argy bargy
John Ryan
"Norman Bates" <not_p...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.145000a99...@news.clara.net...
> Some users seen to have vendettas in this newsgroup , But with these
> users giving constant abuse , Newish users who need help arnt asking a
> lot of questions because of it .
>
> How about we just ignore each other - most of the time ? .
>
> A pet hate of some users seems to be top posting , Fair enough I have a
> few pet hates myself so can understand how annoying it can be .
>
> e.g. I hate popup windows , so I dont bookmark or visit any website that
> has them & its pretty much problem solved .
>
> The kill filter option in your news clients was put there so you wouldnt
> have to read another usenet user - if you dont want to .
>
> Why continue with a pet hate if you dont have to ? .
>
One rule for you and one for the rest of us hey, why don't you just concede
that.
Let go 4x and lets get on with the webspace.authoring instead of having to
spoon feed you all the time.
As regards vendettas, you set out your store a long time ago and made it
clear as to the kind of things that annoy you, women and kids being your pet
hates of the time.
No apologies, just changed title and carried on with the campaign to show
what an ignorant sap you really are.
All that is being suggested to you is that you refrain from top posting,
haven't even mentioned the real bones of contention here as they are still
being investigated by outside agencies.
JR
http://www.ryanbus.co.uk Ryan Business Communications Ltd
http://www.bside90.freeserve.co.uk Bside90 Buses
http://www.modelbusfederation.freeserve.co.uk MBF Web Editor
Tony Morgan
<not_p...@bigfoot.com> writes
>Why continue with a pet hate if you dont have to ? .
think it's smart to ignore it, but these same folk wouldn't dream of
driving on the right-hand side of the road, up one way streets the wrong
way, or even bashing little old ladies for their pension books - yet put
them on the Internet and they think themselves really clever to ignore
standards, conventions and good behaviour. It maybe says something about
their personality. These standards and conventions have been established
for their benefit and for the general good.
--
Tony Morgan http://www.atomor.com
Atomor Web Ltd http://www.atomor.demon.co.uk
http://www.atomor.co.uk
Mike Bartlett
>Some users seen to have vendettas in this newsgroup , But with these
>users giving constant abuse , Newish users who need help arnt asking a
>lot of questions because of it .
Master Bates, your home from school, how nice.
>
>How about we just ignore each other - most of the time ? .
How about you post properly in newsgroups and stop posting shite about
BORG COLLECTIVES. Add something to the threads don't just post petty
insults and sly comment, this isn't a childish chat room, if you read
what was posted you (possibly) could learn something. (Hard to believe I
know but he is making an effort to be nice, so I will as well :o)
Why don't you ask for a critique on your site, for example. I'm sure
lots of people would be able to offer you some assistance, (almost
everyone I should think, even Weeding Services. Sorry, be nice .. BE
NICE)
>A pet hate of some users seems to be top posting , Fair enough I have a
>few pet hates myself so can understand how annoying it can be .
It's not a pet hate Master Bates its common sense. It's even defined in
a set of documents called RFC's. Have you read RFC 1855 yet ?
--
Mik Posting in freeserve news.
Bagsy
Tony Morgan <to...@atomor.demon.com> wrote in message
news:i9V9NLAF...@atomor.demon.co.uk...
> In article <MPG.145000a99...@news.clara.net>, Norman Bates
> <not_p...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >Why continue with a pet hate if you dont have to ? .
> It's not a 'pet hate' - it's conforming to the standard.
Tony do you know of any decent authoring newsgroups carried by freeserve
because I really have had enough of the constant bullshit in this one.
Cheers.
--
Bagsy
http://www.theedgeofpanic.freeserve.co.uk
reply to kdei...@theedgeofpanic.freeserve.co.uk
Stuart Millington
<ne...@theedgeofpanic.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Tony do you know of any decent authoring newsgroups carried by freeserve
>because I really have had enough of the constant bullshit in this one.
I know you didn't ask me ;) But, uk.net.web.authoring is quite
civilised ;)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington -
- mailto:ph...@dsv1.co.uk -
- http://www.wormhole.uklinux.net/ -
Tony Morgan
ic.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> Tony do you know of any decent authoring newsgroups carried by freeserve
>because I really have had enough of the constant bullshit in this one.
observed recently. They're usually friendless loners or worse. I myself
value the friendship that can develop in newsgroups such as this. But
these folk haven't any friends - so that the social relationships that
can develop here and elsewhere are alien to them; they themselves ensure
that they remain isolated by adopting and abrasive or aggressive
attitude - and persist in maintaining it. Noticeably, they usually hide
behind anonymity because, in spite of their deliberately abrasive and/or
aggressive attitude when on the 'net, they are usually cowards who seem
to derive some self-esteem from behaving on the 'net as they do.
To be fair, usually they're a product of their environment, sometimes
reflecting inadequate parenting, sometimes suffering from other
inadequacies. I suppose to be charitable they're like they are through
no fault of their own.
Justifiable Cynic
"Stuart Millington" <ne...@dsv1.co.uk> wrote in message
news:988cus8lf0jo7jl6h...@4ax.com...
freeserve
> >because I really have had enough of the constant bullshit in this one.
>
> civilised ;)
>
Most of the people in here are actually civilised. It is just the one little
schoolkid that ruins it for us all. Tut! Back when I was a lad, this was
nothing but wires. We couldn't slag each other off then.:-)
Russ
--
My Dad's sig file is better than your Dad's sig file!
www.britainagainstcomputers.freeserve.co.uk
Bagsy
> In article <8s54e2$hq8$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Bagsy <news@theedgeofpan
> ic.freeserve.co.uk> writes
freeserve
> >because I really have had enough of the constant bullshit in this one.
> observed recently.
