Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?
$Zero
in a clunky non-google-groups comment thread attached to the following
"official blog" entry:
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com/2007/07/drag-and-drop.html
Alan posted the following blog comment:
============================
Sour Grapes said...
Zero: you were never blocked.
You asked a question and I gave you an answer.
============================
...
and a few clunkily threaded comments later, while quoting moi, Alan
posted:
============================
Sour Grapes said..
"so you can delete unwanted comments, whoopty do. actually, as the
group owner, i can probably delete any comment i want as well."
I doubt it. Why don't you try ... oh, that's right.
Your "megablog" only has one comment.
"so, no Blogger advantage there."
Bullshit.
"OTOH, obviously the comment threading and quoting in megablog is a
huge plus for the blogger's blog."
Except if you only have one comment. I still don't see how threading
is of the least importance. Let's ask the readers here, who are mostly
bloggers themselves: do you all miss threading in your comments?
"so there you have it, i win the ongoing argument yet again."
WTF do you mean, there you have it? There you have what? You've shown
fuck-all.
"chalk another one up for self-proclaimed creative genius."
You're a clown. Still at least it's proclaimed by someone else.
Everyone else.
============================
...
and my blocked response to this utter bullshit?
============================
Sour Grapes says: <b><i>Your "megablog" only has one comment.</i></b>
LOL.
yes, my megablog has only one comment.
and apparently it only has three readers (even though it has been
exposed to a high-traffic usenet newsgroup for over three months).
not to mention also being exposed to your own "high-traffic"
<B>"blog"</b> -- one that doesn't dare venture even half a step
"outside-of-the-box" before being laughed backed into lockstep
conformance by the dude whom you're currently "mocking" who simply
noted that eliminating the titles of your blog offerings would be a
really stupid idea.
an idea so stupid that i even made hilarious fun of it in its own
stand-alone megablog thread entitled:
<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/
2b0a9a6a6f5a8703">ditch the content,<br>keep the titles!</a>
ditch the content, keep the titles!
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/2b0a9a6a6f5a8703
anyway, obviously, the irony of all of that is so rich it's not even
funny.
indeed, it goes well beyond being merely "funny".
hee hee.
again, as you've so journalistically noted here, apparently, despite a
rather large exposure to many many people, megablog has only three
readers:
myself, you, and a self-proclaimed schizophrenic.
is that hilarious or what?
see?
that's why i get paid the big bucks.
yikes.
...
Sour Grapes says: <b><i>You're a clown.</i></b>
obligatory promotional sig:
<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/topics">megablog's</
a> call for comments <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/
msg/9f860076b97de170">beta test</a>
============================
except, guess what?
i'm yet again blocked from commenting on Alan's blog.
i rest my case.
as if that matters.
hee hee.
(P)ossibility isn't (P)lausibility -- Joshua (P) Hill
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/5c4959a10f5d874c
megablog beta test -- call for blog comments
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/9f860076b97de170
"It's most frightfully dark...
one can hardly make it out at all."
Art for Money's Sake (a good nose for Quality)
Re: Money -- wikipedia find of the day -- Part II e (augmented)
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/9d8f8fd13cfe723d
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?
>
>in a clunky non-google-groups comment thread attached to the following
>"official blog" entry:
>
> http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com/2007/07/drag-and-drop.html
If you have a true WYSIWYG editor in your Google Groups, you can
drag and drop links and tags.
You do need to have more then one browser window open at the same
time to drag the link URL between the windows. In other words, you
have to have a window open to your post and one open to the place
you wish to point. Highlight the browser address bar that has the
URL. Then, drag it down to the other browser window on the task bar
until the old window opens. Then, without letting the mouse button
go, you drag the link up to where you want to place it. Drop it into
the editor and you're set. Try it.
--
Ray
Towse
> Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?
>
> in a clunky non-google-groups comment thread attached to the following
> "official blog" entry:
>
>
> http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com/2007/07/drag-and-drop.html
Shilling for your blog, $Zero, might be effective if there were anything
passing interesting once someone got there.
Note: "were"
(The folks who know the difference between "were" and "was" can explain
what all that means...)
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
>
> > Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?
>
> > in a clunky non-google-groups comment thread attached to the following
> > "official blog" entry:
>
> > http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com/2007/07/drag-and-drop.html
>
> Shilling for your blog, $Zero,
shilling? like the three months i've had a sig link like yours?
i've only recently brought up the unbelievable fact that i've only
received a single comment on morfe than 150 entries.
my other blogs got WAYYY more than THAT with far less interesting
stuff, and no where near as many entires.
i got hundreds of comments with a couple dozen entires compared to one
comment on over 150 entires.
why?
do the math.
doesn't pass the sniff test.
especially since i'm a master at building interest with my sig titles.
and people here will make a wisecrack comment on just about anything
-- even clueless newbies get more respect than megablog.
why?
there's several bullshit "possibilities", would you like a list?
anyway, didn't you read my favor asking post about helping ,me with my
beta test?
is there no common courtesy goodwill towards me left here from
ANYBODY?
what the hell did i do to deserve that level of disrespect?
nothing, that's what.
c'mon now.
i want to test a few things with my megablog project, is it such a big
favor to ask for a mercy comment from somebody here?
or are you all so concerned that i just might be on to something new
and innovative and fresh so you don't want me to succeed at it? WTF?
> Shilling for your blog, $Zero, might be effective if there were anything
> passing interesting once someone got there.
there is, Sal.
that's not a plausible reason.
my "stand-alone" posts here in mw are always overflowing with
responses.
it's the same me.
same level of quality -- well actually, my megablog posts are a bit
higher in quality.
so, try again.
besides, i get the impression from several things i've read here and
elsewhere that "you people" are reading megablog -- it comes out in
ideas being expressed "verbatim" in many cases, so... that's yet
another indication that it's not for a lck of interesting stuff --
people are reading it, they're just bizarrely not commenting on it in
megablog.
why?
> Note: "were"
grammar lame?
what exactly are you trying to imply?
i can't seem to parse just now.
> (The folks who know the difference between "were" and "was" can explain
> what all that means...)
but _you_ can't?
or you don't "want to" for some bizarre convoluted reasoning?
do you see it as some sort of enablement?
if i used "regular" Blogger tools you'd jump right in like before?
i'm thinking and operatimng too far out-of-the-"bloging paradigm"-box
for everyone here except Pies? yikes.
or, do you fear me, Sal? are you a ParaSchitz?
what the fuck.
even Pies doesn't fear me, FFS.
so, has all of the totally unjustified malicious slander against me
(over all of the years of my freakishly diffucult and unusual
struggles) -- has the ill will effort against moi been so successful
over the years that people actually believe all of the crybaby vicious
spin now?
yikes.
so clue me in.
WTF.
-$Zero...
Dragged and Droped -- Can Google Groups do that?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/feb566275ad2293b
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> instead replied:
buzz off, liar.
you addressed nothing in my post.
your senseless rambling is just more of your usual time-wasting
sadism.
go join Josh in his tub.
it'll be a twofer.
and will be rid of two dishonest twisting liars.
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/feb566275ad2293b
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Jul 9, 1:29?am, Ray Haddad <rhad...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>
>> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>
>> >Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?
>>
>> >in a clunky non-google-groups comment thread attached to the following
>> >"official blog" entry:
>>
>> > http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com/2007/07/drag-and-drop.html
>>
>> If you have a true WYSIWYG editor in your Google Groups, you can
>> drag and drop links and tags.
>>
>> You do need to have more then one browser window open at the same
>> time to drag the link URL between the windows. In other words, you
>> have to have a window open to your post and one open to the place
>> you wish to point. Highlight the browser address bar that has the
>> URL. Then, drag it down to the other browser window on the task bar
>> until the old window opens. Then, without letting the mouse button
>> go, you drag the link up to where you want to place it. Drop it into
>> the editor and you're set. Try it.
>
>buzz off, liar.
>
>you addressed nothing in my post.
>
>your senseless rambling is just more of your usual time-wasting
>sadism.
>
>go join Josh in his tub.
>
>it'll be a twofer.
>
>and will be rid of two dishonest twisting liars.
I addressed everything you needed to know about Drag and Drop
techniques. Perhaps you need to ask a question you really need
answered instead of asking one you don't. Just an idea for you. Be
creative, if you can.
--
Ray
$Zero
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:17:59 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
i didn't ask any moronic questions about Drag and Drop techniques.
i know everything i need to know about Dragging and Dropping "stuff".
> Perhaps you need to ask a question you really need
> answered instead of asking one you don't.
you're such an "asset" to the group, doid you know that?
you know what though?
you need to ask yourself a few "key" questions Ray.
seriously.
it's a matter of life or death in its scope.
...
Boo!
...
> Just an idea for you.
i don't need any more ideas, you despicable and dishonest line-
crossing time-wasting sadistic moron.
> Be creative, if you can.
whooooooosh!
...
Boo!
...
-$Zero...
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>i didn't ask any moronic questions about Drag and Drop techniques.
>
>i know everything i need to know about Dragging and Dropping "stuff".
Then what is it you need to know? Seems like you don't even know.
--
Ray
$Zero
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:08:13 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>
> >i didn't ask any moronic questions about Drag and Drop techniques.
>
> >i know everything i need to know about Dragging and Dropping "stuff".
>
> Then what is it you need to know? Seems like you don't even know.
i know all i need to know about you, "Ray", you clueless fool.
duh.
which is why, among other things, precisely why i won't bother to
suggest that you reread the original post for substance and content.
quadruple backflip duh
(on a lost, confused, and naked kangaroo, besides) .
Alan Hope
>i'm yet again blocked from commenting on Alan's blog.
No you're not.
How many times have you been "blocked" from using your own computer?
Dozens, I reckon.
You really need to either learn to work your own stuff or stop blaming
other people when you get it wrong yet again.
Anyone who visits Grapes 2.0 will see two comments from you there now.
Explain how that shows you're blocked?
As for the rest of your post, give it a fucking rest, okay? You're
outjerking yourself. Which takes a bit of doing. Nobody's afraid of
your innovative thinking, because it's made you the loser you are.
Nobody's trying to sabotage your blog. They're staying away because
it's dull as fuck, more of the same shit you give away free in here.
If you want visitors and comments from visitors, you have to give them
something that impresses them. We already know how you impress
yourself. That's what's got you in the state you're in.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >i'm yet again blocked from commenting on Alan's blog.
>
> No you're not.
no comment.
> How many times have you been "blocked" from using your own computer?
> Dozens, I reckon.
ooo, now you're catching on.
quite the "journalist" you are.
but when are you gonna put on that thinking cap, huh?
the big one, not the one that leaves a mark.
> You really need to either learn to work your own stuff or stop blaming
> other people when you get it wrong yet again.
hey, thanks for the advice.
mind if we skip the ceremonial gratuities?
> Anyone who visits Grapes 2.0 will see two comments from you there now.
what makes you think that, "genius"?
> Explain how that shows you're blocked?
no comment necessary on the idiotic question.
> As for the rest of your post, give it a fucking rest, okay?
here's a hanky.
but thanks for your fifty+ line Joshua in its place.
> You're outjerking yourself.
uh huh.
which is why you snipped it all, naturally.
nice of you to craft this bag of bull in its place, though.
you're such a fair and generous and honest guy, anyone ever tell you
that?
like, maybe "Ray"?
> Which takes a bit of doing.
indeed.
> Nobody's afraid of your innovative thinking,
you are, mr. Blogger-is-for-blogging.
> because it's made you the loser you are.
in a twisted, unfair, unjust way, yes.
> Nobody's trying to sabotage your blog.
prove it.
give me a "mercy" comment.
what's the fuss?
> They're staying away because it's dull as fuck,
how would you know, genius?
> more of the same shit you give away free in here.
yes. much much more.
and yet here you are, innit.
line by line.
> If you want visitors and comments from visitors,
is that so much to ask?
> you have to give them something that impresses them.
they'd need to see it first, innit.
> you have to give them something that impresses them.
because your Sour Grapes drippings are so much more impressive.
yikes.
you have quite the opinion about your blogging self, huh?
cluetime:
you're a far more interesting debator than you are a blogger.
(in the interest of honesty, mind you).
although, you certainly have improved vastly from those first several
embarrassing posts on Sour Grapes 1.0.
there's a good reason that you've never started very many long-running
threads in misc.writing, Alan.
let alone short-running threads. duh.
we won't even go there innit.
google is your friend.
> We already know how you impress yourself.
sometimes i actually do, yes.
> That's what's got you in the state you're in.
nope.
people like "Ray" and his time-wasting malicious tampering ilk have
gotten me into the state i'm in.
duh.
-$Zero...
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Jul 9, 5:00?am, Ray Haddad <rhad...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:08:13 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>
>> >i didn't ask any moronic questions about Drag and Drop techniques.
>>
>> >i know everything i need to know about Dragging and Dropping "stuff".
>>
>> Then what is it you need to know? Seems like you don't even know.
>
>i know all i need to know about you, "Ray", you clueless fool.
>
>duh.
>
>which is why, among other things, precisely why i won't bother to
>suggest that you reread the original post for substance and content.
>
>quadruple backflip duh
>(on a lost, confused, and naked kangaroo, besides) .
There's nothing in your original question to suggest that you were
looking for something other than instructions about how to drag and
drop in Google Groups, Xero.
Face it. You asked a bogus question. You'll get over it.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>people like "Ray" and his time-wasting malicious tampering ilk have
>gotten me into the state i'm in.
Tampering? Good grief. If I could do such a thing, why haven't I
simply cut you off for good?
--
Ray
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> instead replied:
> >> >i didn't ask any moronic questions about Drag and Drop techniques.
>
> >> >i know everything i need to know about Dragging and Dropping "stuff".
>
> >> Then what is it you need to know? Seems like you don't even know.
>
> >i know all i need to know about you, "Ray", you clueless fool.
>
> >duh.
>
> >which is why, among other things, precisely why i won't bother to
> >suggest that you reread the original post for substance and content.
>
> >quadruple backflip duh
> >(on a lost, confused, and naked kangaroo, besides) .
>
> There's nothing in your original question to suggest that you were
> looking for something other than instructions about how to drag and
> drop in Google Groups, Xero.
>
> Face it. You asked a bogus question. You'll get over it.
i didn't ask any questions at all, "Ray", as you well and truly know.
anyway, i made a very special megablog just for you.
The Day Your Universe Changed -- Presto!
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f2d51861e54b6464
enjoy!
$Zero
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 03:24:18 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>
> >people like "Ray" and his time-wasting malicious tampering ilk have
> >gotten me into the state i'm in.
>
> Tampering?
time-wasting malicious tampering.
because you and your foolishly proud ilk are incapable of doing
anything creative and useful and harmless.
so fucking with people who can is how you attempt to get your sick
jollies.
spit.
> Good grief.
no. bad grief.
> If I could do such a thing, why haven't
> I simply cut you off for good?
does sick jollies ring a bell?
so, how IS that major fucking lesson learning coming along, anyway?
The Day Your Universe Changed -- Presto!
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f2d51861e54b6464
one would hope that it's progressing a bit better than your FOIA
request, huh?
...
Alan Hope
>On Jul 9, 5:45?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >i'm yet again blocked from commenting on Alan's blog.
>> No you're not.
>no comment.
On the contrary. You left two comments. Interesting use of the word
"blocked".
>> How many times have you been "blocked" from using your own computer?
>> Dozens, I reckon.
>ooo, now you're catching on.
>quite the "journalist" you are.
>but when are you gonna put on that thinking cap, huh?
>the big one, not the one that leaves a mark.
Any time you forget how to switch the thing on, you blame the Sooper
Sekrit Cabal of Zero-haters. Just remind me again, would you, why
anyone would bother to shut you up?
>> You really need to either learn to work your own stuff or stop blaming
>> other people when you get it wrong yet again.
>hey, thanks for the advice.
>mind if we skip the ceremonial gratuities?
>> Anyone who visits Grapes 2.0 will see two comments from you there now.
>what makes you think that, "genius"?
Where do you think they might go?
>> Explain how that shows you're blocked?
>no comment necessary on the idiotic question.
No answer, then.
>> As for the rest of your post, give it a fucking rest, okay?
>here's a hanky.
>but thanks for your fifty+ line Joshua in its place.
What are you wittering about?
>> You're outjerking yourself.
>uh huh.
>which is why you snipped it all, naturally.
>nice of you to craft this bag of bull in its place, though.
>you're such a fair and generous and honest guy, anyone ever tell you
>that?
>like, maybe "Ray"?
You're a bore. There's your whole problem right there. You've always
been a bore, so you think it's expected of you.
>> Which takes a bit of doing.
>indeed.
>> Nobody's afraid of your innovative thinking,
>you are, mr. Blogger-is-for-blogging.
Oh please. You're a tiresome wacko. If you had an ounce more
entrepreneurial spirit you'd be gathering soft drinks cans.
>> because it's made you the loser you are.
>in a twisted, unfair, unjust way, yes.
It's a fate of your own making.
>> Nobody's trying to sabotage your blog.
>prove it.
>give me a "mercy" comment.
Why? Have you no pride?
>what's the fuss?
>> They're staying away because it's dull as fuck,
>how would you know, genius?
I know you well enough.
>> more of the same shit you give away free in here.
>yes. much much more.
>and yet here you are, innit.
>line by line.
Yawn.
>> If you want visitors and comments from visitors,
>is that so much to ask?
You don't get it by asking.
>> you have to give them something that impresses them.
>they'd need to see it first, innit.
>> you have to give them something that impresses them.
