"Lurkers support me in email" - a brief history
Guy Barry
"lurkers support me in email" isn't some ancient tradition going back
to the earliest days of the net. It's largely been propagated by a
few people from soc.singles. (Why does this not surprise me in the
slightest?)
First recorded appearance of the phrase was by Seth Breidbart on 31
July 1995, on rec.gambling.blackjack:
> No. Has it occurred to you that "thousands of lurkers support me in
> email" is the oldest, most discredited form of argument on the net?"
Rather strange that it hadn't appeared before then, don't you think?
(And the archive is more or less complete from 1992 onwards.) On the
same group, two weeks later (15 August), Seth then asked:
> When was the first time "the lurkers support me in email" got
> discredited? I know it was before my time.
Apparently it was by Seth himself, two weeks previously – but wait.
Maybe we're being too strict with the phrasing. Let's search for the
earliest occurrence of "lurkers support me":
> Ah yes, the old "all the lurkers support me and you can't prove
> otherwise" argument. Sorry, it doesn't wash. In fact, you can't
> prove that lurkers exist (arbitron is known to be buggy).
And who was this? Why, Seth Breidbart, posting to soc.singles on 27
June 1993! And there are no recorded occurrences of the phrase in the
intervening two years, or for the rest of 1995.
However, the phrase really started to take off when Charlotte Blackmer
got hold of it. This is from soc.singles on 9 January 1996:
> I'll pass, thanks, although I will have to remember to ask deane
> whether you finally managed to fish the "no wonder you people are
> all single" "defense" out of your shabby bag of tricks. It's about
> all you need to complete the set (especially after the "many lurkers
> support me in email" play).
Then on 21 April 1996, back she comes with:
> the "fighting against the clique" defense and the old fave, appointing
> yourself battle champion for some person or group of people who have
> left the scene (or never arrived) - this is related to the "many lurkers
> support me in email" defense.
This is in the middle of a long description of what she refers to as
the "Classic Discredited Defenses" on Usenet. Again, quite where and
why they became discredited is unclear. In the whole of recorded
Usenet history, the phrase and its variants only appear in posts by
Charlotte herself.
Fortunately, Warren Cheney established his credentials in the next
recorded occurrence of the phrase (17 June 1996):
> I'm not one of those "lurkers support me in e-mail" types of
> people.
Great to hear it, Warren! There follow uses of the phrase – all on
soc.singles – by Michael Lundy, John Fereira and (predictably) Seth
Breidbart, followed by an unexpected use of the phrase on
news.admin.net-abuse.misc by (guess who?) Seth Breidbart, and one
further use on soc.singles by Ewen McNeill before the end of 1996.
The next use is on 28 January 1997 in alt.personals.jewish, by – um -
Seth Breidbart. Then we're back to Charlotte Blackmer on soc.singles,
and then the first use by piranha:
> it's a well-known usenet ploy to claim "lots of lurkers support me in
> email".
Well-known on soc.singles, if nowhere else.
Next use is on alt.personals.jewish again (need I tell you who the
author is?). Then back to soc.singles and David Wolverson quoting
some unnamed poster, and then – yes! – the first appearance on
soc.singles.moderated:
> BZZT! "I know you are but what am I" is one of the classic
> discredited Usenet defenses, right behind "many lurkers support me
> in email". Please do try to do better.
That's right, dear old Charlotte with her catalogue that apparently
only she knows about...
On we go, with Seth putting in another appearance on
news.admin.net-abuse.misc, and then Francois on soc.singles:
> Congratulations, Donna! You have just said the magic phrase
> "Many lurkers support me in email" and you win the prize!
Next up is David Formosa on news.admin.net-abuse.misc (well we can
guess who he picked it up from), then (just for a change) Seth posts
it to news.admin.net-abuse.policy. One more from David Formosa, then
it's back to soc.singles and dear old Charlotte. After this piranha
takes it across to alt.polyamory, then there's another of those Seth
net-abuse threads, after which Allison comes up with a novel twist on
the phrase on s.s.m: "Non-lurkers support me in e-mail"!
Gradually the phrase is gaining currency. In October 1997
"Information Security" takes it from n.a.n-a.p across to news.groups,
and Charlotte uses it on rec.food.cooking. Then, somehow, it turns up
on rec.arts.sf.written, under the name "Stevens". Two more posts to
the net-abuse groups, then Kris uses it jokingly on s.s.m, then it's
back to net-abuse, then Kris takes it over to pdx.singles, then
there's another net-abuse posting, then the following rather startling
revelation from Seth on rec.arts.sf.fandom:
> "The lurkers support me in email." There's something in one of the
> news.announce.newusers faqs about that argument.
Well no there isn't, since Seth apparently invented the phrase
himself, but let's not let the facts get in the way, shall we?
It was as a response to this post, on 17 May 1998, that Jo penned her
classic ditty to the tune of "My Bonnie", opening the floodgates to
all and sundry. Suddenly it's being quoted on
alt.humor.best-of-usenet, rec.music.filk, rec.music.drink.beer,
alt.folklore.military, rec.collecting.stamps... it starts to spread
like wildfire. Jo is probably starting to wish that she'd asked for
royalties.
It's impossible to keep track of the spread of the phrase and
associated song since then. They've even turned up in a post to
soc.culture.esperanto:
> "Lurkers", de Jo Walton
> melodio: "My Bonny lies over the ocean" [etc.]
What's perhaps not so well known is that there's an alternative song,
written by someone called MegaMole, which appeared on
alt.fan.pratchett and rec.music.filk on 8 February 2002. I don't know
the original tune, which is "The French Are Coming to Get Us" by Mitch
Benn, but I think it works extremely well anyway. Found at
<qTttgvA$TGZ8...@countertenor.demon.co.uk>:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Now on this noble newsgroup I've come lurching into view,
And clearly I have caused a stir, top-posting as I do;
I only had two reboots with my disc from AOL,
Then I plugged into my WebTV, and posted here as well...
Yes, the lurkers support me in email
With gusto and vigour and vim
And so does the Pope and the President, and
My invisible weasel called Jim;
I'm amazed at this Internet thingie,
I've been typing so hard I've got cramp,
But I've only just worked out what "posts" are,
And tomorrow I'll take off the stamp..
Now though I haven't read the FAQs, I feel I must protest
At lectures on Good Form from those who think they know the best -
It's *easy* to reply to text the higher up you go,
And that dear man, Mr. H!pcr!me, taught me everything I know...
Yes, the lurkers support me in email,
And they're sure to back up what I post,
But they're far too scared to admit it,
Since the flamers here char them to toast...
The lurkers support me in email,
And I *do* know about netiquette,
I can prove that my sig looks fine fifty lines big,
You should see all the fan mail I get...
Yes, the lurkers support me in email,
And the Warlords are marching as well,
And B1FF likes me, and so does Free Porno,
I've got personal mails - I can tell;
And they're all writing to net-abuse.usenet
To complain about how you behaved;
All my Internet troops will lay siege to your group
So not one little post will be saved.
You're all doomed if you don't pay attention
'Cos I am the one who knows best,
And I don't care I'm posting in HTML
'Cos I'm posting through Outlook Express!
------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it. Conclusive proof, if such were needed, that on
Usenet it's the snigglers who make The Rules.
Guy
heck
> So there you have it. Conclusive proof, if such were needed, that on
> Usenet it's the snigglers who make The Rules.
Yeah, so?
Seth Briedbart - who in addition to being a sniggler was
ALSO the creator of the infamous Briedbart Index (see
http://www.metronet.co.uk/policies/aup if you want a
reference; or Keith's http://keithlynch.net/spamline.html) -
first said the phrase THAT YOU KNOW OF*? And, yes, he
was a sniggler. (Hell, back in those days most people
were. The 'Net was a much smaller place. And I posted
my first post from my Cornell account and you'll never
find it, neener neener)
By the way, Seth is/was a net admin of high standing. He's
also fairly involved in scifi conventions. I'd rank sniggler
pretty far down there on his CV. Back in those days
Net God would be closer to the truth.
- heck
* because the archives are incomplete and someone could
have phrased it differently; for that matter it could
have come up in a bar because net admins are notorious
for starting stuff over beer and then bringing it online.
And even so, I don't really care.
Kris Hasson-Jones
following for your consideration:
>Seth Briedbart - who in addition to being a sniggler was
>ALSO the creator of the infamous Briedbart Index (see
>http://www.metronet.co.uk/policies/aup if you want a
>reference; or Keith's http://keithlynch.net/spamline.html) -
>first said the phrase THAT YOU KNOW OF*? And, yes, he
>was a sniggler. (Hell, back in those days most people
>were. The 'Net was a much smaller place. And I posted
>my first post from my Cornell account and you'll never
>find it, neener neener)
>
>By the way, Seth is/was a net admin of high standing. He's
>also fairly involved in scifi conventions. I'd rank sniggler
>pretty far down there on his CV. Back in those days
>Net God would be closer to the truth.
And he's an incarnation of a sex god.
And he has a Plate.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
..[S]uspension of disbelief is much more important in non-fiction
than in fiction.... Neil Gaiman, 6 April 2003
heck
(about Seth)
> And he has a Plate.
But he doesn't have a Red Ball.
- heck (watch out for the squirrels!)
Rose Skubiszewski
>g...@uk-roads.co.uk (Guy Barry) wrote:
>
>>Well, whaddya know? A bit of googling shows that the discrediting of
>>"lurkers support me in email" isn't some ancient tradition going back
>>to the earliest days of the net. It's largely been propagated by a
>>few people from soc.singles. (Why does this not surprise me in the
>>slightest?)
>
>
>Good research Guy. Now how about doing research on the
>history of lancing boils.
I could use some help researching locking
behavior in SQL Server 2000. Oh, those
wacky programmers and their "hints" !!!
Rose
Holly Gallup
>g...@uk-roads.co.uk (Guy Barry) wrote:
>
>>Well, whaddya know? A bit of googling shows that the discrediting of
>>"lurkers support me in email" isn't some ancient tradition going back
>>to the earliest days of the net. It's largely been propagated by a
>>few people from soc.singles. (Why does this not surprise me in the
>>slightest?)
>
>snip 188 lines of research/discussion.
>
>Good research Guy. Now how about doing research on the
>history of lancing boils.
