How do you make anonymous Usenet posts, please?
Chris
etc. to remain hidden.
Is anyone able to recommed a solution please?
The only thing he can think of at the moment is to use googlegroups
through www.the-cloak.com or www.guardster.com
Craig
<1143239004.0...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
I could tell you, but if I did, I'd have to kill myself.
(Is your friend's name Ch**s?)
Chris
I found some info:
How to Post to a Newsgroup Anonymously
There are a number of reasons to conceal your identity when posting to
a newsgroup. You may want to hide your controversial beliefs from your
employer or other community members. Perhaps you're trying to protect
your e-mail address from spammers. Maybe you're just shy. In any case,
the most effective method of anonymous newsgroup posting is to use an
anonymous mailer, or "remailer."
Steps:
1. Find a reliable remailer with an acceptable level of privacy. In
general, look for remailers with PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) software or
better. You should be able to find one that provides free service.
2. Use your e-mail program's "Edit Headers" function to add a header
labeled "Anon-To" to your outgoing messages.
3. Type the address of the target newsgroup in the "Anon-To" heading.
4. Type the address of the remailer in the "To" heading.
5. Type the newsgroup posting in the body of the e-mail.
6. Send the e-mail normally. The remailer will strip any identifying
information from the message and replace it with dummy headers,
concealing your identity from other newsgroup users.
Tips:
If you don't know how to edit headers in your e-mail program, try
typing a double colon (::) in the first line of the body of the e-mail
and the address of the target newsgroup in the second line. Hit Enter
twice and type your message, and then send the e-mail to the remailer.
Web-based remailers are easier to use (everything happens on the site
rather than in your e-mail program) but provide less security.
If you don't need a large amount of security, establish a separate
e-mail account to be used only for newsgroup postings. Supply fake
identifying information for the new account.
Warnings:
Remailers are never 100 percent secure. Remailer administrators have
been known to provide information about their users to law enforcement
officials and other authorities. Use their services wisely.
Craig
"Chris" <Chris.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I found some info:
>
> How to Post to a Newsgroup Anonymously
>
Oh well, no point telling you now.
Chris
Got any more tips? I am being treated so harshly -- just for
expressing my opinion. I just want to protect people from the perverted
deviants of society, the scum, the filth, the dirt, the demented sick
people that try to normalise their behaviour by ranting and raving..
attempting to intimidate me. I will NEVER be silenced.
Jesus is our lord. Our saviour.
Stuart Bell
> Got any more tips? I am being treated so harshly -- just for
> expressing my opinion. I just want to protect people from the perverted
> deviants of society, the scum, the filth, the dirt, the demented sick
> people that try to normalise their behaviour by ranting and raving..
> attempting to intimidate me. I will NEVER be silenced.
>
> Jesus is our lord. Our saviour.
And there was me thinking that it was just that kind of person that
Jesus went out of his way to befriend - the marginalised and outcast of
society. Jesus is their Lord, too. Try reading the Gospels sometime; you
might get a shock.
Stuart
--
Try stuartsmacs at dsl dot pipex dot com to email me.
Nigel Eastmond
spamfri...@spamfritterspam.com (Stuart Bell) wrote:
> And there was me thinking that it was just that kind of person that
> Jesus went out of his way to befriend - the marginalised and outcast of
> society. Jesus is their Lord, too. Try reading the Gospels sometime; you
> might get a shock.
Erm ...
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.attn-deficit/browse_thread/th
read/8377168fac3cb050/065cb072937bf8ce?lnk=st&q=Chris.Holland16%40gmail.c
om&rnum=4#065cb072937bf8ce>
A Google Groups search for Chris.H...@gmail.com is a fascinating
thing to do.
Nige.
--
Nigel C Eastmond
eastmon...@kidneys.mac.com
http://web.mac.com/nigeleastmond/iWeb/
Remove the bodily organs from my email address to reply
Steve Hodgson
<eastmon...@kidneys.mac.com> said:
> In article <1hcqvq1.k2uyg8lbeqtN%spamfri...@spamfritterspam.com>,
> spamfri...@spamfritterspam.com (Stuart Bell) wrote:
>
>> And there was me thinking that it was just that kind of person that
>> Jesus went out of his way to befriend - the marginalised and outcast of
>> society. Jesus is their Lord, too. Try reading the Gospels sometime; you
>> might get a shock.
>
> Erm ...
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.attn-deficit/browse_thread/th
> read/8377168fac3cb050/065cb072937bf8ce?lnk=st&q=Chris.Holland16%40gmail.c
> om&rnum=4#065cb072937bf8ce>
>
> A Google Groups search for Chris.H...@gmail.com is a fascinating
> thing to do.
> Nige.
This is a bit of an aside (as I am not really following this thread),
but I tend to favour Netscan for these kind of searches.
<http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/author/Profile.aspx>
--
Cheers,
Steve
The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk
Peter Ceresole
> A Google Groups search for Chris.H...@gmail.com is a fascinating
> thing to do.
So he's seriously ill. Is this any surprise to anyone? Not wicked; ill.
If ill enough to be prescribed Prozac and/or ritalin, he must be having
an absolutely miserable time. It does create a tension; should I respond
in a friendly and welcoming way to his few sensible posts, which is the
normal impulse here and is the decent, inclusive thing to do, but might
encourage more whacky stuff, or should I respond with simple rage to his
stupidities?
I guess the answer has to be, to be nice, up to a point. Like Rowland,
who has always been absolutely open about his Asperger's syndrome, but
who still occasionally attracts thunderbolts which are utterly wasted.
And if many of Chris Holland's most recent posts appear to be to ucsm,
think of it as this group offering a public service to the other groups
in which he might post otherwise. But don't feed the troll, sick or no.
--
Peter
PeterD
> This is a bit of an aside (as I am not really following this thread),
> but I tend to favour Netscan for these kind of searches.
>
> <http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/author/Profile.aspx>
For some reason none of the javascript buttons on that site work for me,
neither in Safari nor Firefox.
--
Pd
Peter Ceresole
> > <http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/author/Profile.aspx>
>
> For some reason none of the javascript buttons on that site work for me,
> neither in Safari nor Firefox.
And curiously, they seem to work in IE5.2.
Golly. I wonder who wrote that one?
--
Peter
Nigel Eastmond
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
> So he's seriously ill. Is this any surprise to anyone? Not wicked; ill.
> If ill enough to be prescribed Prozac and/or ritalin, he must be having
> an absolutely miserable time. It does create a tension; should I respond
> in a friendly and welcoming way to his few sensible posts, which is the
> normal impulse here and is the decent, inclusive thing to do, but might
> encourage more whacky stuff, or should I respond with simple rage to his
> stupidities?
>
> I guess the answer has to be, to be nice, up to a point. Like Rowland,
> who has always been absolutely open about his Asperger's syndrome, but
> who still occasionally attracts thunderbolts which are utterly wasted.
>
> And if many of Chris Holland's most recent posts appear to be to ucsm,
> think of it as this group offering a public service to the other groups
> in which he might post otherwise. But don't feed the troll, sick or no.
Peter. That's a very considered post, and I agree with what you have to
say. Feeding trolls is never the thing to do.
I do wonder what people's views are on offering understanding support to
the mentally ill in a public forum. On the one hand, you could look at
Usenet as an extension of society where it is a given to support those
who are ill. The difference (and I think, the difficulty here) is that
the anonymous nature of Usenet (even if you do you your name, no-one
really *knows* you) means that an ill-conceived posting may be given no
quarter because the responders do not know anything about the mental
condition of the poster.
I haven't thought about this hard enough, but it would be interesting to
hear what others think about it. Certainly, if Chris was to get his
technology together to make completely anonymous postings, then a simple
search like the one I did earlier today would never reveal his problem
and he would be given no mercy for an off-beat post.
Bonge Boo!
eastmond.news1-2ED...@news.ntli.net, "Nigel Eastmond"
<eastmon...@kidneys.mac.com> wrote:
You can have all the sympathy in the world for someone, and still get pissed
off by them.
Chris's "condition" might be a factor in his posting, but if you don't point
out to people that they aren't being blatantly offensive, they're never
going to get the message and ATTEMPT to modify their behaviour.
At this point I think I'll just ignore him, then we won't both waste our
time or energy.
Woody
> I do wonder what people's views are on offering understanding support to
> the mentally ill in a public forum.
It really depends on the forum, and on the person. Obviously if the
group starts with alt.support then yes, if the group contains comp.sys
then I would say less so, other than making certain allowances for the
person.
Even if you are aware of someone having a problem, how much you are
prepared to be supportive of that person really depends on them.
> On the one hand, you could look at
> Usenet as an extension of society where it is a given to support those
> who are ill.
I don't believe it is a given to support those who are ill. There are
many people who don't want to do that.
