Tileman vs. Smanes
Rich Tremblay
Dearest patrons of the VB&G,
Carol has helped me to understand some aspects of e-mail and newsgroup
postings, and has graciously helped me to unscramble this mess (as well
as my brain, which often "freezes" "restarts", "show's errors", and
"performs illegal operations").
Thank you Carol, for being so kind and patient with my *many* e-mail
'computer use' questions. You've made me a *little* smarter, which was
a great feat.
Concerning the recent spat with Steve Manes:
1) Deja-news shows two separate postings by Steve which are *very*
similar. One is dated 12/22, the other is dated 12/28. Up until
yesterday, I was seeing only the 12/22 version, which did not match the
e-mail which Steve was claiming he'd sent to me as a carbon copy of the
rmh post. The reason they did not match was because the carbon copy
e-mailed to me was actually a carbon copy of the 12/28 post.
Since these two posts are *very* close in content, and I wasn't seeing
the 12/28 post until Carol told me how to do a more "in depth" search,
it did appear to me that Steve altered my e-mail version which he did
not. I apologize to Steve for accusing him of that.
2) Another area of confusion was that the e-mail version did not
have any "NOSPAM" in the headers, but the posted version did have the
"NOSPAM", so it appeared to me that Steve sent the mail separately,
considering also that the post and the mail didn't match (remember, I
wasn't aware of the 12/28 post, which didn't match exactly-just real
close).
Obviously I wasn't understanding many aspects of deja-news, email,
newsgroups, and Netscape, and needed some instruction. I am still
confused about some of Steve's explanations, such as when he told me
that I was not removing the "NOSPAM" when I returned his e-mail even
though his e-mail message didn't come with the "NOSPAM" wording.
Why he would accuse me of being an idiot for not removing it, when it
wasn't there, I don't know. But that further confused me, as I just
thought it was further evidence that he was BS'ing me once again. Steve
asked me to post the headers, and I did. Again, he called me an idiot
because I didn't know that the code meant that his server was busy at
the time. Carol said that she wouldn't have known what that code meant
either, so I'm not the only one out here who doesn't know things like
that.
If any wants to look for themselves, the two versions of the rmh post
can be found in deja-news, dated 12/22 and 12/28. Both are under the
title, "Jon & Don, Who cares more?". I don't know why Steve posted 2
almost *identical* posts 5 days apart or if there was some point in
that. And I don't know why only one of them came CC'd to my e-mail,
since I think Steve said the CC is automatic. But at least now I
understand why the e-mail I had didn't match the 12/22 RMH post.
I guess I shouldn't have been messing in the Usenet world with a master
when my own knowledge is limited. It helps a lot when someone takes the
time to explain what I don't understand.
Thanks again, Carol.
Happy New Year,
Rich
Steve Manes
Rich Tremblay <rtt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: 2) Another area of confusion was that the e-mail version did not
: have any "NOSPAM" in the headers, but the posted version did have the
: "NOSPAM", so it appeared to me that Steve sent the mail separately,
: considering also that the post and the mail didn't match (remember, I
: wasn't aware of the 12/28 post, which didn't match exactly-just real
: close).
That part confused me even more until I remembered that I had written
a sed (basically, a line-oriented search-and-replace editor) macro
last summer to automatically replace all instances of the string
"@magpie.com" with "@NOSPAM.HEREmagpie.com" on all outgoing newsgroup
messages. It was a brute-force approach to force my news server,
which does local user-authorization, to de-spam my address. This
dispute uncovered the weakness in it: it will also de-spam that string
in message body text, as well as quoted text. I'll have to edit the
sed macro to limit the search-replace region to the message header
only.
You were right to gripe about it and I was wrong to accuse you of
density, at least in this matter. It wasn't until I saw my own
posts on DejaNews that I saw what you were talking about.
Yes, there were two Usenet responses to that message, posted a
week apart. I posted the second one when the first one appeared to
have gotten lost in the great Usenet bit bucket. As it turned
out, DejaNews didn't show that first message until almost a week
later so apparently a Usenet host just upstream of me was down for
a few days, which explains why I didn't see your posts either. I
think that server may be down again because I haven't seen any
responses to messages I posted two days ago. Of course, they
may not have deserved reply, but that's another matter.
