention of other available
> > resources.
> No, I don't agree - this is a contrived comparison from your dislike of
> Google.
Now, how did I guess that this would rear its ugly head? No, this has
nothing to do with my "dislike of Google". Actually, I freely admit that I
use Google for searches and have done for years, just as I have used other
engines. My dislike is of Googlegroups, which is slightly different, but
as that has nothing to do with the topic of search engines, I'll leave
that aside for now.
> The problem with browsers is a question of accessibility, security and
> perhaps of open source and closed standards - none of which really
> applies here.
It does seem that, as in the other post, you have gone to extraordinary
lengths to misinterpret my words. Quite amazing, really.
> Google is readily avilable to anyone with even some archaic browsers -
> by all means use other resources if you want to, but making a fuss and
> suggesting we ought to be for no other reason than there happens to be
> choice is just silly.
Well, don't say that you haven't been warned. Dismiss it if you like, but
companies have gone further than this where they believe that they aren't
being given a fair crack. So which is sillier; my calling you out for
this, or your attitude towards the availability of other resources?
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!
... See that LCD game, That's your VGA monitor that is
Peter Naulls
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> In article <e4746e74...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org>
> wrote:
> > No, I don't agree - this is a contrived comparison from your dislike of
> > Google.
>
> Now, how did I guess that this would rear its ugly head?
Because it's far from clear what point you're making. And because
you've made comments elsewhere which certainly suggest this.
> > The problem with browsers is a question of accessibility, security and
> > perhaps of open source and closed standards - none of which really
> > applies here.
>
> It does seem that, as in the other post, you have gone to extraordinary
> lengths to misinterpret my words. Quite amazing, really.
On the contrary, I replied to _precisely_ what you said. The onus is on
you to be much clearer if you thought you meant something else.
> Well, don't say that you haven't been warned. Dismiss it if you like, but
> companies have gone further than this where they believe that they aren't
> being given a fair crack. So which is sillier; my calling you out for
> this, or your attitude towards the availability of other resources?
I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense at all. I wish you'd stop
wasting our time with these arguments.
--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul F. Johnson
"Space", it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how
vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big space really is. I mean, you may
think it's a long way down the road to the chemists, but that's just
*peanuts* compared to space, listen" - Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
Thank you. Just what I alway's wanted.
Chris de Cordova
<usenet...@segfault.co.uk> wrote:
> Some people are just so thick and ignorant that when they run out
> of argument and have to resort to obscene language they can't even
> spell a simple four letter word!
> I'd let them crawl back under the stone they crawled out of and get > back on with your programming, ignoring them.
> Some of us appreciate what you're doing!
In article <4d746969aeu...@segfault.co.uk>,
pv <usenet...@segfault.co.uk> wrote:
> Some of us appreciate what you're doing!
Paul, I looked for the smiley in your post but there wan't one. So I
read it again and feel somewhat disappointed that you think I can't
spell that four letter word!
Do you *really* appreciate being told how to spell Peter Naulls' own
name on what presumably was meant to be a general set of public
guidelines on usenet? This makes it very personal to him and thus
implies a whole set of its own implications of ownership.
Do you really need to be told to use both contractional and
possessive apostrophes correctly? And if you have a literacy problem,
does it help to be reminded of it out of context?
I have no problem with the rest of the guidelines where they are
related to use of usenet and to the c.s.a* groups in particular. They
are clear and easy to understand. It was only when I got to the final
paragraphs that I became offended.
But I really resent being told by a young man, with no social skills
whatsoever (only very high technical ones, which I can never hope to
even appreciate) how to suck eggs.
--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|
Dancing is a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire.
Peter Naulls
Chris de Cordova <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <4d746969aeu...@segfault.co.uk>, pv
> Do you *really* appreciate being told how to spell Peter Naulls' own
> name on what presumably was meant to be a general set of public
> guidelines on usenet? This makes it very personal to him and thus
> implies a whole set of its own implications of ownership.
Told? No, it's a set of guidelines. Neverthless, it's an example of
something which people get wrong often. It would be innappropriate to
use someone else's name, even though there are ones I could use.
> Do you really need to be told to use both contractional and
> possessive apostrophes correctly?
Given how lazy many people seem to be, who really do know, yes.
If you know how to use them just fine, then they remain guidelines.
> And if you have a literacy problem,
> does it help to be reminded of it out of context?
There's no pretence of any such thing, and claiming otherwise is just
picking a fight.
> But I really resent being told by a young man, with no social skills
> whatsoever (only very high technical ones, which I can never hope to
> even appreciate) how to suck eggs.