OK well here's what I meant to say:
I used to really enjoy this group. In fact only recently during a thread
in another group, about why several regulars had left, I argued that it was
probably due to a lack of "community" in that group and cited this one as an
example of how a friendly group, which occasionally drifts off-topic, can be
a more enjoyable place to hang out.
However, recently in here every other thread has deteriorated into the
same mindless argument over nothing, and is almost always perpetuated by the
same handful of regulars trading "smart" remarks with some stupid troll. At
a guess I'd say from the last 2 weeks of messages I've seen maybe 25% of
them were actually worth reading, the rest being exactly this kind of
mindless crap from people who should know better.
The argument about top-posting for instance: If it's been suggested that
somebody post at the bottom of a reply, and that person refuses to do so,
why not simply leave it at that and stop responding to them? I personally
cannot be arsed reorganising a screwed up post in the middle of a thread
just because some idiot won't post in the right way, so I respond elsewhere
instead.
Seriously, this group is slowly developing a habit for petty argument
which is reaching epic proportions even by playground standards. It's not
the trolls that are making it a shitty group, it's the handful of regulars
who feel the need to feed them with "witty" comebacks, and I'm fucking sick
of it.
--
Pissed Off
Tony Morgan
ic.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> The argument about top-posting for instance: If it's been suggested that
>somebody post at the bottom of a reply, and that person refuses to do so,
>why not simply leave it at that and stop responding to them? I personally
>cannot be arsed reorganising a screwed up post in the middle of a thread
>just because some idiot won't post in the right way, so I respond elsewhere
>instead.
to a thread (or maybe two) - which seem to otherwise contain nothing
else of interest; as a result it's easy to exclude them and not miss
anything of interest.
The very fact that you're following these exchanges somewhat negates
your complaint(s) about them.
I can remember on d.h,a (before Freeserve was conceived), I used to
follow the exchanges of Paul Allen with a sort of transfixed absorption
- and he could be really savage! But then (as now) you have the choice
of following these threads - or not.
Tony Morgan
Millington <ne...@dsv1.co.uk> writes
>>because I really have had enough of the constant bullshit in this one.
>
>civilised ;)
>
seemed then to be (and still is) little more than a chat channel. And
the 'regulars' there are those pedantic purists who clearly are not
practitioners. And surprisingly, after just subscribing, there were
only 49 posts to download - and most of them were 'chat-candy'. In fact
I couldn't see a single practical query - the nearest thing was a
slagging off Frontpage, Dreamweaver, Homesite, and any non-raw-text
editor by one of the non-practitioner purist regulars.
John Ryan
"Bagsy" <ne...@theedgeofpanic.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8s5aav$2c9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...> > In article <8s54e2$hq8$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Bagsy <news@theedgeofpan
> > ic.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> > > Tony do you know of any decent authoring newsgroups carried by
> freeserve
> > >because I really have had enough of the constant bullshit in this one.
> > observed recently.
>
> OK well here's what I meant to say:
>
> I used to really enjoy this group. In fact only recently during a
thread
> in another group, about why several regulars had left, I argued that it
was
> probably due to a lack of "community" in that group and cited this one as
an
> example of how a friendly group, which occasionally drifts off-topic, can
be
> a more enjoyable place to hang out.
> However, recently in here every other thread has deteriorated into the
> same mindless argument over nothing, and is almost always perpetuated by
the
> same handful of regulars trading "smart" remarks with some stupid troll.
At
> a guess I'd say from the last 2 weeks of messages I've seen maybe 25% of
> them were actually worth reading, the rest being exactly this kind of
> mindless crap from people who should know better.
that
> somebody post at the bottom of a reply, and that person refuses to do so,
> why not simply leave it at that and stop responding to them? I personally
> cannot be arsed reorganising a screwed up post in the middle of a thread
> just because some idiot won't post in the right way, so I respond
elsewhere
> instead.
> which is reaching epic proportions even by playground standards. It's not
> the trolls that are making it a shitty group, it's the handful of regulars
> who feel the need to feed them with "witty" comebacks, and I'm fucking
sick
> of it.
Fully understand your feelings here Bagsy, and I think you are pretty well
aware of mine and others here when it comes to the said character involved.
As a group and as a NG in particular with the emphasis on
webspace.authoring, there is none to compare. The amount of knowledge and
experience available to all here is something that money in itself could not
buy.
Apologies for the amount of posting that I have given to this person, but in
light of my experiences with the said character, I think for me not to react
would be un-natural.
You Bagsy were probably not so effected by some of the threats and offensive
language that this character gave to not just me but to others here and the
continued level of contempt for the views and opinions of many here.
I can think of one other person who received such vitriolic abuse from this
character that I felt moved to react. In so doing I received threats etc.and
the rest is history.
I do not want to go over the nitty gritty details of the Police involvement
that was given to this character nor the many ISP's who have felt it within
their power to remove the availability of services to this character for
what I would suggest was more than just top-posting.
There is nothing more I intend to do here or elsewhere for that matter that
will make life un-comfortable for this character, but if he continues to
ignore the suggestions and the many, many polite references he has received
then the reality of his behaviour is bound to cause a reaction. My reaction
in the past has been that of using the relevant authorities, and that I will
continue to do, should the behaviour so warrant it.
I'm rather sad to think that you would consider the behaviour of the
regulars to be that which would drive you away from the NG, but it is
through thick and thin that I stay, good or bad, and if anyone else here
experiences the kind of behaviour that I have seen displayed here then I
will support them as I have done in the past where I felt that person was
being treated unfairly. Because I personally feel that this group is worth
the trouble.
Your more than entitled to feel the way you do, I can only apologise if my
behaviour has in any way offended you personally.