Also support is different things to different people. Whereas I don't
mind being taxed to help a bunch of attention deficit kids (fer
instance), I don't actually want them all staying in my house.
Some people also have problems which are easier to deal with than
others.
> The difference (and I think, the difficulty here) is that
> the anonymous nature of Usenet (even if you do you your name, no-one
> really *knows* you) means that an ill-conceived posting may be given no
> quarter because the responders do not know anything about the mental
> condition of the poster.
That is always going to happen, and I don't think it is the anonymous
nature of usenet that is to blame. I think that is just society in
general.
If you are in a group of people you know, they use their history to
colour their opinion of what you say.
If you are not known and walk up to some bloke and call him all the
names under the sun and he decks you, you really don't have anyone to
blame but yourself.
> I haven't thought about this hard enough, but it would be interesting to
> hear what others think about it. Certainly, if Chris was to get his
> technology together to make completely anonymous postings, then a simple
> search like the one I did earlier today would never reveal his problem
> and he would be given no mercy for an off-beat post.
I really don't see why he (or some of our other new offensive posters)
really should be given mercy for outright offensive posts.
He is a troll, and whether he has got a reason to be a troll or not, it
is to the detriment of the group he is here and I really don't
understand why people have a problem ignoring him as he clearly likes
the attention.
--
Woody
Woody
Doesn't that just prove that every non IE browser is broken Peter? I
thought that is how the logic worked!
--
Woody
PeterD
> I do wonder what people's views are on offering understanding support to
> the mentally ill in a public forum.
This is what I was asking when Ronald McDonald was at his obnoxious
best. At what point does "having poor social skills" become "personality
disorder" become "psychotic maniac"?
Seems to me that someone who values "receiving attention" above "being
welcome and liked" probably does have a personality disorder.
--
Pd
Howard
Yes, this is a real issue.
The lack of immediately perceptible and adequate context to Usenet
postings can lead to intemperate, irritable, kneejerk responses
(like mine yesterday evening). However, this is a 'public' forum and
as such is subject to norms and acceptable use. Some are applicable
throughout Usenet and others peculiar to the particular group
gestalt.
The optimum default response is well described by Peter C. I'd just
add that imo, extended participation in newsgroups can lead to a
keener sense of the personal hinterland of the OP - even though some
recent research on the accuracy of assessing the tone of messages
suggests that I'm being a tad optimistic.
Howard
--
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
Woody
> Nigel Eastmond <eastmon...@kidneys.mac.com> wrote:
>
> > I do wonder what people's views are on offering understanding support to
> > the mentally ill in a public forum.
>
> This is what I was asking when Ronald McDonald was at his obnoxious
> best. At what point does "having poor social skills" become "personality
> disorder" become "psychotic maniac"?
Shortly after they piss you off I think.
--
Woody
Alienrat Design Ltd
Peter Ceresole
> Doesn't that just prove that every non IE browser is broken Peter?
Of course it does.
Especially Safari.
--
Peter
Ben Shimmin
> Nigel Eastmond <eastmon...@kidneys.mac.com> wrote:
>> I do wonder what people's views are on offering understanding support to
>> the mentally ill in a public forum.
>
> This is what I was asking when Ronald McDonald was at his obnoxious
> best. At what point does "having poor social skills" become "personality
> disorder" become "psychotic maniac"?
Who cares? It's usenet. If someone's annoying, kill-file them. If they
have mental health issues and you think you can help them, try that instead.
But, either way, it's not your concern unless you want it to be.
> Seems to me that someone who values "receiving attention" above "being
> welcome and liked" probably does have a personality disorder.
Seems to me that there'd be a helluva lot less off-topic posts here if
people valued `being welcome and liked' a little less highly...
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Imagine the world's leaders on pills.
And imagine the morning after.'
-- Mike Skinner
Stuart Bell
>
> Who cares? It's usenet. If someone's annoying, kill-file them. If they
> have mental health issues and you think you can help them, try that instead.
> But, either way, it's not your concern unless you want it to be.
Some would argue with that on an ethical basis. Are the starving
millions in Africa not my concern unless I want them to be?
Chris
Basically I was put on ritalin for adhd. But it's Aspergers that was
misdiagnosed as adhd. I am slightly autistic with a fairly narrow
range of intersts. ADHD can look like aspergers.
With regards to the posts on gays - that is pure trolling. I really
don't give a damn if someone's gay. Yes, I do find it yuky but gays
I've known (through business, work, uni - not through choice) have
turned out to be really nice.
When I refer to something being 'gay' it is slang for it's rubbish. I
don't mean to sound homophobic but you guys kick off and go mental. I
do find it highly amusing. And it's so easy to set people off on here.
Please remember, these are just words on a computer screen.
With regards to piracy. I am not a serial pirate. But I do copy the odd
show. If I have missed an episode of the simpsons on sky one (that I
pay for) I will download it. I just want you guys to know I don't care
if YOU think I should or shouldn't. And the more you criticise me, the
more I'll do to wind you up.
I have a hatred of people who take the moral high ground. If I really
was a pirate I wouldn't give a damn what any of you said. I do
understand the economy - I'm not stupid.
You guys call it trolling. I call it winding people up.
I am taking the piss most of the time - pure and simple. Yes, it can be
annoying and I would have stopped a long time ago. But every time,
every goddamn time you guys throw a massive hissy fit. It's just too
easy. I'm actually bored of it now.
So yes, I am annoying. Do I mean to be wicked? no.
Ben Shimmin
> Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>> Who cares? It's usenet. If someone's annoying, kill-file them. If they
>> have mental health issues and you think you can help them, try that instead.
>> But, either way, it's not your concern unless you want it to be.
>
> Some would argue with that on an ethical basis. Are the starving
> millions in Africa not my concern unless I want them to be?
That's a really worthless analogy on so many levels. Do the starving
millions in Africa want your help? Yes. Do a few possibly mentally ill
people on usenet want your help? Probably not -- they actually quite enjoy
making a nuisance of themselves. Can you do anything to help the starving
millions in Africa? Yes, give some money to Oxfam every month. Can you do
anything to help a few possibly mentally ill people on usenet? Probably
not, unless you have professional training in the field of dealing with the
mentally ill.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
Enjoy responsibly.
Woody
> Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Who cares? It's usenet. If someone's annoying, kill-file them. If they
> > have mental health issues and you think you can help them, try that instead.
> > But, either way, it's not your concern unless you want it to be.
>
> Some would argue with that on an ethical basis. Are the starving
> millions in Africa not my concern unless I want them to be?
Depends if they are posting on usenet doesn't it?
D.M. Procida
Jason O
On 25/3/06 15:13, in article
1hcrgxe.k1d4n2prfjkqN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk, "D.M.
Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
The worst is 'should of' instead of 'should have'.
Jason
___
PeterD
D.M. Procida
If it's good enough for Holden Caulfield it's good enough for me.
Daniele
Luke Bosman
> So yes, I am annoying. Do I mean to be wicked? no.
No, you're not annoying. You're pathetic. Many of us are laughing at
you. It's only fair that you know this.
Luke
--
No-one reads signatures these days.
Steve Firth
> Seems to me that there'd be a helluva lot less off-topic posts here if
> people valued `being welcome and liked' a little less highly...
An excellent point.
Many years ago, I pointed out here that if the users of this group
continued to tolerate anti-social behaviour simply because they valued
"being nice" over "being correct" that the place would no longer be what
it was established to be, a technical forum for Mac users.
The would-be cabal at the time ascended to its collective high horse,
ICBA to argue, and things went on their merry way.
Today this newsgroup resembles more a private clique than a useful
resource. Off-topic commercial advertising is tolerated as long as the
person advertising is "in", splendidly off-topic rants comprise the vast
bulk of posts made and I estimate that close on 90% of content is
"social grooming."
Still, the majority of posters succeed in their aims of making the
average Mac user look like an air-headed ninny so I suspect that this is
actually a Windows advocacy forum in disguise.
Chris
Oh my god. thump. I don't care. This isn't real life. This is words on
a computer sreen.
I was going to say don't be gay, but I didn't want to put you in a
hissy fit.
X Kyle M Thompson
You are me, and I claim GBP5 - was just hinking that, as I looked
up myself and wondered who was using my address with a different
alias.
kt.
--
So I was getting into my car,
and this bloke says to me "Can you give me a lift?"
I said "Sure, you look great, the world's your oyster, go for it.'
Nigel Eastmond
"Chris" <Chris.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh my god. thump. I don't care. This isn't real life. This is words on
> a computer sreen.
Not real life? Okay then, so how come this forum had an effect on your
ISP provision as you indicated in a recent post if it's not real? In
fact, if it's not real, then why bother asking any questions here at
all? All you'll get are metaphysical answers.