Better yet, obsessive-compulsive disorder.
--holly
heck
>>Better yet, obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Which brings us back to RED BALLS and SQUIRRELS. No
SQUIRRELS here, but we do have FOXES. We don't like
FOXES.
We lost our RED BALL when Quincy dropped it by the
creek. We hope we get another RED BALL. Our RED
BALL flashed when we shook it.
- Quincy and Jake
Ocean Gypsy
>Holly Gallup wrote:
>
>>>Better yet, obsessive-compulsive disorder.
There's a NEW DOG in town. He's PROUD and THE
KING OF O-EFFIN-HIO.
>Which brings us back to RED BALLS and SQUIRRELS. No
>SQUIRRELS here, but we do have FOXES. We don't like
>FOXES.
We have SQUIRRELS here, but THEY do not deserve as
much attention as the other DOGS that WE yammer at,
chastise and generally boss around.
>We lost our RED BALL when Quincy dropped it by the
>creek. We hope we get another RED BALL. Our RED
>BALL flashed when we shook it.
It's PINK BALLIE time now. Beware of PINK BALLIE MOUTH.
>- Quincy and Jake
Spenser
Guy Barry
> Guy Barry wrote:
> > So there you have it. Conclusive proof, if such were needed, that on
> > Usenet it's the snigglers who make The Rules.
>
> Yeah, so?
Oh, it just amused me when I looked up the origins of the phrase and
saw all these familiar names, so I thought I'd do a bit of
myth-debunking.
> Seth Briedbart - who in addition to being a sniggler was
> ALSO the creator of the infamous Briedbart Index (see
> http://www.metronet.co.uk/policies/aup if you want a
> reference; or Keith's http://keithlynch.net/spamline.html) -
> first said the phrase THAT YOU KNOW OF*?
(I've found a better reference for the Breidbart Index at
http://www.stopspam.org/usenet/mmf/breidbart.html - interesting
stuff!)
What amazed me was that the phrase was so relatively recent. I
believe that
the archives are more or less complete back to about 1992, but the
phrase doesn't appear in that form until 1995, and searching for
variants of it only produces a single 1993 reference. I was sure it
never existed when I first joined the net - in those days the standing
joke was that every thread would eventually mention Hitler. (Why does
no one ever say that any more?)
> By the way, Seth is/was a net admin of high standing. He's
> also fairly involved in scifi conventions. I'd rank sniggler
> pretty far down there on his CV. Back in those days
> Net God would be closer to the truth.
Maybe he should add "author of 'lurkers support me in email'" to his
CV. It must be his most frequently quoted line!
Incidentally, the other thing I noted was how the phrase has subtly
changed since it was first used. Originally it was phrased as
"thousands of lurkers..." or "many lurkers...", the implication being
that a poster was claiming implausibly high levels of support from
elsewhere. Somewhere along the line it changed so that a poster
claiming *any* support from lurkers - even a single email - was
discredited. Pretty illogical if you ask me.
Guy
Secret Agent Pig
>It's PINK BALLIE time now. Beware of PINK BALLIE MOUTH.
That's Quick-Draw Spenser, fastest jaw east of the Mississippi.
--
Piglet, pig...@piglet.org http://unitedforpeace.org/
Stop the War on Iraq
808 days down Ann B. for President!
652 to go. Burlingham/Burlingham in 2004!
Dr. Brat
> In article <zcOcneT8G-7...@mho.net>, heck <quincy...@thehecks.com> wrote:
>
> There's a NEW DOG in town. He's PROUD and THE
> KING OF O-EFFIN-HIO.
Huh? O-effin-what? Oh, that. I ain't never been there, but the little
black one, he's been there. He doesn't really remember much about it,
though. He really doesn't remember much.
If you're KING, can I dominate you? Would that make me KING?
>>Which brings us back to RED BALLS and SQUIRRELS. No
>>SQUIRRELS here, but we do have FOXES. We don't like
>>FOXES.
>
> We have SQUIRRELS here, but THEY do not deserve as
> much attention as the other DOGS that WE yammer at,
> chastise and generally boss around.
SKWIRRELS? Do you have SKWIRRELS? Do you have SKWIRREL TREES? What
about CATZES? I hate CATZES! Well, except the one in the house, but
she's not really a CATZE. She can't be because she doesn't RUN. CATZES
are supposed to RUN.
>>We lost our RED BALL when Quincy dropped it by the
>>creek. We hope we get another RED BALL. Our RED
>>BALL flashed when we shook it.
>
> It's PINK BALLIE time now. Beware of PINK BALLIE MOUTH.
Awww, balls are ok, I guess. I like the STUFFED SKWEEKY THINGS. It's
fun to destuff and deSKWEEK them. What I really WANT, though is to
destuff and deSKWEEK a CATZE.
>>- Quincy and Jake
>
> Spenser
Harry (but not Henri, I promise or rather, mom made me promise)
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*barnacle-encrusted bitch~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Quincy and Jake
> We have SQUIRRELS here, but THEY do not deserve as
> much attention as the other DOGS that WE yammer at,
> chastise and generally boss around.
We are mad at the DEER. The DEER ate Our Master's
tulips. And to taunt us, the DEER left a hoofprint
in the middle of OUR garden. We don't care that
they're mule deer and twice the size of those small
mouse like creatures you Ohio dogs call DEER, when
we see those DEER again we're going to give them a
piece of our mind.
Have you seen our RED BALL?
- Quincy and Jake
Sara Running
This newsgroup is *really* going to the dogs.
Sara
--
Sara Running
Not speaking for my employer
History doesn't necessarily repeat, but it does rhyme
Andreas Tovornik
More simply put, He's a big poo-poo head...
--
'dreas...tbtw#5 'They say for centuries lovely Japanese girls
Victoria Taxi#15 have been trained in the art of pleasin' men.
Be lonely no more, open destiny's door. For one dollar they'll arrange
a meeting.' -Bonzo Dog Band/Lookout there's a monster coming
Ocean Gypsy
>Ocean Gypsy wrote:
>> In article <zcOcneT8G-7...@mho.net>, heck
> <quincy...@thehecks.com> wrote:
>>
>> There's a NEW DOG in town. He's PROUD and THE
>> KING OF O-EFFIN-HIO.
>
>Huh? O-effin-what? Oh, that. I ain't never been there, but the little
>black one, he's been there. He doesn't really remember much about it,
>though. He really doesn't remember much.
Hi HARRY. I remember YOU and SATIN. YOU like to play.
SATIN was just cranky and sleepy. YOU're fun.
>If you're KING, can I dominate you?
Hey! YOU tried that before and I didn't like that. Mom said it was
just because YOU were a PUPPY then and YOU wouldn't do that
when YOU got bigger.
>Would that make me KING?
No, it would make YOU QUEEN. HTH.
>>>Which brings us back to RED BALLS and SQUIRRELS. No
>>>SQUIRRELS here, but we do have FOXES. We don't like
>>>FOXES.
>>
>> We have SQUIRRELS here, but THEY do not deserve as
>> much attention as the other DOGS that WE yammer at,
>> chastise and generally boss around.
>
>SKWIRRELS? Do you have SKWIRRELS? Do you have SKWIRREL TREES? What
>about CATZES? I hate CATZES! Well, except the one in the house, but
>she's not really a CATZE. She can't be because she doesn't RUN. CATZES
>are supposed to RUN.
WE have a big SKWIRREL (gee YOU spell funny HARRY) TREE in OUR back
yard. One of the SKWIRRELS likes to hang out on the fence. Boy will HE
be surprised when dad changes that fence to a picket fence. OWIE!
WE have two CATZES in OUR house! One of them is old and fat and doesn't
run at all. I chase the other one and SHE RUNS FROM ME!!!!! Come over
sometime and help ME chase the CATZE.
>>>We lost our RED BALL when Quincy dropped it by the
>>>creek. We hope we get another RED BALL. Our RED
>>>BALL flashed when we shook it.
>>
>> It's PINK BALLIE time now. Beware of PINK BALLIE MOUTH.
>
>Awww, balls are ok, I guess. I like the STUFFED SKWEEKY THINGS. It's
>fun to destuff and deSKWEEK them. What I really WANT, though is to
>destuff and deSKWEEK a CATZE.
I like some STUFFED SKWEEKY THINGS too. MY old friend MR. GATOR
is almost in pieces though. I think I need a new one - maybe MR.
LAMBYKINS in time for Easter.
I do love my PINK BALLIE so much. One of those humans who were here
this weekend (Where'd they all go? I wait at the door for them
allatime.) kicked PINK BALLIE down the stairs into the basement. MY
mom couldn't find it, but MY dad found it in a box!
>>>- Quincy and Jake
>>
>> Spenser
>
>Harry (but not Henri, I promise or rather, mom made me promise)
Spenser, I met Henri when I was just a little PUP and HE RAN
FROM ME!
Guy Barry
Here's an extract from a posting to rec.arts.books by Mark Taranto -
reference <C0yIA...@panix.com>. It comes from a list of what he
believes to be acceptable references to email on Usenet:
> "I believe X, and others have told me in e-mail that they do, too."
> Several times, on r.a.b, Heather has made the "I have support
> from the lurkers" kinds of claims. If she really does get
> supportive letters from them, I have no problem with this kind
> of general reference to e-mail.
The date? 16 January 1993. So whenever "lurkers support me in email"
became discredited, it must have been after then - but before 27 June
1993 when Seth first referred to it. Curiouser and curiouser, as
Alice would say...
Guy
Pockets of Resistance
Very good, Guy.
Now, research when the question, "Why does it hurt when I pee?" first
came about.
heck
>
> Now, research when the question, "Why does it hurt when I pee?" first
> came about.
I want to know what happened to Seth's plate.
Mike Given
>g...@uk-roads.co.uk (Guy Barry) wrote:
>>Just a postscript to my earlier piece...
>>Here's an extract from a posting to rec.arts.books
>>by Mark Taranto - reference <C0yIA...@panix.com>.
>>It comes from a list of what he believes to be
>>acceptable references to email on Usenet:
>>The date? 16 January 1993. So whenever "lurkers
>>support me in email" became discredited, it must have
>>been after then - but before 27 June 1993 when Seth
>>first referred to it. Curiouser and curiouser, as
>>Alice would say...
