Reporting Spam in Google Groups
Space Cadet
I found this on rasfc, thought it might be appropriate to pass it
around to see if we can do something to cut all the crap in here:
> > The headers of posts made via Google include this:
> > Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> > I assume that you'd simply write a brief note and attach the
> > offending post, complete with headers. (Actually, the
> > headers alone ought to suffice, since they include the
> > Message-ID.)
> Thanks, I did that last night. My note asked them to please make it
> stop, and I got an automated reply that my message had been sent to the
> Gmail abuse team. It made me feel better, anyway.
If anyone else wants to complain, you can either do as Brian and Bill
describe, or (through the web interface):
1. Go to http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.composition/ (*)
2. Click to open the offending threads. (This is where tabbed
browsers
come into their own: on a Mac, I open-apple-clicked on all 16 on the
first page, and then moved on to the next step.)
3. Find the name with the email address in green - to the right is
'View
profile'(1) and further along 'More options' - click this 'More
options'
link.
4. This brings up a selection of links; on the second row is 'Report
this message'.
5. You get a form to fill out.
a. If you don't want to give them your email I imagine a fake one
will work just as well. After you've filled it out the first time, if
you've got a nice browser you'll only have to type the first letter to
bring it up again for subsequent reports.
b. Leave the radio buttons as they are.
c. Type something generic in the text box: I used "This
spam/pornography is flooding rasfc at the moment; can it please be
filtered?" and copied it into my clipboard to use on all 16 reports I
made (deleting 'pornography' when not appropriate).
If you're doing a whole bunch at a time, you soon get into the rhythm
of
it; I reported 16 in about 5 minutes.
One hopes that the more people complain, the more likely Google will
actually do something about it.
(1) Following this allows you to report entire users using pretty much
the same process.
--
(*) replace '/rec.arts.sf.composition/' with appropriate NG name
BradGuth
> Hi All
> I found this on rasfc, thought it might be appropriate to pass it
> around to see if we can do something to cut all the crap in here:
>
> > > The headers of posts made via Google include this:
>
I agree that to a basic robo-moderator could just as easily uncover
and divert such clearly spam posted crapolla topics to a similar named
group as having the .spam, such as sci.space.policy.spam should work
without ever causing total censorship or author banishment issues.
BTW, the best of our "Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories" is still the
ongoing NASA/Apollo moon landing hoax of our mutually perpetrated cold-
war for profit and global domination century.
If smart folks as supposedly having all of "the right stuff" had in
fact been upon the moon and having taken all of those thousands of
unfiltered Kodak moments (from that physically dark as coal surface as
well as from orbit), then do tell where's Venus hiding as of missions
A11, A14 and A16?
Of all the other sorts of gabi40, Clint Eastwood, susi40, susi40001,
susi40006, mirror server, dlcz, kgkgjkgkgkfgk and perhaps countless
other trash or spam topics getting forced into the Usenet stack,
whereas oddly these silly clownish efforts of their mainstream damage-
control do not seem to bother those in charge of this or any other
Usenet group. Why is that?
Are these clownish methods of stuffing or force-feeding topics as
faith-based approved, so as to intentionally block out or displace all
others, or is this Usenet Group trashing tactic merely of something
MI5/CIA approved?
As much the same as our team of cloak and dagger wizards having
terminated the robust portion of ESA'a Venus Express PFS instrument,
it's yet another interesting note about our physically dark and nasty
moon, in that all the supposed better science (far better off than
anything NASA/Apollo or of anything NASA since Apollo) and of
otherwise perfectly fine expertise of the JAXA/Selene mission is still
after all of this on-orbit science is officially sequestered, as
though forced into being taboo/nondisclosure within one of our NASA
space toilets. (perhaps as parked right next to those 700 missing
boxes of their Apollo moon landing hoax missions and of all those
pesky Muslim WMD)
In addition to what little I've discovered, and my having been trying
within my best dyslexic encrypted ways to share this new and improved
science about Venus and our moon for the past 8+ years and counting,
it seems there's lots more to behold about good old Earth that's worth
our knowing and sharing, such as the many interesting discoveries and
subsequent topics within the following link: Archaeology Answers
About Ancient Civilizations Indus River Valley Ancient Maps of the
World Ancient India Civilizations Ancient China Civilization Egypt
Ancient Gods Strange Pictures Dead Men's Secrets Lost Technology and
more...
www.beforeus.com
Other than my having deductively interpreted via honest
observationology as to what looks so perfectly intelligent/artificial
of the Venus tarmac, township/community of large structures, plus the
surrounding infrastructure and of that nearby bridge as looking so
gosh darn rational, I can't be absolutely certain about such other
intelligent life still existing/coexisting on Venus. However, at
least the regular laws of physics and of the best available science
can't possibly exclude such, because even us frail humans along with a
sufficient degree of applied technology could make a go of it,
especially as for representing ETs capable of getting ourselves to/
from Venus would in of itself offer more than sufficient technological
expertise for safely accommodating an extended stay in spite of all
that geothermally forced environment of Venus being so geologically
newish, CO2/S8 vapor hot and otherwise downright nasty from the bottom
up, and otherwise not as we've been informed as being entirely
greenhouse roasted from the top down. The planet Venus has been
losing its core energy at the rate of 20.5 w/m2 (roughly 256 fold
greater than Earth), because Venus is simply geothermally active and
thus hotter than hell.
-
Where the heck are all of those perfectly good NASA/Apollo moon
landing hoax topics going? It's as though this Earth is actually
flat, whereas such topics and of their authors along with each and
every one of those 700 boxes of our NASA/Apollo mission data just fell
off the edge.
Perhaps we should take a little reflective quiet time to fully
appreciate upon the recent intellectual and anti-science imposed
gauntlets of this Usenet topic/author stalking and science blockage,
whereas instead of the truth we're seeing forced topic stacking of
such wordy disinformation crapolla so that the general public or media
doesn't get an honest wind or otherwise bother to look deep enough
into this mainstream cesspool of Usenet, as to discover what's really
going down the drain.
It's exactly like the cloak and dagger worth of those NASA Apollo
false or dishonest topics having those key search words of NASA,
Apollo, moon landing and hoax continually included within each and
every one of those phony postings of obviously bogus topics, that
which also include naughty smut and porn related context, as clearly
intended in order to cause automatic filtering of what public schools
ever get to read, as well as to divert the honest research intentions
of others, by way of those hidden or cloak and dagger means that
essentially wash-out or force-purge all previous forms of perfectly
serious related topics out of their Google/NOVA archives, and thus
getting removed from their infowar and otherwise mainstream hype
configured Usenet, so that only the mainstream status quo of topics in
100% support of government and of their faith-based NASA/Apollo side
of this issue remains accessible to the public.
Do yourself a basic favor by simply accomplishing a Google Usenet/
Group search of ' apollo hoax ' or try ' moon landing ' and then use
the "sort by date" feature. It's downright funny, isn't it.
In them good old days of applying this form of government and
theological extremist oversight, or merely orchestrated clownism, as
such this tactic was mainstream swarm like accomplished via witch and
book burnings that achieved their form of mainstream damage-control
trickery of that dark-side era, as well as if need be having put those
of their own kind on a stick for yet another shock and awe worth of a
faith-based PR stunt wasn't overlooked.
BTW, my for-real phone of 253-8576061 and email of bradguth@gmail or
bradguth@yahoo (among others) has always been answered by myself, so
if you're not getting through or you believe that I'm not answering my
phone or otherwise not reading or much less returning your email, it's
simply not the least bit intentionally because of myself, but instead
it's more than likely of those calls or emails of yours have been
getting systematically intercepted, modified and/or diverted by those
in charge, and otherwise skewed by those having the most to lose,
especially if they're not doing their spook and mole like jobs at
keeping the rest of us supposed village idiots snookered and
dumbfounded past the point of no return.
If this bad situation of censorship that's clearly getting worse isn't
exactly of what those global domination Zionists and of their puppet
Hitler warlord (aka partner in crimes against humanity) had in mind,
as having since been replaced by our very own warlord(GW Bush) and of
his born-again faith of brown-nosed minions, then what the hell is?
Seems via those presidential signings and of all those DHS powers of
God has entirely excluded or having banished all others from taking
proper action. Again, it's all very Third Reich and otherwise warlord
and otherwise Old Testament of being Zionist global domination like.
. - Brad Guth
Mike Schilling
"Space Cadet" <kaw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4466c672-d277-4c29...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> One hopes that the more people complain, the more likely Google will
> actually do something about it.
Well, at least they're no less likely to something about it.
comp.lang.java.programming has become almost unusable over the past week
from Google-posted spam, and there's no sign of any action from them.
BradGuth
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:26:53 -0700 (PDT), in sci.space.policy Space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cadet <kaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi All
> >I found this on rasfc, thought it might be appropriate to pass it
> >around to see if we can do something to cut all the crap in here:
>
> > > > The headers of posts made via Google include this:
>
> care to take a look at:
> Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project:http://improve-usenet.org
"Killing all posts from Google Groups" is all very warm and fuzzy
Hitler or Zionist of yourself, isn't it.