Blue squirrels,
Luke Bosman
> Oh my god. thump. I don't care. This isn't real life. This is words on
> a computer sreen.
>
> I was going to say don't be gay, but I didn't want to put you in a
> hissy fit.
ROTFLMAO. You couldn't wind up a clockwork mouse, pal.
Cheers,
Andrew Stephenson
cae...@mac.invalid "Jason O" writes:
> The worst is 'should of' instead of 'should have'.
I long ago concluded that "should of" resulted from a mis-hearing
and/or mis-interpretation of "should've". I could of been wrong.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Steve Hodgson
Oh no, not by a long way. The worst is 'loose' instead of 'lose'. Sets
my bleeding teeth on edge.
--
Cheers,
Steve
The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk
Margolotta
(in article <1hcr2il.3fn90f4a9kubN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>):
> Nigel Eastmond <eastmon...@kidneys.mac.com> wrote:
>
>> A Google Groups search for Chris.H...@gmail.com is a fascinating
>> thing to do.
>
>
> I guess the answer has to be, to be nice, up to a point. Like Rowland,
> who has always been absolutely open about his Asperger's syndrome, but
> who still occasionally attracts thunderbolts which are utterly wasted.
That's the first I've heard of it and I've known him for *years*.
Admittedly, I don't know much about the condition, but I *do* know it's a
form of autism and, whilst he might be many things, autistic isn't one of
them (I used to work with autistic kids, so I tend to be able to spot the
signs).
Sarah
Debbie Wilson
> That's the first I've heard of it and I've known him for *years*.
> Admittedly, I don't know much about the condition, but I *do* know it's a
> form of autism and, whilst he might be many things, autistic isn't one of
> them (I used to work with autistic kids, so I tend to be able to spot the
> signs).
>
> Sarah
Have a little Google in Google groups and you'll find he made mention of
it to us about 7 years ago....
Deb.
--
http://www.scientific-art.com
"He looked a fierce and quarrelsome cat, but claw he never would;
He only bit the ones he loved, because they tasted good." S. Greenfield
Simon Dobbs
(in article <48lljrF...@individual.net>):
> Oh no, not by a long way. The worst is 'loose' instead of 'lose'. Sets
> my bleeding teeth on edge.
>
yes indeed
Simon Dobbs
(in article <1hcrw84.15hfyd8s3e4gN%djma...@mac.com>):
> Have a little Google in Google groups and you'll find he made mention of
> it to us about 7 years ago....
and I'm sure that you remember it well.
Giles
use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote:
> Nigel Eastmond <eastmon...@kidneys.mac.com> wrote:
>
> > I do wonder what people's views are on offering understanding support to
> > the mentally ill in a public forum.
>
> It really depends on the forum, and on the person. Obviously if the
> group starts with alt.support then yes, if the group contains comp.sys
> then I would say less so, other than making certain allowances for the
> person.
>
> Even if you are aware of someone having a problem, how much you are
> prepared to be supportive of that person really depends on them.
A large proportion of my day job involves acting in the interests of
people with mental health problems, from a legal, not a medical
position. Outside of that situation, where I have a clear professional
duty, I am, I think, with Woody.
Whatever the experiences of the individuals in this group, and no matter
how understanding and tolerant its members may be (and they are, unless
you fuck up an apostrophe), this is not the place to try to deal with,
let alone help, someone's mental health issues.
My main reason for saying this is that it isn't going to help or make a
blind bit of difference to the person concerned.
My secondary reason for saying this is that UCSM is a community, with
all the benefits and problems that involves. This might and does mean
that people feel close and want to support each other. But it does not
mean that this is a therapeutic place, where people can expect or demand
support for their particular issues or mental health problems.
I'm with whoever it was who said respond to the on topic posts, ignore
the rest. If the two cannot be separated, ignore it. We might have a
moral duty not to make things worse for the poster, once his or her
situation is clear, but we sure as hell aren't going to make it better.
Now I need to make at least 2 on topic posts.
Giles
Simon Dobbs
(in article <1hcr2il.3fn90f4a9kubN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>):
> And if many of Chris Holland's most recent posts appear to be to ucsm,
> think of it as this group offering a public service to the other groups
> in which he might post otherwise
Peter C, you have it in your capacity to be the most patronising old git in
the universe.
Simon Dobbs
(in article <e03qap$kho$1...@genet.malloc.co.uk>):
so true, so true
PeterD
> The would-be cabal at the time ascended to its collective high horse,
> ICBA to argue, and things went on their merry way.
Oh no! Simon's got a sock puppet!
--
Pd
Craig
<1143261441.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
"Chris" <Chris.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Craig wrote:
> > In article <1143247743.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > "Chris" <Chris.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I found some info:
> > >
> > > How to Post to a Newsgroup Anonymously
> > >
> >
> > Oh well, no point telling you now.
>
> Got any more tips?
Yes. Don't let the bastards get you down, fight the good fight.
> I am being treated so harshly -- just for
> expressing my opinion. I just want to protect people from the perverted
> deviants of society, the scum, the filth, the dirt, the demented sick
> people that try to normalise their behaviour by ranting and raving..
> attempting to intimidate me. I will NEVER be silenced.
I'd like to apologize to you for the shocking way you've been
treated here. It's
amazing to see how cruel Mac users can be. Windows users would
never be
that way.
>
> Jesus is our lord. Our saviour.
Speak for yourself, I revere the Lord Ganesh. And of course,
Margolotta is a Wiccan, so she dances naked around a fire
at midnight.
Margolotta
(in article <1hcrd6j.16lytma1uf3tc0N%pd....@dsl.pipex.invalid>):
> Nigel Eastmond <eastmon...@kidneys.mac.com> wrote:
>
>> I do wonder what people's views are on offering understanding support to
>> the mentally ill in a public forum.
>
> This is what I was asking when Ronald McDonald was at his obnoxious
> best. At what point does "having poor social skills" become "personality
> disorder" become "psychotic maniac"?
Okay, you might have a problem with him (as do I at times) but he's been a
damned good friend to me over the years (more than a friend). Yes, he is a
raving lunatic sometimes - and there are times when he's frightened the Hades
out of me and I will admit that he does have a violent temper but, once you
get to know him, there's a thoroughly decent bloke under all that.
The guy's *ILL*; give him a break, for Hades' sake!
> Seems to me that someone who values "receiving attention" above "being
> welcome and liked" probably does have a personality disorder.
Are you referring to Rowland or Mstr Holland? If the former, may I just take
this opportunity to remind you that we wouldn't be having this discussion,
because there would be no uscm to have this discussion in if he hadn't set it
up.
Sarah
John
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Yup that's my feeling tbh.
I've semi-lurked in this group for quite a while and the amount of OT
crap is quite astounding. There's definiately a clique.
Woody
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:56:57 +0000, PeterD wrote
> (in article <1hcrd6j.16lytma1uf3tc0N%pd....@dsl.pipex.invalid>):
>
> > Nigel Eastmond <eastmon...@kidneys.mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I do wonder what people's views are on offering understanding support to
> >> the mentally ill in a public forum.
> >
> > This is what I was asking when Ronald McDonald was at his obnoxious
> > best. At what point does "having poor social skills" become "personality
> > disorder" become "psychotic maniac"?
>
> Okay, you might have a problem with him (as do I at times) but he's been a
> damned good friend to me over the years (more than a friend).
Really? Do you really associate with Ronald McDonald?
So are you an 'Irish American' too?
> The guy's *ILL*; give him a break, for Hades' sake!
I think this is what the topic of this subthread is. He is ill, like
Chris Holland.
And when we start 'giving people breaks', is this like the immediate
attack you do on anyone that posts something you don't like, or
something about an iPod, or Chris posting anything, or just something
that is associated with people you like??
> > Seems to me that someone who values "receiving attention" above "being
> > welcome and liked" probably does have a personality disorder.
>
> Are you referring to Rowland or Mstr Holland?
Who mentioned Rowland?
> If the former, may I just take
> this opportunity to remind you that we wouldn't be having this discussion,
> because there would be no uscm to have this discussion in if he hadn't set it
> up.
And in 9 years no-one else would have thought of setting one up?
--
Woody
John
Margolotta <naggin...@thebackofyourmind.invalid> wrote:
> Are you referring to Rowland or Mstr Holland? If the former, may I just take
> this opportunity to remind you that we wouldn't be having this discussion,
> because there would be no uscm to have this discussion in if he hadn't set it
> up.
>
I don't know enough about Roland to comment there but just because you
set up a public forum doesn't give you any special favours as you seem
to be implying.
X Kyle M Thompson
>On 2006-03-25 15:28:01 +0000, Jason O <cae...@mac.invalid> said:
>>
>> On 25/3/06 15:13, in article
>> 1hcrgxe.k1d4n2prfjkqN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk, "D.M.
>> Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris <Chris.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> bored of
>>>
>>> Bored with, tired of.
>>>
>>> Daniele
>>
>> The worst is 'should of' instead of 'should have'.
>
>Oh no, not by a long way. The worst is 'loose' instead of 'lose'. Sets
>my bleeding teeth on edge.
If there's one thing that makes me retch until my guts come out
my throat, it's hyperbole[1].
kt.
[1]Thanks PeterD, 2004-10-18
--
So I rang up my local swimming baths.
I said 'Is that the local swimming baths?'
He said 'It depends where you're calling from.'
Peter Ceresole
> Today this newsgroup resembles more a private clique than a useful
> resource.
This is absolute bollocks and you know it. People who want to ask
technical questions ask them and generally they are answered. By any
definition the group is a useful resource.
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
> > And if many of Chris Holland's most recent posts appear to be to ucsm,
> > think of it as this group offering a public service to the other groups
> > in which he might post otherwise
>
> Peter C, you have it in your capacity to be the most patronising old git in
> the universe.
Not patronising. Just seeing things as they are. You have a problem with
that, clearly.
--
Peter
Steve Firth
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Today this newsgroup resembles more a private clique than a useful
>> resource.
>
> This is absolute bollocks and you know it.
Umm no, I profoundly disagree with you.
> People who want to ask technical questions ask them and generally
> they are answered. By any definition the group is a useful resource.
If you want to indulge in light hearted social chit chat it's a useful
resource. However it had become a clique, although those in the clique
will, of course, not recognise the fact.
Peter Ceresole
> If you want to indulge in light hearted social chit chat it's a useful
> resource. However it had become a clique, although those in the clique
> will, of course, not recognise the fact.
Again, total bollocks. To what extent does the light hearted chit chat
make it impossible to read the considerable number of technical queries
and the answers to them?
And the answer is, not one bit.
--
Peter
Margolotta
(in article <MRKYTP3S3880...@reece.net.au>):
> In article
> <1143261441.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
> "Chris" <Chris.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Craig wrote:
>>> In article <1143247743.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>>> "Chris" <Chris.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I found some info:
>>>>
>>>> How to Post to a Newsgroup Anonymously
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh well, no point telling you now.
>>
>> Got any more tips?
>
> Yes. Don't let the bastards get you down, fight the good fight.
So you condone his homophobic views then?
>
>> I am being treated so harshly -- just for
>> expressing my opinion. I just want to protect people from the perverted
>> deviants of society, the scum, the filth, the dirt, the demented sick
>> people that try to normalise their behaviour by ranting and raving..
>> attempting to intimidate me. I will NEVER be silenced.
>
>
> I'd like to apologize to you for the shocking way you've been
> treated here. It's
> amazing to see how cruel Mac users can be. Windows users would
> never be
> that way.
Cruel? I think we've been fairly tolerant, under the circumstances. Oh and
they wouldn't - I use Windows (well only occasionally now) and I would most
*DEFINITELY* be that way.
>
>>
>> Jesus is our lord. Our saviour.
>
> Speak for yourself, I revere the Lord Ganesh. And of course,
> Margolotta is a Wiccan, so she dances naked around a fire
> at midnight.
>
>
Oh look, the troll's got a groupie! I'd just like to point out that I am
*NOT* Wiccan (Pagan, yes; Wiccan, no). Oh and do learn something about
others' beliefs before posting complete and utter garbage - it just makes you
look a twat (oh, wait a minute, you *are* a twat). Wiccans (or any branch of
Pagans) do NOT dance skyclad round fires at midnight.
You're another *PLONK*er.
Ben Shimmin
I think there's a problem with a group when you have a backlog of posts
(anything more than a day's worth here) and think, `Can I be bothered
reading through four hundred posts to find maybe as many as one hundred,
if I'm lucky, which will be of interest? No, I'll just delete the lot and
start again afresh tomorrow.'
Maybe you guys could start a mailing list for your discussions about
Ethiopians and goats and motorway overhead warning signs. You could call it
`The UCSM Clickety-Clique List'. You could even make it members-only,
so that people who don't share your inestimable moral values wouldn't be
able to ruin your day. On the other hand, you probably wouldn't have quite
so much to talk about if you did that.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Red wine with fish. Well, that should have told me something.'
-- James Bond, _From Russia With Love_
Steve Firth
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If you want to indulge in light hearted social chit chat it's a useful
>> resource. However it had become a clique, although those in the clique
>> will, of course, not recognise the fact.
>
> Again, total bollocks.
Again, untrue.
> To what extent does the light hearted chit chat
> make it impossible to read the considerable number of technical queries
> and the answers to them?
It doesn't make it impossible to read the few technical questions posted
here. However it does mean that the focus of this group is the massaging
of a small number of egos.
> And the answer is, not one bit.
You keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. However
compared to a support forum for, say, one of the smaller linux distros
this group is largely moribund and more about navel gazing than
technical issues.
Margolotta
(in article <1hcs5fi.n2h35b1l5gbyzN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
> Margolotta <naggin...@thebackofyourmind.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
>> The guy's *ILL*; give him a break, for Hades' sake!
>
> I think this is what the topic of this subthread is. He is ill, like
> Chris Holland.
No, he's ill *unlike* Chris Holland, whom I have no reason to believe is ill
at all. The fact he posts to an ADD group has no bearing on whether he
actually has ADD.
>
> And when we start 'giving people breaks', is this like the immediate
> attack you do on anyone that posts something you don't like, or
> something about an iPod, or Chris posting anything, or just something
> that is associated with people you like??
I don't recall "attacking" anyone in this group, apart from Chris and I
apologise if I have.
Sorry? What have iPods got to do with the price of trout? The only person I
recall attacking for posting anything about an iPod is, again, the
aforementioned Master Holland.
Chris has posted so little on-topic (admittedly, I haven't either, but I'm
sure my on-topic posts number more than his, but I'm not about to start a war
here) and besides, I have it kill-filed now.
>
>
>>> Seems to me that someone who values "receiving attention" above "being
>>> welcome and liked" probably does have a personality disorder.
>>
>> Are you referring to Rowland or Mstr Holland?
>
> Who mentioned Rowland?
Er, Peter. It was blatantly obvious to whom he was referring. It isn't the
first time Rowland's been referred to as such (mind you, he can blame his
mother for that).
>
>> If the former, may I just take
>> this opportunity to remind you that we wouldn't be having this discussion,
>> because there would be no uscm to have this discussion in if he hadn't set
>> it
>> up.
>
> And in 9 years no-one else would have thought of setting one up?
I'm not saying that, I'm just merely pointing out that he did.
If you don't like me, Woody, you're more than welcome to kill-file me.
Ben Shimmin
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:06:40 +0000, Woody wrote
> (in article <1hcs5fi.n2h35b1l5gbyzN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
[...]
>> I think this is what the topic of this subthread is. He is ill, like
>> Chris Holland.
>
> No, he's ill *unlike* Chris Holland, whom I have no reason to believe is ill
> at all. The fact he posts to an ADD group has no bearing on whether he
> actually has ADD.
Probably the fact that he's admitted to having Asperger's does have some
bearing on the matter. On the other hand, lots of people like to claim
that they are `mildly dyslexic' when they mean `poor at spelling', so
who knows...
>> And when we start 'giving people breaks', is this like the immediate
>> attack you do on anyone that posts something you don't like, or
>> something about an iPod, or Chris posting anything, or just something
>> that is associated with people you like??
>
> I don't recall "attacking" anyone in this group, apart from Chris and I
> apologise if I have.
>
> Sorry? What have iPods got to do with the price of trout? The only person I
> recall attacking for posting anything about an iPod is, again, the
> aforementioned Master Holland.
[...]
You must have pretty serious amnesia.
Message-ID: <0001HW.C0487DF7...@news.ngroups.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:31:51 +0000
Message-ID: <0001HW.C04A0178...@news.ngroups.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:05:12 +0000
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
Enjoy responsibly.
Woody
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:06:40 +0000, Woody wrote
> (in article <1hcs5fi.n2h35b1l5gbyzN%use...@alienrat.co.uk>):
>
> > Margolotta <naggin...@thebackofyourmind.invalid> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> The guy's *ILL*; give him a break, for Hades' sake!
> >
> > I think this is what the topic of this subthread is. He is ill, like
> > Chris Holland.
>
> No, he's ill *unlike* Chris Holland, whom I have no reason to believe is ill
> at all.
That is the point of this thread - how does anyone know that anyone is
ill at all.
> > And when we start 'giving people breaks', is this like the immediate
> > attack you do on anyone that posts something you don't like, or
> > something about an iPod, or Chris posting anything, or just something
> > that is associated with people you like??