>Very good, Guy.
>Now, research when the question, "Why does it hurt when
>I pee?" first came about.
It's just that sort of remark that requires its poster to donate
heavily to the United Nations' "Windex for Monitors" fund.
Mikey (..should make you fetch me a fresh cuppa coffee too.)
tom calwell
Guy,
as a lurker, if I send myself e-mail from work to my yahoo account
affirming that I'm a great guy and that I "heart" myself, would this
count as having lurkers support me in e-mail?
I'd like to think it would.
rgds,
Tom
Allison Turner-
<*whistles*>
<*gazes at ceiling*>
-Allison.
Allison Turner-
>as a lurker,
Are you a lurker? Does one post void the terms?
For that matter, haven't I seen your ascii around
here before? If so, welcome back.
>if I send myself e-mail from work to my yahoo account
>affirming that I'm a great guy and that I "heart" myself, would this
>count as having lurkers support me in e-mail?
>
>I'd like to think it would.
Sure. It's in the same category as talking to ones
self. I keep myself good company at times.
-Allison.
Team T0r0nter
> On 8 Apr 2003 11:17:03 -0400, heck <he...@thehecks.com> submitted the
> following for your consideration:
>
> >Seth Briedbart - who in addition to being a sniggler was
> >ALSO the creator of the infamous Briedbart Index (see
> >http://www.metronet.co.uk/policies/aup if you want a
> >reference; or Keith's http://keithlynch.net/spamline.html) -
> >first said the phrase THAT YOU KNOW OF*? And, yes, he
> >was a sniggler. (Hell, back in those days most people
> >were. The 'Net was a much smaller place. And I posted
> >my first post from my Cornell account and you'll never
> >find it, neener neener)
> >
He never ran Simpsons smack.
> >By the way, Seth is/was a net admin of high standing. He's
> >also fairly involved in scifi conventions. I'd rank sniggler
> >pretty far down there on his CV. Back in those days
> >Net God would be closer to the truth.
>
> And he's an incarnation of a sex god.
>
There is only one. Toller Cranston, Admiral Ameriker doesn't support
me in email, he supports me in newsgroups. As does t0r0...@beer.com,
George Perry, MJ Canader, GAYDO, CRAPPER, and last and least of all,
FaranQ Mayhar.
> And he has a Plate.
Can he fly plane?
WELL?
Team T0r0nter
Toller Cranston, Helen of Troy had the face That Launched a Thousand Ships.
Were you aware that Nicol had the face that lopped two domes?
A Mukluk-wearing Troll
<beto...@sover.net> wrote:
Seth's carefully autographed plate
met a sad and unfortunate fate
The writing was scrubbed
In a dishwasher's tub
Post boink on a Sunday night late.
HTH,
TB
I wasn't there.
ElissaAnn
"A Mukluk-wearing Troll" <for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:sf3c9vcnd4sdgd9a0...@4ax.com...
> On 10 Apr 2003 18:08:21 -0400, Allison Turner-
> <beto...@sover.net> wrote:
>
> > on 10 Apr 2003 13:47:35 -0400, heck stated:
[snip]
> > >I want to know what happened to Seth's plate.
> >
> > <*whistles*>
> > <*gazes at ceiling*>
>
> Seth's carefully autographed plate
> met a sad and unfortunate fate
> The writing was scrubbed
> In a dishwasher's tub
> Post boink on a Sunday night late.
Brava! That can go in the same book as "Dr. Brat
Goes Sailing in the Pianner".
> HTH,
>
> TB
>
> I wasn't there.
No, of course not. (Nobody was.) But will you do the illustrations
anyway, from your imagination?
Elissa
--
http://members.aol.com/elissaann
"If you have kids, if you have parents, sing with them."
--Peter Schickele, on "Schickele Mix" (3/2/03)
Mike Given
[..much priggery elided..]
>So there you have it. Conclusive proof, if such were
>needed, that on Usenet it's the snigglers who make The
>Rules.
Whether or not that's true I can't say other than to whine about the
fact that *I've* never been invited to the rule-making committee so
HEADS! WILL! ROLL!
Other than that (with regards to the "Subject:" line), it's all a
load of absolute hooey.
Some lurkers *do* support me in email. Problem is, other lurkers
also call me "dickhead", "asshole", "fucking moron" and also have
managed to deliver a few email bombs and beating threats (my personal
fave) to my door and (uselessly) bitch at my ISP.
So it all kinda evens out.
Mikey (fortunately (?), neither type has occurred for a long time now)
--
URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/newsmikey
Guy Barry
> Guy,
>
> as a lurker, if I send myself e-mail from work to my yahoo account
> affirming that I'm a great guy and that I "heart" myself, would this
> count as having lurkers support me in e-mail?
>
> I'd like to think it would.
Tell you what, Tom - I'll support you in email if you support me :-)
Guy (and greetings to a fellow iconoclast!)
Guy Barry
> Some lurkers *do* support me in email. Problem is, other lurkers
> also call me "dickhead", "asshole", "fucking moron" and also have
> managed to deliver a few email bombs and beating threats (my personal
> fave) to my door and (uselessly) bitch at my ISP.
> So it all kinda evens out.
What annoys me is that it's now become impossible pretty much anywhere
on Usenet to even hint at the subject of email from lurkers without
some smart-arse quoting Jo's song at you. I'm sure it was very funny
in the context where it was originally posted, but it's become rather
stale over time, and it just seems to have turned into another way of
closing down discussion on inconvenient topics. A newspaper columnist
who quotes letters from correspondents isn't ridiculed, so why should
a poster to Usenet be any different?
Guy
Ogre Stormbringer
ElissaAnn <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote:
>Brava! That can go in the same book as "Dr. Brat
>Goes Sailing in the Pianner".
"The Voyage of the Damn Pianner"?
CS Ogre
--
"Most people learn from their past mistakes and in future lives go on
to grow into better people. Others, who don't, become ogres."
- E. A. Scarborough, _The Godmother_
Visit the Ogre in his lair: http://www.hellshalfacre.org/ogre
Dave
<text de-skweeked>
> This newsgroup is *really* going to the dogs.
I am waiting to call Bob a pooh-pooh head until
the dogs doo. I refuse to be in a dank, dark killfile
without dogs.
Pam, what do Der Thunderpups think of
Bob Wiengle?
WELL?
--
Dave
"Did we really think we could have the
Pam Rudd
<fire...@operamail.com> scribbled:
>Sara Running wrote:
>
><text de-skweeked>
>
>> This newsgroup is *really* going to the dogs.
>
>I am waiting to call Bob a pooh-pooh head until
>the dogs doo. I refuse to be in a dank, dark killfile
>without dogs.
>
> Pam, what do Der Thunderpups think of
>Bob Wiengle?
Matilda and Abby wonder if dogs that don't have cows roll in Bob.
Gracie thinks you should scratch some sand over him
and do more important things, like jump high in the air
and swat at butterflies or chase the leaves that the Mommy
is raking.
Pam, Yippee! A sunny weekend and nothin' to do but play in the
garden.
--
"Maybe you'd like to ask the Wizard for a heart."
"ElissaAnn" <eli...@everybodycansing.com>
Holly Gallup
wrote:
>Pam, Yippee! A sunny weekend and nothin' to do but play in the
>garden.
*daggers*
Now I remember how I ended up with so many weeds last year.
Typical northern Nevada spring (March to June) weather: Monday
through Thursday, 70 degrees, calm until 3 p.m. when the 20 mph
"breezes" start. Friday: Same as M-Th, except the afternoon
"breezes" are 40 mph. Saturday and Sunday: 40 degrees, rain
and/or snow. Winds up to 50 mph.
Weeding in the wind is a two-person job. One person to hack out
the weeds, the other to chase them down and bag 'em.
--holly
Warren Cheney
Stormbringer) wrote:
>In article <b753sf$a9gcd$1...@ID-120914.news.dfncis.de>,
>ElissaAnn <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote:
>
>>Brava! That can go in the same book as "Dr. Brat
>>Goes Sailing in the Pianner".
>
>"The Voyage of the Damn Pianner"?
"The Wreck of the Brat's Old Pianner?"
>CS Ogre
-----Warren (Gordon Lightfoot earworms-r-us)
Dr. Brat
> In article <b753sf$a9gcd$1...@ID-120914.news.dfncis.de>,
> ElissaAnn <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote:
>
>>Brava! That can go in the same book as "Dr. Brat
>>Goes Sailing in the Pianner".
>
> "The Voyage of the Damn Pianner"?
Frankly, I'd far rather it be called "The Flight of the Damned Pianner."
Elizabeth (Singing "Would you like to swing from a crane...?")
Dr. Brat
> On 11 Apr 2003 12:11:42 -0400, og...@shell1.iglou.com (Ogre
> Stormbringer) wrote:
>>In article <b753sf$a9gcd$1...@ID-120914.news.dfncis.de>,
>>ElissaAnn <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Brava! That can go in the same book as "Dr. Brat
>>>Goes Sailing in the Pianner".
>>
>>"The Voyage of the Damn Pianner"?
>
> "The Wreck of the Brat's Old Pianner?"
"The First Time Ever I Struck Those Keys"
> -----Warren (Gordon Lightfoot earworms-r-us)
Be careful what you ask for...
Elizabeth
Alex Nemeth
wrote:
Never gat a chance to hack my weed, the dam deer eat it all
>--holly
Pam Rudd
hga...@bigfoot.com (Holly Gallup) scribbled:
>On 12 Apr 2003 10:04:35 -0400, Pam Rudd <pam...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Pam, Yippee! A sunny weekend and nothin' to do but play in the
>>garden.
>
>*daggers*
Hey...this only the second weekend that we've had in *months*
with no rain. The soil is so water-logged that I couldn't till
the vegetable garden, that will have to wait...and I have
*peppers* to plant! I couldn't even mow the lawn, it was too
queachy. I did a lot of weeding, and I planted a few things in
containers.
>Weeding in the wind is a two-person job. One person to hack out
>the weeds, the other to chase them down and bag 'em.
No, no, no...you just need an OCD Aussie who is focused on
fetching.
Pam, and a good arm for the days the wind isn't blowing.