How about just faith-based book and witch burnings at the stake again,
or at least good old waterboarding those that post such obvious spam,
if at all possible?
Obviously "m..." and others of their kind voted for GW Bush and company
of brown-nosed clowns and minions, that would gladly kill off whomever
for their next buck.
I would argue on behalf of a basic robo-moderator function that could
just as easily uncover and divert and/or extract such clearly spam
posted crapolla topics to a similar named group, such as merely having
the .spam added on, as in sci.space.policy.spam should work rather
nicely without ever causing total censorship or author banishment
issues.
BTW, the best of our "Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories" is still the
ongoing NASA/Apollo moon landing hoax of our mutually perpetrated cold-
war for profit and global domination century, yet oddly these topics
of keen interest are getting robo-purged from Usenet, replaced with
officially posted spam that only sucks and blows, as intended by those
in charge.
Martha Adams
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:07607d59-95b9-41a5...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
As I'm posting after Guth's extended diatribe, I
wonder if anyone will see it. So often a lot of
words conceals a lack of content; that readers
would check a couple of screens of that and move
on, seems likely.
Seems to me, we have three our four problems here,
and it's no good to talk about them all at once.
The problems as I see them are,
1) The small but time-honored problem of noisy
but empty verbage from preadolescent minds.
2) The China problem: persons apparently in China
sending large blocks of sales posts, filling up
to 80% of screens; these posts totally irrelevant
to the newsgroup topic (and it's not what the
reader is there for, anyhow).
3) The jamming problem, scatware (repugnantly
scatological) sent in large blocks, filling up
to 80% of screens. (Who; and why? I suspect
the hand of American 3-letter agencies in this
who intend censorship without getting caught
at it.)
4) Miscellaneous other crapware, such as the M15
postings presently abated.
5) Finally, link posters: people who do not
trouble themselves to think; rather, they just put
a link up and that's the post. *Whatever happened*
to the idea here of people typing in a few short
paragraphs to exchange thinking and views? ??
Is it possible to write software that can identify
these things, and automatically block them? The
scatware should be very easy to stop: the porn
vocabulary seems to me entirely separate from any
space topic vocabulary. But for the rest of this,
if we cannot harden usenet against this rubbish,
thrown in for whatever reason, then I believe the
value of usenet, once very high, goes to zero.
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Mar 25]
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Yes in deed, a robo-moderator program on behalf of Usenet can either
divert and/or directly place all such iffy (spam like or purely
trashy) topics into a spam sub-group, such as "sci.space.policy.spam"
without causing outright censorship or banishment issues. It is not
rocket science.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
If Google/NOVA is actually part of the problem, why then would they
take any actions that would foil their true intentions?
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> I found this on rasfc, thought it might be appropriate to pass it
> around to see if we can do something to cut all the crap in here:
>
> > > The headers of posts made via Google include this:
>
Folks that reply to such spam are every bit just as bad if not worse
than the original author(s), because of their reply actions is what's
keeping such bogus and pathetic topics on top of the Usenet stack.
. - Brad Guth
T Guy
As I'm posting after Guth's extended diatribe, I
wonder if anyone will see it.
(T Guy):
And I'm posting after the diatribe and your reply.
However, notice that I deleted all parts of the screed to which I was
not actually directly applying. This is a procedure which might take
fifteen seconds or so.
T Guy
T Guy
Yes in deed, a robo-moderator program on behalf of Usenet can either
divert and/or directly place all such iffy (spam like or purely
trashy) topics into a spam sub-group, such as "sci.space.policy.spam"
without causing outright censorship or banishment issues. It is not
rocket science.
(T Guy):
Please rank in order of difficulty:
1. Robo-moderator programme
2. Rocket science
3. Deleting portions of messages to which one is not actually
replying.
T Guy
Martha Adams
"T Guy" <Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:07cb1e68-934d-4e50...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Hi, T Guy. Yes, I normally would do that; but
this time I left it in for effect. I think
usenet, often so undervalued that it is not
even mentioned in some books about cyberspace,
is actually (potentially) the resource of
greatest social and technical value. And that
the issues I mentioned up this thread, are for
the most part, the reasons it's not achieving
its need and value. And I suspect, my item
#3, jamming, is the most serious problem now;
i.e., this one is *bad*.
Titeotwawki -- mha [rasfw 2008 Mar 28]
BradGuth
4. Not topic/author stalking in the first place.
. - Brad Guth
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:26:53 -0700 (PDT), in sci.space.policy Space
>
>
>
>
>
> Cadet <kaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I found this on rasfc, thought it might be appropriate to pass it
> >around to see if we can do something to cut all the crap in here:
>
> > > > The headers of posts made via Google include this:
>
> care to take a look at:
> Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project:http://improve-usenet.org
Hmm, so nobody is supposed to post from any place they can't use a
newsreader, like say work.
Mike Schilling
>
> Hmm, so nobody is supposed to post from any place they can't use a
> newsreader, like say work.
If you can't post from work, perhaps your employer doesn't want you to
post.
Alan Erskine
If you're reporting a
spam email with a Google return address, please be assured that it did not
originate with Google. Google does not permit others to send unsolicited
email through its mail servers. A number of unscrupulous businesses have
sent out mass mailings with forged Google return addresses. Google is
actively pursuing all available legal means to stop these miscreants from
abusing our name and your inbox. We appreciate your understanding, and
please accept our sympathies for the inconvenience this may have caused.
For further assistance or to report a problem with a Google product,
please visit http://www.google.com/support/ for a list of our Help
Centers.
Regards,
The Google Team
Alan Erskine
news:5PxGj.10643$qS5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
Funny about that; I always thought work was for... gee... work...
Michael Ash
> Just got this from Google:
>
> If you're reporting a
> spam email with a Google return address, please be assured that it did not
> originate with Google. Google does not permit others to send unsolicited
> email through its mail servers.
Several thoughts come to mind:
1) Amazing technology they have if they can stop all spam from being sent
through their servers. Realistically, they may not permit it but it can
still be done.
2) If your spam has Google headers (not just a Google from address) then
it definitely did originate with them.
3) This is nearly unrelated to the problem of spam sent through Google
*Groups*, which is a very real problem that they seem unwilling to fight.
If this is indeed what you asked them about then the reply you got was
either sadly clueless or evilly misleading.
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
Alain Fournier
> Hmm, so nobody is supposed to post from any place they can't use a
> newsreader, like say work.
If you can't use a newsreader at work, is there any reason why
you aren't changing jobs? :-)
Alain Fournier
Mike Schilling
Im other words, they don't know what Usenet spam means.
mimus
"It's a load-test program, is what it is. Yep. A load-test program."
--
Let there be another leaf.
< _Small Gods_
William December Starr
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
> If you can't post from work, perhaps your employer doesn't want
> you to post.
Ah, but is that a concern? (You may think that "Home vs. Visitor"
is an old rivalry, but it's got nothing on "Employee vs. Boss.")
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5PxGj.10643$qS5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Hmm, so nobody is supposed to post from any place they can't use a
> > > newsreader, like say work.
>
> > If you can't post from work, perhaps your employer doesn't want you to
> > post.
>
> Funny about that; I always thought work was for... gee... work...
And lunch time is....?
BradGuth
If the likes of Google/NOVA wanted to easily fix Usenet by way of
simply diverting those spam like topic postings, without otherwise
censoring a damn thing, as such they would have accomplished this
extremely simple task as of a decade ago. What does this tell us
about the mindset of Google?
. - Brad Guth
bealoid
20b0fb...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
> One hopes that the more people complain, the more likely Google will
> actually do something about it.
That'd be nice, but Google seem to have a weird definition of spam as it
applies to Usenet, prefering a "we believe in free speech and are happy
letting our users spew all over Usenet". :-(
BradGuth
> Space Cadet <kaw...@gmail.com> wrote in news:4466c672-d277-4c29-b609-
>
> [snip]
>
> > One hopes that the more people complain, the more likely Google will
> > actually do something about it.
>
> That'd be nice, but Google seem to have a weird definition of spam as it
> applies to Usenet, prefering a "we believe in free speech and are happy
> letting our users spew all over Usenet". :-(
Google/NOVA is as much in charge of whatever gets posted, diverted and/
or banished as you can get.
If topic spam/crap shows up and is never relocated into a given
whatever.spam group, as such it's exactly the way lord Google and
others of their mainstream status quo likes it.
Don't kid yourself that Usenet is somehow 100% rogue robotic, and thus
entirely out of the dirty hands of those which directly benefit from
allowing such clownish spamism to coexist without strings, because
that simply is not the truth.
Any group within Usenet can become as robo-moderated on behalf of
being as topic/author regulated to whatever extent you'd like to see.