John
Kev Place
<to...@atomor.demon.com> writes
>I've had a lurk there before, and wasn't particularly impressed - it
>seemed then to be (and still is) little more than a chat channel. And
>the 'regulars' there are those pedantic purists who clearly are not
>practitioners. And surprisingly, after just subscribing, there were
>only 49 posts to download - and most of them were 'chat-candy'. In fact
>I couldn't see a single practical query - the nearest thing was a
>slagging off Frontpage, Dreamweaver, Homesite, and any non-raw-text
>editor by one of the non-practitioner purist regulars.
Tony, you've been involved in a well-informed and shockingly civilised
thread regarding css over on u.n.w.a this last few days (did you not
notice the cross-post with d.h.a?).
It's warmed my heart to read that thread.
Knowledgeable people who can agree to disagree in polite and friendly
tones... Nice one.
BAGSY:
Try uk.music.guitar
The nets best kept secret - and bassists are welcome :o)
--
Kev Place e-mail:k...@mythagowood.demon.co.uk
http://www.mythagowood.demon.co.uk
Julia Williscroft
Bagsy <ne...@theedgeofpanic.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8s5aav$2c9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Tony Morgan <to...@atomor.demon.com> wrote in message
> news:gf8dVJAj...@atomor.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <8s54e2$hq8$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Bagsy <news@theedgeofpan
> > ic.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> > > Tony do you know of any decent authoring newsgroups carried by
> freeserve
> > >because I really have had enough of the constant bullshit in this one.
> > I'm afraid not. The Internet does seem to draw people like we've
> > observed recently.
>
> OK well here's what I meant to say:
>
> I used to really enjoy this group. In fact only recently during a
thread
> in another group, about why several regulars had left, I argued that it
was
> probably due to a lack of "community" in that group and cited this one as
an
> example of how a friendly group, which occasionally drifts off-topic, can
be
> a more enjoyable place to hang out.
<snip ......>
I totally agree with all your comments Bagsy - it has become tedious in the
extreme :-(
--
Julia
Get the t-shirt! Check out http://www.teezz.co.uk
Stuart Millington
<Rus...@hadeskingdom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Stuart Millington" <ne...@dsv1.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:988cus8lf0jo7jl6h...@4ax.com...
>> I know you didn't ask me ;) But, uk.net.web.authoring is quite
>> civilised ;)
>Most of the people in here are actually civilised. It is just the one little
>schoolkid that ruins it for us all. Tut! Back when I was a lad, this was
>nothing but wires. We couldn't slag each other off then.:-)
Back when I first started using USENET, you couldn't use it unless
you were 18+ : no dial-up accounts then, only students, professors and
corporate types. The invasion of the dial-up accounts in the 90's and
the comparisons with the new terms at Uni's/Colleges - forming the
basis of "the never ending September" phrase :-(
Slanging matches and flame wars were arranged weeks/months ahead of
time then, usually with the agreement of all concerned - it was fun in
the old days 8-)
[0] Yes, I'm an old git ;)
Bagsy
> In article <8s5aav$2c9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Bagsy <news@theedgeofpan
> ic.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> > The argument about top-posting for instance: If it's been suggested
that
> >somebody post at the bottom of a reply, and that person refuses to do so,
> >why not simply leave it at that and stop responding to them? I personally
> >cannot be arsed reorganising a screwed up post in the middle of a thread
> >just because some idiot won't post in the right way, so I respond
elsewhere
> >instead.
> to a thread (or maybe two) - which seem to otherwise contain nothing
> else of interest; as a result it's easy to exclude them and not miss
> anything of interest.
No Tony, they're infecting most of the threads in here, which is why I
changed the subject of this one before I posted.
> The very fact that you're following these exchanges somewhat negates
> your complaint(s) about them.
I'm not. I'm simply downloading the messages as normal and becoming
increasingly pissed off that the majority of them are stupid and childish.
> I can remember on d.h,a (before Freeserve was conceived), I used to
> follow the exchanges of Paul Allen with a sort of transfixed absorption
> - and he could be really savage! But then (as now) you have the choice
> of following these threads - or not.
Tony I wish I could hold your rant posts in the same esteem, but sadly
no, your constant bickering just pisses me off and wastes my time.
--
Bagsy
Bagsy
Julia Williscroft <ju...@spinneret.net> wrote in message
news:8s5en4$l06$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Bagsy <ne...@theedgeofpanic.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8s5aav$2c9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > I used to really enjoy this group. In fact only recently during a
> thread
> > in another group, about why several regulars had left, I argued that it
> was
> > probably due to a lack of "community" in that group and cited this one
as
> an
> > example of how a friendly group, which occasionally drifts off-topic,
can
> be
> > a more enjoyable place to hang out.
>
> <snip ......>
>
> I totally agree with all your comments Bagsy - it has become tedious in
the
> extreme :-(
Glad it's not just me. And in response to JR: Yes I remember the
problems you had with Senor Fuckwit or whatever he's calling himself now. I
can understand your attitude but it seems to be spreading a little wide of
the mark. Anyway I appreciate your response, fair and honest as you usually
are.
Anyway I said my bit, I won't be contributing further to this thread
because drawing it out any longer would only be an example of the kind of
dull crap that started it in the first place.
John Ryan
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:54:08 +0100, "Justifiable Cynic"
> <Rus...@hadeskingdom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Stuart Millington" <ne...@dsv1.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:988cus8lf0jo7jl6h...@4ax.com...
>
> >> I know you didn't ask me ;) But, uk.net.web.authoring is quite
> >> civilised ;)
>
> >Most of the people in here are actually civilised. It is just the one
little
> >schoolkid that ruins it for us all. Tut! Back when I was a lad, this was
> >nothing but wires. We couldn't slag each other off then.:-)
>
> Back when I first started using USENET, you couldn't use it unless
> you were 18+ : no dial-up accounts then, only students, professors and
> corporate types. The invasion of the dial-up accounts in the 90's and
> the comparisons with the new terms at Uni's/Colleges - forming the
> basis of "the never ending September" phrase :-(
The Internet is a place where so much can be learned but yet so much s***
can be found.