>
> I don't recall "attacking" anyone in this group, apart from Chris and I
> apologise if I have.
You don't?
Is this a serious failure in memory on your part, or do you really not
notice what you post?
> > And why should I want to use software from some spamming dickwad who is too
> > thick to know that plurals do *NOT* require apostrophes?!
> > Look, dickwad, asking for
> > assistance with Windows in a Mac group is about as sensible as, oh I dunno,
> > asking for assistance with MacOS in a Windows group, perhaps...?
There are plenty more but I really can't be arsed to search now.
> Sorry? What have iPods got to do with the price of trout? The only person I
> recall attacking for posting anything about an iPod is, again, the
> aforementioned Master Holland.
You have attacked a couple of people for posting about ipods (when you
do your 'please note the name of this group' shit). Admittedly more for
mentioning PCs.
> Chris has posted so little on-topic (admittedly, I haven't either, but I'm
> sure my on-topic posts number more than his
Actually I would doubt it
>, but I'm not about to start a war
> here) and besides, I have it kill-filed now.
That is good at least.
> >>> Seems to me that someone who values "receiving attention" above "being
> >>> welcome and liked" probably does have a personality disorder.
> >>
> >> Are you referring to Rowland or Mstr Holland?
> >
> > Who mentioned Rowland?
>
> Er, Peter. It was blatantly obvious to whom he was referring. It isn't the
> first time Rowland's been referred to as such (mind you, he can blame his
> mother for that).
I think you will find that he was refering to Donald McDaniel and
specifically to the thread a few weeks back mainly about Irish
Americans.
<http://groups.google.com/group/uk.comp.sys.mac/browse_frm/thread/5ab177
da5174ed40/bc05b53557607e13?lnk=st&q=woody+irish+americans&rnum=1#bc05b5
3557607e13>
You are, I assume, talking about Rowland, who I think also participated
in that thread briefly (it was a huge thread), but wasn't the subject of
the conversation.
> >> If the former, may I just take
> >> this opportunity to remind you that we wouldn't be having this discussion,
> >> because there would be no uscm to have this discussion in if he hadn't set
> >> it
> >> up.
> >
> > And in 9 years no-one else would have thought of setting one up?
>
> I'm not saying that, I'm just merely pointing out that he did.
Indeed, but completely irrelivant.
> If you don't like me, Woody, you're more than welcome to kill-file me.
Thanks.
--
Woody
Charles Dyer
(in article <slrn.2006-03...@candide.bas.me.uk>):
> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>:
>> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> If you want to indulge in light hearted social chit chat it's a useful
>>> resource. However it had become a clique, although those in the clique
>>> will, of course, not recognise the fact.
>>
>> Again, total bollocks. To what extent does the light hearted chit chat
>> make it impossible to read the considerable number of technical queries
>> and the answers to them?
>>
>> And the answer is, not one bit.
>
> I think there's a problem with a group when you have a backlog of posts
> (anything more than a day's worth here) and think, `Can I be bothered
> reading through four hundred posts to find maybe as many as one hundred,
> if I'm lucky, which will be of interest? No, I'll just delete the lot and
> start again afresh tomorrow.'
>
> Maybe you guys could start a mailing list for your discussions about
> Ethiopians and goats and motorway overhead warning signs. You could call it
> `The UCSM Clickety-Clique List'. You could even make it members-only,
> so that people who don't share your inestimable moral values wouldn't be
> able to ruin your day. On the other hand, you probably wouldn't have quite
> so much to talk about if you did that.
>
> b.
>
>
Laddie, if you used a newsreader which did threading you'd be able to do what
I do: detect and distinquish between threads... and then you could pay
attention only to the threads you want to.
Right now I show the ten most recently updated current threads as
this one, 'How do you make anonymous Usenet posts, please?' which was started
by the current #1 troll but which is actually semi on topic;
'Kill files', which is about how to kill threads (such as this one) started
by the current #1 troll, and which is semi on topic;
'Favour please: Record telly', which I suspect is completely off topic and
which I haven't read;
'Q and Quicken', which is on topic;
'Mac Mini, burn-in and CRT TVs', which is on topic;
'AirPort Extreme with Bluetooth Cards', which is on topic;
'Learning Cocoa', which is on topic;
'Photoshop Elements 4.0 (Mac)', which is on topic;
'Codecs', which is on topic;
'BBC not a podcast', which while not strictly on topic isn't that far out.
That's one thread completely off topic, one thread off topic but at least
close; two threads due to the current resident troll; and six threads on
topic. A quick check down the list indicates that approx 65% of the current
threads in this ng are on topic, perhaps 20% are completely off topic, and
the rest are mostly because of our troll.
So... what the hell are you on about?
--
We are Microsoft of Borg. You will be assimilated. Stability is irrelevant.
Where _you_ want to go to today is irrelevant. We will add your currency to
our own. Bend over right now. Resistance is futile.
Ben Shimmin
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:32:43 -0500, Ben Shimmin wrote
> (in article <slrn.2006-03...@candide.bas.me.uk>):
[...]
>> I think there's a problem with a group when you have a backlog of posts
>> (anything more than a day's worth here) and think, `Can I be bothered
>> reading through four hundred posts to find maybe as many as one hundred,
>> if I'm lucky, which will be of interest? No, I'll just delete the lot and
>> start again afresh tomorrow.'
[...]
> Laddie, if you used a newsreader which did threading
I already do, pal.
> you'd be able to do
> what I do: detect and distinquish between threads... and then you could pay
> attention only to the threads you want to.
Oh, I do try.
> Right now I show the ten most recently updated current threads as
[...]
> That's one thread completely off topic, one thread off topic but at least
> close; two threads due to the current resident troll; and six threads on
> topic. A quick check down the list indicates that approx 65% of the current
> threads in this ng are on topic, perhaps 20% are completely off topic, and
> the rest are mostly because of our troll.
So only 35% is off-topic or junk that I don't want to read? Great.
> So... what the hell are you on about?
How about this:
Total posts considered: 8,080 over 30 days
[...]
============================================================================
Top 20 threads by no. of articles
============================================================================
1: [OT] - Overhead warning signs on motorways..................... : 349
2: Fantastic legal cheap MP3 download site!....................... : 291
3: Intel Mac Mini, Rosetta, FCP................................... : 188
4: OT: Americans and the English language......................... : 166
5: Surge Protection - Yay or Nay?................................. : 125
6: miniMac-Intel.................................................. : 117
7: New Ricky Gervais podcast is available here (Series 2)......... : 87
8: TomatoTorrent is outstading; Fast.............................. : 84
9: Anyone for the Ethi*pian?...................................... : 83
10: Don't read this Elliott........................................ : 78
11: [OT] Still ticking over ....................................... : 75
12: Happy Birthday................................................. : 75
I make that:
1: Off-topic
2: Off-topic
3: On-topic (but it was cross-posted)
4: Off-topic
5: Off-topic
6: On-topic
7: Off-topic
8: Off-topic
9: Off-topic
10: No idea
11: Off-topic (though I'm sorry about this one)
12: Off-topic
That's just for the initial posts to each thread. Most threads don't really
stay true to their Subject: (like this one, for example).
But I'm sure you're right. There's no problem with off-topic posting here
at all.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Mother died today. Or maybe yesterday, I don't know.'
-- Albert Camus, _L'Etranger_
Peter Ceresole
> You keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. However
> compared to a support forum for, say, one of the smaller linux distros
> this group is largely moribund and more about navel gazing than
> technical issues.
In that case read those groups and stay out of here. Others clearly find
ucsm useful and useable. Unfortunately you appear to lack the ability to
use your newsreader, or to discriminate between threads. But I don't
believe that for a second. So are you just having a fit of temper-
because that's what it looks like?
--
Peter
Luke Bosman
<snip>
> compared to a support forum for, say, one of the smaller linux distros
> this group is largely moribund and more about navel gazing than
> technical issues.
It may be worth considering how many people would be here to answer
questions if there were no OT posts. Now that the majority have
broadband, I really don't see it as an issue: once any thread becomes
dull I kill it.
Cheers,
Luke
--
No-one reads signatures these days.
PeterD
> ============================================================================
> 1: [OT] - Overhead warning signs on motorways..................... : 349
> 2: Fantastic legal cheap MP3 download site!....................... : 291
> 3: Intel Mac Mini, Rosetta, FCP................................... : 188
> 4: OT: Americans and the English language......................... : 166
> 5: Surge Protection - Yay or Nay?................................. : 125
> 6: miniMac-Intel.................................................. : 117
> 7: New Ricky Gervais podcast is available here (Series 2)......... : 87
> 8: TomatoTorrent is outstading; Fast.............................. : 84
> 9: Anyone for the Ethi*pian?...................................... : 83
> 10: Don't read this Elliott........................................ : 78
> 11: [OT] Still ticking over ....................................... : 75
> 12: Happy Birthday................................................. : 75
>
> I make that:
>
> 1: Off-topic
> 2: Off-topic
> 3: On-topic (but it was cross-posted)
> 4: Off-topic
> 5: Off-topic
Why is surge protection not of relevance to Apple computer users?