Holly Gallup
wrote:
>When last we left our heros, on 12 Apr 2003 13:12:05 -0400,
>hga...@bigfoot.com (Holly Gallup) scribbled:
>>Weeding in the wind is a two-person job. One person to hack out
>>the weeds, the other to chase them down and bag 'em.
>
>No, no, no...you just need an OCD Aussie who is focused on
>fetching.
That thought crossed my mind after I posted this. But I'm not
sure how happy said Aussie would be to catch a mouthful of
tumbleweed. (Okay, so it's too early in the season for
tumbleweed; I'm just thinkin' ahead.)
>Pam, and a good arm for the days the wind isn't blowing.
Not a problem. I can count on both hands the number of days in
the year we don't get a pretty good breeze at least some part of
the day.
--holly
Pam
<epc...@mindspring.com> secretly encoded this message:
>Ogre Stormbringer wrote:
>> ElissaAnn <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Brava! That can go in the same book as "Dr. Brat
>>>Goes Sailing in the Pianner".
>>
>> "The Voyage of the Damn Pianner"?
>
>Frankly, I'd far rather it be called "The Flight of the Damned Pianner."
Bring it to BoN.
Pam, paging Dave and pyrite....
--
Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass.
-Cordelia, BtVS
Neil
<beto...@sover.net> writes
>on 10 Apr 2003 15:33:42 -0400, tom stated:
>
>>as a lurker,
>
>Are you a lurker? Does one post void the terms?
>For that matter, haven't I seen your ascii around
>here before? If so, welcome back.
I would say that there's a difference between being a lurker
(a permanent state) and merely lurking (a current situation).
If you have ever posted at all, I wouldn't call you a lurker,
even if you're not at the moment in the habit of posting.
Actually, I've always attached to the word "lurker" overtones
of wanting to participate, but somehow not daring to. Which is
one of the reasons why LSMIE is such an empty boast - what
value would my opinion have if I myself didn't respect it
enough to be willing to state it publicly? In fact, didn't
someone write a song about that once ... ?
<fx: hauls out guitar>
A long, long time ago
I can still remember how this newsgroup used to be so big
But I knew if I dared to post
My wit would shine from coast to coast
And maybe I'd be quoted in a .sig
But even so, its size would daunt me
And nameless fears would rise to haunt me
To post would take the biscuit
I couldn't really risk it
I can't remember how or why
I made up my mind to hit "Reply"
But courage somehow passed me by
The day I emailed Guy
Oh my, my, sent an email to Guy
Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
So I chose to send an email to Guy
Chose to send an email to Guy
Did you write the F-A-Q
And could you show newbies what to do
If Bob Weigel tells you so?
Do you know how to contradance
And watch CNN with Pam and Frans
And can you teach me how to write like Jo?
Well I'm sure you're all a great big clique
And you'll only shun me if I speak
I've never dared take part
And I don't intend to start
I would've liked to ask "Nice guy or jerk?"
Swap puns with Pyrite and provoke a smirk
But I knew I was out to lurk
The day I emailed Guy
I started singing my, my, sent an email to Guy
Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
So I chose to send an email to Guy
Chose to send an email to Guy
Now the nematode's achieved its goal
Cut down on crossposts, spam, and trolls
But I'm still scared to join the crowd.
As Elissa tries to tune her harp
Or the Brat says something kinda sharp
And Warren makes the whole gang laugh out loud.
Oh and while the not-Cabal looked grave
Their dignity was pricked by Dave
And Piglet had to screech
When Mike stood up to preach
And while Sara conjured chocolate art
And 'dreas practised lighting farts
I swore to keep myself apart
The day I emailed Guy
I was singing my, my, sent an email to Guy
Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
So I chose to send an email to Guy
Chose to send an email to Guy
Neil
Pam Rudd
<gwy...@hapax.demon.co.uk> scribbled:
>Oh my, my, sent an email to Guy
>Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
>If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
>So I chose to send an email to Guy
>Chose to send an email to Guy
I am to be swooning.
Pam, collapsing into a gigglely heap.
Holly Gallup
>Actually, I've always attached to the word "lurker" overtones
>of wanting to participate, but somehow not daring to. Which is
>one of the reasons why LSMIE is such an empty boast - what
>value would my opinion have if I myself didn't respect it
>enough to be willing to state it publicly? In fact, didn't
>someone write a song about that once ... ?
>
><fx: hauls out guitar>
[fantastic song snipped]
<swoon> <clunk>
Marry me?
--holly
Charlotte L. Blackmer
Heh.
CLB
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Approach love and cooking with great abandon" - H.H. the Dalai Lama
Charlotte's New Web Log: <http://berkeleyfarmgirl.blogspot.com>
Charlotte's Old Web Page: <http://www.rahul.net/clb>
Charlotte L. Blackmer
Holly Gallup <hga...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 8 Apr 2003 12:11:06 -0400, miguel <the...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>g...@uk-roads.co.uk (Guy Barry) wrote:
>>
>>>Well, whaddya know? A bit of googling shows that the discrediting of
>>>"lurkers support me in email" isn't some ancient tradition going back
>>>to the earliest days of the net. It's largely been propagated by a
>>>few people from soc.singles. (Why does this not surprise me in the
>>>slightest?)
>>
>>snip 188 lines of research/discussion.
>>
>>Good research Guy. Now how about doing research on the
>>history of lancing boils.
>
>Better yet, obsessive-compulsive disorder.
I have been thinking of setting up a pool for when Guy finally gets the
clue that I am not interested with fighting with him and stops giving me
his negative (if sporadic) attention.
I'll take June 2007.
Dr. Brat
>
> I have been thinking of setting up a pool for when Guy finally gets the
> clue that I am not interested with fighting with him and stops giving me
> his negative (if sporadic) attention.
What makes you think it's about you?
Elizabeth (ducking)
Dr. Brat
> I was singing my, my, sent an email to Guy
> Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
> If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
> So I chose to send an email to Guy
> Chose to send an email to Guy
Standing O
Elizabeth
Secret Agent Pig
>Neil wrote:
>> I was singing my, my, sent an email to Guy
>> Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
>> If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
>> So I chose to send an email to Guy
>> Chose to send an email to Guy
>Standing O
I'll say. (Think I'll sit down now, thanks.)
--
Piglet, pig...@piglet.org http://unitedforpeace.org/
Stop the War on Iraq
812 days down Ann B. for President!
648 to go. Burlingham/Burlingham in 2004!
Kris Hasson-Jones
submitted the following for your consideration:
>"Dr. Brat" <epc...@mindspring.com>, in article <3E99F308...@mindspring.com>, dixit:
>>Neil wrote:
>>> I was singing my, my, sent an email to Guy
>>> Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
>>> If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
>>> So I chose to send an email to Guy
>>> Chose to send an email to Guy
>
>>Standing O
>
>I'll say. (Think I'll sit down now, thanks.)
Yup, I find it difficult to sit through one of those. It was a doozy!
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
What Would Aragorn Do?
Dave
<song parody snipped>
took me a minute to place the tune-
then I damn near choked on my M&M's!
Thank you.
Allison Turner-
>
>Neil wrote:
>
><song parody snipped>
But wasn't it magnificent!
Neil, when you get done with all those other marriage
proposals, don't forget who asked you first ;)
>took me a minute to place the tune-
>then I damn near choked on my M&M's!
Oh! Thanks.
I didn't have the tune first time through, but when
you posted that, I went back to see if I could figure
it out. The thing that throws me is that I don't
actually know the tune except for the chorus. I'll
have to hunt it down.
-Allison.
(weren't we playing it at LHFB just the other
weekend? you'd think I'd have the tune after all
these years.)
Pam Rudd
Allison Turner- <beto...@sover.net> scribbled:
>I didn't have the tune first time through, but when
>you posted that, I went back to see if I could figure
>it out. The thing that throws me is that I don't
>actually know the tune except for the chorus. I'll
>have to hunt it down.
<gets up and pads to very full closet, examines box of
45's from when I was but a sprout>
Yup, I have still have the 45 I bought when it first came out.
It looks a bit battered, but I'm pretty sure it still plays.
Pam, at least, it did the last time I had the turntable hooked
up.
Team T0r0nter
> In article <3e9308d1...@news.charter.net>,
> Holly Gallup <hga...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >On 8 Apr 2003 12:11:06 -0400, miguel <the...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >>g...@uk-roads.co.uk (Guy Barry) wrote:
> >>
> >>Good research Guy. Now how about doing research on the
> >>history of lancing boils.
> >
> >Better yet, obsessive-compulsive disorder.
>
> I have been thinking of setting up a pool for when Guy finally gets the
> clue that I am not interested with fighting with him and stops giving me
> his negative (if sporadic) attention.
>
> I'll take June 2007.
FaranQ, THE SIMPSONS IS 100% BAD TELEVISION.
got it?
GOOD.
>
> CLB
smoochies
Secret Agent Pig
>on 13 Apr 2003 21:09:23 -0400, Dave stated:
>>Neil wrote:
>><song parody snipped>
>But wasn't it magnificent!
>Neil, when you get done with all those other marriage
>proposals, don't forget who asked you first ;)
Yes. Me.
>>took me a minute to place the tune-
>>then I damn near choked on my M&M's!
>Oh! Thanks.
>I didn't have the tune first time through, but when
>you posted that, I went back to see if I could figure
>it out. The thing that throws me is that I don't
>actually know the tune except for the chorus. I'll
>have to hunt it down.
Call me! For a tune, baby, call me, call me anytime. Call me!
Amor'st altior monte
Amor'st densior aqua...
Ack! Turn it off! Stop the 70's!
ElissaAnn
"Secret Agent Pig" <pig...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b7e5lp$co4$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Allison Turner- <beto...@sover.net>, in article
<b7d4n...@drn.newsguy.com>, dixit:
> >on 13 Apr 2003 21:09:23 -0400, Dave stated:
> >>Neil wrote:
> >><song parody snipped>
>
> >But wasn't it magnificent!
> >Neil, when you get done with all those other marriage
> >proposals, don't forget who asked you first ;)
>
> Yes. Me.
No way! Neil and I have been e-spouses for
years. It was followed by the Trans-Atlantic
Chocolate Exchange Ritual.
Elissa
--
http://members.aol.com/elissaann
"If you have kids, if you have parents, sing with them."