>because your Sour Grapes drippings are so much more impressive.
Not so much. Do you not realise what "a little red blog" means?
>yikes.
I don't think you should be looking down your nose at anyone, frankly.
I'm not the one begging abjectly for people to leave comments.
>you have quite the opinion about your blogging self, huh?
>cluetime:
>you're a far more interesting debator than you are a blogger.
>(in the interest of honesty, mind you).
>although, you certainly have improved vastly from those first several
>embarrassing posts on Sour Grapes 1.0.
Whatever.
>there's a good reason that you've never started very many long-running
>threads in misc.writing, Alan.
I never saw the reason why people think starting threads is of itself
a talent. Bill Palmer starts threads everywhere he goes. You start
sometimes twenty in a day. You have in common that you're both
self-obsessed loons who couldn't care less what anyone else has to say
-- the very antithesis of discussion.
>let alone short-running threads. duh.
>we won't even go there innit.
>google is your friend.
Is it your impression that this line-break jazz is something
stylistic? It's actually really annoying.
>> We already know how you impress yourself.
>sometimes i actually do, yes.
>> That's what's got you in the state you're in.
>nope.
>people like "Ray" and his time-wasting malicious tampering ilk have
>gotten me into the state i'm in.
Oh right, Ray is tampering with your ... whatever. Ray wasn't even
around when I first encountered you, Zero, and you were precisely the
same paranoid loser back then. Someone else must be to blame.
Oh yeah that's right. You are.
>duh.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
Whoever has it in for Zero seems to prefer the Death of a Thousand
Cuts.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Josh Hill
>$Zero wrote:
>> Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?
>>
>> in a clunky non-google-groups comment thread attached to the following
>> "official blog" entry:
>>
>>
>> http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com/2007/07/drag-and-drop.html
>
>Shilling for your blog, $Zero, might be effective if there were anything
>passing interesting once someone got there.
>
>Note: "were"
>
>(The folks who know the difference between "were" and "was" can explain
>what all that means...)
Well, that's easy. You have this /were/wolf, see, and before the moon
came out he /was/ a man.
--
Josh
"Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want
to rush to Redmond, Washington and rip somebody's liver out."
- Stephen Manes
Josh Hill
"go join Josh in his tub.
"it'll be a twofer.
"and will be rid of two dishonest twisting liars."
Next . . .
Josh Hill
>On Jul 9, 5:45?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> Nobody's afraid of your innovative thinking,
>
>you are, mr. Blogger-is-for-blogging.
>
>> because it's made you the loser you are.
>
>in a twisted, unfair, unjust way, yes.
A. Life isn't fair
B. That didn't stop Mozart (couldn't get a job), Einstein (had to work
at the patent office, forced into exile by the Nazis), Armstrong
(cheated and driven to suicide by Sarnoff), Bach (thrown in jail and
treated like shit for his dedication to his craft), Melville (forced
to take a job at the custom's house), Joyce (unable to get his works
published), Freud (castigated for examining sexuality and forced into
exile by the Nazis), Wilde (thrown in jail), Farnsworth (cheated by
Sarnoff), Beethoven (reduced to poverty), Shakespeare (insulted for
being an uneducated actor), the architect of St. Basil's Cathedral
(had his eyes put out so he'd never build a more beautiful one), or
the Sex Pistols (EMI! EMI!).
C. So stop whining. Genuine creativity is punishable, yes, but it is
not necessarily stopped.
D. And for God's sake, get real. Creativity is something Auntie likes:
ooh, such a darling picture. When you become so obsessed with
impractical scheming that you start touting the use of an
impractically uneconomical power source over an economical one
because, er, costs can be fixed and you can work this or that deal,
you're history.
>> Nobody's trying to sabotage your blog.
>
>prove it.
Oh my god. Lesson Four for the Paranoiac (is that what we're up to?):
Nefarious plots must be proved, not disproved.
I found Alan's blog most amusing -- which is quite an achievement,
since from what I've seen most blogs are about as interesting as
counting up the "p's" and "i's" in the phone book.
Alan's longer posts are beautifully written and while I don't always
agree with him they are characterized by erudition and rare
intelligence. Note for example his most recent posts on art. The depth
of Alan's understanding may not be apparent to those who haven't
themselves taken the time to think deeply on the subject, and that
reduces the chance that the post will draw many responses. Hell, I've
put off responding myself because it requires more attention than the
brain dead flame stuff, and when I'm harried and tired I find it a lot
easier to call Sylvia a parrot than to discuss the relationship
between parallel and serial cognition.
Towse
> On Jul 9, 2:27?am, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
>> $Zero wrote:
>>
>>> Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?
>>> in a clunky non-google-groups comment thread attached to the following
>>> "official blog" entry:
>>> http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com/2007/07/drag-and-drop.html
>> Shilling for your blog, $Zero,
>
> shilling? like the three months i've had a sig link like yours?
My sig link points to something useful, a link collection not a blog. I
seldom post a link to my very beautiful, full of photos and links and
neat-o stuff blog at <http://www.towse.com/blogger/blog.htm>. I
certainly don't post 158-line pleas to misc.writing asking for readers
and comments.
"call for blog comments" sheesh.
> i've only recently brought up the unbelievable fact that i've only
> received a single comment on morfe than 150 entries.
>
> my other blogs got WAYYY more than THAT with far less interesting
> stuff, and no where near as many entires.
>
> i got hundreds of comments with a couple dozen entires compared to one
> comment on over 150 entires.
>
> why?
>
> do the math.
>
> doesn't pass the sniff test.
>
> especially since i'm a master at building interest with my sig titles.
>
> and people here will make a wisecrack comment on just about anything
> -- even clueless newbies get more respect than megablog.
>
> why?
>
> there's several bullshit "possibilities", would you like a list?
>
> anyway, didn't you read my favor asking post about helping ,me with my
> beta test?
>
> is there no common courtesy goodwill towards me left here from
> ANYBODY?
>
> what the hell did i do to deserve that level of disrespect?
>
> nothing, that's what.
>
> c'mon now.
>
> i want to test a few things with my megablog project, is it such a big
> favor to ask for a mercy comment from somebody here?
Hassle folks enough and whine enough and grow a certain rep and then ask
for mercy comments. Sure, why not.
Years back I advised you about reaping and sowing. We all (well, a few
of us may) remember where that got me.
> or are you all so concerned that i just might be on to something new
> and innovative and fresh so you don't want me to succeed at it? WTF?
I can't speak for others, but I don't care. I can't be bothered to lift
my pinkies off the table to post a comment to your blog so that you can
"test" whether any comments are being posted.
I went and looked at your "blog" (you do know what a blog is, don't
you?) and it was a confusing mishmash of stupid mush. Nothing there to
make me return or to comment. But wait, I did return after you started
whining here. It's still a confusing mishmash of mush.
>> Shilling for your blog, $Zero, might be effective if there were anything
>> passing interesting once someone got there.
>
> there is, Sal.
>
> that's not a plausible reason.
>
> my "stand-alone" posts here in mw are always overflowing with
> responses.
>
> it's the same me.
>
> same level of quality -- well actually, my megablog posts are a bit
> higher in quality.
>
> so, try again.
People read your posts here, those that do, because they're already
here. You need something else to get people to read your ramblings on a
Googja "blog" and ... what you write there just doesn't grab me.
Probably doesn't grab anyone else.
> besides, i get the impression from several things i've read here and
> elsewhere that "you people" are reading megablog -- it comes out in
> ideas being expressed "verbatim" in many cases, so... that's yet
> another indication that it's not for a lck of interesting stuff --
> people are reading it, they're just bizarrely not commenting on it in
> megablog.
>
> why?
Because it's weird, it's a confusing setup, it's full of your ramblings
and drawn out stuff. Back and forthing. Re-quoting of this and that. A
lot of rehashing of misc.writing posts. Why should anyone comment unless
they're intrigued? People go almost anywhere once, maybe. Will they be
back? Will they comment?
>> Note: "were"
>
> grammar lame?
>
> what exactly are you trying to imply?
"were" and "was," $Zero. Did you ever learn basic grammar?
> i can't seem to parse just now.
>
>> (The folks who know the difference between "were" and "was" can explain
>> what all that means...)
>
> but _you_ can't?
>
> or you don't "want to" for some bizarre convoluted reasoning?
>
> do you see it as some sort of enablement?
Your "blog" isn't interesting, $Zero, except in a how-weird
lookit-that-bug-on-a-pin sort of way.
Would I keep blogging if I got no comments, if I couldn't track who was
coming to the blog (and not commenting) and why? Probably. The blog is
for my amuse, a way of capturing what intrigues me. Why don't you just
let your "blog" be your capture mechanism and stop being so weirded out
by your perceived (and probably actual) lack of interest, the lack of
comments.
Can you track how many people have shown up to read your "blog" and from
where and why, whether directly or through searches? If not, perhaps
Googja isn't all you've cracked it up to be as a "blog" resource.
I get maybe one comment for every sixty people who have hit the blog. So?
> if i used "regular" Blogger tools you'd jump right in like before?
Jump right in like before? Like before what?
> i'm thinking and operatimng too far out-of-the-"bloging paradigm"-box
> for everyone here except Pies? yikes.
>
> or, do you fear me, Sal? are you a ParaSchitz?
>
> what the fuck.
>
> even Pies doesn't fear me, FFS.
>
> so, has all of the totally unjustified malicious slander against me
> (over all of the years of my freakishly diffucult and unusual
> struggles) -- has the ill will effort against moi been so successful
> over the years that people actually believe all of the crybaby vicious
> spin now?
>
> yikes.
>
> so clue me in.
>
> WTF.
It's boring, $Zero. Confusing setup. Mishmash of crap and ramblings and
reposts of misc.writing threads that I might not have read in the first
place and certainly wouldn't read a second time through. The whole waste
of bits is just not my cup o'tea.
You have Piet and two incarnations of yourself as members and Piet
responded to your "one of the greatest things about sliced bread is..."
post.
Whoo hoo.
Time is finite. Give people a =reason= to spend there time with your
"blog," if it means that much to you. But, as far as I know you, you
would consider writing anything but what you're already writing as
selling out for the audience.
Make your choice: a "blog" with content you like or an audience.
Oh, and stop whining about your lack of comments. Write something worth
commenting on.
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Jul 9, 8:17?am, Ray Haddad <rhad...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>
>> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>
>> >> >i didn't ask any moronic questions about Drag and Drop techniques.
>>
>> >> >i know everything i need to know about Dragging and Dropping "stuff".
>>
>> >> Then what is it you need to know? Seems like you don't even know.
>>
>> >i know all i need to know about you, "Ray", you clueless fool.
>>
>> >duh.
>>
>> >which is why, among other things, precisely why i won't bother to
>> >suggest that you reread the original post for substance and content.
>>
>> >quadruple backflip duh
>> >(on a lost, confused, and naked kangaroo, besides) .
>>
>> There's nothing in your original question to suggest that you were
>> looking for something other than instructions about how to drag and
>> drop in Google Groups, Xero.
>>
>> Face it. You asked a bogus question. You'll get over it.
>
>i didn't ask any questions at all, "Ray", as you well and truly know.
Yes you did. Look in the subject line. Up there. See it? Big as
life.
>anyway, i made a very special megablog just for you.
You made a megablog? What on earth are you referring to? All you did
was put a link there instead of here. That's not even making a blog
entry. Do you even know the purpose and function of a blog? Do you
know that the word 'blog' is short for Web Log, which is a personal
(public or private) writing space on the Word Wide Web?
> The Day Your Universe Changed -- Presto!
> http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f2d51861e54b6464
>
>enjoy!
It's most alarming that you required Burke to tell you this before
you understood it. For those who can't be bothered to go to Xero's
megablog, here's what the genius just found out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELGr0pTruc
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
It's all right. He, Sloan and Sylvia are in their own tub.
No pictures please. I'm begging you. No pictures.
--
Ray
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 2:27?am, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero wrote:
>
> >>> Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?
> >>> in a clunky non-google-groups comment thread attached to the following
> >>> "official blog" entry:
> >>> http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com/2007/07/drag-and-drop.html
> >> Shilling for your blog, $Zero,
>
> > shilling? like the three months i've had a sig link like yours?
>
> My sig link points to something useful, a link collection not a blog. I
> seldom post a link to my very beautiful, full of photos and links and
> neat-o stuff blog at <http://www.towse.com/blogger/blog.htm>. I
> certainly don't post 158-line pleas to misc.writing asking for readers
> and comments.
>
> "call for blog comments" sheesh.
there's a reason for that, Sal.
duh.
> > i've only recently brought up the unbelievable fact that i've only
> > received a single comment on morfe than 150 entries.
>
> > my other blogs got WAYYY more than THAT with far less interesting
> > stuff, and no where near as many entires.
>
> > i got hundreds of comments with a couple dozen entires compared to one
> > comment on over 150 entires.
>
> > why?
>
> > do the math.
>
> > doesn't pass the sniff test.
>
> > especially since i'm a master at building interest with my sig titles.
>
> > and people here will make a wisecrack comment on just about anything
> > -- even clueless newbies get more respect than megablog.
>
> > why?
>
> > there's several bullshit "possibilities", would you like a list?
>
> > anyway, didn't you read my favor asking post about helping ,me with my
> > beta test?
>
> > is there no common courtesy goodwill towards me left here from
> > ANYBODY?
>
> > what the hell did i do to deserve that level of disrespect?
>
> > nothing, that's what.
>
> > c'mon now.
>
> > i want to test a few things with my megablog project, is it such a big
> > favor to ask for a mercy comment from somebody here?
>
> Hassle folks enough and whine enough and grow a certain rep
or have one grown for you in the pussy backchannel.
duh.
> and then ask for mercy comments.
i wasn't asking asking for mercy comments, Sal.
i was mocking you non-commentors for being such overly serious fuddle-
duddies.
yikes.
IOW: whoa.
whooooooosh galore.
> Sure, why not.
because i don't suffer from brainwashed foolsih pride.
it's not an ego thing for me.
> Years back I advised you about reaping and sowing.
your advice is ever such.
trouble is, you haven't taken that very advice yourself.
your dishonesty in this thread will not be rewarded.
someday, someway, it'll occur to you how wrong you were.
your bullshit judgments will haunt you.
not about just me, mind you.
i'm pretty sure you're probaly the same way with everyone.
hey, we all have our faults.
you're certainly no exception.
so don't feel so bad.
but you might want to at least give it more caring thought.
a little more love and a little less dishonest bullshit nick-picking,
IOW.
>We all (well, a few of us may) remember where that got me.
drama queen.
did you steal Josh's crown while he was fruitlessly struggling and
weeping trying to come up with a few positive Ray anecdotes?
> > or are you all so concerned that i just might be on to something new
> > and innovative and fresh so you don't want me to succeed at it? WTF?
>
> I can't speak for others, but I don't care.
it shows.
> I can't be bothered to lift
> my pinkies off the table to post a comment to your blog so that you can
> "test" whether any comments are being posted.
coward.
and petty too.
no newsflash there.
> I went and looked at your "blog" (you do know what a blog is, don't
> you?)
yeah.
you do know what a megablog is, don't you?
> and it was a confusing mishmash of stupid mush.
bullshit.
but feel free to comment on megablog about what was so confusing.
pick a post and make yyour case, THERE.
not here.
do it there where it would have a chance of doing even the least bit
of good instead of venting your petty stuff here where nobody cares.
like, duh.
see how transparent you are?
> Nothing there to
> make me return or to comment.
oh.
one look was all it took.
megablog doomed forever hence.
how indicative of your petty small and narrow mind.
> But wait, I did return after you started whining here.
but you couldn't get your "pinkies" to whine in the megablog itself,
knowing that any such whines would be totally welcomed.
does "petty" ring a bell?
> It's still a confusing mishmash of mush.
you're way too easily confused.
i mean, just look at the state you're in right now as i point out your
silly foolish pettiness line by line.
> >> Shilling for your blog, $Zero, might be effective if there were anything
> >> passing interesting once someone got there.
>
> > there is, Sal.
>
> > that's not a plausible reason.
>
> > my "stand-alone" posts here in mw are always overflowing with
> > responses.
>
> > it's the same me.
>
> > same level of quality -- well actually, my megablog posts are a bit
> > higher in quality.
>
> > so, try again.
>
> People read your posts here, those that do,
who doesn't? you?
LOL
> because they're already here.
next up you'll be providing milage charts.
and the cost of gas and maintenance
all that work to click a link innit.
"petty"
> You need something else to get people to read your ramblings on a
> Googja "blog"
like a bit of ass kissing perhaps?
where, your heiness?
> and ... what you write there just doesn't grab me.
it grabs you here quite a bit.
> Probably doesn't grab anyone else.
google is your "friend" obviously.
> > besides, i get the impression from several things i've read here and
> > elsewhere that "you people" are reading megablog -- it comes out in
> > ideas being expressed "verbatim" in many cases, so... that's yet
> > another indication that it's not for a lck of interesting stuff --
> > people are reading it, they're just bizarrely not commenting on it in
> > megablog.
>
> > why?
>
> Because it's weird,
yoiu're weird. seriously.
> it's a confusing setup,
cite.
FFS, you call yourself a webmaven?
and you can't figure out a google group interface?
whatever next?
The Petty Olympics?
> it's full of your ramblings and drawn out stuff.
FOITN
> Back and forthing.
yikes.
if only you'd leave a few comments there, we could have had some fun,
but..
"petty"
> Re-quoting of this and that.
Gawd.
how unforgivable is that.
i ought to retire.