This is pretty rich, from the person who yesterday used offensive
language with no justification at all. As for sucking eggs, there are
numerous guidelines on the internet for all kinds of things I'm sure you
know how to do perfectly well already. It's a bit foolish to claim my
particular guidelines are any different.
--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RISC OS C Programming | http://www.riscos.info/c/
Tim Hill
> > In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
> > Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > > [my] guidelines for [my opinion of what constitutes] correct
> > > posting to RISC OS forums. can be found at
> > > http://www.riscos.info/posting/
> >
> > Conceited little sh*t
> Did you mean to contribute something /useful/ there?
It looks like one opinion in response to another set of opinions whose
link PN posted to c.s.a.announce. Here begins (continues) the unnecessary
flame wars based on a lack of understanding of human nature . . . on many
sides.
I'm not certain the original posting contributed anything new, though its
usefulness may shine in time to come. A shame it contained (IMVHO) items
of personal rather than general taste. (e.g. who--apart from PN--really
cares if car analogies are used? They help some people in their
understanding and their ability to explain. Just don't mention the War
...)
On a more relevant note a word about web searches: why isn't every RISC
OS user recommending Patrick Mortara's RiscSearch which uses 19 search
engines? http://www.riscsearch.de/
It's fab. A search for 'netiquette' returned
http://www.fau.edu/netiquette/net/
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
as the first two hits which both contain some good stuff and could have
saved Peter's time when he maybe has more important things to do. ;-)
--
To leave BT's billing and reduce your phone bill by up to a half,
to obtain your own spam-proof address, or to contact me, visit
www.invalid.org.uk or email postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
(To avoid spam, email to 1...@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread).
... "'Tis good to be sad and say nothing" A Y L I, Act iv, Sc.1
mar...@gmail.com
> In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
> Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a
> > series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
>
> > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
>
>
>
Try this one.
http://www.ietf.org.uk/usenet.html
Peter
Chris de Cordova
> Try this one.
> http://www.ietf.org.uk/usenet.html
Now that I do like!!
--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|
The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered.
Paul F. Johnson
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 06:25 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> In message <4d747252...@no.spam.here>
> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > Well, don't say that you haven't been warned. Dismiss it if you like, but
> > companies have gone further than this where they believe that they aren't
> > being given a fair crack. So which is sillier; my calling you out for
> > this, or your attitude towards the availability of other resources?
>
> I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense at all. I wish you'd stop
> wasting our time with these arguments.
Given that this is a public forum where anyone can follow the
proceedings, I can understand the above argument from Peter. What I
can't understand is why he considers it a waste of someone elses time. I
can understand it being a waste of his, but how can he say it is a waste
of mine or anyone elses?
TTFN
Paul
Peter Naulls
"Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> Given that this is a public forum where anyone can follow the
> proceedings, I can understand the above argument from Peter. What I
> can't understand is why he considers it a waste of someone elses time. I
> can understand it being a waste of his, but how can he say it is a waste
> of mine or anyone elses?
Given how much time _you've_ wasted in the past of people's time, I
don't really think you should be trying to answer this.
--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul F. Johnson
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:22 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> In message <1117729191.27658.9.camel@localhost>
> "Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Given that this is a public forum where anyone can follow the
> > proceedings, I can understand the above argument from Peter. What I
> > can't understand is why he considers it a waste of someone elses time. I
> > can understand it being a waste of his, but how can he say it is a waste
> > of mine or anyone elses?
>
> Given how much time _you've_ wasted in the past of people's time, I
> don't really think you should be trying to answer this.
I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which you've
decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually answering the
point raised.
For the hard of hearing, here it is again...
...how can he say it is a waste of mine or anyone elses?
Instead of just trying to jump up and down and be the "big man" (so to
speak), try a bit of civility.
Peter Naulls
"Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:22 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which you've
> decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually answering the
> point raised.
I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had
troubles with in the past.
> For the hard of hearing, here it is again...
>
> ...how can he say it is a waste of mine or anyone elses?
I can say it because he's trying to make a pointless argument about
something he didn't define at all well. A bit like your reply here,
oddly enough. I don't really believe you've posted just now to be
constructive or "return to the fold", you just thought you'd try and
have a go at me for the sake of it.
--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
druck
> It's fab. A search for 'netiquette' returned
> http://www.fau.edu/netiquette/net/
> http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
> as the first two hits which both contain some good stuff and could have
> saved Peter's time when he maybe has more important things to do. ;-)
The references I give are:-
The news.newusers.questions FAQ http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
How to post to uk news groups http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html
Proper quoting style explained http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
Paul F. Johnson
> In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost>
> "Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which you've
> > decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually answering the
> > point raised.
>
> I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had
> troubles with in the past.
Ah insults. Last standpoint of the desperate.