. - Brad Guth
Mike Schilling
For working at your desk between bites of sandwich, silly.
Fred J. McCall
:
For not using your boss's assets.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Tim Little
Not everyone works for a boss who is the sole proprietor of their
company. In any case, I'll be sure to remove myself from the property
every time I eat lunch in future. Chairs, lighting, tables, sink,
garbage bin, ... all involve use of assets that do not belong to me.
Or I could realise that I am generally permitted to use these assets
for personal purposes where it does not negatively affect the work
being done.
In either event, there is definitely a major security and maintenance
difference between installing dedicated software for newsreading vs
using a web interface via software already installed and configured.
- Tim
Fred J. McCall
:
Both are using network access that your employer pays for. This
impacts everyone else.
Christopher Adams
>
> Both are using network access that your employer pays for. This
> impacts everyone else.
No, it doesn't.
--
Christopher Adams
Sydney, Australia
I'm waiting for the rain to come
I'm waiting for the light to go
My hands are shaking
My eyes are dry
I'm waiting for the clouds to cover up the sky
Mike Schilling
Only if he pays by the byte. The amount of bandwidth used by text
Usenet groups is say down in the noise compared to almost any other
sort of traffic.
Tim Little
> Both are using network access that your employer pays for. This
> impacts everyone else.
Even assuming that the internet connection costs per-byte instead of a
flat rate like pretty much everywhere, it's almost certainly less than
the cost of replacing chairs due to the extra wear from employees
sitting in them for their lunch break instead of leaving the property.
Some costs are negligible. Bandwidth for text Usenet groups is one of
them.
You're still missing the point, which is that in many cases an
employer couldn't give a damn whether their employees are browsing
Usenet during their lunch break, but will not install and maintain
specific software for the purpose.
- Tim
juw...@gmail.com
> > actually do something about it.
>
> > the same process.
>
> > (*) replace '/rec.arts.sf.composition/' with appropriate NG name
>
> I agree that to a basic robo-moderator could just as easily uncover
> and divert such clearly spam posted crapolla topics to a similar named
> group as having the .spam, such as sci.space.policy.spam should work
> without ever causing total censorship or author banishment issues.
>
> BTW, the best of our "Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories" is still the
> ongoing NASA/Apollo moon landing hoax of our mutually perpetrated cold-
> war for profit and global domination century.
>
> If smart folks as supposedly having all of "the right stuff" had in
> fact been upon the moon and having taken all of those thousands of
> unfiltered Kodak moments (from that physically dark as coal surface as
> well as from orbit), then do tell where's Venus hiding as of missions
> A11, A14 and A16?
>
> Of all the other sorts of gabi40, Clint Eastwood, susi40, susi40001,
> susi40006, mirror server, dlcz, kgkgjkgkgkfgk and perhaps countless
> other trash or spam topics getting forced into the Usenet stack,
> whereas oddly these silly clownish efforts of their mainstream damage-
> control do not seem to bother those in charge of this or any other
> Usenet group. Why is that?
>
> Are these clownish methods of stuffing or force-feeding topics as
> faith-based approved, so as to intentionally block out or displace all
> others, or is this Usenet Group trashing tactic merely of something
> MI5/CIA approved?
>
> As much the same as our team of cloak and dagger wizards having
> terminated the robust portion of ESA'a Venus Express PFS instrument,
> it's yet another interesting note about our physically dark and nasty
> moon, in that all the supposed better science (far better off than
> anything NASA/Apollo or of anything NASA since Apollo) and of
> otherwise perfectly fine expertise of the JAXA/Selene mission is still
> after all of this on-orbit science is officially sequestered, as
> though forced into being taboo/nondisclosure within one of our NASA
> space toilets. (perhaps as parked right next to those 700 missing
> boxes of their Apollo moon landing hoax missions and of all those
> pesky Muslim WMD)
>
> In addition to what little I've discovered, and my having been trying
> within my best dyslexic encrypted ways to share this new and improved
> science about Venus and our moon for the past 8+ years and counting,
> it seems there's lots more to behold about good old Earth that's worth
> our knowing and sharing, such as the many interesting discoveries and
> subsequent topics within the following link: Archaeology Answers
> About Ancient Civilizations Indus River Valley Ancient Maps of the
> World Ancient India Civilizations Ancient China Civilization Egypt
> Ancient Gods Strange Pictures Dead Men's Secrets Lost Technology and
> more...
> www.beforeus.com
>
> Other than my having deductively interpreted via honest
> observationology as to what looks so perfectly intelligent/artificial
> of the Venus tarmac, township/community of large structures, plus the
> surrounding infrastructure and of that nearby bridge as looking so
> gosh darn rational, I can't be absolutely certain about such other
> intelligent life still existing/coexisting on Venus. However, at
> least the regular laws of physics and of the best available science
> can't possibly exclude such, because even us frail humans along with a
> sufficient degree of applied technology could make a go of it,
> especially as for representing ETs capable of getting ourselves to/
> from Venus would in of itself offer more than sufficient technological
> expertise for safely accommodating an extended stay in spite of all
> that geothermally forced environment of Venus being so geologically
> newish, CO2/S8 vapor hot and otherwise downright nasty from the bottom
> up, and otherwise not as we've been informed as being entirely
> greenhouse roasted from the top down. The planet Venus has been
> losing its core energy at the rate of 20.5 w/m2 (roughly 256 fold
> greater than Earth), because Venus is simply geothermally active and
> thus hotter than hell.
>
> -
>
> Where the heck are all of those perfectly good NASA/Apollo moon
> landing hoax topics going? It's as though this Earth is actually
> flat, whereas such topics and of their authors along with each and
> every one of those 700 boxes of our NASA/Apollo mission data just fell
> off the edge.
>
> Perhaps we should take a little reflective quiet time to fully
> appreciate upon the recent intellectual and anti-science imposed
> gauntlets of this Usenet topic/author stalking and science blockage,
> whereas instead of the truth we're seeing forced topic stacking of
> such wordy disinformation crapolla so that the general public or media
> doesn't get an honest wind or otherwise bother to look deep enough
> into this mainstream cesspool of Usenet, as to discover what's really
> going down the drain.
>
> It's exactly like the cloak and dagger worth of those NASA Apollo
> false or dishonest topics having those key search words of NASA,
> Apollo, moon landing and hoax continually included within each and
> every one of those phony postings of obviously bogus topics, that
> which also include naughty smut and porn related context, as clearly
> intended in order to cause automatic filtering of what public schools
> ever get to read, as well as to divert the honest research intentions
> of others, by way of those hidden or cloak and dagger means that
> essentially wash-out or force-purge all previous forms of perfectly
> serious related topics out of their Google/NOVA archives, and thus
> getting removed from their infowar and otherwise mainstream hype
> configured Usenet, so that only the mainstream status quo of topics in
> 100% support of government and of their faith-based NASA/Apollo side
> of this issue remains accessible to the public.
>
> Do yourself a basic favor by simply accomplishing a Google Usenet/
> Group search of ' apollo hoax ' or try ' moon landing ' and then use
> the "sort by date" feature. It's downright funny, isn't it.
>
> In them good old days of applying this form of government and
> theological extremist oversight, or merely orchestrated clownism, as
> such this tactic was mainstream swarm like accomplished via witch and
> book burnings that achieved their form of mainstream damage-control
> trickery of that dark-side era, as well as if need be having put those
> of their own kind on a stick for yet another shock and awe worth of a
> faith-based PR stunt wasn't overlooked.
>
> BTW, my for-real phone of 253-8576061 and email of bradguth@gmail or
> bradguth@yahoo (among others) has always been answered by myself, so
> if you're not getting through or you believe that I'm not answering my
> phone or otherwise not reading or much less returning your email, it's
> simply not the least bit intentionally because of myself, but instead
> it's more than likely of those calls or emails of yours have been
> getting systematically intercepted, modified and/or diverted by those
> in charge, and otherwise skewed by those having the most to lose,
> especially if they're not doing their spook and mole like jobs at
> keeping the rest of us supposed village idiots snookered and
> dumbfounded past the point of no return.
>
> If this bad situation of censorship that's clearly getting worse isn't
> exactly of what those global domination Zionists and of their puppet
> Hitler warlord (aka partner in crimes against humanity) had in mind,
> as having since been replaced by our very own warlord(GW Bush) and of
> his born-again faith of brown-nosed minions, then what the hell is?
>
> Seems via those presidential signings and of all those DHS powers of
> God has entirely excluded or having banished all others from taking
> proper action. Again, it's all very Third Reich and otherwise warlord
> and otherwise Old Testament of being Zionist global domination like.
> . - Brad Guth
Dave Farrance
>Hi All
>I found this on rasfc, thought it might be appropriate to pass it
>around to see if we can do something to cut all the crap in here:
>
> > > The headers of posts made via Google include this:
>
>> > Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Good idea. And would anybody making a complaint to Google point out that
the spam from these multiple Google accounts is originating from the IP
address range 62.213.115.0-255 and would they please block that range.