-----------------------[ http://www.magpie.com ]-----------=o&>o-----
Steve Manes | The Bottom Line | for info, email
smanes [at] magpie.com | NYC Motorcyclists | ser...@magpie.com with
94 Harley-Davidson FLHR | Triumph MC Owners | the message, "lists"
95 Triumph Super III | Motorcycle Safety |
97 Triumph T595 | | N'Yawk, N'Yawk
Lee Petersen
Rich Tremblay wrote:
>
<snip>
> 2) Another area of confusion was that the e-mail version did not
> have any "NOSPAM" in the headers, but the posted version did have the
> "NOSPAM", so it appeared to me that Steve sent the mail separately,
> considering also that the post and the mail didn't match
<snip>
I'm using a free Netscape patch called "FixNews" (thanks to
Panhead for the pointer) that has an Anti-spam feature that
disguises news posts automatically - see my address in the
header of this post - but does not alter any e-mail. So if
I posted here and e-mailed a copy to someone, the post would
say no.spam.see.sig, but the otherwise identical e-mail would
not. Sounds awfully similar - maybe Steve is using a similar
program?
Lee P.
brainiacATflashDOTnet
Carol Mandera
In article <34B02F...@flash.net>, Lee says...
I guess that's sort of what Steve is using. But there was more to
this confusion than just that. Anyway, it seems the confusion has
been pretty much cleared up now, so the excitement is over in that
corner. Now, if the rest of the bar would settle down, we might
actually be able to converse without having to scream to be heard.
8-)
Carol
Mark Cronenweth
Steve Manes wrote:
[snip]
> ...Of course, they
> may not have deserved reply, but that's another matter.
What bugs me about this whole exchange is the sheer size of it. Like
most Tremblay-infested threads on this group, it just goes on forever,
until the other participants get tired of bickering with RTile. Finally
Steve seems to have made some concilatory conclusion and can now resume
his laudable life, his 3 careers, 3 bikes etc. RT will just slink back
into the shadows to await his next opportunity, and it won't be long
until he strikes again. Flames don't stop him - he lives for senseless,
babbling feuds. Until we universally ignore RT and his ilk, we will not
be free of them.
Put it in your sig. Put it in the FAQ. SHUN THE BASTARDS!
--
Mark Cronenweth
cone...@pitt.edu
(_10_) FHBE#3
Fuzzy Pooder
Hear ye, hear ye! Regarding some inane feud or another, Mark
Cronenweth <See.M...@K75S.edu> had cause to declare:
>Put it in your sig. Put it in the FAQ. SHUN THE BASTARDS!
Not all of us, I hope???
-pooder th' beggin' bastard
Rich Tremblay
Mark Cronenweth whines like a stuck biker pig:
> What bugs me about this whole exchange is the sheer size of it. Like
> most Tremblay-infested threads on this group, it just goes on forever,
> until the other participants get tired of bickering with RTile.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is there a "glimmer" of hope that you might admit there are *others*
participating in these exchanges, or are you going to (once again)
blame me for everything?
> Finally
> Steve seems to have made some concilatory conclusion and can now resume
> his laudable life, his 3 careers, 3 bikes etc. RT will just slink back
> into the shadows to await his next opportunity, and it won't be long
> until he strikes again. ^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
"opportunity"? "Strikes again"? Are you implying that I sit and wait
for the opportunity to start trouble? That is not true. I mean, just
because you imply it Mark, it doesn't make it true. If I asked you if
you stopped beating your wife, would that make you a wife beater?
It is simple Markie, WRITE THIS DOWN and remember it... I simply
*enjoy* responding to personal attacks because they come across to me
as totally hypocritical. When some scum like you thinks they are
better than me, I enjoy cutting you down to the size you really are
(small). You see Mark, I'm a lot like you. Put my pants on in the
morning, go to work, treat people well, do a good job etc. etc.
I don't need your sorry excuse for a life posting all these mindless
insults about me. So I'll have some fun with you. Simple?
You see, Mark, all your life it was you and your big bad biker
friends ganging up on some poor little tileguy, but now it's just
you and me on the internet, the second greatest equalizer!
> Flames don't stop him - he lives for senseless,
> babbling feuds.
"He" lives, eh Mark? Putting the whole blame on me? I don't respond
to my *own* posts, so I must be responding to *somebody*, eh Mark?
> Until we universally ignore RT
^^^^^^^^
You misspelled 'respect', Mark. You are a perfect example of how
these things start. Some *unrespecting* moron like you comes out
of the woodwork and totally trashes me like I am an irrelevant
piece of garbage. Read what you are saying about me and see
if you are not totally rude and disrespecting, and WHAT DID I
DO TO YOU Mark to have you post this? Write it down again,
Markie boy, I HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING TO YOU (did you hear me or
do I have to shout it again in the other ear?)