> 6: On-topic
> 7: Off-topic
> 8: Off-topic
Why is Macintosh software not of relevance to Mac users?
> 9: Off-topic
> 10: No idea
Why is discussion of big LCD screens not of relevance to Mac users?
> 11: Off-topic (though I'm sorry about this one)
> 12: Off-topic
I realise that newsgroups are not democracies, but surely the fact that
these threads generated the most posts, indicates the level of interest
by the people that post?
--
Pd
Ian Robinson
(in article <slrn.2006-03...@candide.bas.me.uk>):
> Maybe you guys could start a mailing list for your discussions about
> Ethiopians and goats and motorway overhead warning signs. You could call it
> `The UCSM Clickety-Clique List'. You could even make it members-only,
> so that people who don't share your inestimable moral values wouldn't be
> able to ruin your day. On the other hand, you probably wouldn't have quite
> so much to talk about if you did that.
Blatant advertising opportunity. If you want to talk about science see:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/talkscience/>
Ian
--
Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
<http://www.canicula.com/wp/>
Ian Robinson
(in article <0001HW.C04BAD47...@news.ngroups.net>):
> Wiccans (or any branch of
> Pagans) do NOT dance skyclad round fires at midnight.
You're no fun anymore!
D.M. Procida
> > Again, total bollocks. To what extent does the light hearted chit chat
> > make it impossible to read the considerable number of technical queries
> > and the answers to them?
> >
> > And the answer is, not one bit.
>
> I think there's a problem with a group when you have a backlog of posts
> (anything more than a day's worth here) and think, `Can I be bothered
> reading through four hundred posts to find maybe as many as one hundred,
> if I'm lucky, which will be of interest? No, I'll just delete the lot and
> start again afresh tomorrow.'
I've done this a couple of times lately. The first time was by accident;
I marked all articles as read - then I shrugged, because I realised I
wouldn't have time to go through them properly anyway.
When there's so much irrelevant stuff that people stop bothering to
read, then there's a problem.
> Maybe you guys could start a mailing list for your discussions about
> Ethiopians
Arrangements for meeting at a restaurant seem perfectly appropriate. If
they were being done in private, then it might start to seem cliquey. An
open invitation in a public newsgroup doesn't strike me as the activity
of an exclusive club.
> and goats and motorway overhead warning signs.
Whereas that kind of stuff is irritating annoying and inappropriate.
Daniele
Charles Dyer
(in article <slrn.2006-03...@candide.bas.me.uk>):
> Charles Dyer <char...@newsguy.com>:
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:32:43 -0500, Ben Shimmin wrote
>> (in article <slrn.2006-03...@candide.bas.me.uk>):
>
> [...]
>
>>> I think there's a problem with a group when you have a backlog of posts
>>> (anything more than a day's worth here) and think, `Can I be bothered
>>> reading through four hundred posts to find maybe as many as one hundred,
>>> if I'm lucky, which will be of interest? No, I'll just delete the lot and
>>> start again afresh tomorrow.'
>
> [...]
>
>> Laddie, if you used a newsreader which did threading
>
> I already do, pal.
Cool. Then what's your problem?
>
>> you'd be able to do
>> what I do: detect and distinquish between threads... and then you could pay
>> attention only to the threads you want to.
>
> Oh, I do try.
Again, what's your problem?
>
>> Right now I show the ten most recently updated current threads as
>
> [...]
>
>> That's one thread completely off topic, one thread off topic but at least
>> close; two threads due to the current resident troll; and six threads on
>> topic. A quick check down the list indicates that approx 65% of the current
>> threads in this ng are on topic, perhaps 20% are completely off topic, and
>> the rest are mostly because of our troll.
>
> So only 35% is off-topic or junk that I don't want to read? Great.
That's what it looks like, viewed by thread.
We appear to be looking at different stats. I care about what's been updated
recently; you care about number of posts. Frankly, a thread could have 20
million posts in it, but if I don't deliberately click on it, open it out,
and download the bodies of the posts I neither know nor care. I merely see
one line in the ng window... and if I _do_ open it out to view the thread, I
can, if I choose, download just one post, or just a few posts, or no posts at
all from that thread and close it back up or kill the whole thread.
And I must disagree about this thread not being on topic, even if there has
been topic drift. We're talking about the group, and such meta discussions
are, by definition, on topic. Thread drift is a fact of life; any thread
longer than about 10 posts drifts.
And I show you as having made 55 posts in this ng, going back to 06/03/06, 21
of which appear in threads which are off topic. ('OT: Americans and the
English language', 5 posts; 'Don't read this Elliot', 2; 'OT: Gays and Mariah
Carey', 3; 'OT: Nasty O2 phishing attempt', 1; '[OT] Wikipedia again', 1; 'OT
[Troll]: What would you do if your son', 1; 'BBC not a podcast', 8.) You
appear to have contributed to two of the off-topic threads you note as being
in the top 12 threads. It would appear that you do find some of the off-topic
threads to be of interest to you... including several which I simply passed
over because they seemed to be of no interest to me. This is what I would
expect. Many threads, in any newsgroup, are of no interest to any one person.
All of them are of interest to at least one person, the person who posted the
first (and often the last) post on the thread. You can read 'em, or not, as
you wish. I just read the ones which look interesting and ignore the rest.
That's why threading is a good thing in a newsreader. My newsreader also
shows the various branches of a thread, if I have that thread opened out. If
a subthread in an otherwise interesting thread is going in a direction I
don't care about, I stop reading that subthread.
But, hey, that's me. You're free to complain about the number of posts on
off-topic threads if you want, even if you contributed to some of those
threads. Just don't expect to actually achieve much. Threads with large
numbers of posts are popular threads for one reason or another. Attacking
popular activities while lacking the power to actually enforce your will
strikes me as not the most productive use of time, but by all means continue
to tilt at windmills.
PeterD
> > Who mentioned Rowland?
>
> Er, Peter. It was blatantly obvious to whom he was referring.
Oops, sorry Margolotta/Sarah. I actually meant Donald McDaniel, and it
hadn't occurred to me that of course Rowland's name could also be
corrupted to Ronald McDonald. It's a silly thing to do anyway, about on
a par with accusing someone of being Hitler, or threatening violence, or
paranoia about a cabal.
I apologise for the confusion.
--
Pd
Charles Dyer
(in article <1hcswmu.16lpeqkrd9j8sN%pd....@dsl.pipex.invalid>):
> Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>
>> ============================================================================
>> 1: [OT] - Overhead warning signs on motorways..................... : 349
>> 2: Fantastic legal cheap MP3 download site!....................... : 291
>> 3: Intel Mac Mini, Rosetta, FCP................................... : 188
>> 4: OT: Americans and the English language......................... : 166
>> 5: Surge Protection - Yay or Nay?................................. : 125
>> 6: miniMac-Intel.................................................. : 117
>> 7: New Ricky Gervais podcast is available here (Series 2)......... : 87
>> 8: TomatoTorrent is outstading; Fast.............................. : 84
>> 9: Anyone for the Ethi*pian?...................................... : 83
>> 10: Don't read this Elliott........................................ : 78
>> 11: [OT] Still ticking over ....................................... : 75
>> 12: Happy Birthday................................................. : 75
>>
>> I make that:
>>
>> 1: Off-topic
>> 2: Off-topic
>> 3: On-topic (but it was cross-posted)
>> 4: Off-topic
>> 5: Off-topic
>
> Why is surge protection not of relevance to Apple computer users?
damn good question.
>
>> 6: On-topic
>> 7: Off-topic
>> 8: Off-topic
>
> Why is Macintosh software not of relevance to Mac users?
excellent question.
>
>> 9: Off-topic
>> 10: No idea
>
> Why is discussion of big LCD screens not of relevance to Mac users?
Well... I'm reading this off a 20" LCD, so perhaps I'm not the one to
judge... yes I am. Damn good question.
>
>> 11: Off-topic (though I'm sorry about this one)
>> 12: Off-topic
>
> I realise that newsgroups are not democracies, but surely the fact that
> these threads generated the most posts, indicates the level of interest
> by the people that post?
Some people just have to bitch and moan, that's all.
And you should note that he posted to at least two of those threads. I
suppose that he liked them then. I don't know, as I didn't read those two
threads, they didn't seem interesting to me so I skipped 'em over.