Having a child myself, I personally would not allow them to see or read this
NG or comment to them on the amounts of abuse and foul language that can be
found, it is not a place unfortunately for children.
That in itself is sad, cause there is so much to learn here with regard to
web authoring and many children want to learn how to develop their own web
pages. But with this group being un-monitored and with Freeserve in
particular allowing anyone from any ISP access to this NG it is bound to
happen that certain people will come in here and abuse the priveleges that
they have been given. I must hasten to add here that there are many too from
other ISP's who do not misbehave in the ways we have seen lately, but I make
the point that allowing all and sundry in will inevitably lead to the
introduction of less than savoury characters as all they have to lose is an
anonymous account with some fly by night ISP.
At least those whose ISP's include Freeserve, Demon and NTL to name but few,
have to give more detailed and correct information and usually it is their
Dialup account. Therefore more to lose.
So what do I do, leave and let the buggers ruin it and try and break up some
of the net friendships that have undoubtedly been made here, no sorry, not
on.
John
Stuart Millington
<to...@atomor.demon.com> wrote:
>In article <988cus8lf0jo7jl6h...@4ax.com>, Stuart
>Millington <ne...@dsv1.co.uk> writes
>> I know you didn't ask me ;) But, uk.net.web.authoring is quite
>>civilised ;)
>practitioners. And surprisingly, after just subscribing, there were
>only 49 posts to download - and most of them were 'chat-candy'. In fact
It's not a high-volume group, compared to this one anyway - that
may be good or bad depending on what you want.
mikedean
> In article <8s54e2$hq8$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Bagsy <news@theedgeofpan
> ic.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> > Tony do you know of any decent authoring newsgroups carried by
freeserve
> >because I really have had enough of the constant bullshit in this one.
> I'm afraid not. The Internet does seem to draw people like we've
> value the friendship that can develop in newsgroups such as this. But
> these folk haven't any friends - so that the social relationships that
> can develop here and elsewhere are alien to them; they themselves ensure
> that they remain isolated by adopting and abrasive or aggressive
> attitude - and persist in maintaining it. Noticeably, they usually hide
> behind anonymity because, in spite of their deliberately abrasive and/or
> aggressive attitude when on the 'net, they are usually cowards who seem
> to derive some self-esteem from behaving on the 'net as they do.
>
> To be fair, usually they're a product of their environment, sometimes
> reflecting inadequate parenting, sometimes suffering from other
> inadequacies. I suppose to be charitable they're like they are through
> no fault of their own.
>
and interesting to see how the group normalise themselves. As more of an
outsider, its easier for me to stand back a little and take a bit less of a
subjective look, but I find myself agreeing with the sentiment of the
thread. FWIW, I dont think you (as a group) should feel singled out, Usenet
in general is suffering from detoriating standards. I'm not attempting to
condone my own reckless behaviour recently, by the way. Im just saying that
this group is not exactly unique with its trolls, and the well meaning but
just as irresponsible posters who cant resist the snappy replies.
Somewhat predictably, I cant agree with too much of this particular post
though. Even the trolls are human, and therefore gregarious. Dysfunctional
people dont troll because its a relatively safe way to create animosity; by
their very nature they are unable to make such a logical deduction. Besides,
they garner a deal of satisfaction from seeing the results of their
handiwork, and text on a screen is so less satisfying than watching someones
face go beet red!
I think your stereotypical troll is a teenager going through the normal
hormonally induced rebelliousness, but he has just found a different medium
through which to display it.
Sorry to ramble on so; I just started typing and out it poured.
Mike Dean
www.TheMinorSite.co.uk
Mike Bartlett
>seemed then to be (and still is) little more than a chat channel.
An unfortunate (modern) trait which appears to be endemic :o(
Ron Wade
Bagsy <ne...@theedgeofpanic.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8s5aav$2c9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> news:gf8dVJAj...@atomor.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <8s54e2$hq8$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Bagsy <news@theedgeofpan
> > ic.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> > > Tony do you know of any decent authoring newsgroups carried by
> freeserve
> > >because I really have had enough of the constant bullshit in this one.
> > I'm afraid not. The Internet does seem to draw people like we've
> > observed recently.
>
>
> I used to really enjoy this group. In fact only recently during a
thread
> in another group, about why several regulars had left, I argued that it
was
> probably due to a lack of "community" in that group and cited this one as
an
> example of how a friendly group, which occasionally drifts off-topic, can
be
> a more enjoyable place to hang out.
> same mindless argument over nothing, and is almost always perpetuated by
the
> same handful of regulars trading "smart" remarks with some stupid troll.
At
> a guess I'd say from the last 2 weeks of messages I've seen maybe 25% of
> them were actually worth reading, the rest being exactly this kind of
> mindless crap from people who should know better.
that
> somebody post at the bottom of a reply, and that person refuses to do so,
> why not simply leave it at that and stop responding to them? I personally
> cannot be arsed reorganising a screwed up post in the middle of a thread
> just because some idiot won't post in the right way, so I respond
elsewhere
> instead.
> which is reaching epic proportions even by playground standards. It's not
> the trolls that are making it a shitty group, it's the handful of regulars
> who feel the need to feed them with "witty" comebacks, and I'm fucking
sick
> of it.
> Pissed Off
I agree totally with that. We've all had our little run ins, smart-arsed
answers which we've given which no doubt makes us feel good at the time and
I'm no exception. But I hope I've learned a bit from that and as JR said
I've toned down now and learned a hell of a lot from this group.