So the *fact* is Marky Cronenhead, YOU STARTED IT! Neener Neener.
Now, like a two year old, someone will come back and flame me for
responding to you like this, but keep in mind I am ONLY RESPONDING!
I *did not* start this, *you* did Mark. Just like all the other
"exchanges", someone else started it, and I defended myself.
After all, everyone else has the right to defend themselves when
personally attacked, yet I'm supposed to say nothing? I'll say
it again, if you go back and trace all these 'wars', you'll find
some moronic slug like you, Cronenhead, just coming out of nowhere
with a slew of personal insults, then retreating back and whining:
"look what the tileman started".
> Put it in your sig. Put it in the FAQ. SHUN THE BASTARDS!
There you go again. Is that what I am? Do you know something I
don't know about my family? You're pathetic, Markie boy.
Here's a recap of the nasty things you said about me with
*no* provocation on my part:
You said:
"Tremblay infested threads"
"RT will slink back into the shadows"
"to await his next opportunity"
"it won't be long until he strikes again"
"Flames won't stop him"
"he lives for senseless, babbling feuds"
"If we universally ignore RT"
"and his ilk"
"we will be free of him"
"Shun the Bast#%&ds"
Do you see how disrespectful and utterly offensive you were, Mark?
Get a life and don't ever come out with a post like that again
if you don't want me to respond to it.
Oh, and I'm supposed to respect *you*?
You have to *earn it* pal, and you're doing a poor job.
Rich, RT, "the babbler", "slinky", "the striker", "the ignored"
Carol Mandera
<posted and e-mailed simultaneously>
Rich Tremblay wrote:
>
> Mark Cronenweth said:
>
> > What bugs me about this whole exchange is the sheer size of it. Like
> > most Tremblay-infested threads on this group, it just goes on forever,
> > until the other participants get tired of bickering with RTile.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Is there a "glimmer" of hope that you might admit there are *others*
> participating in these exchanges, or are you going to (once again)
> blame me for everything?
Rich, there is a lot of truth in what you imply. However, I really wish
you would refrain from retaliating to generalizations aimed at you with
your own generalizations aimed outward. I doubt seriously if Mark has
every blamed you for "everything." In fact, I highly doubt anyone in
here has ever blamed you for *that* much!
And while I'm on a roll with suggestions, would you please look at the
subject heading to this post. Is there any real necessity for that?
Come on, Rich. Treat yourself with a little more respect than that.
Why feed the I-hate-Rich fan club such tasty treats?
<snip some of Rich's stuff not worth quoting...things like "Markie",
scum, sorry excuse for a life, mindless insults, you and your big bad
biker friends>
<snip some of Mark's stuff not worth quoting...things like "he lives for
senseless babbling feuds>
> I *did not* start this, *you* did Mark. Just like all the other
> "exchanges", someone else started it, and I defended myself.
> After all, everyone else has the right to defend themselves when
> personally attacked, yet I'm supposed to say nothing?
Actually, in this case, Rich, what Mark said was pretty mild. Yes, he
made some generalizations and indicated that he felt it best to ignore
you. What you just threw back at him sure seems like overkill to me.
Maybe there's a history I'm unaware of, but geeze....this still seems
excessive considering what Mark actually posted. You could have
defended yourself with a much simpler, less hostile reply. And that
would have reflected back on you with a more positive light.
Give it some thought Rich. I *was* looking forward to some peace and
quiet around here. I was hoping, since both you and Steve had
acknowledged that confusion played a role in your spat and had both
apologized for your accusations, that things might settle down for
awhile.
--
Carol Wench #7 Cheezie Customer #2 HSB #08C | KotHSBL
a.k.a. NightRider Iron Butterfly Princess Puma | KotWolfL
*************************************************************************
RMH/VBG patches--e-mail your order now!
Mark Cronenweth
Rich Tremblay wrote:
> Mark Cronenweth whines like a stuck biker pig:
Rich, I know you responded to my post, but you gotta remember that I
always ignore you. Always. Even though I'm sure that message is full
of tantalizing bait, I deleted all but the above. That's because I long
ago stopped caring what you had to say, or caring about your right to
say it. I cannot infringe on your ability to post whatever you want. I
just don't have to read it.
My point is simply this: In my opinion you stand out as the most
persistant and rapacious of the parasites that more-or-less continually
infect this newsgroup. If others share my conviction, then they also
need to ignore you. All the time, every time, no matter what.