> A lot of rehashing of misc.writing posts.
nowhere did that happen.
not once.
> Why should anyone comment unless they're intrigued?
just for the fuck of it?
how about just bloggers courtesy?
or to tweak tweak tweak my nose, like you're doing here because you
know that there's no justifiable reason for you to have been so
ridiculously petty.
> People go almost anywhere once, maybe.
let me guess, you're jealous that i complimented Sylvia on her
brilliantly amusing and insightful HAD 9000 satire?
is that vwhat this is all about?
> Will they be back? Will they comment?
oh my. such "issues" for them grapple with.
yikes.
> >> Note: "were"
>
> > grammar lame?
>
> > what exactly are you trying to imply?
>
> "were" and "was," $Zero. Did you ever learn basic grammar?
i have no idea.
still murky. what was your point (assuming you actually had one)
> > i can't seem to parse it just now.
>
> >> (The folks who know the difference between "were" and "was" can explain
> >> what all that means...)
>
> > but _you_ can't?
>
> > or you don't "want to" for some bizarre convoluted reasoning?
>
> > do you see it as some sort of enablement?
>
> Your "blog" isn't interesting, $Zero, except in a how-weird
> lookit-that-bug-on-a-pin sort of way.
well, see Sal, whatver you think about me personally, megablog isn't
about me.
get it?
it's a forum for bloggers.
hence the desire to have nice sensible threading.
the focus was not my ego.
but obviously, you can't say the same thing, can you?
i mean, it's all written here in black and white (and black and blue).
> Would I keep blogging if I got no comments,
so this is some sort of revenge for your failed closed loop MWM
experiment?
WAINS
> if I couldn't track who was
> coming to the blog (and not commenting) and why?
some people care about that stuff, some don't.
> Probably. The blog is
> for my amuse, a way of capturing what intrigues me.
great pictures too.
you have a good eye.
but anyway, i stopped visiting several weeks ago because it kept
locking up my computer.
> Why don't you just
> let your "blog" be your capture mechanism and stop being so weirded out
> by your perceived (and probably actual) lack of interest, the lack of
> comments.
because it's not about me, you totally unobservant pettiness junkie.
why do you think i wanted great comment threading?
duhski.
if i wanted to look in the mirror all day long i would have fired up
another blog at blogspot.
> Can you track how many people have shown up to read your "blog" and from
> where and why, whether directly or through searches?
who cares?
it's there for the people who contribute not the "silent lurker
majority".
they're welcomed, just not obsessed over.
> If not, perhaps
> Googja isn't all you've cracked it up to be as a "blog" resource.
could you be any more clueless?
> I get maybe one comment for every sixty people who have hit the blog. So?
indeed.
the irrelevance is staggering in its scope as it applies to megablog.
> > if i used "regular" Blogger tools you'd jump right in like before?
>
> Jump right in like before? Like before what?
you used to comment at my zeroisms blog, IINM.
but who can tell anymore, i'd have to check my archives because all of
the comments went poof! one day.
> > i'm thinking (and operating) too far
> > out-of-the-"blogging paradigm"-box
> > for everyone here except Pies? yikes.
>
> > or, do you fear me, Sal? are you a ParaScitz?
>
> > what the fuck.
>
> > even Pies doesn't fear me, FFS.
>
> > so, has all of the totally unjustified malicious slander against me
> > (over all of the years of my freakishly diffucult and unusual
> > struggles) -- has the ill will effort against moi been so successful
> > over the years that people actually believe all of the crybaby vicious
> > spin now?
>
> > yikes.
>
> > so clue me in.
>
> > WTF.
>
> It's boring, $Zero.
not ever.
QED.
> Confusing setup.
only for the most deprived of morons.
> Mishmash of crap and ramblings
i'll bet you scold the birds who chirp in your neighborhood.
my oh my you are picky.
> and
> reposts of misc.writing threads
never once.
that's just your weird imagination thinger going bonkers.
> that I might not have read in the first
> place and certainly wouldn't read a second time through.
yet you claim there was a rehash. fascinating logic.
BTW, you never did meet the Chase/Bradbury challenge, did you.
just snipe and run.
no surprise, given the question -- all you needed was Alan to pat you
on the back cluelessly and your urge to make yourself look less silly
were pacified.
not the first time.
won't be the last, i'd imagine.
> The whole waste of bits is just not my cup o'tea.
LOL. sure.
> You have Piet and two incarnations of yourself
because the first was bizarrely blocked.
duh.
> as members and Piet responded to your
> "one of the greatest things about sliced bread is..."
> post.
>
> Whoo hoo.
because the stuff you read is so way important and insightful that it
never taught you how to avoid being petty and have fun in life.
> Time is finite.
this is the No Shit, Sherlock moment.
"one tic per toc."
remeber how brilliant that was?
a unique imagery.
not something you're likely to find elsewhere.
> Give people a =reason= to spend there time with your
> "blog,"
should i offer just oral sex, or the whole round the world thinger?
> if it means that much to you.
translation: MWM
> But, as far as I know you, you
> would consider writing anything but what you're already writing as
> selling out for the audience.
so you'd offer both the oral sex AND the full monty?
gotchya.
> Make your choice: a "blog" with content you like or an audience.
it's a megablog, not a blog.
and you're still invited, pettiness and all.
> Oh, and stop whining about your lack of comments.
not surprisingly, you've totally missed the point of megablog.
> Write something worth commenting on.
you just wrote up a storm in that regard, one would assume.
but yoiur pettiness wouldn't permit you to post it where it would have
actually be welcomed.
go figure.
the world is such a strange and petty place.
if you were running this megablog thinger, what would you change?
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/31129e90ac0edfff
...
-$Zero...
Alan Hope
>Would I keep blogging if I got no comments, if I couldn't track who was
>coming to the blog (and not commenting) and why? Probably. The blog is
>for my amuse, a way of capturing what intrigues me.
Right. In addition to the Blogger blog, I'm using a Tumblr tumblelog
to note things that catch my eye that I don't want to do a whole blog
post on. And I mark up other blog posts of interest to my shared
items, which has a feed like any blog, though there's no input from me
other than selection. Neither of those has comments, but that's no
bar. I like the idea of using a blog as a ship's log used to be: to
record the places we sailed to and the people we encountered. To seek
out new life and new civilisations etc.
And also to report on what other captains are writing in their logs,
like you and your bikini-wax story, which I seem to have inadvertently
plagiarised three weeks later.
There are plenty of blogs, including some majors, that don't have
comments enabled. So what? If you're doing it for the right reasons it
won't matter. If you're doing it for attention or acclaim you're in
the wrong business. Much easier to troll a Usenet group, and just as
productive.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>but who can tell anymore, i'd have to check my archives because all of
>the comments went poof! one day.
Oh, yeah. Right. Blame the magician.
--
Ray
PJ
news:6ta593laj2va793ja...@4ax.com...
> Towse goes:
>
>>Would I keep blogging if I got no comments, if I couldn't track who was
>>coming to the blog (and not commenting) and why? Probably. The blog is for
>>my amuse, a way of capturing what intrigues me.
< ... >
> There are plenty of blogs, including some majors, that don't have comments
> enabled. So what? If you're doing it for the right reasons it won't
> matter. If you're doing it for attention or acclaim you're in the wrong
> business.
Yep. If I ever decide to return to blogging, which is doubtful but if I do,
I won't enable comments at all. I got to the point where one of my posts
would have 40 comments and another would have 5, and I'd fret over it,
wondering how I'd failed humanity by garnering such a measly amount of
commenting. And then there were the ubiquitous blog wars, which wore me out.
It was time to go.
~ ~
PJ
Alan Hope
>because it's not about me, you totally unobservant pettiness junkie.
>
>why do you think i wanted great comment threading?
>
>duhski.
>
>if i wanted to look in the mirror all day long i would have fired up
>another blog at blogspot.
Mate, your experiment failed. Move on.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>Alan's longer posts are beautifully written and while I don't always
>agree with him they are characterized by erudition and rare
>intelligence. Note for example his most recent posts on art. The depth
>of Alan's understanding may not be apparent to those who haven't
>themselves taken the time to think deeply on the subject, and that
>reduces the chance that the post will draw many responses.
Down, boy.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >because it's not about me, you totally unobservant pettiness junkie.
>
> >why do you think i wanted great comment threading?
>
> >duhski.
>
> >if i wanted to look in the mirror all day long i would have fired up
> >another blog at blogspot.
>
> Mate, your experiment failed.
not.
> Move on.
you'll see, genius.
but anyway, your site is "mysteriously" blocking me again.
won't let me post this:
=============
<b>I'm sick of you coming here to lie about me</b>
what "lie" are you talking about?
i was blocked from posting.
twice now.
and you deleted my other post as a joke.
so i figured you were the one blocking me.
you weren't?
someone else blocked me from your comments?
who?
=============
who else has login, Alan?
-$Zero...
never for money, always for love.
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/a9549ac2af4e8675
megablog beta test -- call for blog comments
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/9f860076b97de170
Alan Hope
>On Jul 9, 7:06?pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >because it's not about me, you totally unobservant pettiness junkie.
>> >why do you think i wanted great comment threading?
>> >duhski.
>> >if i wanted to look in the mirror all day long i would have fired up
>> >another blog at blogspot.
>> Mate, your experiment failed.
>not.
You wanted comments, you got none. Scratch one idea. As a genius,
you've doubtless got plenty more.
>> Move on.
>you'll see, genius.
>but anyway, your site is "mysteriously" blocking me again.
Get fucked, Zero. I've been blocking no-one, but I'm starting now.
Next time you're "blocked" it won't be a mystery.
>won't let me post this:
>=============
><b>I'm sick of you coming here to lie about me</b>
>what "lie" are you talking about?
>i was blocked from posting.
Liar.
>twice now.
One post was deleted to make a point. The rest is your own
incompetence.
>and you deleted my other post as a joke.
>so i figured you were the one blocking me.
>you weren't?
Nobody is blocking you, you tiresome cunt.
>someone else blocked me from your comments?
As if.
>who?
>=============
>who else has login, Alan?
Goodnight. You're blocked now. Don't bother coming back.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >On Jul 9, 7:06?pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >because it's not about me, you totally unobservant pettiness junkie.
> >> >why do you think i wanted great comment threading?
> >> >duhski.
> >> >if i wanted to look in the mirror all day long i would have fired up
> >> >another blog at blogspot.
> >> Mate, your experiment failed.
> >not.
>
> You wanted comments, you got none.
i haven't even begun to "market" the megablog concept.
i was offering some opportunities to some internet buddies i thought i
had.
i know, i know, my furture failure won't be missed by the lot of you
petty wierdos.
yikes.
you're all as twisted as "Ray" innit.
so viciously jealous of someone as penniless as moi.
holy cannoli
what a strange and petty world.
thankfully it's much much larger than mw.
(and all of the other bitter ball-breaking out there).
> Scratch one idea.
you don't scratch ideas, genius.
that's not how it works.
you tweak them.
and, if necessary, you tweak those who maliciously interfere.
> As a genius, you've doubtless got plenty more.
but, of course.
if i was a one trick pony, i'd be almost as jealous as you.
get it?
or did you get whooshed by reading it too fast?
> >> Move on.
> >you'll see, genius.
> >but anyway, your site is "mysteriously" blocking me again.
>
> Get fucked, Zero.
sorry, only one dance at a time, Alan.
> I've been blocking no-one, but I'm starting now.
predictable.
and indicative.
especially since my being blocked from posting to your site needn't
have been your doing.
but you've removed all doubt with that bit of irrational emotional
outburst.
(for those who don't have better ways to tell).
> Next time you're "blocked" it won't be a mystery.
it never was a "mystery".
some of us take getting to the truth of things seriously.
> >won't let me post this:
> >=============
> ><b>I'm sick of you coming here to lie about me</b>
> >what "lie" are you talking about?
> >i was blocked from posting.
>
> Liar.
i was blocked twice prior, and once today.
(just after posting successfully twice with the Drag This. and Drop
That. stuff.)
that's the truth.
no lie involved whatsoever.
that's "Ray"'s style. not mine.
remember?
> >twice now.
>
> One post was deleted to make a point.
yeah, the point being you're a big crybaby because you don't even know
that Google Groups threading is WAYYY better than Blogger threading.
then later, foot in mouth:
"but bloggers don't need great threading!"
puhlease.
> The rest is your own incompetence.
what incompetence could it possibly be?
two comments worked just moments prior, twist-boy.
then i rebooted the stuff and it was still blocked.
then i posted it here.
and here is your emotional outburst, right on queue.
> >and you deleted my other post as a joke.
> >so i figured you were the one blocking me.
> >you weren't?
>
> Nobody is blocking you, you tiresome cunt.
quite the journalist you are.
> >someone else blocked me from your comments?
>
> As if.
so what's your alternate explantion, that i don't know how to post a
blogger fucking comment?
your "Rayness" is stunning at this point.
> >who?
> >=============
> >who else has login, Alan?
>
> Goodnight.
you read it to the last word as usual.
[bowing]
> You're blocked now.
"now"
heh.
> Don't bother coming back.
tiny tears innit.
anyway, at least my conscience is clear.
too bad i can't get paid cash for having one of those.
(though, the peace of mnind has its advantages)
but at this point, i wonder, do you even have a working conscience?
i mean, it's certainly not about Sour Grapes 2.0 blog comments, is it?
what a sad person you are.
"get their kicks, stompin on a dream"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EmqHKu8XmA
wish me luck, anyway, k?
you'll understand if i don't reciprocate, i take it.
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/5c4959a10f5d874c
not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
Josh Hill
wrote:
Hope's posts are the addled bleatings of a man who knows in his heart
that he was destined to cut the kidneys out of prostitutes but doesn't
have the courage to handle anything sharper than a butter knife. In
his tedious rantings are to be found the dry didactic pedantries of a
cranky senile schoolteacher who has in lieu of love and friendship
been teaching the same simplistic lessons to the bored boys whom he
tries periodically to grope and fondle for so long that he has melted
into his blackboard and Bunsen burners and become a fixture of sorts,
a human cobweb to be tolerated until he dies unmourned and
unremembered or is convinced by the new reforming headmaster to retire
and weepingly wanders off to spend the remaining years alone in his
cottage puttering with plants.
Happy now?
Skipper
<usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:06:46 +0200, Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Josh Hill goes:
> >
> >>Alan's longer posts are beautifully written and while I don't always
> >>agree with him they are characterized by erudition and rare
> >>intelligence. Note for example his most recent posts on art. The depth
> >>of Alan's understanding may not be apparent to those who haven't
> >>themselves taken the time to think deeply on the subject, and that
> >>reduces the chance that the post will draw many responses.
> >
> >Down, boy.
>
> Hope's posts are the addled bleatings of a man who knows in his heart
> that he was destined to cut the kidneys out of prostitutes but doesn't
> have the courage to handle anything sharper than a butter knife. In
> his tedious rantings are to be found the dry didactic pedantries of a
> cranky senile schoolteacher who has in lieu of love and friendship
> been teaching the same simplistic lessons to the bored boys whom he
> tries periodically to grope and fondle for so long that he has melted
> into his blackboard and Bunsen burners and become a fixture of sorts,
> a human cobweb to be tolerated until he dies unmourned and
> unremembered or is convinced by the new reforming headmaster to retire
> and weepingly wanders off to spend the remaining years alone in his
> cottage puttering with plants.
>
> Happy now?
Does his wife still support him?
Alan Hope
>so what's your alternate explantion, that i don't know how to post a
>blogger fucking comment?
Yes.
Goodbye.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
boots
>I found Alan's blog most amusing -- which is quite an achievement,
>since from what I've seen most blogs are about as interesting as
>counting up the "p's" and "i's" in the phone book.
>
>Alan's longer posts are beautifully written and while I don't always
>agree with him they are characterized by erudition and rare
>intelligence. Note for example his most recent posts on art. The depth
>of Alan's understanding may not be apparent to those who haven't
>themselves taken the time to think deeply on the subject, and that
>reduces the chance that the post will draw many responses. Hell, I've
>put off responding myself because it requires more attention than the
>brain dead flame stuff, and when I'm harried and tired I find it a lot
>easier to call Sylvia a parrot than to discuss the relationship
>between parallel and serial cognition.
Fucksake, which blog are you talking about? Is someone ghostwriting
it? I looked at his blogs, and they contained twittering commentary
on the day's olds. I think the man's a twat, but he can occasionally
string words together, and if he's started a new blog somewhere that's
not just another mountain of shit, I'd read the fucking thing just to
prove myself wrong about his snide cuntness.
--
The sane answer to insanity is madness.
Alan Hope
>Fucksake, which blog are you talking about? Is someone ghostwriting
>it? I looked at his blogs, and they contained twittering commentary
>on the day's olds.
Not by any stretch.
>I think the man's a twat,
You never used to.
>but he can occasionally
>string words together, and if he's started a new blog somewhere that's
>not just another mountain of shit, I'd read the fucking thing just to
>prove myself wrong about his snide cuntness.
You look so cute carrying your grudge.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
boots
>boots goes:
>
>>Fucksake, which blog are you talking about? Is someone ghostwriting
>>it? I looked at his blogs, and they contained twittering commentary
>>on the day's olds.
>
>Not by any stretch.
>
>>I think the man's a twat,
>
>You never used to.