(If, of course, the post that you complain about does originate in that
range, which most of the recent spate does.)
--
Dave farrance
ravenlynne
Granted I don't know much about IP's and such, but wouldn't that
possibly eliminate some honest, non-spamming posters who haven't done
anything wrong?
--
Leah: That were a wee bit repulsive.
Buffy: Went okay. 'Cept I feel a little wierd about using a
crucifix to kill someone.
Leah: Yeh dinno much about religion, do yeh?
DougL
> Both are using network access that your employer pays for. This
> impacts everyone else.
My company has a repeatedly stated desire for me to both work part
time and be here as much of the time as possible so that I'll be
available if and when needed or for any questions that come up.
In response to specific questions they approve of me doing personal
business on site if it means I'm available and as long as I'm not
charging the time or using too much printer paper.
They also have, by formally stated company wide policy, a willingness
for any employee to use the computers and email accounts and net
access and phones for reasonable personal business.
So stuff it. When I post from work I'm doing what they want me to do.
(Well, they'd probably RATHER I worked for free, but that's not one of
their options.)
But they very definitely and clearly do not want me to carry a
personal thumb drive onto the facility or to load my own software.
They want me to use their software and hardware for net access and to
run through their firewall and access limits.
DougL
OM
<lamper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So stuff it.
...Better still, just killfile the twit. Be advised, Dougie - Fred
McCall and his spouse, Eric Chumpko, are known trolls *and* idiots.
Responding to their blatherings for *any* reason is a waste of your
time and our bandwidth. again, just killfile the dipshit and put him
out of our misery!
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Tim Little
><t...@soprano.little-possums.net> wrote:
>>In either event, there is definitely a major security and maintenance
>>difference between installing dedicated software for newsreading vs
>>using a web interface via software already installed and configured.
>
In which parallel world is running arbitrary programs from USB drives
*not* a security issue?
- Tim
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:2ugou3hp8ev2743i7...@4ax.com:
> Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>:On Mar 26, 7:29 pm, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com>
>:wrote:
>:> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>:> message
>:>
>:> news:5PxGj.10643$qS5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>:>
>:> > Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:>
>:> > > Hmm, so nobody is supposed to post from any place they
>:> > > can't use a newsreader, like say work.
>:>
>:> > If you can't post from work, perhaps your employer doesn't
>:> > want you to post.
>:>
>:> Funny about that; I always thought work was for... gee...
>:> work...
>:
>:And lunch time is....?
>:
>
> For not using your boss's assets.
>
Even if the boss has explicitly said it's OK?
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
At most business locations, it has literally no detectable effect.
And at many, they don't care if employees do personal internetting
on their lunch break. Just beacuse you work for an asshole doesn't
mean everyone does.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:slrnfup9l...@soprano.little-possums.net:
The counter point would be that many businesses use Microsoft
Office, which includes Outlook, and Windows comes with Outlook
Express, both of which are (shitty) usenet clients. It is virtually
impossible to have a Windows machine that doesn't already have a
usenet client installed on it.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:3tDGj.22700$0o7....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net:
Heh. They know. What they don't is *care*.
Tim Little
> The counter point would be that many businesses use Microsoft
> Office, which includes Outlook, and Windows comes with Outlook
> Express, both of which are (shitty) usenet clients.
Thanks, I never knew that. Bad as they undoubtedly are, could they be
worse than Google Groups?
- Tim
Mike Schilling
OE (at least) is far better, being a genunine threaded newsreader, not
a web interface. No killfiles, though.
Cosmin Corbea
> OE (at least) is far better, being a genunine threaded newsreader, not
> a web interface. No killfiles, though.
Yes killfiles (or equivalent, blocked senders list). Select message,
"Message" menu, "block sender".
--
Regards,
Cosmin Corbea
Terry Austin
Given that they are Microsoft products, yes, they *could* be, and they're
certainly shitty usenet clients (being designed as email clients, and being
shitty at *that*, too), but they're far, far better than DejaGoogle.
--
Terry Austin
"Dude, we're all your bitch, but only Ken's wearing the juice."
- tussock
"Just throw a rock, and what screams will probably be a moron."
- Elvis (no, not that Elvis)
Terry Austin
_PhHj.105$p97.25@trnddc03:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> OE (at least) is far better, being a genunine threaded newsreader, not
>> a web interface. No killfiles, though.
>
> Yes killfiles (or equivalent, blocked senders list). Select message,
> "Message" menu, "block sender".
>
Limited filters, at any rate. There's other stuff you can filter on, too,
if you pull up the filter screen through the Tools menu. Not nearly as
sophisticated as a real news client, but certainly far better than Google's
. . . nothing.
Taki Kogoma
allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
The Mickey$oft products can, with sufficient effort, be made to play
nicely with usenet. Giggle is demonstrating on a daily basis that they
cannot.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>
:> Both are using network access that your employer pays for. This
:> impacts everyone else.
:
:No, it doesn't.
:
Yeah, it does, dumbass, unless you believe in infinite pipes.
Fred J. McCall
:
No, not only if he pays by the byte. Unless you have infinite
bandwidth ANY use of the bandwidth by a user impacts all other users.
Claiming "Oh, but the impact of my recreation is trivial on those
working" is just a cop-out.
Mike Schilling
When you go to the bathroom at work, are you careful to use only one
square of toliet paper?
Fred J. McCall
:
Why is it some people can't conceive of the idea that others might
disagree with them without "missing the point"? I didn't miss
anything. The 'point' is that there is an impact on everyone else,
since you share the network.
This is the same sort of thinking that says that stealing software
doesn't impact anyone because the person who bought it still has it.
Have you ASKED your boss about this? If not, you have no idea whether
they "give a damn" about it or not.
Fred J. McCall
:On Mar 27, 11:26 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> Both are using network access that your employer pays for. This
:> impacts everyone else.
:
:My company has a repeatedly stated desire for me to both work part
:time and be here as much of the time as possible so that I'll be
:available if and when needed or for any questions that come up.
:
:In response to specific questions they approve of me doing personal
:business on site if it means I'm available and as long as I'm not
:charging the time or using too much printer paper.
:
:They also have, by formally stated company wide policy, a willingness
:for any employee to use the computers and email accounts and net
:access and phones for reasonable personal business.
:
:So stuff it. When I post from work I'm doing what they want me to do.
:(Well, they'd probably RATHER I worked for free, but that's not one of
:their options.)
:
So what are you so upset and defensive about?
Fred J. McCall
:On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT), DougL
:<lamper...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:>So stuff it.
:
:...Better still, just killfile the twit. Be advised, Dougie - Fred
:McCall and his spouse, Eric Chumpko, are known trolls *and* idiots.
Be advised, Dougie, that OM thinks he owns the internet and should be
the final arbiter of who should and should not be allowed to post.
Most sane people think he's a delusional moron.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
:news:2ugou3hp8ev2743i7...@4ax.com:
:
:> Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
:>
:>:On Mar 26, 7:29 pm, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com>
:>:wrote:
:>:> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote in
:>:> message
:>:>
:>:> news:5PxGj.10643$qS5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
:>:>
:>:> > Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com wrote:
:>:>
:>:> > > Hmm, so nobody is supposed to post from any place they
:>:> > > can't use a newsreader, like say work.
:>:>
:>:> > If you can't post from work, perhaps your employer doesn't
:>:> > want you to post.
:>:>
:>:> Funny about that; I always thought work was for... gee...
:>:> work...
:>:
:>:And lunch time is....?
:>:
:>
:> For not using your boss's assets.
:>
:
:Even if the boss has explicitly said it's OK?
:
Different case entirely. HAS your boss said that?
I think you've probably selected the perfect nym for yourself...
--
"Der Feige droht nur, wo er sicher ist."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
:news:rqsou3dr3pfq3ukmk...@4ax.com:
:
:> Tim Little <t...@soprano.little-possums.net> wrote:
:>
:>:On 2008-03-28, Fred J McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>:> Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
:>:>:And lunch time is....?
:>:>
:>:> For not using your boss's assets.
:>:
:>:Not everyone works for a boss who is the sole proprietor of
:>:their company. In any case, I'll be sure to remove myself from
:>:the property every time I eat lunch in future. Chairs,
:>:lighting, tables, sink, garbage bin, ... all involve use of
:>:assets that do not belong to me. Or I could realise that I am
:>:generally permitted to use these assets for personal purposes
:>:where it does not negatively affect the work being done.
:>:
:>:In either event, there is definitely a major security and
:>:maintenance difference between installing dedicated software for
:>:newsreading vs using a web interface via software already
:>:installed and configured.
:>:
:>
:> Both are using network access that your employer pays for. This
:> impacts everyone else.
:>
:
:At most business locations, it has literally no detectable effect.
:
If it's only one person. Now multiply.
:And at many, they don't care if employees do personal internetting
:on their lunch break.