Biker? Pig? Say what you want, Rich. After 4 years of CONEHEAD posts,
one Asshole number, 3 MITM's, and numerous other sightings, you will
have a tough time making that stuff stick.
--
Mark Cronenweth
cone...@pitt.edu
(_10_) FHBE#3
SHUN THE BASTARDS!
Rich Tremblay
<mailed and posted>
Carol Mandera wrote:
> Rich Tremblay wrote:
> >
> > Mark Cronenweth said:
> >
> > > What bugs me about this whole exchange is the sheer size of it. Like
> > > most Tremblay-infested threads on this group, it just goes on forever,
> > > until the other participants get tired of bickering with RTile.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Is there a "glimmer" of hope that you might admit there are *others*
> > participating in these exchanges, or are you going to (once again)
> > blame me for everything?
>
> Rich, there is a lot of truth in what you imply. However, I really wish
> you would refrain from retaliating to generalizations aimed at you with
> your own generalizations aimed outward.
Fair point.
> I doubt seriously if Mark has
> every blamed you for "everything."
The implication was clearly there.
> In fact, I highly doubt anyone in
> here has ever blamed you for *that* much!
Many have implied it, but many have also acknowledged that
others start the wars, then fan the flames. I've said before that
it is just a handful of unforgiving patrons who just won't give
it up slamming me. Most of the regulars here are fine, and there
are several who are very polite to me, publically and privately.
I know you aren't saying that I think everyone's attacking me,
but there will be someone who will say it.
> and while I'm on a roll with suggestions, would you please look at the
> subject heading to this post. Is there any real necessity for that?
Many of these attacks come from that direction. There's also some
nice people there so I shouldn't have generalized, I suppose.
> Come on, Rich. Treat yourself with a little more respect than that.
> Why feed the I-hate-Rich fan club such tasty treats?
The I-hate-Rich club can make up things on their own without me.
(see mark's post)
> > I *did not* start this, *you* did Mark. Just like all the other
> > "exchanges", someone else started it, and I defended myself.
> > After all, everyone else has the right to defend themselves when
> > personally attacked, yet I'm supposed to say nothing?
>
> Actually, in this case, Rich, what Mark said was pretty mild.
What he said may be characterized as mild (although I disagree), but
the *disrespect* was there when he said about 10 nasty remarks and
accusations about me in one unprovoked post out of nowhere.
> Yes, he
> made some generalizations and indicated that he felt it best to ignore
> you.
Being as nice as you are, that may be how you see it, but I think you're
putting it very mildly!
> What you just threw back at him sure seems like overkill to me.
I tend to do that when someone suddenly out of nowhere posts something
so disrespectful. It's not the content of their post that really
bothers me, it is the total lack of acknowledgment that I'm human,
and some of these people may be worse than me IRL.
> Maybe there's a history I'm unaware of
Yes, and that has a lot to do with my reaction. Markie (oops) Mark
has done this before, so I wasn't as nicey nice as I was last time.
>, but geeze....this still seems
> excessive considering what Mark actually posted. You could have
> defended yourself with a much simpler, less hostile reply. And that
> would have reflected back on you with a more positive light.
You are wiser than me in this regard. You're right here.
> Give it some thought Rich. I *was* looking forward to some peace and
> quiet around here.
Carol, you have been respectful toward me unconditionally for a long
time, regardless of what I do or say, so out of respect to you, I'll
do my best (again!) to drop this.
Rich
Harley...@earthlink.net
>Rich Tremblay wrote some bullcrap...as usual:
>
>Then Mark Cronenweth replied:
>
>I deleted all but the above. That's because I long
>ago stopped caring what you had to say, or caring about your right to
>say it.
You and the rest of the world. The Tile Twit is not worth anyones time.
Harley Rulz!!!
79' FXEF (Shovel 'n lovin'it!)
EK III rides with me...
merrell wasson
Carol Mandera wrote in message <68pl45$i...@drn.zippo.com>...
>Now, if the rest of the bar would settle down, we might
>actually be able to converse without having to scream to be heard.
>8-)
>
>Carol
really. i am about ready to start listening to opera music.
the big easy. looking for the volume contol.
#39, the jack benny Asshole (tm).
Screen Cleaner '97. SABB #1. KickAss customer #1.
Mark Cronenweth
Fuzzy Pooder wrote:
> Not all of us, I hope???
Das udder Kbikenrideren? Nein!