--Peter Schickele, on "Schickele Mix" (3/2/03)
ElissaAnn
"Neil" <gwy...@hapax.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HADbBBAa...@hapax.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
> I was singing my, my, sent an email to Guy
> Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
> If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
> So I chose to send an email to Guy
> Chose to send an email to Guy
Bravo, divo!
Elissa, still applauding
ElissaAnn
news:gcpj9vs2ujro1299h...@4ax.com...
> Neil <gwy...@hapax.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >I was singing my, my, sent an email to Guy
> >Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
> >If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
> >So I chose to send an email to Guy
> >Chose to send an email to Guy
>
Haven't you heard? That's the old meme. The
new meme is taking Elissa out to dinner.
What time will you be picking me up?
Elissa
Guy Barry
> So I chose to send an email to Guy
> Chose to send an email to Guy
But it never arrived!
Excellent parody - well done.
Guy
Guy Barry
> Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>
> >
> > I have been thinking of setting up a pool for when Guy finally gets the
> > clue that I am not interested with fighting with him and stops giving me
> > his negative (if sporadic) attention.
Wow! Gosh, yes, all that negative attention I've been giving you,
Charlotte - it must be utterly draining.
> What makes you think it's about you?
Isn't she one of the Classic Discredited Usenet Posters?
Guy
Mike Given
>Mike Given <news...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Some lurkers *do* support me in email. Problem is, other
>>lurkers also call me "dickhead", "asshole", "fucking
>>moron" and also have managed to deliver a few email bombs
>>and beating threats (my personal fave) to my door and
>>(uselessly) bitch at my ISP.
>>So it all kinda evens out.
>What annoys me is that it's now become impossible pretty
>much anywhere on Usenet to even hint at the subject of
>email from lurkers without some smart-arse quoting Jo's
>song at you.
I'd say that if I did so it was subconcious but since I really haven't
the slightest idea of what you're referring to I'm not so sure how to
answer that other than to say that I'm not in the habit of plagiarizing
my reponses.
>I'm sure it was very funny in the context where it was
>originally posted, but it's become rather stale over
>time, and it just seems to have turned into another way
>of closing down discussion on inconvenient topics.
Just as saying "lurkers support me in email" or similar equivalent is
something of a dubious bolster for an argument.
>A newspaper columnist who quotes letters from
>correspondents isn't ridiculed,
I find that I would loan precious little credence to a journalist that
regularly quoted "anonymous sources" as a basis for opinion unless that
journalist had some track record of a high percentage of being correct.
Of course, I'd still be a bit cagey, or at least wonder along the lines
of "anonymous.source = wiretap" or somesuch.
>so why should a poster to Usenet be any different?
Because there are innate difficulties in comparing apples to oranges.
There's journalism, then there's entertainment.
What we needs is a few more "Page 3" girls in here to *really*
enchance the journalistic integrity hereabouts.
Mikey (..I volunteer to do the photography.)
ps. Today's girl on www.page3.com is named "Jo" - "coincidence", you
say? I think *not* - I say the aliens *are* watching us.
Allison Turner-
>
> What we needs is a few more "Page 3" girls in here to *really*
>enchance the journalistic integrity hereabouts.
"You'd be mad not to chick it out.."
Cute. :) Took me a bit to figure out what that
blurry white thing was purched on Miss Lovely's
perky leetle butt.
>Mikey (..I volunteer to do the photography.)
I think you should; do you think you could improve
things a bit?
You know what bugs me about page3 type sites (and
paper publications along similar lines, etc)?
All of the women seem so plastic. I'd love to go
gaze at a few gorgeous babes, but somehow the
centerfold image just doesn't do it for me. They
just seem so very unreal, and even boring. Part of
the problem is that they all look very much alike,
and thus stop seeming very human.
I can't begin to imagine having a conversation with
one of the models. Whether this is because they
actually have fluff for brains and it shines through
in their photo (doubtful; I refuse to believe that
one's photographic image says much of anything about
one's intelligence) or whether it's something else, I
don't know. But it's a turn-off, I gotta say.
So. I suggest you do indeed do the photography. I
volunteer to be judge, after very careful examination
of the evidence ;-)
-Allison.
It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.
Andreas Tovornik
> Neil wrote:
>
>> I was singing my, my, sent an email to Guy
>> Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
>> If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
>> So I chose to send an email to Guy
>> Chose to send an email to Guy
>
> Standing O
How do you make an orgasm stand?
[Must be lots of fun to make one stan for, oh, twenty minutes...]
--
'dreas...tbtw#5 'They say for centuries lovely Japanese girls
Victoria Taxi#15 have been trained in the art of pleasin' men.
Be lonely no more, open destiny's door. For one dollar they'll arrange
a meeting.' -Bonzo Dog Band/Lookout there's a monster coming
Andreas Tovornik
> When last we left our heros, on 13 Apr 2003 22:00:43 -0400,
> Allison Turner- <beto...@sover.net> scribbled:
>
>
>>I didn't have the tune first time through, but when
>>you posted that, I went back to see if I could figure
>>it out. The thing that throws me is that I don't
>>actually know the tune except for the chorus. I'll
>>have to hunt it down.
>
> <gets up and pads to very full closet, examines box of
> 45's from when I was but a sprout>
>
> Yup, I have still have the 45 I bought when it first came out.
> It looks a bit battered, but I'm pretty sure it still plays.
>
>
> Pam, at least, it did the last time I had the turntable hooked
> up.
My turntable is still hooked up and it plays just fine.
All I need to do is find that 1 1/2 inch 45 adaptor that
was last used sometime around 1984.
I even have a 45 or two somewhere, but I always preferred
33 1/3 so I wouldn't have to get up and change the fucking
record every three minutes. Of course the exception is when
you only like one song on the album. Then you make a tape
of several. Hmmm. Do they still sell blank cassettes, or
did they go the way of the eight track and Beta video? It's
so hard to keep up with the times. Do they still have that
used record store in Berkeley filled with old records and
you can get just about anything? Gotta visit Charlotte one
of these years. I'll help move pianners to earn my keep...
Lorremiddy
Allison Turner- wrote:
> on 14 Apr 2003 10:47:43 -0400, Mike stated:
>
>> What we needs is a few more "Page 3" girls in here to *really*
>>enchance the journalistic integrity hereabouts.
>>
>
> "You'd be mad not to chick it out.."
> Cute. :) Took me a bit to figure out what that
> blurry white thing was purched on Miss Lovely's
> perky leetle butt.
>
>
>>Mikey (..I volunteer to do the photography.)
>>
>
> I think you should; do you think you could improve
> things a bit?
>
> You know what bugs me about page3 type sites (and
> paper publications along similar lines, etc)?
>
> All of the women seem so plastic. I'd love to go
> gaze at a few gorgeous babes, but somehow the
> centerfold image just doesn't do it for me. They
> just seem so very unreal, and even boring. Part of
> the problem is that they all look very much alike,
> and thus stop seeming very human.
When I see them I don't think "plastic". I think "exploitation". I
enjoy an exhibitionist as much as the next voyeur, but I like genuine
feelings more than static poses and, well, poses. Someone selling an
illusion doesn't do it for me.
>
> I can't begin to imagine having a conversation with
> one of the models.
No? I can. I'm fairly sure they're perfectly nice women with real
lives and have plenty going on.
> Whether this is because they
> actually have fluff for brains and it shines through
> in their photo (doubtful; I refuse to believe that
> one's photographic image says much of anything about
> one's intelligence) or whether it's something else, I
> don't know. But it's a turn-off, I gotta say.
It makes me think about how much time it takes to cultivate the looks
that they have, and that's how they spend their time. I spend mine
reading, writing and teaching and developing web pages and making art.
I'm not into chasing after sex with people who have perfect bodies.
Some of them are probably very intelligent, funny and a lot of fun to be
around. I'm not sure I could connect on any sort of deep level with
very many of them, but their point doesn't seem to be deep connection.
> So. I suggest you do indeed do the photography. I
> volunteer to be judge, after very careful examination
> of the evidence ;-)
>
>
> -Allison.
> It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.
I'd rather share a nice bottle of wine with friends.
Lorre (not to say hard work isn't good to find...)
Pockets of Resistance
>Heh. A friend once dragged me to a male strip show. I was bored (and
>had a pounding headache -- house music blech) within 10 minutes. My
>friend was bemused by my boredom. "What's the *point*?" I asked her.
>"I'm not going to actually talk to any of them, or spend any time with
>them."
Funny.
That's my exact reaction to titty bars. I went to a few while I was
in the Navy, pretty much just to see what was going on. Noted that
the girls weren't all that hot, the beer* was expensive, and my fellow
patrons were . . . desperate and lonely would cover it I guess.
Later on, years later, I found out that most of the dancers are doing
it to support their drug habits. They dance in darker and darker
clubs until their looks give out completely, and then go walk darker
and darker streets. There is a younger, fresher girl in the wings to
take their places.
Anyway, BTDT. I'd rather look at sailboats now. I have a much easier
time imagining myself riding one.
*Bud. A 'pitcher' was on the upside of five bucks, and held about a
glass and a half.
Guy Barry
> Guy Barry wrote:
> >What annoys me is that it's now become impossible pretty
> >much anywhere on Usenet to even hint at the subject of
> >email from lurkers without some smart-arse quoting Jo's
> >song at you.
>
> I'd say that if I did so it was subconcious but since I really haven't
> the slightest idea of what you're referring to I'm not so sure how to
> answer that other than to say that I'm not in the habit of plagiarizing
> my reponses.
Oh, that wasn't a reference to you - it was just a bitch about Usenet
in general. People all over the net keep dragging it out and thinking
they're being highly amusing and original. Is there anyone left who
hasn't seen it?
Guy
ElissaAnn
"Guy Barry" <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote in message
news:61a0dddb.03041...@posting.google.com...
I don't think they think they're being highly amusing and original. I
think they're pulling out a now-standard reaction to an unnecessary
tactic. I think they assume that you will have heard the song, and
that just mentioning it will make their point.
Why would anyone care how many emails from lurkers I
get? They're lurkers. They don't post. They're not relevant.
But they all love me. <g>
ElissaAnn
"kmd" <kriste...@yale.edu> wrote in message
news:k2ul9vgs2a97mm6s4...@4ax.com...