That's true. However, things seem to have changed. You're quite
willing to recommend authors and books you favor to others and to
discuss them. You are not willing to read authors others suggest and
to discuss those because that is beneath you. I consider that one-way
and hypocritical, the mark of a twat. Koontz may very well write
shite as you said, but that is not the point -- the point is the why
of it, what's wrong with his writing. Granted his subject matter may
reek of pollyanaism and fairytales, he may be a Stephen King wannabe
without the balls to get grisly about it, but the actual writing imo
is not shite. You don't know one way or another, having blindly
accepted the opinions of others. More twattery. No reason for either
of us to pursue the matter, we can be content to despise one another.
Ray Haddad
and Skipper <skipsp...@charter.invalid> instead replied:
His panty hose does that now.
--
Ray
$Zero
> boots goes:
>
> >Fucksake, which blog are you talking about? Is someone ghostwriting
> >it? I looked at his blogs, and they contained twittering commentary
> >on the day's olds.
>
> Not by any stretch.
says the dude who inspired this gem:
keep the titles, ditch the content!
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/2b0a9a6a6f5a8703
when he said that he was gonna stop titling his blog entries.
(which, my noting of same changed his twittering mind about doing so)
> >I think the man's a twat,
>
> You never used to.
you used to call me your "desert island poster".
things change.
it's an ego thinger.
> >but he can occasionally
> >string words together, and if he's started a new blog somewhere that's
> >not just another mountain of shit, I'd read the fucking thing just to
> >prove myself wrong about his snide cuntness.
>
> You look so cute carrying your grudge.
"THAT... was Mozart...
that vulgar little child i saw
crawling all over the floor."
-- Antonio Salieri
[actor: F. Murray Abraham; from
the movie: "Amadeus" (1984)]
...
BTW: i wrote a special megablog just for you, Alan:
megablog vs Sour Grapes 2.0
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/b937b7339c8062ed
enjoy.
...
-$Zero...
The Day Your Universe Changed -- Presto!
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f2d51861e54b6464
megablog beta test -- call for blog comments
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/9f860076b97de170
"It's most frightfully dark...
$Zero
> >how to post a blogger fucking comment?
>
> Yes.
at least you admit it.
> Goodbye.
again, at least you admit it.
that beats "Ray" hands down.
...
keep the titles, ditch the content!
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/2b0a9a6a6f5a8703
megablog vs Sour Grapes 2.0
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/b937b7339c8062ed
...
-$Zero...
The Day Your Universe Changed -- Presto!
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f2d51861e54b6464
megablog beta test -- call for blog comments
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/9f860076b97de170
"It's most frightfully dark...
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com> wrote:
>>boots goes:
>>>Fucksake, which blog are you talking about? Is someone ghostwriting
>>>it? I looked at his blogs, and they contained twittering commentary
>>>on the day's olds.
>>Not by any stretch.
>>>I think the man's a twat,
>>You never used to.
>That's true. However, things seem to have changed. You're quite
>willing to recommend authors and books you favor to others and to
>discuss them. You are not willing to read authors others suggest and
>to discuss those because that is beneath you.
Yes, and?
>I consider that one-way
>and hypocritical, the mark of a twat.
Of course not. Can I help it if I have better judgement? What on earth
is better judgement for if not to exercise it in this way in just such
situations?
>Koontz may very well write
>shite as you said, but that is not the point -- the point is the why
>of it, what's wrong with his writing.
Who cares? Life's too short to study the anatomy of bad writing. Far
better to study the anatomy of good writing, and to hell with the
rest.
>Granted his subject matter may
>reek of pollyanaism and fairytales, he may be a Stephen King wannabe
>without the balls to get grisly about it, but the actual writing imo
>is not shite. You don't know one way or another, having blindly
>accepted the opinions of others.
That's why mankind has language, you know: so that we can communicate
ideas from one to the other, without constantly having to reinvent
ideas for ourselves. Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
>More twattery.
There's nothing twattish about it in the least. There's also not a
single thing about Koontz to recommend him, right down to the ghastly
book-covers and blurbs. Everything is screaming out Stay Away! to
someone of my sensibilities.
I fail to see why you're taking it so personally. It's no reflection
on you, apart from maybe the slightly awkward thought that you have
nothing better to recommend.
>No reason for either
>of us to pursue the matter, we can be content to despise one another.
You're carrying on like a spurnèd swain.
It's only a fucking book.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Jul 10, 7:12?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> boots goes:
>> >Fucksake, which blog are you talking about? Is someone ghostwriting
>> >it? I looked at his blogs, and they contained twittering commentary
>> >on the day's olds.
>> Not by any stretch.
>says the dude who inspired this gem:
> keep the titles, ditch the content!
> http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/2b0a9a6a6f5a8703
And you wonder why people are staying away in droves.
>when he said that he was gonna stop titling his blog entries.
>(which, my noting of same changed his twittering mind about doing so)
As if.
>> >I think the man's a twat,
>> You never used to.
>you used to call me your "desert island poster".
>things change.
>it's an ego thinger.
>> >but he can occasionally
>> >string words together, and if he's started a new blog somewhere that's
>> >not just another mountain of shit, I'd read the fucking thing just to
>> >prove myself wrong about his snide cuntness.
>> You look so cute carrying your grudge.
> "THAT... was Mozart...
> that vulgar little child i saw
> crawling all over the floor."
> -- Antonio Salieri
> [actor: F. Murray Abraham; from
> the movie: "Amadeus" (1984)]
>...
>BTW: i wrote a special megablog just for you, Alan:
> megablog vs Sour Grapes 2.0
> http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/b937b7339c8062ed
I couldn't care less.
>enjoy.
Give it all you've got. I should worry -- it's not like anyone's going
to see it.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
boots
>Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
>souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
>error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
>by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
Lemming.
$Zero
> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
> >souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
> >error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
> >by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
>
> Lemming.
kinda explains why he cannot possibly fathom the idea of using Google
Groups for a blog platform instead of Blogger.
i mean, whoa.
can you imagine what it must be like to be so anal and limited in your
thinking?
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/feb566275ad2293b
still, he's an amusing and intelligent guy despite of it all.
sometimes you have to count your blessings.
New Ray, Please? (was: Re: New topics please?)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d9e92b1c1fe6b329
but you do have to wonder about some people, huh?
what drives someone like Alan to be so neurotically narrow in some of
his thinkings while demonstrating such expansive abilities elsewhere?
ego?
probably.
elitism is addictive.
and let's not forget brainwash.
and maybe it's just a matter of personality.
some people are inventive and some people aren't.
and never the twain shall really understand eachother, apparently.
it takes all kinds.
if you were running this megablog thinger, what would you change?
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/31129e90ac0edfff
when i posted a comment to his Sour Grapes 2.0 blog making fun of
Alan's post suggesting that he was gonna stop titling his posts, he
immediately chucked the idea.
immediately, mind you.
keep the titles, ditch the content!
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/2b0a9a6a6f5a8703
he had no convinction nor confidence about his idea whatsoever.
he wanted to be more like a twitter and he had started to experiment
with the idea for like three posts, because it felt more natural to
him to blog that way, but _i_ talked him out of it with my two seconds
of mockery.
me, of all people.
i got him to conform with the norm.
i think some people are very sensitive about being thought nuts or "un-
normal".
while others like myself don't much care about that -- until the
Lemmings start trying to drag me over the cliff with them, of course.
then i mind quite a bit.
anyway...
gekko
boots <n...@no.no>, who went on in
news:9pq693l43vcimrdt9...@4ax.com to bemoan:
> You're quite
> willing to recommend authors and books you favor to others and to
> discuss them. You are not willing to read authors others suggest
> and to discuss those because that is beneath you. I consider that
> one-way and hypocritical, the mark of a twat. Koontz may very
> well write shite as you said, but that is not the point -- the
> point is the why of it, what's wrong with his writing.
Don't be daft. Why would I spend time reading a book that someone
recommends unless I am confident that someone has the ability to
choose a book that will either interest me, or educate me in some
fashion?
If I go look at, say, a Koontz novel, and discover that the cover
blurb does nothing to entice me, skimming the sample shows me nothing
startling about his ability to string words together, why the fuck
should I spend even five minutes more on it?
Because someone by the name of "boots", on a Usenut froup told me he
thought it was worthwhile?
I mean, gak?
Tell me the "why" of a Cuntz novel, boots. I'll warn you, though, I
read Cuntz way back and, while I considered him a good time-waster,
something to do when there was naught else and I was stuck on a
plane, train, or bus for tedious hours through barren landscape, I'm
not likely to be impressed by what you have to say.
Let's just say that anyone who abused the word "preternatural" with
as much frequency as he did made it apparent he was too sold on his
own abilities.
Oh. And the plots. Plucky woman, precocious boy, and dog meet gooey
otherworldly monster can take you only so far.
--
gekko
The definition of 'poise' is the ability to keep talking while the
other guy takes the check.
$Zero
> boots <n...@no.no>, who went on
> innews:9pq693l43vcimrdt9...@4ax.comto bemoan:[...]
> Tell me the "why" of a Cuntz novel, boots.
she's got a point.
balls in your court.
...
-$Zero...
The Day Your Universe Changed -- Presto!
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f2d51861e54b6464
the fool on the hill
sees the sun going down
but the eyes in his head
sees the world spinning round
and round and round and round
$Zero
> On Jul 10, 9:19?am, gekko <g...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
> > boots <n...@no.no>, who went on in
[...]
> > Tell me the "why" of a Cuntz novel, boots.
>
> she's got a point.
because boots said:
"Koontz may very well write shite as you said,
but that is not the point -- the point is the why
of it, what's wrong with his writing."
> balls in your court.
of course, Alan can't argue your points.
which was your whole point.
...
if you were running this megablog thinger, what would you change?
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/31129e90ac0edfff
...
> ...
>
> -$Zero...
>
> The Day Your Universe Changed -- Presto!
> http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f2d51861e54b6464
>
> the fool on the hill
> sees the sun going down
> but the eyes in his head
> sees the world spinning round
>
> and round and round and round
>
> megablog beta test -- call for blog comments
> http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/9f860076b97de170
>
> "It's most frightfully dark...
> one can hardly make it out at all."
>
> Art for Money's Sake (a good nose for Quality)
> Re: Money -- wikipedia find of the day -- Part II e (augmented)
> http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/9d8f8fd13cfe723d
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/topics
...
if you were running this megablog thinger, what would you change?
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/31129e90ac0edfff
...
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com> wrote:
>>Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
>>souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
>>error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
>>by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
>Lemming.
Oh, and I suppose you don't. You eat mushrooms right from the ground,
who the hell cares what mycologists say?
Idiot. What's even more idiotic is, nobody believes you.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Jul 10, 8:31?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
>> >souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
>> >error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
>> >by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
>> Lemming.
>kinda explains why he cannot possibly fathom the idea of using Google
>Groups for a blog platform instead of Blogger.
No, that's more to do with it being a stupid fucking cockamamie idea
as you are proving day after day.
>i mean, whoa.
I mean, grovelgrovel for some readers.
>can you imagine what it must be like to be so anal and limited in your
>thinking?
Can you imagine begging abjectly for someone anyone please please
please to leave a comment? Yes, I'm sure you can.
> Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/feb566275ad2293b
Drivel. Who wants to read crap like that?
>still, he's an amusing and intelligent guy despite of it all.
Who is?
>sometimes you have to count your blessings.
> New Ray, Please? (was: Re: New topics please?)
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d9e92b1c1fe6b329
>but you do have to wonder about some people, huh?
>what drives someone like Alan to be so neurotically narrow in some of
>his thinkings while demonstrating such expansive abilities elsewhere?
The fact that you can even pose the question shows what an idiot you
are. You probably think having a mind that can't concentrate on one
thing for thirty seconds (hence the need to archive all your own
comments) is a good thing.
>ego?
>probably.
My ego is perfectly developed. Neither too big nor too small. See, I
get to test my abilities in the fire of everyday working life. If I
fuck up there are people lining up to say so. You come to realise what
you can and cannot do, which is the very hallmark of wisdom.
Other people, you may be acquainted with one, set up vanity groups
where they post messages to themselves telling themselves how creative
they are, and what genius thinkers. If that's all you ever see you end
up believing it, and that's the very defining characteristic of
stupidity.
>elitism is addictive.
How would you know? You're only ever in an elite if everyone else
leaves the room.
>and let's not forget brainwash.
>and maybe it's just a matter of personality.
>some people are inventive and some people aren't.
We know who isn't.
>and never the twain shall really understand eachother, apparently.
>it takes all kinds.
> if you were running this megablog thinger, what would you change?
> http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/31129e90ac0edfff
Scrap the whole thing then get a new writer.
>when i posted a comment to his Sour Grapes 2.0 blog making fun of
>Alan's post suggesting that he was gonna stop titling his posts, he
>immediately chucked the idea.
>immediately, mind you.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
> keep the titles, ditch the content!
> http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/2b0a9a6a6f5a8703
>he had no convinction nor confidence about his idea whatsoever.
>he wanted to be more like a twitter and he had started to experiment
>with the idea for like three posts, because it felt more natural to
>him to blog that way, but _i_ talked him out of it with my two seconds
>of mockery.
As if. You expect anyone to believe this shit?
>me, of all people.
>i got him to conform with the norm.
>i think some people are very sensitive about being thought nuts or "un-
>normal".
Right. Because it's always been my aim to fit in with the wallpaper
and not cause a stir.
>while others like myself don't much care about that -- until the
>Lemmings start trying to drag me over the cliff with them, of course.
>then i mind quite a bit.
I wish you could see yourself. What a gap between perception and
reality.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Jul 10, 9:54?am, $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 9:19?am, gekko <g...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>> > boots <n...@no.no>, who went on in
>> > news:9pq693l43vcimrdt9...@4ax.com to bemoan:
>[...]
>> > Tell me the "why" of a Cuntz novel, boots.
>> she's got a point.
>because boots said:
> "Koontz may very well write shite as you said,
> but that is not the point -- the point is the why
> of it, what's wrong with his writing."
>> balls in your court.
>of course, Alan can't argue your points.
>which was your whole point.
Of course I certainly could, if I put myself to it. As well as anyone,
and better than most.
But I'm not going to, for the reasons I've outlined. Namely: life's
too short.
Besides, anyone who has read one of those books and still needs to be
told is hardly likely to benefit from the education, making my
investment doubly futile.
>if you were running this megablog thinger, what would you change?
>http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/31129e90ac0edfff
Flush the whole thing down the pan, then go in after it.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Josh Hill
wrote:
>My ego is perfectly developed. Neither too big nor too small.
My ego is so more perfectly developed than yours.
Josh Hill
Maybe they're divorced and she's available . . .
Ray Haddad
and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:32:53 +0200, Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>My ego is perfectly developed. Neither too big nor too small.
>
>My ego is so more perfectly developed than yours.
Half your ego.
--
Ray
Sylvia
> Josh Hill goes:
>
> >Alan's longer posts are beautifully written and while I don't always
> >agree with him they are characterized by erudition and rare
> >intelligence. Note for example his most recent posts on art. The depth
> >of Alan's understanding may not be apparent to those who haven't
> >themselves taken the time to think deeply on the subject, and that
> >reduces the chance that the post will draw many responses.
<...>
Cut it out. You're making people feel creeped-out again.
Officer, he's flirting again! Make him stop!
> Down, boy.
Psssst! Hey, Buddy! Wanna buy an Autoclave?
--
Sylvia <---- Supreme Ruler of MW & A Respectable Person of Bidness
(I'll give ya discount 'cause I stole yer words)
Visit the MW Alphabet & Hat Emporium, Inc.
Conveniently located in downtown MW, near the Bridge of <Sigh>s
(Not a *huge* discount, mind ya)
Sylvia
Skipper <skipsp...@charter.invalid> wrote:
<...>
> Does his wife still support him?
Is that *that* AOL escapee again? What did I tell you people about
guardin' The Portal?
Hint: EXITS only.
--
Sylvia <--- Supreme Ruler of MW & a Petite Peep
"Two foot tall, yet rules them all! Less is more!"
boots
>On Jul 10, 8:31?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
>> >souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
>> >error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
>> >by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
>>
>> Lemming.
>
>kinda explains why he cannot possibly fathom the idea of using Google
>Groups for a blog platform instead of Blogger.
Blogger sucks, but so does Google Groups; if one sucks less than the
other, does it not still suck?
boots
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:32:53 +0200, Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>My ego is perfectly developed. Neither too big nor too small.
>
>My ego is so more perfectly developed than yours.
Somebody with an overdeveloped ego please email me a snippet, mine is
hiding under the couch again or some shit.
boots
>boots goes:
>
>>Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
>>>souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
>>>error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
>>>by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
>
>>Lemming.
>
>Oh, and I suppose you don't. You eat mushrooms right from the ground,
>who the hell cares what mycologists say?
How did mycologists determine which mushrooms are safe and which are
poisonous, the list was made up long before any chemical analysis was
feasible. Whatever fuckwit said that lima-beans are edible deserves
to eat the shitting things forever. No doubt psylocibin is on the
poisonous list, a good thing for folks like you, it might kill that
brain thingy you so worship.
Please do feel free to vote party-line, purchase what Oprah
recommends, read what those you trust recommend -- from appearances
that has served you as well as you can be served.
>Idiot.
I should be so lucking fucky.
> What's even more idiotic is, nobody believes you.
Should I care about that? The opinions of others is simply that, no
more and no less, and they have a (truly inalienable) right to opine
as they choose, correctly or incorrectly.
Enjoy your approved reading list, stay on the trodden pathways, some
simply lack the inclination or the ability to do otherwise. It's not
your fault that you're lacking in certain areas, there is still much
you can achieve, even on the short-bus. G'night.