Carol Mandera
HarleyRulz!!!@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >Rich Tremblay wrote:
> >
> >Then Mark Cronenweth replied:
> >
> >I deleted all but the above. That's because I long
> >ago stopped caring what you had to say, or caring about your right to
> >say it.
>
> You and the rest of the world. The Tile Twit is not worth anyones time.
> Harley Rulz!!!
Mark spoke for himself, and I have no problem with his words. But
Harley Rulz!!!, if you don't think that Rich is worth your time, that's
fine. However, I'm a part of the rest of the world, and you don't speak
for me.
There are very few whom I have ever judged to be unworthy of any of my
time. Rich is not one of them. In fact, I find that Rich can be very
open to rational and reasonable discussion.
These are, of course, my views based on my own experiences with Rich.
My views stand as my views regardless of those held by others.
CLWG
>Carol Mandera wrote in message <68pl45$i...@drn.zippo.com>...
>
>
>>Now, if the rest of the bar would settle down, we might
>>actually be able to converse without having to scream to be heard.
>>8-)
>>
>>Carol
>
>really. i am about ready to start listening to opera music.
>
>the big easy. looking for the volume contol.
Hey, easy, get the scoot taken care of? Hadn't heard anything from you and was
beginning to wonder <G>
I got about ten remotes with volume control...now all we gotta do is figure out
which one works with the VB&G!
Julia "Woman of the Dead Rabbit"
*#69OOP's*HSB#34CT**Nothing is as it seems...such is the life of a woman!**Keep
it shiny side up, both wheels on the ground, what angle you're at is up to
you!** http://members.aol.com/CLWG/*
Harley...@earthlink.net
Carol Mandera <man...@mt.net> sez:
>Mark spoke for himself, and I have no problem with his words. But
>Harley Rulz!!!, if you don't think that Rich is worth your time, that's
>fine. However, I'm a part of the rest of the world, and you don't speak
>for me.
Whoa whoa whoa......! OK.... add "IMO" to my post. I don't care for TileMan,
I think he's a putz. I've been watching him post for over a year now, and "IMO"
he's a twit. If you like him, that's up to you, and I got no prob with that.
Later...
wolfpup
Mark Cronenweth wrote:
>
Ka-Whack!
>
> Put it in your sig. Put it in the FAQ. SHUN THE BASTARDS!
The first time I read this I thought it said STUN THE BASTARDS! Now
there's a thought I could get behind.
--
wolfpup redh...@earthlink.net
.Sig file? We don' need no steenkin' sig file!
Judy Anderson
Synapses smoldering, wolfpup <redh...@earthlink.net> tapped in the
following:
>Mark Cronenweth wrote:
>>
>Ka-Whack!
>>
>> Put it in your sig. Put it in the FAQ. SHUN THE BASTARDS!
>
>The first time I read this I thought it said STUN THE BASTARDS! Now
>there's a thought I could get behind.
But not Pooder th' Bastard---that's MY job! <grin>
--
Sparky
Wench #2 | Bitch #7 | ASSHOLE #48 | BOTY Emeritus
r.m.h FAQ is at http://www.execpc.com/~jschwarz/rmhFAQmenu.html
heekster
Judy Anderson wrote:
>
> Synapses smoldering, wolfpup <redh...@earthlink.net> tapped in the
> following:
>
> >Mark Cronenweth wrote:
> >>
> >Ka-Whack!
> >>
> >> Put it in your sig. Put it in the FAQ. SHUN THE BASTARDS!
> >
> >The first time I read this I thought it said STUN THE BASTARDS! Now
> >there's a thought I could get behind.
> But not Pooder th' Bastard---that's MY job! <grin>
> --
> Sparky
And I would wager that Pooder is a properly stunned bastard. :)
the heekster
heekster
the heekster, And now,. . .
Judy Anderson
Synapses smoldering, heekster <heek...@gte.net> tapped in the
following:
<snip>
>And I would wager that Pooder is a properly stunned bastard. :)
to my delight...he is! <seg>
Dave Urquhart
Judy Anderson wrote:
>
> >The first time I read this I thought it said STUN THE BASTARDS! Now
> >there's a thought I could get behind.
Stunning??
Reminds me of the old joke, What's the difference between a magician's
wand and a policeman's baton. One's for cunning stunts and the others
for hitting people on the head
Ta Ta the noo
Dave Urquhart
91 XLH & Boring company car.
Remove ?malt? to reply to e-mail
When a man points at the moon, it is the imbecile that regards the
finger