> On 14 Apr 2003 13:00:09 -0400, Lorremiddy <ls...@albany.edu> wrote:
>
> [ye olde standard cheesecake shot]
>
> >It makes me think about how much time it takes to cultivate the looks
> >that they have, and that's how they spend their time. I spend mine
> >reading, writing and teaching and developing web pages and making art.
>
> with the need to say something about Page 3 girls etc.
>
> I for one am glad you spend your time on all of the above. :-]
I'm glad that you pointed that out.
I'm having one of those weeks where I feel invisible, because of
being a middle-aged woman surrounded by gorgeous young
girls. I was starting to think seriously about a makeover.
Haircut, new clothes, the occasional application of makeup. It
occurred to me briefly in my contemplations that perhaps my
current attitude, rather than my physical appearance, is what
is making me invisible, or making me imagine that I am. It's
useful to be reminded that gorgeous middle-aged women like
Lorre exist as models for me.
Smoochies to both of you.
ElissaAnn
"Andreas Tovornik" <dr...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:b7ek64$ck1$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Dr. Brat" (epc...@mindspring.com) writes:
> > Neil wrote:
> >
> >> I was singing my, my, sent an email to Guy
> >> Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
> >> If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
> >> So I chose to send an email to Guy
> >> Chose to send an email to Guy
> >
> > Standing O
>
> How do you make an orgasm stand?
Definitely not high, like a pedestal, and no rough
edges, please. Maybe with lots of plump, comfy
pillows, like a cat bed. They don't need to be displayed,
but it's nice to give them a soft place to lie.
tom calwell
>on 10 Apr 2003 15:33:42 -0400, tom stated:
>>as a lurker,
>Are you a lurker?
more like 'was lurking'
>Does one post void the terms?
well, two or three or more certainly would.
[oops... too late]
>For that matter, haven't I seen your ascii around
>here before?
most likely in followups to threads originally x-posted to ssc where
brock put ssm back in for the reply.
[my old acct wouldn't permit mod postes and he knew that]
>If so, welcome back.
thank you.
rgds,
Tom
A Mukluk-wearing Troll
Gallup) wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2003 10:04:35 -0400, Pam Rudd <pam...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Pam, Yippee! A sunny weekend and nothin' to do but play in the
> >garden.
>
> *daggers*
>
> Now I remember how I ended up with so many weeds last year.
>
> Typical northern Nevada spring (March to June) weather: Monday
> through Thursday, 70 degrees, calm until 3 p.m. when the 20 mph
> "breezes" start. Friday: Same as M-Th, except the afternoon
> "breezes" are 40 mph. Saturday and Sunday: 40 degrees, rain
> and/or snow. Winds up to 50 mph.
>
> Weeding in the wind is a two-person job. One person to hack out
> the weeds, the other to chase them down and bag 'em.
You forgot "you and the horse you came in on".
They move fast out there.
HTH,
TB
A Mukluk-wearing Troll
Gallup) wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2003 23:55:10 -0400, Pam Rudd <pam...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >When last we left our heros, on 12 Apr 2003 13:12:05 -0400,
> >hga...@bigfoot.com (Holly Gallup) scribbled:
<weeded>
> Not a problem. I can count on both hands the number of days in
> the year we don't get a pretty good breeze at least some part of
> the day.
Do your trees grow sideways?
TB
tom calwell
>tom calwell <tom_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> as a lurker, if I send myself e-mail from work to my yahoo account
>> affirming that I'm a great guy and that I "heart" myself, would this
>> count as having lurkers support me in e-mail?
>>
>> I'd like to think it would.
>
>Tell you what, Tom - I'll support you in email if you support me :-)
>
>Guy (and greetings to a fellow iconoclast!)
well, thanks.
wonder if this counts as an external endorsement?
[a little Obssc humor]
so how's the job search and all that going?
rgds,
Tom
Mike Given
>Mike stated:
>>What we needs is a few more "Page 3" girls in here
>>to *really* enchance the journalistic integrity
>>hereabouts.
>"You'd be mad not to chick it out.."
>Cute. :) Took me a bit to figure out what that
>blurry white thing was purched on Miss Lovely's
>perky leetle butt.
I'm not even gonna ask; I didn't look that close myself.
>>(..I volunteer to do the photography.)
>I think you should; do you think you could improve
>things a bit?
Absolutely, sweetie-darling. For one, those horrid backgrounds they
use will just *have* to go.
>You know what bugs me about page3 type sites (and paper
>publications along similar lines, etc)?
That they use nekkid wimmen to sell newspapers?
>All of the women seem so plastic.
I'm sure a few pounds of Maybelline brand spackle and a layer or two
of CoverGirl brand spray paint have a lot to do with that. Whats left
probably tends to fall under the photographer's airbrush.
>I'd love to go gaze at a few gorgeous babes, but somehow the
>centerfold image just doesn't do it for me.
I myself do tend to prefer pictures that show what a female actually
looks like. In any case, I'm sure the girl that I saw would hold up
quite nicely in person without all the posing and artwork, albeit she's
a bit young for a geezer like me.
>They just seem so very unreal, and even boring. Part of
>the problem is that they all look very much alike, and thus
>stop seeming very human.
I don't know that I'd go *that* far, but I get the drift.
>I can't begin to imagine having a conversation with
>one of the models.
Well I certainly can; of course, one's imagination is greatly enhanced
when one has such biological advantages as a penis to help out with that
sort of creative thinking. A matter when two heads are indeed better
than one.
Of course, them being girls I'm sure one would have to put up with
endless amounts of prattle about shoes and shopping for tea towels and
that sort of thing but I'm sure I could manage quite nicely.
>Whether this is because they actually have fluff for
>brains and it shines through in their photo
I'm not even gonna go there; I think I actually growled out loud until
I read the consequent parenthetical.
>(doubtful; I refuse to believe that one's photographic
>image says much of anything about one's intelligence)
Nor does it speak to a great deal many other things; it's an image,
and that's all it is. However, one *might* be able to draw some
inferences about who'd actually buy into the (lack of) reality those
images represent.
>or whether it's something else, I don't know. But it's
>a turn-off, I gotta say.
You don't like glamour. Personally, I could care less one way or the
other but the original point was that it doesn't really belong as a part
of responsible journalism (nor do a great deal many other things, but
Page3 was just a more fun example). Newspapers should be sold on the
merits of their reporting, not for tits. I want news when I buy a
newspaper; I have other sources when I'm more in the mood for tits.
>So. I suggest you do indeed do the photography.
WooHoo! I got one vote - anyone else?
>I volunteer to be judge, after very careful examination
>of the evidence ;-)
>It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.
Don't need no judge - not holding a pageant.
Dontchya understand this is ART we're making here?
Mikey (..ergo, critiques are always welcome.)
Lorremiddy
ElissaAnn wrote:
> "kmd" <kriste...@yale.edu> wrote in message
> news:k2ul9vgs2a97mm6s4...@4ax.com...
>
>>On 14 Apr 2003 13:00:09 -0400, Lorremiddy <ls...@albany.edu> wrote:
>>
>>[ye olde standard cheesecake shot]
>>
>>>It makes me think about how much time it takes to cultivate the looks
>>>that they have, and that's how they spend their time. I spend mine
>>>reading, writing and teaching and developing web pages and making art.
>>>
>>Thank you, Lorre. Reading that is like a balm on my head, scritchy
>>with the need to say something about Page 3 girls etc.
>>
>>I for one am glad you spend your time on all of the above. :-]
More power to them and their sexual poses if that's what gives them
pleasure and a good life. Given my basic material I think the time is
better invested in study than in make up, latex, hairspray, etc.
> I'm glad that you pointed that out.
>
> I'm having one of those weeks where I feel invisible, because of
> being a middle-aged woman surrounded by gorgeous young
> girls. I was starting to think seriously about a makeover.
> Haircut, new clothes, the occasional application of makeup. It
> occurred to me briefly in my contemplations that perhaps my
> current attitude, rather than my physical appearance, is what
> is making me invisible, or making me imagine that I am. It's
> useful to be reminded that gorgeous middle-aged women like
> Lorre exist as models for me.
Oh stooooop iiiiiiit or I'll throw my reading glasses at you. 8^)
>
> Smoochies to both of you.
>
Smoochies back!
Somehow just about enough great sexual and romantic partners have
managed to find me in spite of my not even being in any way close to a
Page 3 girl <wave - you know who you are>. I'm thankful for what ever
forces of nature have managed to push them into my path. I certainly
can't say I've gone lacking in partners or wannabes, although I wouldn't
want to make life partners out of all of them. But I don't see how being
surrounded by very beautiful young women would make me invisible to the
people who are really meant to be my partners anyway. The young men who
lust after them are too young for me. Poly guys aren't going to exclude
me while chasing after them, and the old men who lust after them are
always going to lust after young women and that isn't me, no matter how
I dress or how much makeup I'm wearing. I like to have sex with the
lights on. I like being honest about how old I am.
I like makeup and dressing up in great clothes and all the rest, but I'm
essentially extremely grateful that I've never felt that if I don't look
like a million bucks my life is over. I'd much rather be able to look
like an old bow wow and play in the dirt when I feel like it. Trying to
look beautiful all the time and compete with other women's beauty is
wholly against my nature, and I can't figure out how that happened. I
feel like I'm missing an essential feminine hormone.
Lorre
Brock Hannibal
> I like to have sex with the lights on.
Cool.
--
Brock
"We also know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether
delusion is not more consoling." -- Henri Poincare
Holly Gallup
<for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
No quite, but they do tend to develop a slight lean. The thing
that keeps them from growing sideways is that the wind shifts.
Depending on where the jet stream is. Sometimes we get weather
that crosses Oregon and then drops straight down on us from the
north along the eastern edge of the Sierras before heading on
east, and sometimes we get weather that crosses north-central
California, hops the Sierras, and hits us more or less due west
to east (although because of the hills around my place, this
always comes at me slightly south of from the west), and
sometimes we get weather that swoops up from southern California
and comes at us from slightly west of due south.
Every once in a while, we develop a nice high pressure area over
our part of the state and the weather leaves us alone. That's
usually in the summer time. The temperature during the day gets
up in the 90s or 100s. Then as the desert begins to cool in the
late afternoon or early evening, the convection effect sucks the
cool air down from the Sierras and across our valley. That's good
for 10-15 mph winds most afternoons.