$Zero
of course it does.
when you're a creative genius like moi, EVERYTHING sucks.
but you work witin your budget and select the best option affordable
which does what you need it to do.
regardless, when you're trying to develop something that *doesn't*
totally suck but rather is actually useful and mutually benefitial,
here's rule number one:
never follow the lemmings!
duh.
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/5c4959a10f5d874c
not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
boots
>On Jul 11, 6:08?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 10, 8:31?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> >> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
>> >> >souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
>> >> >error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
>> >> >by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
>>
>> >> Lemming.
>>
>> >kinda explains why he cannot possibly fathom the idea of using Google
>> >Groups for a blog platform instead of Blogger.
>>
>> Blogger sucks, but so does Google Groups; if one sucks less than the
>> other, does it not still suck?
>
>of course it does.
>
>when you're a creative genius like moi, EVERYTHING sucks.
Sounds like a bad case of idealism or perfectionism.
Incurable, sorry; please accept my condolences.
Luckily, it can be lived with.
>but you work witin your budget and select the best option affordable
>which does what you need it to do.
It's a situation we're all in, regardless of the numbers' magnitude or
lack thereof. Lots of guys who buy a Ferrari would rather have a
custom vehicle that would cost 4 times as much, I'm quite satisfied
with an old Ford pickup, mileage varies.
>regardless, when you're trying to develop something that *doesn't*
>totally suck but rather is actually useful and mutually benefitial,
>here's rule number one:
>
> never follow the lemmings!
>
>duh.
There's nothing wrong with following the lemmings if you'll be
satisfied with what they have. Some are, some aren't. If you want
what they have, following them's an easy way to get it.
I'm purchasing a new house at a 90% discount by doing virtually all
the work myself (materials only account for about 10% of the cost of a
house), they call that "sweat equity". I'm purchasing a custom
blogging/forum tool at a 100% discount (there are no materials
involved), they call that "reinventing the wheel".
It keeps me off the streets, that's a good thing.
I can't imagine how using Google Groups for anything would be
satisfactory, but choosing the lesser of the available evils is never
easy.
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >On Jul 10, 8:31?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
> >> >souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
> >> >error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
> >> >by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
> >> Lemming.
> >kinda explains why he cannot possibly fathom the idea of using Google
> >Groups for a blog platform instead of Blogger.
>
> No, that's more to do with it being a stupid fucking cockamamie idea
> as you are proving day after day.
translation: Alan reads megablog every single day
duh.
> >i mean, whoa.
>
> I mean, grovelgrovel for some readers.
as if i ever, in a million years, ever need to grovel for readers.
yikes.
> >can you imagine what it must be like to be so anal and limited in your
> >thinking?
>
> Can you imagine begging abjectly for someone anyone please please
> please to leave a comment?
nope.
> Yes, I'm sure you can.
whooooooosh!
> > Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/feb566275ad2293b
>
> Drivel. Who wants to read crap like that?
did you read it?
that was a very focussed megablog.
> >still, he's an amusing and intelligent guy despite of it all.
>
> Who is?
you is.
> >sometimes you have to count your blessings.
> >
> > New Ray, Please? (was: Re: New topics please?)
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d9e92b1c1fe6b329
> >
> >but you do have to wonder about some people, huh?
> >
> >what drives someone like Alan to be so neurotically narrow in some of
> >his thinkings while demonstrating such expansive abilities elsewhere?
>
> The fact that you can even pose the question shows what an idiot you
> are.
irony alert.
> You probably think having a mind that can't concentrate on one
> thing for thirty seconds (hence the need to archive all your own
> comments) is a good thing.
i can exclusively concentrate on any single thing anytime i want.
duh.
what makes me differ from you is my ability to concentrate on several
things at once.
(while retaining most of the context).
and my posts are automatically archived. duh.
what makes me different from you is that i've recognized how that can
better help me concentrate on what i want to concentrate on.
so yes, it's a good thing. duh.
> >ego?
> >probably.
>
> My ego is perfectly developed.
no, it isn't.
if it was, you would not lose your temper over being wrong.
foolish pride.
> Neither too big nor too small.
your ego is both.
> See, I
> get to test my abilities in the fire of everyday working life.
wow. big challenge.
the numbskull status quo marketplace is sooo demanding.
> If I fuck up there are people lining up to say so.
and i can just imagine how long that line is.
hence why you snapped right back into titling your blogs when i mocked
you about it for two seconds.
> You come to realise what
> you can and cannot do, which is the very hallmark of wisdom.
"Alan, can we readers title your posts if you're too lazy to do so?"
snap!
blog titles instantly return. instantly, mind you.
> Other people, you may be acquainted with one, set up vanity groups
how totally unobservant of you, yet again.
some journalist.
is megablog a vanity group? yikes. how stupid.
you're losing your touch, Alan.
> where they post messages to themselves telling themselves how creative
> they are, and what genius thinkers.
unlike yourself concerning moi in your vanity blog (where you delete
all dissent and mockery), you're certainly welcome to tweak me and my
newest project in megablog, Alan.
or are you already doing so? is Chris you?
anyway, unlike yourself, i can take criticism about myself and/or my
project without blocking people, etc.
it's an ego thinger.
> If that's all you ever see you end up believing it,
sure, i'm never exposed to criticism. yikes.
you've seen my response to very harsh criticisms over the years and
you think i'm living in a Sour Grapes 2.0 bubble where i have to
delete comments that make me look foolish?
yikes.
"the archive will confirm"
except for the parts that were deleted by crybabies like yourself.
> and that's the very defining characteristic of stupidity.
i couldn't agree more. hoist by your own.
> >elitism is addictive.
>
> How would you know?
i've watched in action in mw for over a decade.
as well as almost everywhere else.
> You're only ever in an elite if everyone else
> leaves the room.
if and when everyone else leaves a room, i don't weep.
i'm not compelled to be a member of some sort of self-congratulatory
elite.
it's sillyfest supreme.
my ego is far too secure for such delusional crutches.
> >and let's not forget brainwash.
> >and maybe it's just a matter of personality.
> >some people are inventive and some people aren't.
>
> We know who isn't.
yes we do.
you're very clever, and amusing, and intelligent, and widely read, but
you're certainly not inventive.
though it's not something you should trouble yourself over.
inventiveness is not anything that you're very interested in for
yourself, obviously.
otherwise, you wouldn't have snapped right back into titling your
blogs.
snap!
> >and never the twain shall really understand eachother, apparently.
> >it takes all kinds.
> >
> > if you were running this megablog thinger, what would you change?
> > http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/31129e90ac0edfff
>
> Scrap the whole thing then get a new writer.
i'm far too inventive and visionary to be detered by clueless anal-
monkees like yourself.
snap!
> >when i posted a comment to his Sour Grapes 2.0 blog making fun of
> >Alan's post suggesting that he was gonna stop titling his posts, he
> >immediately chucked the idea.
> >immediately, mind you.
>
> Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
reduced to latin lames that don't apply.
"the archive will confirm"
> > keep the titles, ditch the content!
> > http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/2b0a9a6a6f5a8703
> >
> >he had no convinction nor confidence about his idea whatsoever.
> >he wanted to be more like a twitter and he had started to experiment
> >with the idea for like three posts, because it felt more natural to
> >him to blog that way, but _i_ talked him out of it with my two seconds
> >of mockery.
>
> As if. You expect anyone to believe this shit?
"the archive will confirm"
but just for kicks, and i do mean kicks, let's hear your version of
it.
BWAH!!!
this should be a hoot.
popcorn alert!
> >me, of all people.
> >i got him to conform with the norm.
> >i think some people are very sensitive about being thought nuts or "un-
> >normal".
>
> Right. Because it's always been my aim to fit in with the wallpaper
> and not cause a stir.
as long as you're perceived as completely and utterly normal, sure.
you don't take any creative chances whatsoever.
it's safer for your ego that way -- and your credibility.
the two things you guard most.
> >while others like myself don't much care about that -- until the
> >Lemmings start trying to drag me over the cliff with them, of course.
> >then i mind quite a bit.
>
> I wish you could see yourself.
it is precisely because i can clearly see myself (and reality) that i
choose not to go over the cliff with the pushy clueless lemmings.
> What a gap between perception and reality.
due to the malicious jealous crybaby sort, i often wish that there WAS
a larger gap between my perceptions and reality.
being a creative genius isn't the picnic you think it is.
keep the titles, ditch the content!
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/2b0a9a6a6f5a8703
megablog vs Sour Grapes 2.0
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/b937b7339c8062ed
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 11, 6:08?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 10, 8:31?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> >> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
> >> >> >souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
> >> >> >error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
> >> >> >by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
>
> >> >> Lemming.
>
> >> >kinda explains why he cannot possibly fathom the idea of using Google
> >> >Groups for a blog platform instead of Blogger.
>
> >> Blogger sucks, but so does Google Groups; if one sucks less than the
> >> other, does it not still suck?
>
> >of course it does.
>
> >when you're a creative genius like moi, EVERYTHING sucks.
>
> Sounds like a bad case of idealism or perfectionism.
a good case of it, actually.
creative geniuses simply have an easy time figuring out how to make
things better.
> Incurable, sorry; please accept my condolences.
i don't want to be cured of my creative genius.
yikes!
> Luckily, it can be lived with.
and joyfully, too.
> >but you work witin your budget and select the best option affordable
> >which does what you need it to do.
>
> It's a situation we're all in, regardless of the numbers' magnitude or
> lack thereof. Lots of guys who buy a Ferrari would rather have a
> custom vehicle that would cost 4 times as much, I'm quite satisfied
> with an old Ford pickup, mileage varies.
well, i've be happy with a bicycle, but some people don't want me to
have even that (as long as i insist on speaking my mind).
what a bunch of sad pathetic delusional misguided hate-enabling
nutcases.
> >regardless, when you're trying to develop something that *doesn't*
> >totally suck but rather is actually useful and mutually benefitial,
> >here's rule number one:
>
> > never follow the lemmings!
>
> >duh.
>
> There's nothing wrong with following the lemmings
you don't even grasp your own analogy?
lemmings cluelessly and inadvertingly push themselves over the cliff.
> There's nothing wrong with following the lemmings
> if you'll be satisfied with what they have.
i suppose that's true if you don't mind skydiving without a parachute.
but methinks your lemmings analogy is a bit different than mine.
anyway, sure, lots of the lemmings don't go over the cliff.
and if you're happy being a lemming, so be it.
it's those fanatical lemming leaders that cause most of the pointless
messes, to the lemmings utter apathy and misfortune.
> Some are, some aren't. If you want
> what they have, following them's an easy way to get it.
it couldn't be easier.
> I'm purchasing a new house at a 90% discount by doing virtually all
> the work myself (materials only account for about 10% of the cost of a
> house), they call that "sweat equity".
how sweet it is.
i love building stuff like that. it's great for the endorphines.
until you bang your head on some pipe.
but that pain passes eventually and becomes all part of the joy.
> I'm purchasing a custom
> blogging/forum tool at a 100% discount (there are no materials
> involved), they call that "reinventing the wheel".
sure, if you want to spend the time learning the language, fabricating
better wheels is certainly another joy to embrace.
there's endless wheels to reinvent.
but there's only one tic per toc.
so it's whatever floats your boat.
> It keeps me off the streets, that's a good thing.
Gawd.
and the blah blah blah continues...
nearly unwearied by it's own blah blah blah...
> I can't imagine how using Google Groups for anything would be
> satisfactory,
your lack of imagination in that regard is really not my problem, is
it?
at some point, one needs to plug in to some system or another, if one
wishes to interact with other people.
NOTE: you can save yourself the trouble of your cowardly response to
that thought.
i already know your wimpy thinkins' on that matter.
and the blah blah blah continues...
nearly unwearied by it's own blah blah blah...
unless, of course, you want to discuss it over in megablog, where your
thoughts on that matter will actually do some real good in the larger
scheme of things.
see how that works, coward?
> but choosing the lesser of the available evils is never easy.
there's only one tic per toc, so it's best not to delude yourself 24/7
365.25
and the blah blah blah continues...
nearly unwearied by it's own blah blah blah...
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
walt disney
"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184157210.4...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> you don't even grasp your own analogy?
>
> lemmings cluelessly and inadvertingly push themselves over the cliff.
Actually numbskull, lemmings don't push themselves over the cliff. Quite the
opposite.
"Disney's White Wilderness was filmed in Alberta, Canada, which is not a
native habitat for lemmings and has no outlet to the sea. Lemmings were
imported for use . . .. . the Arctic rodents were placed on a snow-covered
turntable and filmed from various angles to produce a "migration" sequence;
afterwards, the helpless creatures were transported to a cliff overlooking a
river and herded into the water."
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm
i
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1184157210.4...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > you don't even grasp your own analogy?
>
> > lemmings cluelessly and inadvertingly push themselves over the cliff.
>
> Actually numbskull, lemmings don't push themselves over the cliff. Quite the
> opposite.
>
> "Disney's White Wilderness was filmed in Alberta, Canada, which is not a
> native habitat for lemmings and has no outlet to the sea. Lemmings were
> imported for use . . .. . the Arctic rodents were placed on a snow-covered
> turntable and filmed from various angles to produce a "migration" sequence;
> afterwards, the helpless creatures were transported to a cliff overlooking a
> river and herded into the water."
>
> http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming#Suicide_myth
[...]
Lemmings will often migrate in large groups and as a result some
lemmings will occasionally be pushed off cliffs or drowned in bodies
of water simply by the press of their compatriots, or by the dimension
of the body of water.
[...]
[Disney cite explained]
[...]
"Due to their association with this odd behavior, lemming suicide is a
frequently-used metaphor in reference to people who go along
unquestioningly with popular opinion, with potentially dangerous or
fatal consequences."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming#Suicide_myth
> > but methinks your lemmings analogy is a bit different than mine.
>
> > anyway, sure, lots of the lemmings don't go over the cliff.
>
> > and if you're happy being a lemming, so be it.
>
> > it's those fanatical lemming leaders that cause most of the pointless
> > messes, to the lemmings utter apathy and misfortune.
imegablog
"THAT... was Mozart...
that vulgar little child i saw
crawling all over the floor."
-- Antonio Salieri
[actor: F. Murray Abraham; from
the movie: "Amadeus" (1984)]
megablog vs Sour Grapes 2.0
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/b937b7339c8062ed
walt disney
"i" <imeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184164117.9...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
So to recap: You are a lemming who unquestioningly misuses the lemming
metaphor because of the popular opinion of other lemmings who frequently and
unquestioningly misuse the lemming metaphor also, Blah blah meta blahg.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:32:53 +0200, Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>My ego is perfectly developed. Neither too big nor too small.
>>
>>My ego is so more perfectly developed than yours.
>
>Somebody with an overdeveloped ego please email me a snippet, mine is
>hiding under the couch again or some shit.
"He is a very modest man with a great deal to be modest about." -
Winston Churchill
i
> "i" <imegab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
not quite.
i used the lemming metaphor as it is widely perceived.
not-unquestioningly at all.
besides, as you obviously do not know, there's always more than one
way to use something as a metaphor.
the lemmings don't have an a one-metaphor-only limit on them.
duh.
so when i saw that my use was being misunderstood, i elaborated.
and then you showed up with your lame anal retentive concept of a one
metaphor per species limit.
and here we are.
your argument in tatters.
as usual.
Alan Hope
>On Jul 10, 12:32 pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >On Jul 10, 8:31?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> >> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
>> >> >souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
>> >> >error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
>> >> >by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
>> >> Lemming.
>> >kinda explains why he cannot possibly fathom the idea of using Google
>> >Groups for a blog platform instead of Blogger.
>> No, that's more to do with it being a stupid fucking cockamamie idea
>> as you are proving day after day.
>translation: Alan reads megablog every single day
Dimwit. Nobody reads it day after day. Or even day. That's the proof
your experiment is off the rails.
>duh.
I'm now going to summarily delete these Tourette's tics of yours,
which have no meaning, contribute nothing, get in the way of the flow
of information (provided by me) and annoy me.
>> >i mean, whoa.
>> I mean, grovelgrovel for some readers.
>as if i ever, in a million years, ever need to grovel for readers.
Yet you did. There and here.
>> >can you imagine what it must be like to be so anal and limited in your
>> >thinking?
>> Can you imagine begging abjectly for someone anyone please please
>> please to leave a comment?
>nope.
That's what you did, and are now doing.
>> Yes, I'm sure you can.
>> > Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/feb566275ad2293b
>> Drivel. Who wants to read crap like that?
>did you read it?
I looked at it.
>that was a very focussed megablog.
Then you're in worse trouble than I thought. It was a crock of raving
loonie shit.
>> >still, he's an amusing and intelligent guy despite of it all.
>> Who is?
>you is.
Who are you addressing?
>> >sometimes you have to count your blessings.
>> > New Ray, Please? (was: Re: New topics please?)
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d9e92b1c1fe6b329
>> >but you do have to wonder about some people, huh?
>> >what drives someone like Alan to be so neurotically narrow in some of
>> >his thinkings while demonstrating such expansive abilities elsewhere?
>> The fact that you can even pose the question shows what an idiot you
>> are.
[deletion]
>> You probably think having a mind that can't concentrate on one
>> thing for thirty seconds (hence the need to archive all your own
>> comments) is a good thing.
>i can exclusively concentrate on any single thing anytime i want.
Then what have you got against narrow thinking?
>what makes me differ from you is my ability to concentrate on several
>things at once.
And fuck them all up simultaneously.
>(while retaining most of the context).
>and my posts are automatically archived. duh.