Having said that, Bags is right. Some of these regulars who just delight in
slagging off people who sometimes make a genuine mistake make me want to
hurl. You know who you are and I'm being polite here. Some of the threads
have deteriorated into a mud slinging load of bollocks. Prime example was
the Re: Mouldykipper.com thread - it's still running apparently.- where
somebody lost his cool but had the decency to apologise later for. Credit
for that must be given. However one regular in particular continued with
some of the biggest load of arsewipe I've ever heard - the kind of stuff I
just know he wouldn't have the balls to say face to face. I'll tell you
something, Morgan, if you think that behaviour earns you respect you're the
one who is psychologically flawed. I don't care really - I now wouldn't
visit any of your sites if some bugger paid me. Tossers earn the respect
tossers deserve. You're not alone with regard to the above, and I exclude
JR from that. JR at least has the wherewithall to see a rounded picture of
a situation and that's to be applauded. The rest of you regulars who
delight in the crap contained in Re: Mouldykipper.com can stick your heads
where the sun don't shine. Actually, if you just grew up it would be a
f****** bonus to us all.
RW
Ian Bennett
e Bartlett <fsn...@saslimited.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XNOs89AF...@saslimited.demon.co.uk...
> Mik Posting in freeserve news.
The problem in this group has arisen because there seem to be a group of
vultures, who if any one cares to look through any of the antagonistic
argument threads will repeatedly see the same old names cropping up. These
vultures , in their train spotting anoracks, sit frothing at their mouths,
dribbling on their cardies whilst grunting excitedly whenever they are given
a chance to swoop on sometimes suspecting, sometimes not expecting bit of
prey.
" Spammers"...squawk sqawk , "doesnt know html" ...sqawk sqawk, "colours are
too lively" sqawk,"nicked that piccie" SQAWK fucking SQAWK!!
ITS NEVER ENDING!!!!!!!
Please please please get your anoracks off and stop trying to be a cyber
hells angel, sorry lads ....., it just doesn't work. A bit more
constructive approach would be nice!
Richard H Huelin
"Ian Bennett" <I...@bennywin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8s6kps$j80$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The problem in this group has arisen because there seem to be a
group of
> vultures, who if any one cares to look through any of the
antagonistic
> argument threads will repeatedly see the same old names
cropping up. These
> vultures , in their train spotting anoracks, sit frothing at
their mouths,
> dribbling on their cardies whilst grunting excitedly whenever
they are given
> a chance to swoop on sometimes suspecting, sometimes not
expecting bit of
> prey.
> " Spammers"...squawk sqawk , "doesnt know html" ...sqawk sqawk,
"colours are
> too lively" sqawk,"nicked that piccie" SQAWK fucking SQAWK!!
> ITS NEVER ENDING!!!!!!!
> Please please please get your anoracks off and stop trying to
be a cyber
> hells angel, sorry lads ....., it just doesn't work. A bit
more
> constructive approach would be nice!
With some people the constructive approach simply does not work,
for example take this users site:
http://www.bennywin.freeserve.co.uk
Having requested advice on several occasions, he has simply
ignored it, yet blinded by his own over inflated ego he persists
in advising others. Is it really so surprising, when people who
have taken the trouble to absorb the information necessary to
create a decent web site get a little short tempered when such
clueless clowns insist in displaying their petulance and
ignorance at every opportunity?
Mike Bartlett
>vultures , in their train spotting anoracks, sit frothing at their mouths,
>dribbling on their cardies whilst grunting excitedly whenever they are given
>a chance to swoop on sometimes suspecting, sometimes not expecting bit of
>prey.
Amazing, how did you know I looked like that ?
Peter Boulding
<I...@bennywin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>" Spammers"...squawk sqawk , "doesnt know html" ...sqawk sqawk, "colours are
>too lively" sqawk,"nicked that piccie" SQAWK fucking SQAWK!!
Some of the unwritten rules of this newsgroup:
====================
When we rubbish your site and skills so comprehensively that you
give up all idea of web page development, we do so only for your
own good and out of the kindness of our hearts.
====================
Using Frontpage/Word/Publisher? Don't bother us until you've
acquired a clue (that fact that you only wanted comment on layout
or functionality is irrelevant).
If we're in a good mood one of us may give you the URL of a
tutorial, be we'll also pour sufficient derision on you to ensure
that you don't dare come back to ask about the parts of the
tutorial you didn't understand. Freeserve does not offer a web
page development newsgroup for newbies, nor is it our job to
point you to one.
Frontpage is in any case totally unacceptable because the results
(even though they often appear more professional that some of our
own pages to 80% of potential viewers) tend to be recognizably
Frontpage.
====================
We grant automatic respect to all those who write their HTML in
the weakest text editor known to man.
====================
The fact that Java and Javascript have damn all to do with each
other should be explained in great detail at every opportunity.
A simple ("I take it you mean Javascript") is not sufficient.
====================
Netiquette requires you to lurk in an ng until you understand its
ethos. As far as this ng is concerned you should continue to
lurk until:
* you know who is a grandmother and how many times each of the
regulars has been ill in the last two years
* you can immediately see through every disguise used by
"allsnookerlinks"
* can authoritatively discuss the merits and drawbacks of using
an all-index site with each index a frameset (with noframes
of course)
* are aware that Search Engine UK is a complete fraud whereas
Tony Morgan is a Perfect Being.
====================
If you don't know what "optimising graphics" means, this ng is
not for you.
====================
Marquees are a mortal sin. Animated GIFs qualify you for a life
sentence with no chance of parole. Autoplay midis are a hanging
offence.
====================
Pages that take more than two seconds to display are totally
unacceptable, so don't post queries about Javascript or Flash.
====================
We all miss Arty.
====================
Don't submit for our approval a site that isn't W3C compliant.
The omission of "</p>" - or the use of any tag or syntax that is
not supported by 0.3% of browsers - is grossly unprofessional.