Have you asked them?
:Just beacuse you work for an asshole doesn't
:mean everyone does.
I don't recall saying anything at all about who I work for or what
their policies are.
Just because you're a delusional innumerate moron doesn't mean
everyone is.
Mike Schilling
>
> So what are you so upset and defensive about?
Asked the man who's made a dozen posts about this trivial issue.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> :
> :Only if he pays by the byte. The amount of bandwidth used by text
> :Usenet groups is say down in the noise compared to almost any other
> :sort of traffic.
> :
>
> No, not only if he pays by the byte. Unless you have infinite
> bandwidth ANY use of the bandwidth by a user impacts all other users.
> Claiming "Oh, but the impact of my recreation is trivial on those
> working" is just a cop-out.
>
In theory, sure, reading Usenet could nudge your employer above some
cap his ISP placed on data transfer. But in practice, no body cares
about the bandwidth plain text takes up -- one guy watching a single
YouTube video transfers more data than you could if you spent all
day reading Usenet [1].
[1] Assuming you aren't reading alt.binaries.*
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
But intellectual integrity is an attribute that cannot overwhelm
character, or morality. The devil has intellectual integrity, as do
all sorts of Stalinists, Nazis and other vile ideologues and useful
idiots.
--Jonah Goldberg
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> On 2008-03-29, Tim Little <t...@soprano.little-possums.net>
> allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
>> worse than Google Groups?
>
> The Mickey$oft products can, with sufficient effort, be made to play
> nicely with usenet. Giggle is demonstrating on a daily basis that they
> cannot.
>
And the bitch of it is, they had a more than decent Usenet portal
when they bought DejaNews, but every "improvement" they've made to
the system has suckified it more.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Morbo: Kittens give Morbo gas.
-Futurama
Terry Austin
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>:news:2ugou3hp8ev2743i7...@4ax.com:
>:
>:> Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:>
>:>:On Mar 26, 7:29 pm, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com>
>:>:wrote:
>:>:> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>:>:> message
>:>:>
>:>:> news:5PxGj.10643$qS5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>:>:>
>:>:> > Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:>:>
>:>:> > > Hmm, so nobody is supposed to post from any place they
>:>:> > > can't use a newsreader, like say work.
>:>:>
>:>:> > If you can't post from work, perhaps your employer doesn't
>:>:> > want you to post.
>:>:>
>:>:> Funny about that; I always thought work was for... gee...
>:>:> work...
>:>:
>:>:And lunch time is....?
>:>:
>:>
>:> For not using your boss's assets.
>:>
>:
>:Even if the boss has explicitly said it's OK?
>:
>
> Different case entirely.
No, atually, that is included in the scenario above. As has been explined
already, by many people.
> HAS your boss said that?
At my place of employement, I write the policies. So, yes, I have said
that.
>
> I think you've probably selected the perfect nym for yourself...
>
It was selected for me, by one of the regulars in rasw. One that most of
us wish would go light himself on fire, since his first appearance here
was to spam for his shitty, self-published piece of shit novel, but he's
like a bad penny; we can't make him go away. Though he provides endless
amusement, like the time he admitted to being a fluffer.
You kinda remind me of Kennie: stupid.
Terry Austin
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>:news:rqsou3dr3pfq3ukmk...@4ax.com:
>:
>:> Tim Little <t...@soprano.little-possums.net> wrote:
>:>
>:>:On 2008-03-28, Fred J McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:>:> Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:>:>:And lunch time is....?
>:>:>
>:>:> For not using your boss's assets.
>:>:
>:>:Not everyone works for a boss who is the sole proprietor of
>:>:their company. In any case, I'll be sure to remove myself from
>:>:the property every time I eat lunch in future. Chairs,
>:>:lighting, tables, sink, garbage bin, ... all involve use of
>:>:assets that do not belong to me. Or I could realise that I am
>:>:generally permitted to use these assets for personal purposes
>:>:where it does not negatively affect the work being done.
>:>:
>:>:In either event, there is definitely a major security and
>:>:maintenance difference between installing dedicated software for
>:>:newsreading vs using a web interface via software already
>:>:installed and configured.
>:>:
>:>
>:> Both are using network access that your employer pays for. This
>:> impacts everyone else.
>:>
>:
>:At most business locations, it has literally no detectable effect.
>:
>
> If it's only one person. Now multiply.
And? Still no detectable effect. Usenet is a text medium, son. Even with
a relatively slow DSL connection, it it literally impossible to type fast
enough to raise network traffic enough to detect, even with hundreds of
employees participating.
>
>:And at many, they don't care if employees do personal internetting
>:on their lunch break.
>
> Have you asked them?
I *am* them, dumbass. I've seen the research that shows that letting
employees do reasonable things online, like shopping, or checking their
personal email, or hitting a forum or usenet, actually makes them more
productive, as they have less incentive to take time off from work to
handle personal issues (not to mention morale issues).
>
>:Just beacuse you work for an asshole doesn't
>:mean everyone does.
>
> I don't recall saying anything at all about who I work for or what
> their policies are.
You don't need to. That you literally cannot conceive of working
conditions that do not quality in my book as "working for an asshole" is
evidence enough.
>
> Just because you're a delusional innumerate moron doesn't mean
> everyone is.
>
Just because you want to suck my dick doesn't mean I'm going to let you.
Smart employers don't give a shit what their employees do, so long as
it's legal and reasonable, on their lunch hour, including posting to
usenet. But smart companies *do* care about employees installing software
on their desktops, and many (including me) aren't too thrilled about
employees using Outlook or Outlook Express for *any* purpose, since it is
bug-ridden shit. That means that usenet is OK, but not a usenet client,
which leaves limited (and, frankly, broken) options like DejaGoogle.
Fact is, 'tard-boy, you're wrong, and obviously wrong, in a "completely,
totally full of shit" sort of way. Get over it, son, and move on.
Sean O'Hara
Umbrella Carrying Sissy declared:
But it's Google! They can do no evil. That's even their corporate
motto.
Well, okay, supporting the Great Firewall of China.
And extensive use of trore invasive tracking cookies. company with
even more invasive tracking cookies.
And scanning your email messages so they can better target ads to you.
And attempting to create a universal check-out system so they can
monitor everything you buy at every online store and even better
target ads at you.
And paying Dell to install software on new computers to redirect bad
URLs to a page full of Google Adsense ads that "suggest" alternatives.
But other than that, not evil.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is
always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is
wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the
old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always
attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid.
-G.K. Chesterton
Terry Austin
@mid.individual.net:
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Taki Kogoma
> declared:
>> On 2008-03-29, Tim Little <t...@soprano.little-possums.net>
>> allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
>>> Thanks, I never knew that. Bad as they undoubtedly are, could they be
>>> worse than Google Groups?
>>
>> The Mickey$oft products can, with sufficient effort, be made to play
>> nicely with usenet. Giggle is demonstrating on a daily basis that they
>> cannot.
>>
>
> And the bitch of it is, they had a more than decent Usenet portal
> when they bought DejaNews, but every "improvement" they've made to
> the system has suckified it more.
>
I think you're making an unsupportable assumption there. Namely, that this
was not their intent.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
Do you have anything actually relevant to say, or are you all caught
up in being an idiot?
Fred J. McCall
:In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Taki Kogoma
:declared:
:> On 2008-03-29, Tim Little <t...@soprano.little-possums.net>
:> allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
:>> Thanks, I never knew that. Bad as they undoubtedly are, could they be
:>> worse than Google Groups?
:>
:> The Mickey$oft products can, with sufficient effort, be made to play
:> nicely with usenet. Giggle is demonstrating on a daily basis that they
:> cannot.
:>
:
:And the bitch of it is, they had a more than decent Usenet portal
:when they bought DejaNews, but every "improvement" they've made to
:the system has suckified it more.
:
The problem is that Usenet News is now submerged into what is a
glorified BBS system.
I remember when you could actually learn things on here...
Tim Little
> And the bitch of it is, they had a more than decent Usenet portal
> when they bought DejaNews, but every "improvement" they've made to
> the system has suckified it more.
I remember that DejaNews was once good but by the time Google bought
Deja, it truly sucked. Google actually managed to improve it!
Admittedly nowhere near as good as it had once been, and it certainly
got increasingly worse after that.
I'm not sure whether the current implementation is worse than the
worst it was under Deja. It is much better in some ways and horribly
worse in others. Regarding spam, I'm not sure that Deja at its worst
would have done any better than Google in today's environment.
- Tim
Terry Austin
@mid.individual.net:
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy declared:
>> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3tDGj.22700$0o7....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net:
>>
>>> Alan Erskine wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> The Google Team
>>> Im other words, they don't know what Usenet spam means.
>>>
>> Heh. They know. What they don't is *care*.
>>
>
> But it's Google!
Indeed.
> They can do no evil. That's even their corporate
> motto.
Er, no. Their motto is an admonishment to do no evil. It says nothing
about actually following that advice.