As are all blog posts. BFD. Difference is, yours are archived for you
alone.
>what makes me different from you is that i've recognized how that can
>better help me concentrate on what i want to concentrate on.
What makes me different from you is, I've figured I can give something
to other people through my blogging, rather than just being utterly
self-obsessed.
>so yes, it's a good thing. duh.
I knew you would say that. You're not a very clever person for a
genius.
>> >ego?
>> >probably.
>> My ego is perfectly developed.
>no, it isn't.
>if it was, you would not lose your temper over being wrong.
I'm not wrong.
>foolish pride.
And when someone gives their opinion -- as requested -- on your stupid
"mega-not-blog" what's your response?
"Bullshit". And I quote.
>> Neither too big nor too small.
>your ego is both.
I think we've discovered another word you don't understand.
>> See, I
>> get to test my abilities in the fire of everyday working life.
>wow. big challenge.
Stick to what you know.
>the numbskull status quo marketplace is sooo demanding.
Stick to what you know.
>> If I fuck up there are people lining up to say so.
>and i can just imagine how long that line is.
Can you? On what basis?
>hence why you snapped right back into titling your blogs when i mocked
>you about it for two seconds.
You take the credit for something I did?
>> You come to realise what
>> you can and cannot do, which is the very hallmark of wisdom.
> "Alan, can we readers title your posts if you're too lazy to do so?"
Was that your mockery? Gosh. I'm afraid I don't recall it. Still I
suppose it's plain to all that such withering sarcasm must have been
too much for me to bear.
>snap!
>blog titles instantly return. instantly, mind you.
>> Other people, you may be acquainted with one, set up vanity groups
>how totally unobservant of you, yet again.
>some journalist.
>is megablog a vanity group? yikes. how stupid.
You're the only person that's catered for.
>you're losing your touch, Alan.
>> where they post messages to themselves telling themselves how creative
>> they are, and what genius thinkers.
>unlike yourself concerning moi in your vanity blog (where you delete
>all dissent and mockery), you're certainly welcome to tweak me and my
>newest project in megablog, Alan.
You pushed your luck. Sorry, I'm not running a democracy.
>or are you already doing so? is Chris you?
>anyway, unlike yourself, i can take criticism about myself and/or my
>project without blocking people, etc.
Yet nobody posts. Surely a conspiracy of mammoth proportions.
>it's an ego thinger.
Yes. The thing is made up of nothing but your ego, so other people
stay away.
>> If that's all you ever see you end up believing it,
>sure, i'm never exposed to criticism. yikes.
>you've seen my response to very harsh criticisms over the years and
>you think i'm living in a Sour Grapes 2.0 bubble where i have to
>delete comments that make me look foolish?
Did I delete comments that made me look foolish? I don't think so.
Still, we'll never know, will we? Because they're deleted.
> "the archive will confirm"
>except for the parts that were deleted by crybabies like yourself.
Your deleted comment was drivel. People can take my word for it. I
anticipate no doubters.
>> and that's the very defining characteristic of stupidity.
>i couldn't agree more. hoist by your own.
>> >elitism is addictive.
>> How would you know?
>i've watched in action in mw for over a decade.
>as well as almost everywhere else.
So watching it is addictive.
>> You're only ever in an elite if everyone else
>> leaves the room.
>if and when everyone else leaves a room, i don't weep.
But when they stay away you whine and cry like this whole thread has
been. How can you possibly hold up your head? "Oh why does nobody give
me a friendly comment? What have I done to deserve this? Wasn't I your
friend? Please help me out pleasepleaseplease!"
If that's not weeping I dunno what is.
>i'm not compelled to be a member of some sort of self-congratulatory
>elite.
You're also not authorised.
>it's sillyfest supreme.
>my ego is far too secure for such delusional crutches.
That's your trouble. Your ego is too secure to be affected by reality.
>> >and let's not forget brainwash.
>> >and maybe it's just a matter of personality.
>> >some people are inventive and some people aren't.
>> We know who isn't.
>yes we do.
>you're very clever, and amusing, and intelligent, and widely read, but
>you're certainly not inventive.
Whereas you ... oh yes, you invented a Google Group and called it
Amnesiablog.
>though it's not something you should trouble yourself over.
>inventiveness is not anything that you're very interested in for
>yourself, obviously.
>otherwise, you wouldn't have snapped right back into titling your
>blogs.
>snap!
The post is still there for anyone to read. And they can muse to
themselves on the likelihood of anyone being swayed into anything by
Zero's opinion.
>> >and never the twain shall really understand eachother, apparently.
>> >it takes all kinds.
>> > if you were running this megablog thinger, what would you change?
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/31129e90ac0edfff
>> Scrap the whole thing then get a new writer.
>i'm far too inventive and visionary to be detered by clueless anal-
>monkees like yourself.
To face the truth, you mean.
> >when i posted a comment to his Sour Grapes 2.0 blog making fun of
>> >Alan's post suggesting that he was gonna stop titling his posts, he
>> >immediately chucked the idea.
>> >immediately, mind you.
>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
>reduced to latin lames that don't apply.
I forgot you don't know what simple terms mean. You're that sort of
Rain Man genius.
> "the archive will confirm"
>> > keep the titles, ditch the content!
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/2b0a9a6a6f5a8703
>> >he had no convinction nor confidence about his idea whatsoever.
>> >he wanted to be more like a twitter and he had started to experiment
>> >with the idea for like three posts, because it felt more natural to
>> >him to blog that way, but _i_ talked him out of it with my two seconds
>> >of mockery.
>> As if. You expect anyone to believe this shit?
> "the archive will confirm"
>but just for kicks, and i do mean kicks, let's hear your version of
>it.
The post (not the blog, as Zero queerly terms it) is here:
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com/2007/05/post-titles.html
This was your one and only comment:
"titles are half the fun!
but now that you mention it...
titles are pretentious and indulgent!
titles, titles, titles!
and more titles!"
Posted at 20.58 on the 18th.
The next post announcing a decision to retain post titles was here:
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com/2007/05/title-race.html
Posted on the 19th.
After you, and before the definitive decision not to change, were
posts by Jeff, Paula, Joe the Troll. All clearly in favour of titles.
I'll allow the reader to decide if 1) your asinine nonsense affected
my decision; 2) it was affected by other non-wacko posters who have
sensible opinions; or 3) none of these.
>> >me, of all people.
>> >i got him to conform with the norm.
>> >i think some people are very sensitive about being thought nuts or "un-
>> >normal".
You didn't even express a comprehensible opinion one way or the other.
As is your wont.
>> Right. Because it's always been my aim to fit in with the wallpaper
>> and not cause a stir.
>as long as you're perceived as completely and utterly normal, sure.
Are we comparing me to you? Because of course in that case most
inmates of the world's mental asylums would appear pretty normal.
>you don't take any creative chances whatsoever.
>it's safer for your ego that way -- and your credibility.
>the two things you guard most.
So who should my model be?
>> >while others like myself don't much care about that -- until the
>> >Lemmings start trying to drag me over the cliff with them, of course.
>> >then i mind quite a bit.
>> I wish you could see yourself.
>it is precisely because i can clearly see myself (and reality) that i
>choose not to go over the cliff with the pushy clueless lemmings.
Tough for the rest of us.
>> What a gap between perception and reality.
>due to the malicious jealous crybaby sort, i often wish that there WAS
>a larger gap between my perceptions and reality.
>being a creative genius isn't the picnic you think it is.
You're a few sandwiches short of a picnic, actually.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>lemmings cluelessly and inadvertingly push themselves over the cliff.
That's a fable. Simply not true. Lemmings do no such thing.
I wonder that you don't know that. Oh no wait, I don't. You're an
ignoramus on pretty much every subject, aren't you? This'll be one of
those.
So your life's philosophy is founded on an untruth.
Never mind. As a genius you'll doubtless bounce right back.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com> wrote:
>>boots goes:
>>>Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
>>>>souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
>>>>error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
>>>>by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
>>>Lemming.
>>Oh, and I suppose you don't. You eat mushrooms right from the ground,
>>who the hell cares what mycologists say?
>How did mycologists determine which mushrooms are safe and which are
>poisonous, the list was made up long before any chemical analysis was
>feasible.
So what? How does that relate to the point?
>Whatever fuckwit said that lima-beans are edible deserves
>to eat the shitting things forever. No doubt psylocibin is on the
>poisonous list, a good thing for folks like you, it might kill that
>brain thingy you so worship.
I'm talking about learning from others, the human advantage par
excellence, and you're wittering about mushrooms.
>Please do feel free to vote party-line, purchase what Oprah
>recommends, read what those you trust recommend -- from appearances
>that has served you as well as you can be served.
A lot better than you and your free-thinking have done for you. You're
in a position to recommend a book by Dean Koontz. I have a wide and
deep understanding of English and French literature. Easy to see where
I've gone wrong.
>>Idiot.
>I should be so lucking fucky.
>> What's even more idiotic is, nobody believes you.
>Should I care about that? The opinions of others is simply that, no
>more and no less, and they have a (truly inalienable) right to opine
>as they choose, correctly or incorrectly.
>Enjoy your approved reading list, stay on the trodden pathways, some
>simply lack the inclination or the ability to do otherwise.
Mate, it's not me recommending the airport best-seller. That would be
you.
>It's not
>your fault that you're lacking in certain areas, there is still much
>you can achieve, even on the short-bus. G'night.
Lacking in certain areas? A situation that might be remedied by
reading Dean Koontz? Are you serious?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> >On Jul 10, 12:32 pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >On Jul 10, 8:31?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> >> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
> >> >> >souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
> >> >> >error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
> >> >> >by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
> >> >> Lemming.
> >> >kinda explains why he cannot possibly fathom the idea of using Google
> >> >Groups for a blog platform instead of Blogger.
> >> No, that's more to do with it being a stupid fucking cockamamie idea
> >> as you are proving day after day.
> >translation: Alan reads megablog every single day
>
> Dimwit. Nobody reads it day after day. Or even day.
you do. as do many others. every day.
> That's the proof your experiment is off the rails.
show me your proof that nobody, not even you, reads it.
the fact that so many have already commented on it, proves otherwise.
> >duh.
>
> I'm now going to summarily delete these Tourette's tics of yours,
> which have no meaning, contribute nothing, get in the way of the flow
> of information (provided by me) and annoy me.
that's because you're angry about being wrong. duh.
> >> >i mean, whoa.
> >> I mean, grovelgrovel for some readers.
> >as if i ever, in a million years, ever need to grovel for readers.
>
> Yet you did. There and here.
nowhere did i grovel for readers. i didn't even grovel for comments.
i baited for the truth of the pettiness and malice.
and i got it. duh.
> >> >can you imagine what it must be like to be so anal and limited in your
> >> >thinking?
> >> Can you imagine begging abjectly for someone anyone please please
> >> please to leave a comment?
> >nope.
>
> That's what you did, and are now doing.
yeah, keep preteneding that you can't even see the trap you're tangled
in.
at least Sal had the sense to STFU about it after being outed.
> >> Yes, I'm sure you can.
> >> > Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/feb566275ad2293b
> >> Drivel. Who wants to read crap like that?
> >did you read it?
>
> I looked at it.
No shit, Sherlock.
you stared straight into the crosshairs.
and look at you now.
> >that was a very focussed megablog.
>
> Then you're in worse trouble than I thought. It was a crock of raving
> loonie shit.
that crock exposed your crock, like it's never been exposed before.
so it's not at all surprising that the term "raving loonie shit" pops
right into yer raving loonie shithead.
it's called the subconscious.
> >> >still, he's an amusing and intelligent guy despite of it all.
> >> Who is?
> >you is.
>
> Who are you addressing?
your _altered_ ego.
> >> >sometimes you have to count your blessings.
> >> > New Ray, Please? (was: Re: New topics please?)
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d9e92b1c1fe6b329
> >> >but you do have to wonder about some people, huh?
> >> >what drives someone like Alan to be so neurotically narrow in some of
> >> >his thinkings while demonstrating such expansive abilities elsewhere?
> >> The fact that you can even pose the question shows what an idiot you
> >> are.
>
> [deletion]
obligatory unsnip: "irony alert"
> >> You probably think having a mind that can't concentrate on one
> >> thing for thirty seconds (hence the need to archive all your own
> >> comments) is a good thing.
> >i can exclusively concentrate on any single thing anytime i want.
>
> Then what have you got against narrow thinking?
nothing.
it's the narrow-minded whom are a curse upon all humnanity.
[...]
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>it's the narrow-minded whom are a curse upon all humnanity.
They're infinitely preferable to the Xero minded.
--
Ray
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> >On Jul 10, 12:32 pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >On Jul 10, 8:31?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> >> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
> >> >> >souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
> >> >> >error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
> >> >> >by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
> >> >> Lemming.
> >> >
> >> >kinda explains why he cannot possibly fathom the idea of using Google
> >> >Groups for a blog platform instead of Blogger.
> >>
> >> No, that's more to do with it being a stupid fucking cockamamie idea
> >> as you are proving day after day.
> >
> >translation: Alan reads megablog every single day
[...]
> >> >but you do have to wonder about some people, huh?
> >> >what drives someone like Alan to be so neurotically narrow in some of
> >> >his thinkings while demonstrating such expansive abilities elsewhere?
> >>
> >> The fact that you can even pose the question shows what an idiot you
> >> are.
>
> [deletion]
secondary part II obligatory unsnip: "irony alert"
> >> You probably think having a mind that can't concentrate on one
> >> thing for thirty seconds (hence the need to archive all your own
> >> comments) is a good thing.
> >
> >i can exclusively concentrate on any single thing anytime i want.
>
> Then what have you got against narrow thinking?
it's narrow thinking that i have anything against,
it's the narrow-minded who tend to ruin everything.
> >what makes me differ from you is my ability to concentrate on several
> >things at once. (while retaining most of the context).
>
> And fuck them all up simultaneously.
nope.
> >and my posts are automatically archived. duh.
>
> As are all blog posts. BFD.
you brought the utter stupidity up, not me.
"You probably think having a mind...
(hence the need to archive all your own comments)
is a good thing."
> Difference is, yours are archived for you alone.
partly, because i'm the best qualified to make the most of them.
> >what makes me different from you is that i've recognized how that can
> >better help me concentrate on what i want to concentrate on.
>
> What makes me different from you is, I've figured I can give something
> to other people through my blogging, rather than just being utterly
> self-obsessed.
megablog is not about just me at all, as you well know.
whereas Sour Grapes 2.0 is definitely all about you.
is that why you're bizarrely trying to claim the opposite?
> >so yes, it's a good thing. duh.
>
> I knew you would say that. You're not a very clever person for a
> genius.
it's far more clever of me to put my prolific work to the best
multiple use i can, rather than treat it as the daily fishwrap, like
you do yours.
> >> >ego?
> >> >probably.
> >> My ego is perfectly developed.
> >no, it isn't.
> >if it was, you would not lose your temper over being wrong.
>
> I'm not wrong.
you were (and still are) wrong about Google Groups threading and
quoting of comments being a big plus, blogwise.
and you are wrong about whether i was blocked from posting to your
Sour Grapes 2.0
you're wrong about almost everything you say about moi.
plus, you're lying about your blog titling thinger.
> >foolish pride.
>
> And when someone gives their opinion -- as requested -- on your stupid
> "mega-not-blog" what's your response?
>
> "Bullshit". And I quote.
so, IOW, i'm not allowed to characterize the opinion of those who
bullshit their opinion?
strange world of rules you live in.
> >> Neither too big nor too small.
> >your ego is both.
>
> I think we've discovered another word you don't understand.
translation: "Zero nailed it!"
[...more to come...]
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
Alan Hope
>On Jul 11, 1:46 pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >On Jul 10, 12:32 pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> >On Jul 10, 8:31?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> >> >> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
>> >> >> >souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
>> >> >> >error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
>> >> >> >by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
>> >> >> Lemming.
>> >> >kinda explains why he cannot possibly fathom the idea of using Google
>> >> >Groups for a blog platform instead of Blogger.
>> >> No, that's more to do with it being a stupid fucking cockamamie idea
>> >> as you are proving day after day.
>> >translation: Alan reads megablog every single day
>> Dimwit. Nobody reads it day after day. Or even day.
>you do. as do many others. every day.
I most certainly do not. Are you mad?
>> That's the proof your experiment is off the rails.
>show me your proof that nobody, not even you, reads it.
You show me proof they do.
>the fact that so many have already commented on it, proves otherwise.
One person has commented. Two people have commented here on how
terrible it is, and made it clear they would not return.
>> >duh.
>> I'm now going to summarily delete these Tourette's tics of yours,
>> which have no meaning, contribute nothing, get in the way of the flow
>> of information (provided by me) and annoy me.
>that's because you're angry about being wrong. duh.
>> >> >i mean, whoa.
>> >> I mean, grovelgrovel for some readers.
>> >as if i ever, in a million years, ever need to grovel for readers.
>> Yet you did. There and here.
>nowhere did i grovel for readers. i didn't even grovel for comments.
Come on.
>i baited for the truth of the pettiness and malice.
>and i got it. duh.
You begged for comments for old times sake. Pathetic.
>> >> >can you imagine what it must be like to be so anal and limited in your
>> >> >thinking?
>> >> Can you imagine begging abjectly for someone anyone please please
>> >> please to leave a comment?
>> >nope.
>> That's what you did, and are now doing.
>yeah, keep preteneding that you can't even see the trap you're tangled
>in.
>at least Sal had the sense to STFU about it after being outed.
Give over. Trap. What a loon.