The use of anything IE-specific is even worse (the fact that your
pages somehow still look OK in Netscape is irrelevant).
====================
Before submitting a site for comment here make *absolutely* sure
that it contains no unlicensed copyright material; otherwise you
may suffer a particularly unpleasant form of netcopping.
====================
Only the Scum of the Universe and under-15s use complementary
colours. Neither are welcome here.
====================
If you explain that you're only 8 years old, we'll kindly point
out - at length - why you should wait a few years before posting
here or attempting any sort of website development - by which
time both we and HTML will be dead, and no-one will quite believe
that we were still using an abysmal, crippled subset of a 1970s
IBM mainframe DTP system to display web pages.
====================
This ng offers two "awards" designed to heap derision on web
sites and their developers; we have none for *good* work.
You have been warned.
====================
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
BTi inanity at http://www.btinternet.com/~p.boulding/
PS (1) OK, the above is over the top - but it's been building for
a while and I do feel better for getting it off my chest.
PS (2) Autoplay midis ARE a hanging offence.
Ron Wade
Peter Boulding <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
news:16pdus8oc8ng5dsb9...@4ax.com...
ROTFL - brilliant - going to save that.
RW
Julia Williscroft
Peter Boulding <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
news:16pdus8oc8ng5dsb9...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:28:47 +0100, "Ian Bennett"
> <I...@bennywin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >" Spammers"...squawk sqawk , "doesnt know html" ...sqawk sqawk, "colours
are
> >too lively" sqawk,"nicked that piccie" SQAWK fucking SQAWK!!
>
>
> Some of the unwritten rules of this newsgroup:
I must admit I sometimes wonder how newcomers to this group ever pluck up
the courage to ask a question - of course the answer is probably that they
don't bother which seems a shame because there are many on this group with a
lot to offer in the way of advice and help.
More reasoned debate and less mud slinging would be very welcome as far as I
am concerned ....... life is too short to read through all this dross!
david smith
Just like to say Norman bates must be killing him self laughing at what he
has managed to acheve.
Dave.
.
John Ryan
"david smith" <sa...@faspaklondon.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8s73ph$8li$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> (all snipped and very little read ( heard it all before))
>
> Just like to say Norman bates must be killing him self laughing at what he
> has managed to acheve.
>
Sadly, probably more than any of us realise.
In fighting now being the hangover of it and taking sides etc.
Not including you here David BTW.
Search Engine World UK
>
> Peter Boulding <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:16pdus8oc8ng5dsb9...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:28:47 +0100, "Ian Bennett"
> > <I...@bennywin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >" Spammers"...squawk sqawk , "doesnt know html" ...sqawk sqawk,
"colours
> are
> > >too lively" sqawk,"nicked that piccie" SQAWK fucking SQAWK!!
> >
> >
> > Some of the unwritten rules of this newsgroup:
> <snip some valid points!>
>* are aware that Search Engine UK is a complete fraud whereas
>Tony Morgan is a Perfect Being.
Peter, that should be Search Engine World UK. ;)
Ian Bennett
<plane...@redhotant.com> wrote in message
news:39e6f75e$1...@news.jakinternet.co.uk...
>
> "Ian Bennett" <I...@bennywin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8s6kps$j80$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > The problem in this group has arisen because there seem to be a
> group of
> > vultures, who if any one cares to look through any of the
> antagonistic
> > argument threads will repeatedly see the same old names
> cropping up. These
> their mouths,
> > dribbling on their cardies whilst grunting excitedly whenever
> they are given
> > a chance to swoop on sometimes suspecting, sometimes not
> expecting bit of
> > prey.
> "colours are
> > too lively" sqawk,"nicked that piccie" SQAWK fucking SQAWK!!
> > Please please please get your anoracks off and stop trying to
> be a cyber
> > hells angel, sorry lads ....., it just doesn't work. A bit
> more
> > constructive approach would be nice!
>
> With some people the constructive approach simply does not work,
> for example take this users site:
> http://www.bennywin.freeserve.co.uk
>
> Having requested advice on several occasions, he has simply
> ignored it, yet blinded by his own over inflated ego he persists
> in advising others. Is it really so surprising, when people who
> have taken the trouble to absorb the information necessary to
> create a decent web site get a little short tempered when such
> clueless clowns insist in displaying their petulance and
> ignorance at every opportunity?
>
I had a private bet thay you would be one of the first vultures to swoop as
I always considered that you fit the bill perfectly, and hey it didnt take
you long did it?. Finally Richard what makes you so special?, apart from
the fact that you are "rock hard" on the internet (LOL!) I always like to
think that my advice (when given) is constructive (just like 20 % of yours).
and if the info I have given is innacurate then please elaborate .
IB
Ian Bennett
Richard H Huelin <plane...@redhotant.com> wrote in message
Thanks for the advert, saved me sending spam myself!
IB
david smith
"John Ryan" <jo...@bside90.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8s74t0$o15$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Next person to post is a rotten egg.
Can you resist?
Dave.
Pedt Scragg
<I...@bennywin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>
[snip previous parts of thread]
>
>The problem in this group has arisen because there seem to be a group of
>vultures, who if any one cares to look through any of the antagonistic
>argument threads will repeatedly see the same old names cropping up. These
>vultures , in their train spotting anoracks, sit frothing at their mouths,
>dribbling on their cardies whilst grunting excitedly whenever they are given
>a chance to swoop on sometimes suspecting, sometimes not expecting bit of
>prey.
I've kept out of this discussion so far but perhaps now is the time to
make a few points:
Threads, initially, generally break down into:
1. 'Look at my cool/awesome/brilliant/etc site' which is usually
extremely bloated, devoid of content, and it is no surprise that
*any* of the regulars will get at least a little fed up of seeing
these comments and replies are often somewhat terser.