>
> Well, okay, supporting the Great Firewall of China.
>
> And extensive use of trore invasive tracking cookies. company with
> even more invasive tracking cookies.
>
> And scanning your email messages so they can better target ads to you.
>
> And attempting to create a universal check-out system so they can
> monitor everything you buy at every online store and even better
> target ads at you.
>
> And paying Dell to install software on new computers to redirect bad
> URLs to a page full of Google Adsense ads that "suggest" alternatives.
>
> But other than that, not evil.
>
Doesn't their corporate culture include a lot of "jokes" about conquering
the world? Not all moral systems would consider conquering the world to
be evil, you know. They'll conquer us for our own good.
Terry Austin
Well, we've all learned how stupid you are.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
:news:otrsu3dga754r6b1m...@4ax.com:
:
:> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:>:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
:>:news:2ugou3hp8ev2743i7...@4ax.com:
:>:
:>:> Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:On Mar 26, 7:29 pm, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com>
:>:>:wrote:
:>:>:> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote in
:>:>:> message
:>:>:>
:>:>:> news:5PxGj.10643$qS5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
:>:>:>
:>:>:> > Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com wrote:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> > > Hmm, so nobody is supposed to post from any place they
:>:>:> > > can't use a newsreader, like say work.
:>:>:>
:>:>:> > If you can't post from work, perhaps your employer doesn't
:>:>:> > want you to post.
:>:>:>
:>:>:> Funny about that; I always thought work was for... gee...
:>:>:> work...
:>:>:
:>:>:And lunch time is....?
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> For not using your boss's assets.
:>:>
:>:
:>:Even if the boss has explicitly said it's OK?
:>:
:>
:> Different case entirely.
:
:No, atually, that is included in the scenario above. As has been explined
:already, by many people.
:
Not where I am, no. You idiots just recently started cross-posting
this.
:> HAS your boss said that?
:
:At my place of employement, I write the policies. So, yes, I have said
:that.
That's nice. So what are you so defensive about, again?
:>
:> I think you've probably selected the perfect nym for yourself...
:>
:It was selected for me, by one of the regulars in rasw. One that most of
:us wish would go light himself on fire, since his first appearance here
:was to spam for his shitty, self-published piece of shit novel, but he's
:like a bad penny; we can't make him go away. Though he provides endless
:amusement, like the time he admitted to being a fluffer.
:
:You kinda remind me of Kennie: stupid.
This from a guy who lets someone he thinks is a waste of skin choose
his nym? I guess I should consider it a compliment, since I'm sure
your mind (to use the term loosely) makes all sorts of delusional
connections to make things remind you of other things.
Tim Little
> Why is it some people can't conceive of the idea that others might
> disagree with them without "missing the point"?
My guess would be that it is because some people, including you, never
mention anything to indicate that they recognise what the point is.
> Have you ASKED your boss about this?
Why would I need to? Personal web browsing, use of email, and other
forms of communication during breaks is explicitly permitted in our IT
policy.
We're even allowed to make personal phone calls, which certainly cost
*much* more than a few hundred kilobytes of internet data.
> If not, you have no idea whether they "give a damn" about it or not.
Obviously false.
- Tim
T Guy
>
> Hi, T Guy. Yes, I normally would do that; but
> this time I left it in for effect.
(T Guy):
Oops! My apologies for not realising that.
(Martha):
>I think
> usenet, often so undervalued that it is not
> even mentioned in some books about cyberspace,
> is actually (potentially) the resource of
> greatest social and technical value.
(T Guy):
And the greatest resource for publicising one's novel, the proceeds
from which support unfortunate children. T Guy
T Guy
>
> :> No, not only if he pays by the byte. Unless you have infinite
> :> bandwidth ANY use of the bandwidth by a user impacts all other
> :> users.
> :> Claiming "Oh, but the impact of my recreation is trivial on those
> :> working" is just a cop-out.
("Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> ):
> :When you go to the bathroom at work, are you careful to use only one
> :square of toliet paper?
(Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net>):
> Do you have anything actually relevant to say, or are you all caught
> up in being an idiot?
(T Guy):
I'm just off to Google 'Irony Detector repair.' Mine just exploded.
T Guy
T Guy
> ... many businesses use Microsoft
> Office, which includes Outlook, and Windows comes with Outlook
> Express, both of which are (shitty) usenet clients. It is virtually
> impossible to have a Windows machine that doesn't already have a
> usenet client installed on it.
(T Guy):
I've never noticed a newsreader on my OE at work; I'll check it out
when I next go in.
T Guy
T Guy
> 3) This is nearly unrelated to the problem of spam sent through Google
> *Groups*, which is a very real problem that they seem unwilling to fight.
> If this is indeed what you asked them about then the reply you got was
> either sadly clueless or evilly misleading.
(T Guy):
And from the impression I have formed of Google recently, that would
be a 50/50 toss-up.
T Guy
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>
:> So what are you so upset and defensive about?
:
:Asked the man who's made a dozen posts about this trivial issue.
:
Well, I guess that answers my earlier question about whether you have
anything at all relevant to contribute or are just 'stuck on stupid'.
It's obviously the latter.
Gene Ward Smith
> Well, I guess that answers my earlier question about whether you have
> anything at all relevant to contribute or are just 'stuck on stupid'.
>
> It's obviously the latter.
>
What are you stuck on, and why the hell don't you unstick yourself?
OM
wrote:
>What are you stuck on, and why the hell don't you unstick yourself?
...I thought that was Chumpko's job as part of his spousal duties?
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
OM
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>When you go to the bathroom at work, are you careful to use only one
>square of toliet paper?
...Depends on whether or not he's using the "Middle Finger" method.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
:news:j0ssu3dern9assst0...@4ax.com:
So obviously you don't need a network for whatever the hell it is you
do.
:>
:>:And at many, they don't care if employees do personal internetting
:>:on their lunch break.
:>
:> Have you asked them?
:
:I *am* them, dumbass. I've seen the research that shows that letting
:employees do reasonable things online, like shopping, or checking their
:personal email, or hitting a forum or usenet, actually makes them more
:productive, as they have less incentive to take time off from work to
:handle personal issues (not to mention morale issues).
So what are you so defensive about then, dipshit?
:>
:>:Just beacuse you work for an asshole doesn't
:>:mean everyone does.
:>
:> I don't recall saying anything at all about who I work for or what
:> their policies are.
:
:You don't need to. That you literally cannot conceive of working
:conditions that do not quality in my book as "working for an asshole" is
:evidence enough.
How'd you get a book up your ass so you could see it?
You're too stupid to be on Usenet, sonny.
In case you didn't notice it, you lot just started crossposting this
little food fight of yours outside whatever Ghu-forsaken group morons
like you stem from.
:>
:> Just because you're a delusional innumerate moron doesn't mean
:> everyone is.
:>
:Just because you want to suck my dick doesn't mean I'm going to let you.
Just because you wish you had a dick for other men to suck doesn't
mean you do ... or they will.
:
:Smart employers don't give a shit what their employees do, so long as
:it's legal and reasonable, on their lunch hour, including posting to
:usenet. But smart companies *do* care about employees installing software
:on their desktops, and many (including me) aren't too thrilled about
:employees using Outlook or Outlook Express for *any* purpose, since it is
:bug-ridden shit. That means that usenet is OK, but not a usenet client,
:which leaves limited (and, frankly, broken) options like DejaGoogle.
:
Sorry to hear you're a moron.
As someone else noted, most real companies load Outlook and/or Outlook
Express routinely.
:Fact is, 'tard-boy, you're wrong, and obviously wrong, in a "completely,
:totally full of shit" sort of way. Get over it, son, and move on.
Oh, I see. Why don't you crawl back under your bridge, find your
tweezers and magnifying glass, and go back to playing with yourself
and leave the sane people alone?
--
"There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure."
-- Jack E. Leonard
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
:news:21ktu35id0vi6jban...@4ax.com:
:
:> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:>:In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Taki Kogoma
:>:declared:
:>:> On 2008-03-29, Tim Little <t...@soprano.little-possums.net>
:>:> allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
:>:>> Thanks, I never knew that. Bad as they undoubtedly are, could they be
:>:>> worse than Google Groups?
:>:>
:>:> The Mickey$oft products can, with sufficient effort, be made to play
:>:> nicely with usenet. Giggle is demonstrating on a daily basis that they
:>:> cannot.
:>:>
:>:
:>:And the bitch of it is, they had a more than decent Usenet portal
:>:when they bought DejaNews, but every "improvement" they've made to
:>:the system has suckified it more.
:>:
:>
:> The problem is that Usenet News is now submerged into what is a
:> glorified BBS system.
:>
:> I remember when you could actually learn things on here...
:>
:Well, we've all learned how stupid you are.
No you haven't. Dipshits like you are incapable of learning anything.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
:On 2008-03-29, Fred J McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Why is it some people can't conceive of the idea that others might
:> disagree with them without "missing the point"?