>> >> Yes, I'm sure you can.
>> >> > Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
>> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/feb566275ad2293b
>> >> Drivel. Who wants to read crap like that?
>> >did you read it?
>> I looked at it.
>No shit, Sherlock.
>you stared straight into the crosshairs.
>and look at you now.
Oh dear.
>> >that was a very focussed megablog.
>> Then you're in worse trouble than I thought. It was a crock of raving
>> loonie shit.
>that crock exposed your crock, like it's never been exposed before.
>so it's not at all surprising that the term "raving loonie shit" pops
>right into yer raving loonie shithead.
>it's called the subconscious.
Oh dear.
>> >> >still, he's an amusing and intelligent guy despite of it all.
>> >> Who is?
>> >you is.
>> Who are you addressing?
>your _altered_ ego.
>> >> >sometimes you have to count your blessings.
>> >> > New Ray, Please? (was: Re: New topics please?)
>> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d9e92b1c1fe6b329
>> >> >but you do have to wonder about some people, huh?
>> >> >what drives someone like Alan to be so neurotically narrow in some of
>> >> >his thinkings while demonstrating such expansive abilities elsewhere?
>> >> The fact that you can even pose the question shows what an idiot you
>> >> are.
>> [deletion]
>obligatory unsnip: "irony alert"
>> >> You probably think having a mind that can't concentrate on one
>> >> thing for thirty seconds (hence the need to archive all your own
>> >> comments) is a good thing.
>> >i can exclusively concentrate on any single thing anytime i want.
>> Then what have you got against narrow thinking?
>nothing.
>it's the narrow-minded whom are a curse upon all humnanity.
>[...]
>-$Zero...
Why have you deleted the entire passage where I prove your boast about
my post-titles was utter manufactured bullshit? I took you apart atom
by atom and proved you a liar, and now you've gone and cut it out.
Who's have expected such a thing?
Never mind. It's still in my post. The only one anyone's likely to
read.
Keep being a loser, genius.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>[...]
>> [deletion]
>nope.
Also the only one ever likely to want to look.
>> >what makes me different from you is that i've recognized how that can
>> >better help me concentrate on what i want to concentrate on.
>> What makes me different from you is, I've figured I can give something
>> to other people through my blogging, rather than just being utterly
>> self-obsessed.
>megablog is not about just me at all, as you well know.
I see no evidence of that whatsoever.
>whereas Sour Grapes 2.0 is definitely all about you.
Nonsense. Plenty there for other people.
>is that why you're bizarrely trying to claim the opposite?
Anyone can see both examples and judge for themselves. Why would I try
to pull the wool over their eyes?
>> >so yes, it's a good thing. duh.
>> I knew you would say that. You're not a very clever person for a
>> genius.
>it's far more clever of me to put my prolific work to the best
>multiple use i can, rather than treat it as the daily fishwrap, like
>you do yours.
Your prolific work? Is that what that spew is?
>> >> >ego?
>> >> >probably.
>> >> My ego is perfectly developed.
>> >no, it isn't.
>> >if it was, you would not lose your temper over being wrong.
>> I'm not wrong.
>you were (and still are) wrong about Google Groups threading and
>quoting of comments being a big plus, blogwise.
I said it wasn't, and I'm correct.
>and you are wrong about whether i was blocked from posting to your
>Sour Grapes 2.0
I said you were not, and at that time you were not.
>you're wrong about almost everything you say about moi.
Sez you.
>plus, you're lying about your blog titling thinger.
The evidence is there before everyone's eyes.
>> >foolish pride.
>> And when someone gives their opinion -- as requested -- on your stupid
>> "mega-not-blog" what's your response?
>> "Bullshit". And I quote.
>so, IOW, i'm not allowed to characterize the opinion of those who
>bullshit their opinion?
Their opinions are not bullshit. People who find it crap are telling
the truth.
>strange world of rules you live in.
You can dispute their opinion, but you cannot negate it.
>> >> Neither too big nor too small.
>> >your ego is both.
>> I think we've discovered another word you don't understand.
>translation: "Zero nailed it!"
There are so many.
>[...more to come...]
I hope you'll finally get around to dealing with your lies about
blog-post titles, before the audience has fallen asl... oh. Too late.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> >On Jul 10, 12:32 pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >On Jul 10, 8:31?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> >> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
> >> >> >souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
> >> >> >error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
> >> >> >by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
> >> >> Lemming.
> >> >
> >> >kinda explains why he cannot possibly fathom the idea of using Google
> >> >Groups for a blog platform instead of Blogger.
> >>
> >> No, that's more to do with it being a stupid fucking cockamamie idea
> >> as you are proving day after day.
> >
> >translation: Alan reads megablog every single day
[...]
> >what makes me differ from you is my ability to concentrate on several
> >things at once. (while retaining most of the context).
>
> And fuck them all up simultaneously.
on the contrary.
[...]
> What makes me different from you is, I've figured I can give something
> to other people through my blogging, rather than just being utterly
> self-obsessed.
unlike Sour Grapes 2.0, megablog is not about just me, not by any
means, as you well know.
> >so yes, it's a good thing. duh.
>
> I knew you would say that.
no doubt. especially since it _is_ a good thing.
> You're not a very clever person for a genius.
like you're qualified to judge.
"Blogger is for blogging, Google Groups is NOT!"
Gawd. what a genius evaluator you are.
> >> >ego?
> >> >probably.
> >> My ego is perfectly developed.
> >no, it isn't.
> >if it was, you would not lose your temper over being wrong.
>
> I'm not wrong.
you're wrong about so many things it's not even funny. well, maybe a
little funny.
> >foolish pride.
>
> And when someone gives their opinion -- as requested -- on your stupid
> "mega-not-blog" what's your response?
>
> "Bullshit". And I quote.
are you claiming that it wasn't bullshit? that would probably explain
why you didn't cite it in context, right?
> >> Neither too big nor too small.
> >your ego is both.
>
> I think we've discovered another word you don't understand.
translation: "Zero nailed it so good and broadly, i'll have to try to
pull an anal wimpout!"
> >> See, I
> >> get to test my abilities in the fire of everyday working life.
> >wow. big challenge.
>
> Stick to what you know.
yes, innovation. that's what i stick to. see, i mastered the status
quo numbskull bullshit way back in my early twenties, while half
asleep.
> >the numbskull status quo marketplace is sooo demanding.
>
> Stick to what you know.
i do. bullshit detection and disposal is just one of my many hobbies,
but i'm still far better at it than most others i've seen. hence my
"wealth" of troubles. nobody worries about an ass-kisser like
yourself, Alan. they go after the talent.
> >> If I fuck up there are people lining up to say so.
> >
> >and i can just imagine how long that line is.
>
> Can you? On what basis?
well, for one, on the basis of how fast you snapped back into line
about your blog titling. and how you view the idea of using Google
Groups (as a blogging tool) as vast silliness. paticularly as it
applies to megablog -- plus the various unsabby business notions that
you've plowed out over the years.
> >hence why you snapped right back into titling your blogs when
> >i mocked >you about it for two seconds.
>
> You take the credit for something I did?
hell, no. i give you full credit for your spineless retreat.
> >> You come to realise what
> >> you can and cannot do, which is the very hallmark of wisdom.
> > "Alan, can we readers title your posts if you're too lazy to do so?"
>
> Was that your mockery?
something along those lines. i might have prefixed it with something
like: "if it's too hard for you to come up with titles..."
> Gosh. I'm afraid I don't recall it.
yeah, not only that, you appear to have avoided noting it in your
recollection later on in this post even after freshly reading it. go
figure.
not only that, you lied about it being there at all "your one and only
comment". desperate.
> Still I suppose it's plain to all that such withering sarcasm
> must have been too much for me to bear.
they'll be the judge of that.
(obligatory queue).
> >snap!
> >
> >blog titles instantly return. instantly, mind you.
> >
> >> Other people, you may be acquainted with one, set up vanity groups
> >
> >how totally unobservant of you, yet again.
> >
> >some journalist.
> >
> >is megablog a vanity group? yikes. how stupid.
>
> You're the only person that's catered for.
i take it that you'll now soon surrender.
[...more to come...]
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>it's marrow thinking that i have, it's the marrow-minded who tend to ruin everything.
Yes. Marrow for brains. That explains it all. Marrow in your ulna
and marrow in your skull. Which to use? Which to use?
Doesn't matter. The end result is identical.
--
Ray
Towse
> $Zero goes:
>> yeah, keep preteneding that you can't even see the trap you're tangled
>> in.
>> at least Sal had the sense to STFU about it after being outed.
>
> Give over. Trap. What a loon.
STFU? Am I required to post here?
My call is my call and $Zero's control issues come to fore when he can't
control the conversation. Word to the wise, eh?
$Zero's obviously not listening to a thing I say. Why should I join a
one-sided conversation?
Sal is well known for leaving well enough alone and dropping out of
"conversation" with bears of little brain or bears with inflammation of
the brain or bears who scarcely bear repeating.
Folks who pay any attention can sense a pattern.
Why you are engaged in this go-round is anyone's guess.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
[...coming soon...]
> >> >i can exclusively concentrate on any single thing anytime i want.
> >> Then what have you got against narrow thinking?
> >nothing.
> >it's the narrow-minded whom are a curse upon all humanity.
> >[...]
> >-$Zero...
>
> Why have you deleted the entire passage where I prove your boast about
> my post-titles was utter manufactured bullshit?
patience, me boy, patience.
if you hadn't noticed by now, i'm chopping down your gazillion lined
post into digestable chunks so they're easier to swallow. but of
course, you noticed that, you're just desperate.
i'm about two thirds down your first raving post.
i'll return to this one wonce i've completed hosing away all of your
previous bullshit.
> I took you apart atom
> by atom and proved you a liar, and now you've gone and cut it out.
how shameless of you. you see that i'm progressing section by
section, and yet you lie about it so that you can hopefully discourage
further attention.
i mean, you flat out lied about that comment i made in your blog.
> Who's have expected such a thing?
nobody. though i can certainly see why you would hope it were so.
yikes. snap!
> Never mind. It's still in my post. The only one anyone's likely to
> read.
keep hoping.
> Keep being a loser, genius.
snap!
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>patience, me boy, patience.
Patience? I'm still waiting for that major lesson you were supposed
to deliver to me.
Nothing yet. Comments?
--
Ray
$Zero
> Alan Hope wrote:
> > $Zero goes:
> >> yeah, keep preteneding that you can't even see the trap you're tangled
> >> in.
> >>
> >> at least Sal had the sense to STFU about it after being outed.
>
> > Give over. Trap. What a loon.
>
> STFU? Am I required to post here?
of course not. it was wise of you to STFU about your obvious
pettiness after i excoriated you over such a pathetic demonstration of
what you displayed here. which is why i said this above:
"at least Sal had the sense to STFU about it after being outed."
if you were to attempt to reply, you'd just get deeper and deeper into
a bigger mess.
unless you opted to be honest, but that's out of the question for you
now, apparently.
it's a foolish pride thinger.
> My call is my call
of course it is.
but don't expect not to be called on your call when your call is 100%
petty nonsensical bullshit.
no?
> and $Zero's control issues come to fore when he can't
> control the conversation. Word to the wise, eh?
what projection on your part, Sal.
astonishing, actually. really.
you've outdone yourself with that particular subconscious leakage.
that's Ray quality fuck-up, there. very CHIPCOGish.
> $Zero's obviously not listening to a thing I say.
you always seem to confuse "listening" to you with respecting your
wishes and/or obediently taking your clueless narrow-minded petty
advice, hence the control issues you display so cluelessly in this
latest snipe and run post of yours.
> Why should I join a one-sided conversation?
Sal, a one-sided conversation is the only kind you are capable of when
"conversing" with people who disagree with your pettiness. which is
why you didn't respond to my other post. you saw that you could not
control me, and besides that, you saw that i was very skilled at
uncovering your total bullshit.
snipe and run, it's called.
> Sal is well known for leaving well enough alone
heh.
> and dropping out of "conversation" with bears of little
> brain or bears with inflammation of the brain or bears
> who scarcely bear repeating.
how cute, but it doesn't change your petty snootiness.
MWM revenge, no doubt.
> Folks who pay any attention can sense a pattern.
Gawd.
> Why you are engaged in this go-round is anyone's guess.
speaking of patterns, yikes. look at that.
your pattern is so written in stone that the stones wear away first.
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
$Zero
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:27:19 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>
> >patience, me boy, patience.
>
> Patience? I'm still waiting for that major lesson you were supposed
> to deliver to me.
>
> Nothing yet. Comments?
no.
no comments.
it is what it is.
innit.
you brought it on yourself.
completely and absolutely.
so, enjoy.
-$Zero...
The Day Your Universe Changed -- Presto!
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f2d51861e54b6464
the fool on the hill
sees the sun going down
but the eyes in his head
sees the world spinning round
and round and round and round
Alan Hope
>if you hadn't noticed by now, i'm chopping down your gazillion lined
>post into digestable chunks so they're easier to swallow.
The reason my posts are so long
duh
is because
yikes
some fuckbrains think every thought
whoa
has to go on its line
And I'm replying to you.
whoosh
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>> And when someone gives their opinion -- as requested -- on your stupid
>> "mega-not-blog" what's your response?
>> "Bullshit". And I quote.
>are you claiming that it wasn't bullshit? that would probably explain
>why you didn't cite it in context, right?
Fuck your context. She said it was crap and it is. There's your
context.
>> >> Neither too big nor too small.
>> >your ego is both.
>> I think we've discovered another word you don't understand.
>translation: "Zero nailed it so good and broadly, i'll have to try to
>pull an anal wimpout!"
>> >> See, I
>> >> get to test my abilities in the fire of everyday working life.
>> >wow. big challenge.
>> Stick to what you know.
>yes, innovation. that's what i stick to. see, i mastered the status
>quo numbskull bullshit way back in my early twenties, while half
>asleep.
>> >the numbskull status quo marketplace is sooo demanding.
>> Stick to what you know.
>i do. bullshit detection and disposal is just one of my many hobbies,
>but i'm still far better at it than most others i've seen. hence my
>"wealth" of troubles. nobody worries about an ass-kisser like
>yourself, Alan. they go after the talent.
Uh-huh. They make you forget how to switch your own computer on. I
know all about your troubles.
>> >> If I fuck up there are people lining up to say so.
>> >and i can just imagine how long that line is.
>> Can you? On what basis?
>well, for one, on the basis of how fast you snapped back into line
>about your blog titling.
You lied about that.
>and how you view the idea of using Google
>Groups (as a blogging tool) as vast silliness. paticularly as it
>applies to megablog -- plus the various unsabby business notions that
>you've plowed out over the years.
Unsabby?
>> >hence why you snapped right back into titling your blogs when
>> >i mocked >you about it for two seconds.
>> You take the credit for something I did?
>hell, no. i give you full credit for your spineless retreat.
You're lying.
>> >> You come to realise what
>> >> you can and cannot do, which is the very hallmark of wisdom.
>> > "Alan, can we readers title your posts if you're too lazy to do so?"
>> Was that your mockery?
>something along those lines. i might have prefixed it with something
>like: "if it's too hard for you to come up with titles..."
You never did. I proved it. I quoted you. You said nothing of the
kind.
>> Gosh. I'm afraid I don't recall it.
>yeah, not only that, you appear to have avoided noting it in your
>recollection later on in this post even after freshly reading it. go
>figure.
You didn't write it. The posts are there for people to see.
>not only that, you lied about it being there at all "your one and only
>comment". desperate.
You commented once.
>> Still I suppose it's plain to all that such withering sarcasm
>> must have been too much for me to bear.
>they'll be the judge of that.
Indeed. I wonder how that'll go.
>(obligatory queue).
>> >snap!
>> >blog titles instantly return. instantly, mind you.
>> >> Other people, you may be acquainted with one, set up vanity groups
>> >how totally unobservant of you, yet again.
>> >some journalist.
>> >is megablog a vanity group? yikes. how stupid.
>> You're the only person that's catered for.
>i take it that you'll now soon surrender.
What?
>[...more to come...]
Gosh. Can hardly wait.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Jul 11, 6:29?pm, Ray Haddad <rhad...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:27:19 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>
>> >patience, me boy, patience.
>>
>> Patience? I'm still waiting for that major lesson you were supposed
>> to deliver to me.
>>
>> Nothing yet. Comments?
>
>no.
>
>no comments.
>
>it is what it is.
>
>innit.
>
>you brought it on yourself.
>
>completely and absolutely.
>
>so, enjoy.
Enjoy what? Even your plonking was a lie. You threatened to teach me
a lesson and that hasn't happened and won't ever.
You're not capable enough.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
and Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com> instead replied:
>$Zero goes:
>
>>and how you view the idea of using Google
>>Groups (as a blogging tool) as vast silliness. paticularly as it
>>applies to megablog -- plus the various unsabby business notions that
>>you've plowed out over the years.
>
>Unsabby?
As opposed the the Lone Ranger's unique treatment for cancer.
Chemo-sabby.
--
Ray
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> >On Jul 10, 12:32 pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >On Jul 10, 8:31?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> >> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Thanks to language I can be taught how to make a
> >> >> >souffle, for example, without going through the disasters of trial and
> >> >> >error. And so it is with reading, too. You allow yourself to be swayed
> >> >> >by the judgements of people whose taste and insights you trust.
> >> >> Lemming.
> >> >
> >> >kinda explains why he cannot possibly fathom the idea of using Google
> >> >Groups for a blog platform instead of Blogger.