Judging from the trees, I'd guess we get slightly more wind from
the southwest than from the northwest.
I've just about given up on the idea of lawn or patio furniture.
--holly
Guy Barry
> > Oh, that wasn't a reference to you - it was just a bitch about Usenet
> > in general. People all over the net keep dragging it out and thinking
> > they're being highly amusing and original.
>
> I don't think they think they're being highly amusing and original.
Elissa! Why have you de-killfiled me when I'm still bitching about
everything? Nice to hear from you again anyway.
> I think they're pulling out a now-standard reaction to an unnecessary
> tactic. I think they assume that you will have heard the song, and
> that just mentioning it will make their point.
Hmm. I get the impression that people on the receiving end of LSMIE
are generally pretty new to the net, and that the people jeering at
them are trying to show off how net-savvy they are. If a poster has
heard the song before, they're unlikely to make the mistake of
mentioning anything about lurkers.
> Why would anyone care how many emails from lurkers I
> get? They're lurkers. They don't post. They're not relevant.
So anything that doesn't take place on this newsgroup is irrelevant,
then?
> But they all love me. <g>
I'm sure they do. <g>
Guy
ElissaAnn
"Guy Barry" <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote in message
news:61a0dddb.03041...@posting.google.com...
> "ElissaAnn" <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote in message
news:<b7gp8m$pm9h$2...@ID-120914.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Guy Barry" <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:61a0dddb.03041...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Oh, that wasn't a reference to you - it was just a bitch about Usenet
> > > in general. People all over the net keep dragging it out and thinking
> > > they're being highly amusing and original.
> >
> > I don't think they think they're being highly amusing and original.
>
> Elissa! Why have you de-killfiled me when I'm still bitching about
> everything?
You don't read for content, do you?
As far as I can tell, you've stopped bitching about ssm.
The reason I killfiled you is because the only thing you
ever talked about was how awful ssm is. If you go
back to doing that, you'll go back into my killfile.
> >Nice to hear from you again anyway.
>
> > I think they're pulling out a now-standard reaction to an unnecessary
> > tactic. I think they assume that you will have heard the song, and
> > that just mentioning it will make their point.
>
> Hmm. I get the impression that people on the receiving end of LSMIE
> are generally pretty new to the net,
Oh? You claim that you've been on the net for years, and you
still talk about the lurkers who support you.
>and that the people jeering at
> them are trying to show off how net-savvy they are.
I get the impression that it's about how clueless the person
on the receiving end is.
> If a poster has
> heard the song before, they're unlikely to make the mistake of
> mentioning anything about lurkers.
So you're the exception that proves the rule?
> > Why would anyone care how many emails from lurkers I
> > get? They're lurkers. They don't post. They're not relevant.
>
> So anything that doesn't take place on this newsgroup is irrelevant,
> then?
Pardon me for writing unclearly. They're not relevant to this group.
Kris Hasson-Jones
submitted the following for your consideration:
>Hmm. I get the impression that people on the receiving end of LSMIE
>are generally pretty new to the net, and that the people jeering at
>them are trying to show off how net-savvy they are. If a poster has
>heard the song before, they're unlikely to make the mistake of
>mentioning anything about lurkers.
Tell me again how you didn't take this to rec.arts.sf.fandom in an
attempt to prove people here wrong, huh Guy? Just because you failed
completely to prove your point doesn't mean that wasn't what you were
trying to do. Even your appeal to authority (we all know who Seth is,
did you, before someone on rasf told you?) didn't work.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
..[S]uspension of disbelief is much more important in non-fiction
than in fiction.... Neil Gaiman, 6 April 2003
Jo Walton
>
><fx: hauls out guitar>
>
> A long, long time ago
> I can still remember how this newsgroup used to be so big
> But I knew if I dared to post
> My wit would shine from coast to coast
> And maybe I'd be quoted in a .sig
>
> But even so, its size would daunt me
> And nameless fears would rise to haunt me
> To post would take the biscuit
> I couldn't really risk it
> I can't remember how or why
> I made up my mind to hit "Reply"
> But courage somehow passed me by
> The day I emailed Guy
>
> Oh my, my, sent an email to Guy
> Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
> If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
> So I chose to send an email to Guy
> Chose to send an email to Guy
>
> And could you show newbies what to do
> If Bob Weigel tells you so?
> Do you know how to contradance
> And watch CNN with Pam and Frans
> And can you teach me how to write like Jo?
> Well I'm sure you're all a great big clique
> And you'll only shun me if I speak
> I've never dared take part
> And I don't intend to start
> I would've liked to ask "Nice guy or jerk?"
> Swap puns with Pyrite and provoke a smirk
> But I knew I was out to lurk
> The day I emailed Guy
>
> I started singing my, my, sent an email to Guy
> Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
> If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
> So I chose to send an email to Guy
> Chose to send an email to Guy
>
> Cut down on crossposts, spam, and trolls
> But I'm still scared to join the crowd.
> As Elissa tries to tune her harp
> Or the Brat says something kinda sharp
> And Warren makes the whole gang laugh out loud.
> Oh and while the not-Cabal looked grave
> Their dignity was pricked by Dave
> And Piglet had to screech
> When Mike stood up to preach
> And while Sara conjured chocolate art
> And 'dreas practised lighting farts
> I swore to keep myself apart
> The day I emailed Guy
>
> I was singing my, my, sent an email to Guy
> Coulda posted it in public but I'm really too shy
> If I got flamed, I think I'd curl up and die
> So I chose to send an email to Guy
> Chose to send an email to Guy
Marry me?
--
Jo I kissed a kif at Kefk blu...@vif.com
THE KING'S PEACE and THE KING'S NAME available in paperback
THE PRIZE IN THE GAME out now!
TOOTH AND CLAW coming this Fall from Tor
Guy Barry
> > Elissa! Why have you de-killfiled me when I'm still bitching about
> > everything?
>
> You don't read for content, do you?
No, I read for the pretty patterns made by those little ">" symbols
down the left-hand side.
That's another annoying catchphrase, by the way. What else do you
think people could possibly read for? "Read for content" seems to
translate as "I meant X, and if you think I meant Y then you're an
idiot" - something that Allison was complaining about a while back.
> As far as I can tell, you've stopped bitching about ssm.
Have I? What led you to that conclusion then?
> The reason I killfiled you is because the only thing you
> ever talked about was how awful ssm is. If you go
> back to doing that, you'll go back into my killfile.
Oh well, I might make it through one post I suppose...
> Oh? You claim that you've been on the net for years, and you
> still talk about the lurkers who support you.
Do I now? That's very strange, since there aren't any lurkers
supporting me. This thread is about "lurkers support me" in general,
not some specific case.
> >and that the people jeering at
> > them are trying to show off how net-savvy they are.
>
> I get the impression that it's about how clueless the person
> on the receiving end is.
Same thing, surely - just a difference of perspective. Either way
round they're crowing about how much more supposedly clued-in they
are.
> > If a poster has
> > heard the song before, they're unlikely to make the mistake of
> > mentioning anything about lurkers.
>
> So you're the exception that proves the rule?
No, I just enjoy testing the rules to see if they stand up to
scrutiny.
> > So anything that doesn't take place on this newsgroup is irrelevant,
> > then?
>
> Pardon me for writing unclearly. They're not relevant to this group.
So what *is* relevant to this group then? I understood that nothing
here was off-topic and you could discuss what you liked.
Guy
Guy Barry
> Tell me again how you didn't take this to rec.arts.sf.fandom in an
> attempt to prove people here wrong, huh Guy?
No, I took it over there because I wanted to have a discussion with
people who didn't have the preconceived view of me that they have on
this group. And it's proved to be very interesting and informative.
> Just because you failed completely to prove your point ...
Obsessed with point-scoring, eh?
I am not trying to "prove a point", either here or on rasf. I'm
engaged in a discussion. And guess which group I'm having the more
intelligent discussion on?
> doesn't mean that wasn't what you were
> trying to do. Even your appeal to authority (we all know who Seth is,
> did you, before someone on rasf told you?) didn't work.
"Appeal to authority"? Of course I've heard of Seth - that's why I
found the whole thing so amusing. In fact I was on soc.singles before
he was.
Guy
ElissaAnn
"Guy Barry" <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote in message
news:61a0dddb.03041...@posting.google.com...
> "ElissaAnn" <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote in message
news:<b7i0tl$165ls$1...@ID-120914.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Guy Barry" <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:61a0dddb.03041...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Elissa! Why have you de-killfiled me when I'm still bitching about
> > > everything?
> >
> > You don't read for content, do you?
>
> No, I read for the pretty patterns made by those little ">" symbols
> down the left-hand side.
That explains it.
>
> That's another annoying catchphrase, by the way. What else do you
> think people could possibly read for?
Style. Specific pieces of information. Their own name mentioned.
Practice, either in pronunciation or inflection. Vocabulary boosting.
That's five, just off the top of my head.
> "Read for content" seems to
> translate as "I meant X, and if you think I meant Y then you're an
> idiot" - something that Allison was complaining about a while back.
I suppose that some people might mean it that way. I don't
have such a strict test for thinking someone is an idiot, though.
>
> > As far as I can tell, you've stopped bitching about ssm.
>
> Have I? What led you to that conclusion then?
I haven't seen anybody spank you for it in a while. That's
not proof, but it's a reasonable clue.
>
> > The reason I killfiled you is because the only thing you
> > ever talked about was how awful ssm is. If you go
> > back to doing that, you'll go back into my killfile.
>
> Oh well, I might make it through one post I suppose...
>
> > Oh? You claim that you've been on the net for years, and you
> > still talk about the lurkers who support you.
>
> Do I now? That's very strange, since there aren't any lurkers
> supporting me. This thread is about "lurkers support me" in general,
> not some specific case.
If you're not talking about your lurkers, then why are people singing
the song to you?
>
> > >and that the people jeering at
> > > them are trying to show off how net-savvy they are.
> >
> > I get the impression that it's about how clueless the person
> > on the receiving end is.
>
> Same thing, surely - just a difference of perspective. Either way
> round they're crowing about how much more supposedly clued-in they
> are.