2. 'I have done this site can I have some constructive criticism'. In
this case, many regulars will take the time [their own] to look at the
site in detail and pass comments with constructive help.
2a. Comments are responded to with 'thanks I will look into it' or
2b. foot stamping on 'I know best' or 'do not tell me what to do' basis
3. 'I am having a problem with such-and-such can anyone help'. Normally
with constructive comments in reply and suggestions on how to get round
any problems or a better way of dealing with it.
3a. see 2a.
3b. see 2b.
4. 'Hey, I am spamming my site across every newsgroup I can find'.
5. General info that could be of use to all and sundry
6. Here is some useless info for this group.
7. off-topic but deemed worthy of asking the Q here.
Main problem is in 1..4 above [excluding 2a/3a] and, to a slight degree
6. The 'vultures' as you care to all them, I presume you mean a number
of the regulars. Are you seriously suggesting that those who post
offering 'brilliant' sites or cannot take criticism should be pandered
to and told how wonderful they are ?
In respect of 2b/3b, it is unfortunate that the general constructive
comments (taken on board) are often marred by one or two less than
clueful people who post either irrelevant or plain wrong information.
Are those you describe as 'vultures' supposed to ignore this ?
I can see the points made from all sides in this discussion.
>" Spammers"...squawk sqawk ,
Does that mean you'd encourage them ?
> "doesnt know html" ...sqawk sqawk,
Very very rarely commented upon other than to suggest how constructs may
be improved upon - unless of course the person posts claiming to be a
web designer.
>"colours are
>too lively" sqawk,
Subjective and usually said as such.
>"nicked that piccie" SQAWK fucking SQAWK!!
Copyright theft is not acceptable.
> sorry lads ....., it just doesn't work. A bit more
>constructive approach would be nice!
>
Unfortunately, the constructive approach - even to those whose who
appear in the relevant sections of 1..4 above - tends not to work. One
might even point to your own site which got a number of constructive
comments that, AFAICS, have not, in their entirety, been applied.
Admittedly some people start off on the wrong foot in this and other
newsgroups. The sign of someone who will have something useful to
contribute IMO are those who can take the comments in the spirit they
were intended / realise that previous comments were not appropriate /
actually take note of comments made without foot-stamping / etc.
I know a few people will recognise themselves in the above paragraph
but I have to say that the ability to be reasoned about comments and
apologise if you get something wrong is to be very much welcomed.
Although I have been longer around Usenet than most of the posters here,
I would not consider myself an expert, have been corrected on more than
one occasion and apologised for erroneous info, have had a site or two
torn to shreds, etc., etc. I would suggest that regulars would feel the
same.
You seem to have difficulty differentiating between the terminally
clueless and those who have [at least] some knowledge and are willing to
learn - I would also point out that I personally have garnered a lot of
information from this newsgroup and I suspect many other people have
done so as well even if they have not contributed to a thread.
One has to ask the question as to whether a troll spouting erroneous and
misinformative information should be corrected or otherwise ignored to
the detriment of newer posters.
--
Pedt Scragg http://signpost-design.co.uk/ ODP Editor: http://dmoz.org/
"If you don't need a lot of space/bandwidth then why are you paying for it" ?
Peter Boulding
<in...@searchengineworld.co.uk> wrote:
>>* are aware that Search Engine UK is a complete fraud whereas
>>Tony Morgan is a Perfect Being.
>
>Peter, that should be Search Engine World UK. ;)
Oops - or was the typo designed to prevent you from initiating a
libel action? :)
Peter Boulding
<sa...@faspaklondon.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>(all snipped and very little read ( heard it all before))
<rotten egg>
Is David clairvoyant or was the above a penetratingly accurate
satire on the type of post ("go away, newbie, this ng is reserved
for a clique of contemptuous, world-weary professionals") to
which I was referring? Either way, I'm impressed.
Tony Morgan
<za...@wade17.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>I'll tell you
>something, Morgan,
personally AFTER he apologises to the group I'll do just exactly what I
please. And what god-given right do you think *you* have to dictate
otherwise?
Do you think it worries me whether you visit my site or not?
.... dream on!
--
Tony Morgan http://www.atomor.com
Atomor Web Ltd http://www.atomor.demon.co.uk
http://www.atomor.co.uk
Tony Morgan
<fsn...@saslimited.demon.co.uk> writes
>>vultures , in their train spotting anoracks, sit frothing at their mouths,
>>dribbling on their cardies whilst grunting excitedly whenever they are given
>>a chance to swoop on sometimes suspecting, sometimes not expecting bit of
>>prey.
>
.... and the tacky trainers of course :-)
Ron Wade
> In article <8s6ga7$fv0$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Ron Wade
> <za...@wade17.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >I'll tell you
> >something, Morgan,
*snip*
Go away.
RW
procrastination nation
> I read all of this thread, carefully, because as a new face its
worthwhile
> and interesting to see how the group normalise themselves. As more
of an
> outsider, its easier for me to stand back a little and take a bit
less of a
> subjective look, but I find myself agreeing with the sentiment of
the
> thread. FWIW, I dont think you (as a group) should feel singled out,
Usenet
> in general is suffering from detoriating standards. I'm not
attempting to
I don't think it's really avoidable, people have some stupid
preconception that the net will make them a quick buck, and so every
loser who can't be bothered (or is too stupid) to get a proper job
suddenly become over-night "web designer"s (and usually overnight
failures / arseholes)...
(just to clarify, i'm not refering to the "proper" pros in here
(examples include TM and PS) who i think do great work, as opposed to
some of the fishcake cowboys we've seen lately...)
/chris
--
street pressure, word to papa, i ain't going under
[http://www.kenosis.co.uk] [icq:82622184] [aim:atomixnet]
Huw Davies
> Anyway I said my bit, I won't be contributing further to this thread
> because drawing it out any longer would only be an example of the kind of
> dull crap that started it in the first place.