Simon Dobbs
(in article <1hcs6sl.135e6gpu4y6jvN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>):
and
> So he's seriously ill. Is this any surprise to anyone? Not wicked; ill.
> If ill enough to be prescribed Prozac and/or ritalin
What qualifies you to make this public diagnosis? I think that it could be
highly libellous
Luke Bosman
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:32:58 +0000, Peter Ceresole wrote
> (in article <1hcs6sl.135e6gpu4y6jvN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>):
> > So he's seriously ill. Is this any surprise to anyone? Not wicked; ill.
> > If ill enough to be prescribed Prozac and/or ritalin
> What qualifies you to make this public diagnosis? I think that it could be
> highly libellous
What?!
Aside from the fact that Mr. Holland is happy to libel all and sundry, I
wonder how illness can be libellous.
Peter Ceresole
> > So he's seriously ill. Is this any surprise to anyone? Not wicked; ill.
> > If ill enough to be prescribed Prozac and/or ritalin
>
>
> What qualifies you to make this public diagnosis? I think that it could be
> highly libellous
Did you read the thread about it? If not, then you should. It comes from
his own posts elsewhere. Public diagnosis by him.
Please think before you post.
--
Peter
kit
<1hct4qj.xjbg3h1dqkv0wN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lu
kebo...@spamgourmet.com>, Luke Bosman
<southend.areNinePointsClearM...@spamgourmet.co
m> wrote:
And more relevant...
It cannot be libelous because Mr Holland himself has put that
information onto another public forum, the link to which was posted in
this group recently.
Kit
Bruce Horrocks
<b...@llamaselector.com> writes
[snip evidence that majority of top 20 longest posts are OT]
Surely this makes your life even easier? All the OT posts are in the
longest threads and the pure technical queries are in the short ones.
Therefore, kill the long threads and you avoid both the OT stuff and the
volume.
Regards,
--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
<firstname>@<surname>.plus.com -- fix the obvious for email
Nigel Eastmond
<1hct4qj.xjbg3h1dqkv0wN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lu
kebo...@spamgourmet.com>,
m (Luke Bosman) wrote:
And he states the precise condition in the forum I originally liked to,
Simon.
Nige.
--
Nigel C Eastmond
eastmon...@kidneys.mac.com
http://web.mac.com/nigeleastmond/iWeb/
Remove the bodily organs from my email address to reply
Simon Dobbs
(in article
<1hct4qj.xjbg3h1dqkv0wN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lukebosm
a...@spamgourmet.com>):
> I
> wonder how illness can be libellous.
to accuse someone of having an illness which might have a detrimental effect
on their work would be libellous. To put someone's comments down to an
illness which they don't have could be libellous.
Simon Dobbs
(in article <eastmond.news1-7DC...@news.ntli.net>):
> In article
> <1hct4qj.xjbg3h1dqkv0wN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lu
> kebo...@spamgourmet.com>,
> southend.areNinePointsClearM...@spamgourmet.co
> m (Luke Bosman) wrote:
>
>> Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:32:58 +0000, Peter Ceresole wrote
>>> (in article <1hcs6sl.135e6gpu4y6jvN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>):
>>
>>>> So he's seriously ill. Is this any surprise to anyone? Not wicked; ill.
>>>> If ill enough to be prescribed Prozac and/or ritalin
>>
>>> What qualifies you to make this public diagnosis? I think that it could be
>>> highly libellous
>>
>> What?!
>>
>> Aside from the fact that Mr. Holland is happy to libel all and sundry, I
>> wonder how illness can be libellous.
>>
>> Luke
>
> And he states the precise condition in the forum I originally liked to,
> Simon.
>
> Nige.
>
>
ok, I understand, but this is all very shaky ground. It is all too easy to
charge someone with being 'mad' when we feel their views are distasteful. Mad
or not it is better to make a rational argument against wrong arguments. This
guy has pronounced that he has an illness and takes medication- that should
mean that the illness is controlled. To accuse him then of not being capable
of a rational argument because of his medicated illness is not right.
Prozac is normally prescribed for depression, and depressives are seldom
described as being mad... indeed they are often all the more able of rational
and critical thought.
I have 'fond' memories of Richard P. Grant making a similar 'diagnosis' of me
in this group. I am not easily offended, but that was unnecessary and just
plain wrong - he simply disagreed with my views.
Ben Shimmin
> Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>> =====================================================================
>> 2: Fantastic legal cheap MP3 download site!................ : 291
>> 3: Intel Mac Mini, Rosetta, FCP............................ : 188
>> 4: OT: Americans and the English language.................. : 166
>> 5: Surge Protection - Yay or Nay?.......................... : 125
>> 6: miniMac-Intel........................................... : 117
>> 7: New Ricky Gervais podcast is available here (Series 2).. : 87
>> 8: TomatoTorrent is outstading; Fast....................... : 84
>> 9: Anyone for the Ethi*pian?............................... : 83
>> 10: Don't read this Elliott................................. : 78
>> 11: [OT] Still ticking over ................................ : 75
>> 12: Happy Birthday.......................................... : 75
>>
>> I make that:
>>
>> 1: Off-topic
>> 2: Off-topic
>> 3: On-topic (but it was cross-posted)
>> 4: Off-topic
>> 5: Off-topic
>
> Why is surge protection not of relevance to Apple computer users?
Did you actually look at this thread? It turned into a row about physics,
or electricity, or something -- I forget exactly what, but I don't think
Apple computers were actually mentioned more than about twice.
>> 6: On-topic
>> 7: Off-topic
>> 8: Off-topic
>
> Why is Macintosh software not of relevance to Mac users?
I was under the impression that this thread was started by our young troll,
so it probably turned to insults or an argument about piracy within a few
posts.
>> 9: Off-topic
>> 10: No idea
>
> Why is discussion of big LCD screens not of relevance to Mac users?
I did say `no idea'. From the Subject:, it's hard to say what this thread
was about. How long did it stay on the subject of LCD screens?
>> 11: Off-topic (though I'm sorry about this one)
>> 12: Off-topic
>
> I realise that newsgroups are not democracies, but surely the fact that
> these threads generated the most posts, indicates the level of interest
> by the people that post?
And? If the majority of people, or even a significant proportion (like,
say, the top twenty posters, who contribute roughly half the posts here)
wish to partake in off-topic chit-chat and cheerful and witty persiflage,
then they are welcome to. But please don't tell me that this means there
isn't a problem with off-topic posts here, or that some people (ie. those
who aren't part of the UCSM dining club) aren't going to find it irritating
from time to time.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
Enjoy responsibly.
Ben Shimmin
[...]
> We appear to be looking at different stats.
Mine are generated by a Perl script which analyses my Leafnode news spool.
I would be happy to furnish you with a copy, should you so wish.
[...]
Charles, you make some good and sensible points, and I'm not going to
discuss them individually. I agree with some of the things you say,
particularly that meta-discussions are inherently on-topic, and that
there is a Quixotic futility in campaigning against the off-topic posts
here. For that reason, I'll stop now (Rocinante is growing a little weary,
too).
As regards my own contribution to off-topic threads, I can only suggest
that I have been corrupted by the malpractices of my peers.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
Stuart Bell
> Stuart Bell <spamfri...@spamfritterspam.com>:
> > Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
> >> Who cares? It's usenet. If someone's annoying, kill-file them. If
> >> they have mental health issues and you think you can help them, try
> >> that instead. But, either way, it's not your concern unless you want it
> >> to be.
> >
> > Some would argue with that on an ethical basis. Are the starving
> > millions in Africa not my concern unless I want them to be?
>
> That's a really worthless analogy on so many levels. Do the starving
> millions in Africa want your help? Yes. Do a few possibly mentally ill
> people on usenet want your help? Probably not -- they actually quite enjoy
> making a nuisance of themselves.
You are conflating 'are my concern' with 'want my help'. Once you've
committed that logical howler, the rest of your argument falls.
Stuart
--
Try stuartsmacs at dsl dot pipex dot com to email me.
Stuart Bell
> I think there's a problem with a group when you have a backlog of posts
> (anything more than a day's worth here) and think, `Can I be bothered
> reading through four hundred posts to find maybe as many as one hundred,
> if I'm lucky, which will be of interest? No, I'll just delete the lot and
> start again afresh tomorrow.'
doesn't your software let you see the headers before you read the
message then?
Stuart Bell
Simon Dobbs
(in article <slrn.2006-03...@candide.bas.me.uk>):
> But please don't tell me that this means there
> isn't a problem with off-topic posts here, or that some people (ie. those
> who aren't part of the UCSM dining club) aren't going to find it irritating
> from time to time.
>
> b.
just watch- the UCSM dining club (love the term) will accuse you of being a
paranoid conspiracy theorist next.
David
> [...]