:
:My guess would be that it is because some people, including you, never
:mention anything to indicate that they recognise what the point is.
:
So I guess I'll return the favour and also assume that YOU are an
ignorant git, since I've seen no evidence that you recognize what the
point is, either.
:
:> Have you ASKED your boss about this?
:
:Why would I need to? Personal web browsing, use of email, and other
:forms of communication during breaks is explicitly permitted in our IT
:policy.
:
How nice. So what are you so defensive about, again?
:We're even allowed to make personal phone calls, which certainly cost
:*much* more than a few hundred kilobytes of internet data.
I see you don't get the point.
:> If not, you have no idea whether they "give a damn" about it or not.
:
:Obviously false.
:
Obviously true. Since they have a published policy and you have read
it, you effective have 'asked them'.
If you hadn't, you would have no idea of whether they give a damn or
not.
Fred J. McCall
:(Fred J. McCall):
:
They'll do that when you try to have sex with them...
--
"So many women. So little charm."
-- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
Why don't you dipshits keep your garbage in its original group instead
of crossposting it?
In other words, why don't you unstick your head from your duodenum and
try extracting it from your rectum?
--
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a
horrible warning."
-- Catherine Aird
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:23:04 GMT, Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org>
:wrote:
:
:>What are you stuck on, and why the hell don't you unstick yourself?
:
:...I thought...
No you didn't. You never do.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:23:14 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
:<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:>When you go to the bathroom at work, are you careful to use only one
:>square of toliet paper?
:
:...Depends on whether or not he's using the "Middle Finger" method.
:
Whereas in OM's case no paper is necessary. He has to lick it off so
he can reinsert his head...
--
"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum
of human knowledge."
-- Thomas Brackett Reed
Dan Goodman
> Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> :news:6kitu3p2bt25s5iuc...@4ax.com:
> :
> :> Well, I guess that answers my earlier question about whether you
> have :> anything at all relevant to contribute or are just 'stuck on
> stupid'. :>
> :> It's obviously the latter.
> :>
> :
> :What are you stuck on, and why the hell don't you unstick yourself?
>
> Why don't you dipshits keep your garbage in its original group instead
> of crossposting it?
>
> In other words, why don't you unstick your head from your duodenum and
> try extracting it from your rectum?
Not very bright, are you?
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://dangoodman.livejournal.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:> Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
:> :news:6kitu3p2bt25s5iuc...@4ax.com:
:> :
:> :> Well, I guess that answers my earlier question about whether you
:> have :> anything at all relevant to contribute or are just 'stuck on
:> stupid'. :>
:> :> It's obviously the latter.
:> :>
:> :
:> :What are you stuck on, and why the hell don't you unstick yourself?
:>
:> Why don't you dipshits keep your garbage in its original group instead
:> of crossposting it?
:>
:> In other words, why don't you unstick your head from your duodenum and
:> try extracting it from your rectum?
:
:Not very bright, are you?
Wow, such cutting wit. Let me respond in kind.
Neener, neener, neener...
Gene Ward Smith
>:What are you stuck on, and why the hell don't you unstick yourself?
>
> Why don't you dipshits keep your garbage in its original group instead
> of crossposting it?
If you want to reset the follup-to line, then do it, Dimwit. If you don't
want to, stop sniveling.
Terry Austin
news:slrnfutlr...@soprano.little-possums.net:
> On 2008-03-29, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And the bitch of it is, they had a more than decent Usenet portal
>> when they bought DejaNews, but every "improvement" they've made to
>> the system has suckified it more.
>
> I remember that DejaNews was once good but by the time Google bought
> Deja, it truly sucked. Google actually managed to improve it!
No, not really, It went from sucking to sucking even worse as soon as
Google changed it. They improved it a bit from the worst, but the worst was
Google's changes.
Terry Austin
> Terry Austin <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>:news:21ktu35id0vi6jban...@4ax.com:
>:
>:> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>:>
>:>:In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Taki Kogoma
>:>:declared:
>:>:> On 2008-03-29, Tim Little <t...@soprano.little-possums.net>
>:>:> allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
>:>:>> Thanks, I never knew that. Bad as they undoubtedly are, could
>:>:>> they be worse than Google Groups?
>:>:>
>:>:> The Mickey$oft products can, with sufficient effort, be made to
>:>:> play nicely with usenet. Giggle is demonstrating on a daily basis
>:>:> that they cannot.
>:>:>
>:>:
>:>:And the bitch of it is, they had a more than decent Usenet portal
>:>:when they bought DejaNews, but every "improvement" they've made to
>:>:the system has suckified it more.
>:>:
>:>
>:> The problem is that Usenet News is now submerged into what is a
>:> glorified BBS system.
>:>
>:> I remember when you could actually learn things on here...
>:>
>:Well, we've all learned how stupid you are.
>
> No you haven't.
Well, it's true that in my case, I knew that already.
Terry Austin
Then perhaps you should visit reality once in a while.
> You idiots just recently started cross-posting
> this.
And, being a 'tard, you jumped right in to prove you're stupider than any
of us.
>
>:> HAS your boss said that?
>:
>:At my place of employement, I write the policies. So, yes, I have said
>:that.
>
> That's nice. So what are you so defensive about, again?
You tell me, 'tard. You're the one hallucinating that I'm defensive.
You've made some very specific claims, and I am the proof that you're
totally, utterly full of shit on those claims. Get over it, 'tard.
>
>:>
>:> I think you've probably selected the perfect nym for yourself...
>:>
>:It was selected for me, by one of the regulars in rasw. One that most
>:of us wish would go light himself on fire, since his first appearance
>:here was to spam for his shitty, self-published piece of shit novel,
>:but he's like a bad penny; we can't make him go away. Though he
>:provides endless amusement, like the time he admitted to being a
>:fluffer.
>:
>:You kinda remind me of Kennie: stupid.
>
> This from a guy who lets someone he thinks is a waste of skin choose
> his nym?
It seems to really piss him off. You'll understand his position, soon
enough.
> I guess I should consider it a compliment, since I'm sure
> your mind (to use the term loosely) makes all sorts of delusional
> connections to make things remind you of other things.
>
I notice you've completely stopped trying to defend your retarded claims.
Since I've proven then very conclusively to be retarded. I'll take that
as your public admission that you knew you were retarded all along, and
only said it out of a pathetic need for attention.
Terry Austin
c7f2ca...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
Tools-Accounts. You can set up either kind of account, usenet or email,
from there.
Terry Austin
As I said, no detectable effect. Routine windows traffic exceeds what
usenet uses by a couple orders of magnitude.
>
>:>
>:>:And at many, they don't care if employees do personal internetting
>:>:on their lunch break.
>:>
>:> Have you asked them?
>:
>:I *am* them, dumbass. I've seen the research that shows that letting
>:employees do reasonable things online, like shopping, or checking
>:their personal email, or hitting a forum or usenet, actually makes
>:them more productive, as they have less incentive to take time off
>:from work to handle personal issues (not to mention morale issues).
>
> So what are you so defensive about then, dipshit?
You're the one who is defensive, and now resorting to namecalling when
youv'e been proven to be a retard who doesn't know his ass from a hole in
the ground about computer networks. It's surprising you can manage to
turn one on and off.
>
>:>
>:>:Just beacuse you work for an asshole doesn't
>:>:mean everyone does.
>:>
>:> I don't recall saying anything at all about who I work for or what
>:> their policies are.
>:
>:You don't need to. That you literally cannot conceive of working
>:conditions that do not quality in my book as "working for an asshole"
>:is evidence enough.
>
> How'd you get a book up your ass so you could see it?
So you agree with me, then. Openly, in a public forum, you admit I was
right.
>
> You're too stupid to be on Usenet, sonny.
Again, you prove, conclusively, that you are mentally retarded. There
isn't a lower limit. One *can't* be too stupid to be one usenet, son. If
it were possible, you wouldn't be allowed here. Retard.
>
> In case you didn't notice it, you lot just started crossposting this
> little food fight of yours outside whatever Ghu-forsaken group morons
> like you stem from.
And what does this have to do with the fact that you *obviously* don't
know you ass from a hole in the ground about compuer networks and
bandwidth usage? Or is that just another admission that you know you're
full of shit, and have known it all along?
>
>:>
>:> Just because you're a delusional innumerate moron doesn't mean
>:> everyone is.
>:>
>:Just because you want to suck my dick doesn't mean I'm going to let
>:you.
>
> Just because you wish you had a dick for other men to suck doesn't
> mean you do ... or they will.
Pervert.
>
>:
>:Smart employers don't give a shit what their employees do, so long as
>:it's legal and reasonable, on their lunch hour, including posting to
>:usenet. But smart companies *do* care about employees installing
>:software on their desktops, and many (including me) aren't too
>:thrilled about employees using Outlook or Outlook Express for *any*
>:purpose, since it is bug-ridden shit. That means that usenet is OK,
>:but not a usenet client, which leaves limited (and, frankly, broken)
>:options like DejaGoogle.