> --
> Bagsy
Yes it's all very tedious when the thread goes off topic in a shitty/
hostile fashion.
I stop reading pretty much immediately.
It's unusual for me to have picked up on this one.
Don't leave dude, everything goes in cycles, it'll pass.
You still up for that pint in Cardiff? :o)
H.
--
Huw Davies
(Official corporate hippy)
h...@ebme.co.uk
http://ww.ebme.co.uk
mikedean
> personally AFTER he apologises to the group I'll do just exactly what I
> please. And what god-given right do you think *you* have to dictate
> otherwise?
>
> Do you think it worries me whether you visit my site or not?
> .... dream on!
> --
admit a 'poor' posting initially, and have since made my peace so to speak.
Show me where, *anywhere*, I have abused you since I apologised. All I have
done is ask you, repeatedly, for some substantive evidence to back up your
theories. If you think calling you a coward counts as "insulting" you, what
do you consider your accusations against me as? On second thoughts please
dont bother; everyone else has apparently had enough of this futile
bickering.
--
Mike Dean
www.TheMinorSite.co.uk
Dave
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:46:40 +0100, "david smith"
> <sa...@faspaklondon.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >(all snipped and very little read ( heard it all before))
>
> <rotten egg>
>
> Is David clairvoyant or was the above a penetratingly accurate
> satire on the type of post ("go away, newbie, this ng is reserved
> for a clique of contemptuous, world-weary professionals") to
> which I was referring? Either way, I'm impressed.
I've got crystal balls, that's why I walk funny and I'll have you know that
I'm bordering on a notsonewbie and proud of it.
Dave
umaremasu
>
> "Bagsy" <ne...@theedgeofpanic.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8s5aav$2c9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > The argument about top-posting for instance: If it's been suggested
> that
> > somebody post at the bottom of a reply, and that person refuses to do
so,
> > why not simply leave it at that and stop responding to them? >
<another large snip>
On the subject of things that drive people mad, John, No offence intended
here, but can you please start trimming your posts? There is no need to
include 100% of the post you are replying to, especially when you tend to be
a "wordy" person anyway, not given to short posts.
This goes for a few others too, I have just spent ages going thro this
thread (been otherwise occupied for a few days) and found trying to scroll
down to replies, increasingly irritating. There seems to be a growing habit
of just lazily tagging a reply at the end...
--
umaremasu
http://www.umaremasu.co.uk
http://www.ahitchcock.freeserve.co.uk
"No bird soars too high, if he soars with his own wings"
John Ryan
"umaremasu" <umare...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8s9e8d$v0s$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "John Ryan" <jo...@bside90.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8s5dlf$5v7$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Bagsy" <ne...@theedgeofpanic.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:8s5aav$2c9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> <large snip>
>
> here, but can you please start trimming your posts? There is no need to
> include 100% of the post you are replying to, especially when you tend to
be
> a "wordy" person anyway, not given to short posts.
> This goes for a few others too, I have just spent ages going thro this
> thread (been otherwise occupied for a few days) and found trying to scroll
> down to replies, increasingly irritating. There seems to be a growing
habit
> of just lazily tagging a reply at the end...
>
Fair point Um, was going through a stage of cutting and pasting, but when
replying with emotions on full, I got lazy, will bear you and others in mind
in future Um, no offence taken.
martin thomson
news:SJ4H8QR9...@signpost-design.co.uk...
> In <8s6kps$j80$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Ian Bennett
> <I...@bennywin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> >
<snip>
> clueless and those who have [at least] some knowledge and are willing to
> learn - I would also point out that I personally have garnered a lot of
> information from this newsgroup and I suspect many other people have
> done so as well even if they have not contributed to a thread.
>
I don't usually feel qualified enough to comment on most of the threads in
this ng - I actually have trouble understanding some of them! - but I had to
add my 2p worth.
Peter's "unwritten rules" post was, I'm sure, written with his tongue very
firmly in his cheek, and I for one had a chuckle. He did hit very close to
home on more than one occasion, which may upset some folk, but if you can't
have a giggle at yourself, then the world's a sorry old place.
I have been reading this ng (is that called 'lurking'?) for some 6 or 7
months now, after I put my first site up for criticism. It was made using
FPE, so it duly got what it deserved. I then decided to try to learn some
HTML, using the posts in here as a starting point, so I totally agree with
Pedt's paragraph above. There are a lot of tossers around in every NG, this
one included, but there are a lot of tossers around everywhere. I feel they
should either be ignored (preferred option) or asked not to come back. If
they do, ignore them. They *will* go away when no-one talks to them.
What I feel **very** strongly about is the way the regulars appear recently
to be turning against each other in the way they think we should deal with
various things. I may be wrong, but I sense there are friendships being
broken up here, and that's just not right! We are all (well mostly!) adult,
so surely we can agree to disagree over things.
Please don't let some pains-in-the-you-know-where split up your friendships.
Sorry to rant, but it's sad, you know?
--
Great Photography on-line at
www.martin-thomson.co.uk
procrastination nation
"Search Engine World UK" <in...@searchengineworld.co.uk> wrote in
message
[snip]
> > > Some of the unwritten rules of this newsgroup:
> > <snip some valid points!>
> <snip>
>
> >Tony Morgan is a Perfect Being.
>
> Peter, that should be Search Engine World UK. ;)
>
>
Thank God, someone with a sense of humour...
Chwith
huw...@boonsuwan.freeserve.co.uk said...
> <snip>
>
>
> You still up for that pint in Cardiff? :o)
<Sits up suddenly and takes notice> Did someone mention a pint?
Where? When? Can anyone join in? <g> </susatn>
--
Fran
Mae Cymoedd deulu yn chwith dda