> > We appear to be looking at different stats.
> Mine are generated by a Perl script which analyses my Leafnode news
> spool. I would be happy to furnish you with a copy, should you so
> wish.
> [...]
> Charles, you make some good and sensible points, and I'm not going to
> discuss them individually. I agree with some of the things you say,
> particularly that meta-discussions are inherently on-topic, and that
> there is a Quixotic futility in campaigning against the off-topic
> posts here. For that reason, I'll stop now (Rocinante is growing a
> little weary, too).
> As regards my own contribution to off-topic threads, I can only
> suggest that I have been corrupted by the malpractices of my peers.
Nah. Your just bored of it!
Alright?!
--
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
David
<1hcsvu4.1luric51dxc3shN%spamfri...@spamfritterspam.com>, Stuart
> > I think there's a problem with a group when you have a backlog of
> > posts (anything more than a day's worth here) and think, `Can I be
> > bothered reading through four hundred posts to find maybe as many
> > as one hundred, if I'm lucky, which will be of interest? No, I'll
> > just delete the lot and start again afresh tomorrow.'
> doesn't your software let you see the headers before you read the
> message then?
You judge books by their covers?
David
<1hcsvwl.5ziosd1k379i5N%spamfri...@spamfritterspam.com>, Stuart
> >
> > That's just for the initial posts to each thread. Most threads
> > don't really stay true to their Subject: (like this one, for
> > example).
> So kill the OT sub-threads, and what's the problem?
Because it's unnecessary effort. Currently ucsm generates up to 2000 or
so posts a week but if it's okay to chat about anything under the sun
because other folk will just kill OT threads and sub-threads, we could
end up being deluged by tens of thousands of posts and then I should
think even you'd be complaining about the effort required in just
initiating kills.
Stuart Bell
> Because it's unnecessary effort. Currently ucsm generates up to 2000 or
> so posts a week but if it's okay to chat about anything under the sun
> because other folk will just kill OT threads and sub-threads, we could
> end up being deluged by tens of thousands of posts and then I should
> think even you'd be complaining about the effort required in just
> initiating kills.
I don't even bother killing them; I just ignore them.
D.M. Procida
> > Because it's unnecessary effort. Currently ucsm generates up to 2000 or
> > so posts a week but if it's okay to chat about anything under the sun
> > because other folk will just kill OT threads and sub-threads, we could
> > end up being deluged by tens of thousands of posts and then I should
> > think even you'd be complaining about the effort required in just
> > initiating kills.
>
> I don't even bother killing them; I just ignore them.
I go out of my way to ignore them.
Daniele
Charles Dyer
(in article <4e0db859...@nomaps.amnops.invalid>):
I'm certainly bored with _you_ and I've only read three of your posts. Hold
onto a plonk, there's a good lad.
Ben Shimmin
> Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>> Stuart Bell <spamfri...@spamfritterspam.com>:
>> > Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>> >> Who cares? It's usenet. If someone's annoying, kill-file them. If
>> >> they have mental health issues and you think you can help them, try
>> >> that instead. But, either way, it's not your concern unless you want it
>> >> to be.
>> >
>> > Some would argue with that on an ethical basis. Are the starving
>> > millions in Africa not my concern unless I want them to be?
>>
>> That's a really worthless analogy on so many levels. Do the starving
>> millions in Africa want your help? Yes. Do a few possibly mentally ill
>> people on usenet want your help? Probably not -- they actually quite enjoy
>> making a nuisance of themselves.
>
> You are conflating 'are my concern' with 'want my help'. Once you've
> committed that logical howler, the rest of your argument falls.
`The rest of my argument falls'? Why, because you didn't quote it? One
important aspect of any analogy is a sense of proportion. Yours has
absolutely none.
I say again: if you want to help people on usenet with mental health
issues (and you genuinely feel you are in a position to help them), be my
guest. But you certainly shouldn't expect that this will be a rewarding
process, or that many others will feel any obligation to follow suit.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Nam et Hannibalis apud Romanos iam ante Sangunti excidium celeberrimum
nomen erat, et Scipionem Hannibal eo ipso quod adversus se dux potissimum
lectus esset praestantem virum credebat.' -- Titus Livius, _Ab Urbe Condita_
Ben Shimmin
> Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>> I think there's a problem with a group when you have a backlog of posts
>> (anything more than a day's worth here) and think, `Can I be bothered
>> reading through four hundred posts to find maybe as many as one hundred,
>> if I'm lucky, which will be of interest? No, I'll just delete the lot and
>> start again afresh tomorrow.'
>
> doesn't your software let you see the headers before you read the
> message then?
Yes. And this post is really about usenet anonymity, too.
If you think you can pick which threads are interesting just by looking at
their Subject:s, you are gravely mistaken.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Imagine the world's leaders on pills.
And imagine the morning after.'
-- Mike Skinner
Charles Dyer
(in article <0001HW.C04C6D00...@news.demon.co.uk>):
You _are_ a paranoid conspiracy theorist, especially if you include me in
with the dining club, given that I'm on the other side of the Atlantic and
it's physically impossible for me to be a member of said club.
But, hey, the fact that something's physically impossible hasn't stopped you
from proposing it in the past, so carry on by all means.
David
Dyer <char...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:39:04 -0500, David wrote (in article
> <4e0db859...@nomaps.amnops.invalid>):
> > In article <slrn.2006-03...@candide.bas.me.uk>, Ben
> > Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
> >> Charles Dyer <char...@newsguy.com>:
> >
> >> [...]
> >
> >>> We appear to be looking at different stats.
> >
> >> Mine are generated by a Perl script which analyses my Leafnode
> >> news spool. I would be happy to furnish you with a copy, should
> >> you so wish.
> >
> >> [...]
> >
> >> Charles, you make some good and sensible points, and I'm not going
> >> to discuss them individually. I agree with some of the things you
> >> say, particularly that meta-discussions are inherently on-topic,
> >> and that there is a Quixotic futility in campaigning against the
> >> off-topic posts here. For that reason, I'll stop now (Rocinante
> >> is growing a little weary, too).
> >
> >> As regards my own contribution to off-topic threads, I can only
> >> suggest that I have been corrupted by the malpractices of my peers.
> >
> > Nah. Your just bored of it!
> >
> > Alright?!
> >
> >
> I'm certainly bored with _you_ and I've only read three of your
> posts. Hold onto a plonk, there's a good lad.
Well, if you can't find any amusement in my posts, up yours!
Giles
Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:46:28 +0000, Luke Bosman wrote
> (in article
> <1hct4qj.xjbg3h1dqkv0wN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lukebosm
> a...@spamgourmet.com>):
>
> > I
> > wonder how illness can be libellous.
>
> to accuse someone of having an illness which might have a detrimental effect
> on their work would be libellous.
Damaging to their reputation? Not as far as the illness goes. The
possibly libellous comment would be about their capability or fitness
for the job. If that comment wasn't made....
> To put someone's comments down to an
> illness which they don't have could be libellous.
Damaging to their reputation? Hard to see, particularly if the comments
are such that an illness might be inferred.
An accusation of illness, by itself, couldn't be defamatory. Defamation
generally involves moral character. So, conceivably, accusing someone of
having an STD might be defamatory where it carried a clear implication
of being adulterous, but it is the adultery, not the illness, that is
the content of the defamation.
Giles
Simon Dobbs
(in article <0001HW.C04C2FF5...@news.newsguy.com>):
> You _are_ a paranoid conspiracy theorist, especially if you include me in
> with the dining club, given that I'm on the other side of the Atlantic and
> it's physically impossible for me to be a member of said club.
>
> But, hey, the fact that something's physically impossible hasn't stopped you
> from proposing it in the past, so carry on by all means.
I think that you rather flatter yourself. I didn't know that you even
existed.
Simon Dobbs
(in article <usenet.giles-253F...@individual.net>):
> An accusation of illness, by itself, couldn't be defamatory. Defamation
> generally involves moral character. So, conceivably, accusing someone of
> having an STD might be defamatory where it carried a clear implication
> of being adulterous, but it is the adultery, not the illness, that is
> the content of the defamation.
has this been tested in court?
Luke Bosman
It's perhaps time that you started reading u.c.s.m then.
Luke
--
No-one reads signatures these days.
Peter Ceresole
>>>> So he's seriously ill. Is this any surprise to anyone? Not wicked;
>>>> ill. If ill enough to be prescribed Prozac and/or ritalin
> ok, I understand, but this is all very shaky ground. It is all too easy to
> charge someone with being 'mad' when we feel their views are distasteful.
How did you manage to turn 'ill' into 'mad' there, Dobbo? And if you
believe that treatments for psychiatric illness work so well in all
cases as to leave the sufferers unimpaired, I think that you are
seriously deluded.
--
Peter