> >>
> >> No, that's more to do with it being a stupid fucking cockamamie idea
> >> as you are proving day after day.
> >
> >translation: Alan reads megablog every single day
[...]
> What makes me different from you is, I've figured I can give something
> to other people through my blogging, rather than just being utterly
> self-obsessed.
megablog is about everyone having fun and gaining benefits. if you
choose to exclude yourself from that, it's your choice, not mine.
re: making use of the fact that all posts are archived, i said:
> >so yes, it's a good thing. duh.
>
> I knew you would say that.
no you didn't.
you claim there's no lasting value to your daily fishwrap.
> You're not a very clever person for a genius.
translation:
"Blogger is for blogging, Google Groups is NOT!"
my, what a clever evaluator of genius you are.
> >> >ego?
> >> >probably.
> >> My ego is perfectly developed.
> >no, it isn't.
> >if it was, you would not lose your temper over being wrong.
>
> I'm not wrong.
and black is white, and war is peace, and Ray's a brilliant
sweetheart.
> >foolish pride.
>
> And when someone gives their opinion -- as requested -- on your stupid
> "mega-not-blog" what's your response?
>
> "Bullshit". And I quote.
have you cited it in full context yet?
> >> Neither too big nor too small.
> >your ego is both.
>
> I think we've discovered another word you don't understand.
because everyone's ego is the same across all situations and
applications, right? yours especially.
[...]
> >> If I fuck up there are people lining up to say so.
> >
> >and i can just imagine how long that line is.
>
> Can you? On what basis?
again, here's a short list:
1] how fast you snapped back into line about your blog titling.
2] how you view the idea of using Google Groups (as a blogging tool)
as vast silliness -- paticularly as it applies to megablog
3] plus the various unsavvy business notions that
you've plowed out over the years for all to marvel.
> >hence why you snapped right back into titling your blogs when
> >i mocked >you about it for two seconds.
>
> You take the credit for something I did?
you've been given full credit for your spineless retreat.
> >> You come to realise what
> >> you can and cannot do, which is the very hallmark of wisdom.
> > "Alan, can we readers title your posts if you're too lazy to do so?"
>
> Was that your mockery?
prefixed it with something like:
"if it's too hard for you to come up with titles..."
> Gosh. I'm afraid I don't recall it.
yeah, not only that, you appear to have avoided noting it
in your recollection later on in this post even after just
freshly reading it. go figure.
not only that, you lied about it being there at all:
"your one and only comment".
or somesuch. how desperate.
> Still I suppose it's plain to all that such withering sarcasm
> must have been too much for me to bear.
they'll be the judge of that.
(obligatory queue).
> >snap!
> >
> >blog titles instantly return. instantly, mind you.
> >
> >> Other people, you may be acquainted with one, set up vanity groups
> >
> >how totally unobservant of you, yet again.
> >
> >some journalist.
> >
> >is megablog a vanity group? yikes. how stupid.
>
> You're the only person that's catered for.
white flags are for sale in the concession booth.
> >you're losing your touch, Alan.
> >
> >> where they post messages to themselves telling themselves how creative
> >> they are, and what genius thinkers.
> >
> >unlike yourself concerning moi in your vanity blog (where you delete
> >all dissent and mockery), you're certainly welcome to tweak me and my
> >newest project in megablog, Alan.
>
> You pushed your luck.
translation: "Zero made fun of me!"
> Sorry, I'm not running a democracy.
no shit.
BTW: here's all i said, in full:
"next up you'll be telling us how the
Blogger comments thingy is better
than the one in Google Groups"
07 July 2007 00:13
and it was.... um... deleted.
yikes. too bad you're not running a democracy.
and oh, BTW, yes. as group owner, i can delete any megablog comments
i want. but i doubt i'll ever do that. unless some line-crosser like
"Ray" posts some outrageously evil line-crossing. and i don't mean
the anti-social P = Popeye the Sailor Man, either. it's best that
people see crap like that so they realize just what a useless piece of
shit "Ray" is. in the interests of full disclosure.
> >or are you already doing so? is Chris you?
> >anyway, unlike yourself, i can take criticism about myself and/or my
> >project without blocking people, etc.
>
> Yet nobody posts. Surely a conspiracy of mammoth proportions.
you doubt it? i've bravely stood up to the lying scumbag Busholians.
i created a very effective visual impeachment campaign. and they shut
it down like the anti-American scumbags that they are. so go back and
relax in your cubicle while the real men (and women) stand up to these
fascists. and while you're at it, why not take your petty anger out
on me, chicken shit.
> >it's an ego thinger.
>
> Yes. The thing is made up of nothing but your ego, so other people
> stay away.
"the thing," as you call it, is in development. no thanks to you.
coward.
> >> If that's all you ever see you end up believing it,
> >
> >sure, i'm never exposed to criticism. yikes.
> >
> >you've seen my response to very harsh criticisms over the years and
> >you think i'm living in a Sour Grapes 2.0 bubble where i have to
> >delete comments that make me look foolish?
>
> Did I delete comments that made me look foolish?
well, duh.
"next up you'll be telling us how the
Blogger comments thingy is better
than the one in Google Groups"
07 July 2007 00:13 Belgian Waffle time
(deleted within the hour, i believe, perhaps sooner)
> I don't think so.
> Still, we'll never know, will we? Because they're deleted.
that's handy. but i always save what i write, due to all of my
experience with crybaby cowards like you.
> > "the archive will confirm"
> >
> >except for the parts that were deleted by crybabies like yourself.
>
> Your deleted comment was drivel. People can take my word for it. I
> anticipate no doubters.
my comment was just poking a little fun at you. you flipped. SOP.
> >> and that's the very defining characteristic of stupidity.
> >
> >i couldn't agree more. hoist by your own.
> >
> >> >elitism is addictive.
> >
> >> How would you know?
> >
> >i've watched in action in mw for over a decade.
> >as well as almost everywhere else.
>
> So watching it is addictive.
i don't have to shoot up heroin to see its addictive effects, do i?
> >> You're only ever in an elite if everyone else
> >> leaves the room.
> >
> >if and when everyone else leaves a room, i don't weep.
>
> But when they stay away you whine and cry like
> this whole thread has been.
when others are maliciously prevented from visting, that's the only
time i get "emotional" about anything like that.
> How can you possibly hold up your head?
self confidence, i suppose. plus a clear conscience and all that.
> "Oh why does nobody give me a friendly comment?
> What have I done to deserve this? Wasn't I your
> friend? Please help me out pleasepleaseplease!"
LOL. nice spin attempt, my little fishy wishy. hook line, and stinky
sinker.
> If that's not weeping I dunno what is.
oh, i don't doubt your familiarity with weeping, especially given the
tamper tantrums you've displayed here.
> >i'm not compelled to be a member of some sort of
> >self-congratulatory elite.
>
> You're also not authorised.
"authorised" -- how absolutely indicative. but anyway... forming
clubs and handing out "authorisation" priviledges is something i
stopped doing when i was about twelve years old.
> >it's sillyfest supreme.
> >my ego is far too secure for such delusional crutches.
>
> That's your trouble. Your ego is too secure to be affected by reality.
you really do believe your various club-houses are "realities", don't
you? how sad.
> >> >and let's not forget brainwash.
> >> >and maybe it's just a matter of personality.
> >> >some people are inventive and some people aren't.
> >> We know who isn't.
> >yes we do.
> >you're very clever, and amusing, and intelligent, and widely read, but
> >you're certainly not inventive.
>
> Whereas you ... oh yes, you invented a Google Group and called it
> Amnesiablog.
these things take time to develop.[*] that's why you never bother
with innovation.
* especially when you're black-balled.
[...more to come...]
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
[..]
> >and how you view the idea of using Google
> >Groups (as a blogging tool) as vast silliness.
> >paticularly as it applies to megablog -- plus
> >the various unsabby business notions that
> >you've plowed out over the years.
>
> Unsabby?
typo.
one letter over to the left.
BTW: i'd like to quote you in an article i'm writing for the megablog.
ok?
or do you forbid it?
-$Zero...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/5c4959a10f5d874c
not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
Towse
> On Jul 11, 6:27?pm, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
>> Alan Hope wrote:
>>> $Zero goes:
>>>> yeah, keep preteneding that you can't even see the trap you're tangled
>>>> in.
>>>>
>>>> at least Sal had the sense to STFU about it after being outed.
>>> Give over. Trap. What a loon.
>> STFU? Am I required to post here?
>
> of course not.
There you go then. Have a happy and safe and sane Bastille Day.
boots
>On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 04:10:15 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:32:53 +0200, Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>My ego is perfectly developed. Neither too big nor too small.
>>>
>>>My ego is so more perfectly developed than yours.
>>
>>Somebody with an overdeveloped ego please email me a snippet, mine is
>>hiding under the couch again or some shit.
>
>"He is a very modest man with a great deal to be modest about." -
>Winston Churchill
"Don't take any wooden nickels." -unknown
--
The sane answer to insanity is madness.
boots
>unless, of course, you want to discuss it over in megablog, where your
>thoughts on that matter will actually do some real good in the larger
>scheme of things.
>
>see how that works, coward?
I'm not discussing anything on megablog, I'm already here and see no
reason to go there... your comments here have failed to interest me
sufficiently to cause a mouse-click. See how that works, fuckwit?
Alan Hope
>BTW: here's all i said, in full:
> "next up you'll be telling us how the
> Blogger comments thingy is better
> than the one in Google Groups"
> 07 July 2007 00:13
>and it was.... um... deleted.
Indeed. With the comment, "Can Google Groups do that?". The joke is
plain to all but you.
>yikes. too bad you're not running a democracy.
>and oh, BTW, yes. as group owner, i can delete any megablog comments
>i want. but i doubt i'll ever do that. unless some line-crosser like
>"Ray" posts some outrageously evil line-crossing.
Oh, so you do agree with deleting comments. Just not when it's yours.
You've given up the principle, Zero, and I'm not prepared to discuss
the details.
>and i don't mean
>the anti-social P = Popeye the Sailor Man, either. it's best that
>people see crap like that so they realize just what a useless piece of
>shit "Ray" is. in the interests of full disclosure.
>> >or are you already doing so? is Chris you?
>> >anyway, unlike yourself, i can take criticism about myself and/or my
>> >project without blocking people, etc.
>> Yet nobody posts. Surely a conspiracy of mammoth proportions.
>you doubt it? i've bravely stood up to the lying scumbag Busholians.
What makes you think anyone even noticed?
>i created a very effective visual impeachment campaign.
Oh please.
>and they shut
>it down like the anti-American scumbags that they are. so go back and
>relax in your cubicle while the real men (and women) stand up to these
>fascists. and while you're at it, why not take your petty anger out
>on me, chicken shit.
Stood up to the Busholians. Get back in the playroom, you twerp.
>> >it's an ego thinger.
>> Yes. The thing is made up of nothing but your ego, so other people
>> stay away.
>"the thing," as you call it, is in development. no thanks to you.
>coward.
Translation: it doesn't work.
>> >> If that's all you ever see you end up believing it,
>> >sure, i'm never exposed to criticism. yikes.
>> >you've seen my response to very harsh criticisms over the years and
>> >you think i'm living in a Sour Grapes 2.0 bubble where i have to
>> >delete comments that make me look foolish?
>> Did I delete comments that made me look foolish?
Nor did I. You missed the joke, which is kinda your life-story.
> "next up you'll be telling us how the
> Blogger comments thingy is better
> than the one in Google Groups"
> 07 July 2007 00:13 Belgian Waffle time
> (deleted within the hour, i believe, perhaps sooner)
You've already said above that you're in favour of deleting blog
comments, and you would do it yourself.
>> I don't think so.
>> Still, we'll never know, will we? Because they're deleted.
>that's handy. but i always save what i write, due to all of my
>experience with crybaby cowards like you.
I'm sure at least one person on the planet is interested.
>> > "the archive will confirm"
>> >except for the parts that were deleted by crybabies like yourself.
>> Your deleted comment was drivel. People can take my word for it. I
>> anticipate no doubters.
>my comment was just poking a little fun at you. you flipped. SOP.
I poked fun back, and you can't abide that. You went into full
paranoid meltdown mode. "I've been blocked, waaah!"
>> >> and that's the very defining characteristic of stupidity.
>> >i couldn't agree more. hoist by your own.
>> >> >elitism is addictive.
>> >> How would you know?
>> >i've watched in action in mw for over a decade.
>> >as well as almost everywhere else.
>> So watching it is addictive.
>i don't have to shoot up heroin to see its addictive effects, do i?
You do have to hear from someone who did. You can't tell from looking.
>> >> You're only ever in an elite if everyone else
>> >> leaves the room.
>> >if and when everyone else leaves a room, i don't weep.
>> But when they stay away you whine and cry like
>> this whole thread has been.
>when others are maliciously prevented from visting, that's the only
>time i get "emotional" about anything like that.
Nobody is prevented by anything stronger than their own free will.
That's the part you can't stomach.
>> How can you possibly hold up your head?
>self confidence, i suppose. plus a clear conscience and all that.
"All that" including "a complete divorce from reality and
unwillingness to face what's staring me in the face". Fact of the
matter is, Zero, you're a bore. You're no good at this. You're
tiresome and repetitive, just as I am right now, telling you this yet
again.
People are kept away by their own good judgement.
>> "Oh why does nobody give me a friendly comment?
>> What have I done to deserve this? Wasn't I your
>> friend? Please help me out pleasepleaseplease!"
>LOL. nice spin attempt, my little fishy wishy. hook line, and stinky
>sinker.
The post is there for anyone to read.
>> If that's not weeping I dunno what is.
>oh, i don't doubt your familiarity with weeping, especially given the
>tamper tantrums you've displayed here.
IKYA.
>> >i'm not compelled to be a member of some sort of
>> >self-congratulatory elite.
>> You're also not authorised.
>"authorised" -- how absolutely indicative. but anyway... forming
>clubs and handing out "authorisation" priviledges is something i
>stopped doing when i was about twelve years old.
No, you didn't. You weren't a member of any clubs even then. Once a
pariah, always a pariah.
>> >it's sillyfest supreme.
>> >my ego is far too secure for such delusional crutches.
>> That's your trouble. Your ego is too secure to be affected by reality.
>you really do believe your various club-houses are "realities", don't
>you? how sad.
You're the one who believes in elites, and clubhouses, and entry
privileges etc. You think the world is out to get you. That's evidence
of:
1) paranoia
2) delusion thought systems
3) narcissism
>> >> >and let's not forget brainwash.
>> >> >and maybe it's just a matter of personality.
>> >> >some people are inventive and some people aren't.
>> >> We know who isn't.
>> >yes we do.
>> >you're very clever, and amusing, and intelligent, and widely read, but
>> >you're certainly not inventive.
>> Whereas you ... oh yes, you invented a Google Group and called it
>> Amnesiablog.
Another stupid idea. Another thinly-disguised version of a Usenet
group. You take an establlished principle, change its name then claim
to be a creative genius for plagisarising the idea.
>these things take time to develop.[*] that's why you never bother
>with innovation.
>* especially when you're black-balled.
TMI. I don't want to know about your balls.
>[...more to come...]
Unfortunately.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>$Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
Things have come to a pretty pass when even you get to join the elite
that's stopping everyone in the whole world from commenting on his
"blog".
Is it really an elite when everyone's in it but Zero?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
boots
I'd be more inclined to call it a vote than a conspiracy... a failure
of customers to see any value in the product, even enough value to
inspire the clicking of a link. Ineffective advertising or absence of
value, prolly.
NMP.
$Zero
(was: Re: Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that?)
On Jul 12, 7:36?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >boots goes:
[...just who are these dudes whining about, anyway?...]
> >>I'm not discussing anything on megablog, I'm already here and see no
> >>reason to go there... your comments here have failed to interest me
> >>sufficiently to cause a mouse-click. See how that works, fuckwit?
>
> >Things have come to a pretty pass when even you get to join the elite
> >that's stopping everyone in the whole world from commenting on his
> >"blog".
>
> >Is it really an elite when everyone's in it but Zero?
>
> I'd be more inclined to call it a vote than a conspiracy... a failure
> of customers to see any value in the product, even enough value to
> inspire the clicking of a link. Ineffective advertising or absence of
> value, prolly.
>
> NMP.
plenty enough value for everyone here to spend years dissing it,
though, aye?
LOL.
Gawd.
how transparent.
megablog vs Sour Grapes 2.0
http://whooooooosh.com/megablog/msg/b937b7339c8062ed
anyway, the advertising has yet to begin.
cha' ching!
...
get in early or don't get in at all.
...
-$Zero... <----ThatSituation... IsAboutToChange...
Dragged and Dropped -- Can Google Groups do that? (orig)
http://whooooooosh.com/megablog/msg/5c4959a10f5d874c
not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
http://whooooooosh.com/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
http://whooooooosh.com/megablog
Kurt Ullman
boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 04:10:15 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >
> >>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:32:53 +0200, Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>My ego is perfectly developed. Neither too big nor too small.
> >>>
> >>>My ego is so more perfectly developed than yours.
> >>
> >>Somebody with an overdeveloped ego please email me a snippet, mine is
> >>hiding under the couch again or some shit.
> >
> >"He is a very modest man with a great deal to be modest about." -
> >Winston Churchill
>
> "Don't take any wooden nickels." -unknown
"What this country needs is a good 5 cent nickel."
boots
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >get in early or don't get in at all.
>
> I'll take (b), thanks.
ok.
-$Zero...
Alan Hope
>plenty enough value for everyone here to spend years dissing it,
>though, aye?
Hardly years.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com