> > For the hard of hearing, here it is again...
> >
> > ...how can he say it is a waste of mine or anyone elses?
>
> I can say it because he's trying to make a pointless argument about
> something he didn't define at all well. A bit like your reply here,
> oddly enough.
No, I did define it very well. As I said, how can you say that something
is a waste of time for someone else when you don't know what constitutes
a waste of time for anyone other than yourself.
> I don't really believe you've posted just now to be
> constructive or "return to the fold", you just thought you'd try and
> have a go at me for the sake of it.
Try reading what I said then rather than just jumping. I actually agreed
with something you said, but then question the rest of it. Nothing bad
was meant, merely asking on what grounds you can judge what anyone other
than yourself constitutes a waste of time. You used the word "our" (and
in this context, our means csam and therefore means the readership of
the thread) which can only mean everyone here or who stumbles on this.
Now, is it possible that with certain people you are not capable of
holding a rational conversation or to be civil with them or are not able
to let bygones be bygones? All evidence points to no. Oh well, such is
the rich tapestry of life.
People disagree, some get over it, others don't and hold a grudge for
too long (and yes, I know I'm as guilty of that as the next man...) and
others just are incapable of answering a direct question without
resorting to petty insults. Time for another coffee.
Peter Naulls
"Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 18:13 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> > In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost>
> > "Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had
> > troubles with in the past.
>
> Ah insults. Last standpoint of the desperate.
No, an observation. Irony continues to be a concept that passes you
by.
[snip waffle]
So, in conclusion, you really didn't have anything of value to add to
this thread.
--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drobe - http://www.drobe.co.uk/ | The Premier RISC OS News Site
Paul F. Johnson
> In message <1117740711.31221.10.camel@localhost>
> "Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 18:13 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> > > In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost>
> > > "Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had
> > > troubles with in the past.
> >
> > Ah insults. Last standpoint of the desperate.
>
> No, an observation. Irony continues to be a concept that passes you
> by.
Depends on how you look at it. I have no problem with irony.
> [snip waffle]
>
> So, in conclusion, you really didn't have anything of value to add to
> this thread.
Actually, it seems that you have nothing really to add to it. You've not
addressed any of the valid points raised. Instead, you dismiss the lot
with a wave of the hand.
So much for the stuff you've put up. You seem quite happy to ignore it.
Tim Hill
wrote:
> In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost> "Paul F. Johnson"
> <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:22 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> > I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which
> > you've decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually
> > answering the point raised.
> I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had
> troubles with in the past.
Which emoticon should you have used to denote irony?
[Snip]
--
To leave BT's billing and reduce your phone bill by up to a half,
to obtain your own spam-proof address, or to contact me, visit
www.invalid.org.uk or email postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
(To avoid spam, email to 1...@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread).
... "Things must be as they may" Henry V, Act ii. Sc.1
Peter Naulls
Tim Hill <1...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <ac4cd274...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org>
> wrote:
> > In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost> "Paul F. Johnson"
> > <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:22 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
>
>
> > > I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which
> > > you've decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually
> > > answering the point raised.
>
> > I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had
> > troubles with in the past.
>
> Which emoticon should you have used to denote irony?
Well, I didn't actually say anything ironic, it was Paul that did so.
He was after an answer to a question - problem is, he spent several
years dodging questions asked of him on usenet, so it's a bit much to
expect people to return the favour.
--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul F. Johnson
> In message <4d74d...@invalid.org.uk>
> Tim Hill <1...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > Which emoticon should you have used to denote irony?
> He was after an answer to a question - problem is, he spent several
> years dodging questions asked of him on usenet, so it's a bit much to
> expect people to return the favour.
Such as? I try not to dodge any direct questions.
Chris de Cordova
> <snip>
> Peter's sig sep isn't correctly handled, so it seems.
Just noticed this!!!!!! Well-spotted.
ROTFL
--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|
I am in shape. Round's a shape...
Peter Naulls
Chris de Cordova <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <4d74647e...@no.spam.here>,
> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > > > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
>
> > <snip>
> > Peter's sig sep isn't correctly handled, so it seems.
>
> Just noticed this!!!!!! Well-spotted.
>
> ROTFL
Well, zero points for explaining yourself. But allow me to guess -
somehow your inability to properly snip my signature (in your original
ill-formatted message) - which most other people have no problem at all
having their clients do is somehow hilarious.
No doubt you'll explain in the fullness of the time why this is the
case, or precisely what you think is responsible for it not being
"correctly handled". You wouldn't want to seem conceited now, would
you?
Rob Davison
Dave Symes
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> you just thought you'd try and have a go at me for the sake of it.
New thread perhaps. Paranoia rules okay. ;-)
GD
--