I see the two as very different. I don't have to be clued-in to guess
that someone else is not clued in. In fact, I am frequently un-clued-in,
and still have the impression that others are just as clueless as I am.
>
> > > If a poster has
> > > heard the song before, they're unlikely to make the mistake of
> > > mentioning anything about lurkers.
> >
> > So you're the exception that proves the rule?
>
> No, I just enjoy testing the rules to see if they stand up to
> scrutiny.
>
> > > So anything that doesn't take place on this newsgroup is irrelevant,
> > > then?
> >
> > Pardon me for writing unclearly. They're not relevant to this group.
>
> So what *is* relevant to this group then? I understood that nothing
> here was off-topic and you could discuss what you liked.
I agree with that. There are some things that I don't like talking
about here, so I don't talk about them here.
My lurkers are specifically irrelevant because in many (but not
all) cases, I don't feel comfortable posting about what someone
else has emailed to me, unless we've talked about my doing
so.
ElissaAnn
Sounds like an obsession with point-scoring to me.
Guy Barry
["read for content"]
> > That's another annoying catchphrase, by the way. What else do you
> > think people could possibly read for?
>
> Style.
Well, maybe.
> Specific pieces of information. Their own name mentioned.
Isn't that "content"?
> Practice, either in pronunciation or inflection. Vocabulary boosting.
Wow! I hadn't thought that people might be reading the group in order
to practise their English. Is anyone doing that?
> > > As far as I can tell, you've stopped bitching about ssm.
> >
> > Have I? What led you to that conclusion then?
>
> I haven't seen anybody spank you for it in a while.
Well, that's probably because most of them have killfiled me.
> If you're not talking about your lurkers, then why are people singing
> the song to you?
They aren't.
> My lurkers are specifically irrelevant because in many (but not
> all) cases, I don't feel comfortable posting about what someone
> else has emailed to me, unless we've talked about my doing
> so.
Ah, that's a different matter. I wouldn't normally want to breach
someone else's confidentiality, but I see no problem with referring
anonymously to what someone else has sent to me.
Guy
Guy Barry
> "Guy Barry" <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:61a0dddb.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
> news:<i32p9v0t8jr3cl7r0...@4ax.com>...
[anything, really]
> Sounds like an obsession with point-scoring to me.
All exchanges with Kris are point-scoring exercises.
Guy
Dr. Brat
> "ElissaAnn" <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote in message news:<b7jlba$1ku9q$1...@ID-120914.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>>Practice, either in pronunciation or inflection. Vocabulary boosting.
>
> Wow! I hadn't thought that people might be reading the group in order
> to practise their English. Is anyone doing that?
I don't practice my English per se, but I *do* vocabulary boost. I
often consult a dictionary either in response to something someone has
posted or before posting something.
> Ah, that's a different matter. I wouldn't normally want to breach
> someone else's confidentiality, but I see no problem with referring
> anonymously to what someone else has sent to me.
*heh* Got you in trouble at least once, though, didn't it?
Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*barnacle-encrusted bitch~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Charlotte L. Blackmer
Dr. Brat <epc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>
>>
>> I have been thinking of setting up a pool for when Guy finally gets the
>> clue that I am not interested with fighting with him and stops giving me
>> his negative (if sporadic) attention.
>
>What makes you think it's about you?
>
>Elizabeth (ducking)
Heh.
Maybe I need to have a little chat with Mom on Sunday about using *my*
middle initial.
And telling me that she doesn't do anything with the computer.
Did you know that I only posted to soc.singles eight times in
1995? Google says that's all so it must be true ;-).
Charlotte
(wish I could find that first post, which was made almost exactly eight
years ago)
Guy Barry
> >What makes you think it's about you?
> >
> >Elizabeth (ducking)
>
> Heh.
>
> Maybe I need to have a little chat with Mom on Sunday about using *my*
> middle initial.
>
> And telling me that she doesn't do anything with the computer.
You mean there are actually *two* Charlotte Blackmers? God help us all...
Guy
ElissaAnn
"Guy Barry" <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote in message
news:61a0dddb.03041...@posting.google.com...
> "ElissaAnn" <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote in message
news:<b7jlba$1ku9q$1...@ID-120914.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Guy Barry" <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:61a0dddb.03041...@posting.google.com...
>
> ["read for content"]
> > > That's another annoying catchphrase, by the way. What else do you
> > > think people could possibly read for?
> >
> > Style.
>
> Well, maybe.
>
> > Specific pieces of information. Their own name mentioned.
>
> Isn't that "content"?
I see that we use the phrase "reading for content" differently.
To me, reading for content requires thinking, and something
that on standardized tests* is called reading comprehension.
Looking for specific pieces of information or one's own
name requires skimming skills, and the ability to match
phrases, something a computer could do much faster
than a person.
I use both types of reading (for comprehension and for
specific bits) frequently, and I couldn't say which one
I use more often.
Elissa
*the ones they give in school, which usually include sections
on vocabulary and sections on reading comprehension. Do
they do that in England?
steveb
Invisibility and wrote:
>*the ones they give in school, which usually include sections
>on vocabulary and sections on reading comprehension. Do
>they do that in England?
Yes...of course...both verbal and written comprehension.
At all levels, the reasoning is given greater weight than the "answer"
steveb
Secret Agent Pig
>Later on, years later, I found out that most of the dancers are doing
>it to support their drug habits.
Except at Billy's, where they were dancing to put themselves through
NYU. Oh, wait, I guess that is a drug habit.
--
Piglet, pig...@piglet.org http://unitedforpeace.org/
Stop the War on Iraq
816 days down Ann B. for President!
644 to go. Burlingham/Burlingham in 2004!
Secret Agent Pig
>I like makeup and dressing up in great clothes and all the rest, but I'm
>essentially extremely grateful that I've never felt that if I don't look
>like a million bucks my life is over. I'd much rather be able to look
>like an old bow wow and play in the dirt when I feel like it. Trying to
>look beautiful all the time and compete with other women's beauty is
>wholly against my nature, and I can't figure out how that happened. I
>feel like I'm missing an essential feminine hormone.
Hey! No slurring femininity.
Secret Agent Pig
>> did you, before someone on rasf told you?) didn't work.
>"Appeal to authority"? Of course I've heard of Seth - that's why I
>found the whole thing so amusing. In fact I was on soc.singles before
>he was.
Beer just came out my nose. And I'm not even drinking any!
Kris Hasson-Jones
submitted the following for your consideration:
>Beer just came out my nose. And I'm not even drinking any!
You're a majikal peeg.
You're not the peeg from Taran Wanderer, are you?
Or the peeg that the kid wizards in the Diane Duane books have to
watch for?
OMG, there is a world full of majikal peegs, and I don't know any of
them!
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
What Would Aragorn Do?
heck
> g...@uk-roads.co.uk (Guy Barry), in article <61a0dddb.03041...@posting.google.com>, dixit:
>
>>Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
>>news:<i32p9v0t8jr3cl7r0...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>.... Even your appeal to authority (we all know who Seth is,
>>>did you, before someone on rasf told you?) didn't work.
>
>>"Appeal to authority"? Of course I've heard of Seth - that's why I
>>found the whole thing so amusing. In fact I was on soc.singles before
>>he was.
>
> Beer just came out my nose. And I'm not even drinking any!
Well, maybe Seth took a long break from NET.singles and didn't
post to soc.singles before Guy. Yeah, yeah, that's it.
I heard Seth had been looking for a plate and that he
needed to wash his hands. That could take a long time.
- heck (ObMiguel: Red Wings are out of the playoffs; has
anything exciting happened in baseball yet?)
Guy Barry
> Secret Agent Pig wrote:
> > g...@uk-roads.co.uk (Guy Barry), in article <61a0dddb.03041...@posting.google.com>, dixit:
> >
> >>Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
> >>news:<i32p9v0t8jr3cl7r0...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >>>.... Even your appeal to authority (we all know who Seth is,
> >>>did you, before someone on rasf told you?) didn't work.
>
> >>"Appeal to authority"? Of course I've heard of Seth - that's why I
> >>found the whole thing so amusing. In fact I was on soc.singles before
> >>he was.
> >
> > Beer just came out my nose. And I'm not even drinking any!
Well, usual caveats about the archive being incomplete and all that,
but it looks as though I predated you on soc.singles by nearly a year
a well. (And yes, I know you didn't post under the name "Piglet" back
then.)
> Well, maybe Seth took a long break from NET.singles and didn't
> post to soc.singles before Guy. Yeah, yeah, that's it.
I can find no trace of Seth's posts anywhere on net.singles, though of
course that doesn't prove he never posted there (he may have used a
different name, or his posts may not have been preserved). Nor can I
find any reference to his name in posts by anyone else.
Any chance of getting Seth back to resolve this?
Guy
Neil
Walton <blu...@vif.com> writes>> [song]
>
>Marry me?
I should be honoured.
Neil
JoAnne Schmitz
thread caught my eye during a quick Google session sparked by a similar
discussion taking place on alt.fan.miss-manners.]
From: Guy Barry (g...@uk-roads.co.uk)
>Just a postscript to my earlier piece...
>
>Here's an extract from a posting to rec.arts.books by Mark Taranto -
>reference <C0yIA...@panix.com>. It comes from a list of what he
>believes to be acceptable references to email on Usenet:
>
>> "I believe X, and others have told me in e-mail that they do, too."
>> Several times, on r.a.b, Heather has made the "I have support
>> from the lurkers" kinds of claims. If she really does get
>> supportive letters from them, I have no problem with this kind
>> of general reference to e-mail.
>
>The date? 16 January 1993. So whenever "lurkers support me in email"
>became discredited, it must have been after then - but before 27 June
>1993 when Seth first referred to it. Curiouser and curiouser, as
>Alice would say...
Classical fallacy-wise, you're equivocating on the meaning of "acceptable
usage."
For example, another part of that post reads:
"I really hope that Heather had permission from Mark to publish information
about his private life he sent her in e-mail."
Only the propriety of expressing the general yea-or-nay nature of the email is
addressed.
Lurker email may or may not be an accurate barometer of the truth. Lurker email
may or may not be dependaby reported. But neither of these questions is meant
to be addressed in the post you quoted.
-JoAnne