>:
>
> Sorry to hear you're a moron.
I know you are, but what am I?
>
> As someone else noted, most real companies load Outlook and/or Outlook
> Express routinely.
That was me, retard, and no, "real companies" don't load Outlook Express,
it comes with Windows and is actually difficult to get rid of. If you
weren't an illiterate retard, you'd have gotten it right.
What does that have to do with what I said?
>
>:Fact is, 'tard-boy, you're wrong, and obviously wrong, in a
>:"completely, totally full of shit" sort of way. Get over it, son, and
>:move on.
>
> Oh, I see.
I have doubts.
> Why don't you crawl back under your bridge, find your
> tweezers and magnifying glass, and go back to playing with yourself
> and leave the sane people alone?
>
Make me, you retarded, passive/aggressive little pussy. If you're man
enough. Which we all know you're not.
You will now reply. Because you *can't* stop yourself, being my bitch and
all.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
Feel free to kiss my ass, dipshit.
If you people are too stupid to realize you're crossposting, then stop
whining about how something has already been said.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
:news:103uu3pl28q6purkn...@4ax.com:
:
:> Terry Austin <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:>:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
:>:news:21ktu35id0vi6jban...@4ax.com:
:>:
:>:> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Taki Kogoma
:>:>:declared:
:>:>:> On 2008-03-29, Tim Little <t...@soprano.little-possums.net>
:>:>:> allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
:>:>:>> Thanks, I never knew that. Bad as they undoubtedly are, could
:>:>:>> they be worse than Google Groups?
:>:>:>
:>:>:> The Mickey$oft products can, with sufficient effort, be made to
:>:>:> play nicely with usenet. Giggle is demonstrating on a daily basis
:>:>:> that they cannot.
:>:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:And the bitch of it is, they had a more than decent Usenet portal
:>:>:when they bought DejaNews, but every "improvement" they've made to
:>:>:the system has suckified it more.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> The problem is that Usenet News is now submerged into what is a
:>:> glorified BBS system.
:>:>
:>:> I remember when you could actually learn things on here...
:>:>
:>:Well, we've all learned how stupid you are.
:>
:> No you haven't.
:
:Well, it's true that in my case, I knew that already.
It's true that in your case you know numerous things that are sheer
products of your delusions.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
:news:i4ktu39nui24samg7...@4ax.com:
:
Perhaps you should stop thinking your delusions are reality.
:> You idiots just recently started cross-posting
:> this.
:
:And, being a 'tard, you jumped right in to prove you're stupider than any
:of us.
Not possible.
:>
:>:> HAS your boss said that?
:>:
:>:At my place of employement, I write the policies. So, yes, I have said
:>:that.
:>
:> That's nice. So what are you so defensive about, again?
:
:You tell me, 'tard. You're the one hallucinating that I'm defensive.
:You've made some very specific claims, and I am the proof that you're
:totally, utterly full of shit on those claims. Get over it, 'tard.
Just look at the language. Either you're defensive or you're a
socially stunted 13 year old.
:>
:>:>
:>:> I think you've probably selected the perfect nym for yourself...
:>:>
:>:It was selected for me, by one of the regulars in rasw. One that most
:>:of us wish would go light himself on fire, since his first appearance
:>:here was to spam for his shitty, self-published piece of shit novel,
:>:but he's like a bad penny; we can't make him go away. Though he
:>:provides endless amusement, like the time he admitted to being a
:>:fluffer.
:>:
:>:You kinda remind me of Kennie: stupid.
:>
:> This from a guy who lets someone he thinks is a waste of skin choose
:> his nym?
:
:It seems to really piss him off. You'll understand his position, soon
:enough.
Why would I want to? Why would I care?
:
:> I guess I should consider it a compliment, since I'm sure
:> your mind (to use the term loosely) makes all sorts of delusional
:> connections to make things remind you of other things.
:>
:I notice you've completely stopped trying to defend your retarded claims.
:Since I've proven then very conclusively to be retarded. I'll take that
:as your public admission that you knew you were retarded all along, and
:only said it out of a pathetic need for attention.
You do that, if it means you'll stop vomiting forth such adolescent
idiocy.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
:news:eaktu3tctg5d0vh4n...@4ax.com:
Who cares what you said? Hell, man, given the evidence so far I
wouldn't believe you if you insisted that water was wet.
:>
:>:>
:>:>:And at many, they don't care if employees do personal internetting
:>:>:on their lunch break.
:>:>
:>:> Have you asked them?
:>:
:>:I *am* them, dumbass. I've seen the research that shows that letting
:>:employees do reasonable things online, like shopping, or checking
:>:their personal email, or hitting a forum or usenet, actually makes
:>:them more productive, as they have less incentive to take time off
:>:from work to handle personal issues (not to mention morale issues).
:>
:> So what are you so defensive about then, dipshit?
:
:You're the one who is defensive, and now resorting to namecalling when
:youv'e been proven to be a retard who doesn't know his ass from a hole in
:the ground about computer networks. It's surprising you can manage to
:turn one on and off.
Given the vomit you're spewing, complaints of "name calling" are
particularly amusing.
So your position is that Usenet uses ZERO bytes on the network?
Because if it uses more than that those are bytes that aren't
available for something else.
:>
:>:>
:>:>:Just beacuse you work for an asshole doesn't
:>:>:mean everyone does.
:>:>
:>:> I don't recall saying anything at all about who I work for or what
:>:> their policies are.
:>:
:>:You don't need to. That you literally cannot conceive of working
:>:conditions that do not quality in my book as "working for an asshole"
:>:is evidence enough.
:>
:> How'd you get a book up your ass so you could see it?
:
:So you agree with me, then. Openly, in a public forum, you admit I was
:right.
Still delusional, I see.
:>
:> You're too stupid to be on Usenet, sonny.
:
:Again, you prove, conclusively, that you are mentally retarded. There
:isn't a lower limit. One *can't* be too stupid to be one usenet, son. If
:it were possible, you wouldn't be allowed here. Retard.
Oooo, I'm cut. Say 'retard' often enough and maybe I'll cry or
something.
:>
:> In case you didn't notice it, you lot just started crossposting this
:> little food fight of yours outside whatever Ghu-forsaken group morons
:> like you stem from.
:
:And what does this have to do with the fact that you *obviously* don't
:know you ass from a hole in the ground about compuer networks and
:bandwidth usage? Or is that just another admission that you know you're
:full of shit, and have known it all along?
It has nothing at all to do with any of your delusions, fuckwit.
:>
:>:>
:>:> Just because you're a delusional innumerate moron doesn't mean
:>:> everyone is.
:>:>
:>:Just because you want to suck my dick doesn't mean I'm going to let
:>:you.
:>
:> Just because you wish you had a dick for other men to suck doesn't
:> mean you do ... or they will.
:
:Pervert.
You're the one who brought up men sucking your dick, not I.
:>
:>:
:>:Smart employers don't give a shit what their employees do, so long as
:>:it's legal and reasonable, on their lunch hour, including posting to
:>:usenet. But smart companies *do* care about employees installing
:>:software on their desktops, and many (including me) aren't too
:>:thrilled about employees using Outlook or Outlook Express for *any*
:>:purpose, since it is bug-ridden shit. That means that usenet is OK,
:>:but not a usenet client, which leaves limited (and, frankly, broken)
:>:options like DejaGoogle.
:>:
:>
:> Sorry to hear you're a moron.
:
:I know you are, but what am I?
Wow, impressive!
:>
:> As someone else noted, most real companies load Outlook and/or Outlook
:> Express routinely.
:
:That was me, retard, and no, "real companies" don't load Outlook Express,
:it comes with Windows and is actually difficult to get rid of. If you
:weren't an illiterate retard, you'd have gotten it right.
So 'real companies' don't load Windows? Jesus, the illogic never ends
with you, does it?
:
:What does that have to do with what I said?
:>
:>:Fact is, 'tard-boy, you're wrong, and obviously wrong, in a
:>:"completely, totally full of shit" sort of way. Get over it, son, and
:>:move on.
:>
:> Oh, I see.
:
:I have doubts.
Talk to your analyst.
:
:> Why don't you crawl back under your bridge, find your
:> tweezers and magnifying glass, and go back to playing with yourself
:> and leave the sane people alone?
:>
:Make me, you retarded, passive/aggressive little pussy. If you're man
:enough. Which we all know you're not.
Ah, the smell of overcompensation is in the air...
:
:You will now reply. Because you *can't* stop yourself, being my bitch and
:all.
Does this sort of sophomoric attempt to 'win' by having 'the last
word' EVER work for you?
Now, you go ahead and have the last word. After all, I wouldn't want
you to cry or anything.
--
"The terrifying power of the human sex drive is horrifically
demonstrated by the fact that someone was willing to father you."
-- Ipso Fatso