Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?

In article <j4mdnYJsrZXvH4banZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ness_net
<richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> The top / bottom posting argument is basically a losing proposition.
> One side will hurl insults, (like below) and cop some sanctimonious
> attitude (like below). Not realizing that by their actions, they show
> the world exactly the opposite of their intent. (moron and ***).
> Do you top post your business e-mail?
Do you see how that is a different and completely inappropriate
comparison?
Business e-mail: usually short time between messages, usually between
two people who both read the previous messages, usually clearer and
more to-the-point communications, context firm and known, sender and
recipient with similar experience and background, etc.

Newsgroups: often days or weeks between messages, maybe months. Many
contributors to the same thread, in wildly divergent threads, with
many, many different points and topics. Hugely diverse backgrounds and
knowledge, often from many perspectives. Often very emotional
responses, without much restraint or politeness, often without much
reason, sometimes extremely rude and angry.

> The intent of my post(s) was to show just one reason (a very good one)
> why IP people don't want the iPhone anywhere near their networks.
> It was not to argue the excruciating details of the OS itself. I will
> leave that to the more anal than I.
>
> Oxford makes wild, unsubstantiated and inflammatory statements. Yet, you
> attack those that make the rational (and factual) ones.
Huh. If you didn't notice, I was attacking Oxford; he gives others a
bad image.
I was NOT attacking you. I was making a recommendation that would
IMPROVE the way others saw your posts. (When you top-post other people
find you annoying and defensive and clueless -- even if you yell out
reasons you don't have to comply.)

I find you bottom posting twits that force me to scroll down
several mouse wheels to read your lousy one line answer or "me
too" response to be annoying, defensive, and clueless. It's a
pain the butt also. I really cannot imagine anyone participating
in a usenet group and conversation to be so ignorant and addle
brained that they can't remember conversations in which they have
participated. I even see some of them ask a poster if they hadn't
asked that same question about a year ago.

The issue will not be resolved. You will NOT convince me, just as
I will not convince you. I would think the content and
information should be what does count and I have had my belly
plumb full of you sanctimonious twats that continue to harp on it.

Boy, that made me feel better. I am sorry as I have just kept
this drivel going, an issue I abhor. I wish I could promise to
never fall so low again, Lord, but I know I am weak.

--
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)
dgriff237@7cox.net



"Mitch" <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
news:181120071636238950%mitch@hawaii.rr...
> In article <j4mdnYJsrZXvH4banZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Ness_net
> <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> The top / bottom posting argument is basically a losing
>> proposition.
>> One side will hurl insults, (like below) and cop some
>> sanctimonious
>> attitude (like below). Not realizing that by their actions,
>> they show
>> the world exactly the opposite of their intent. (moron and
>> ***).
>> Do you top post your business e-mail?
> Do you see how that is a different and completely inappropriate
> comparison?
> Business e-mail: usually short time between messages, usually
> between
> two people who both read the previous messages, usually clearer
> and
> more to-the-point communications, context firm and known, sender
> and
> recipient with similar experience and background, etc.
>
> Newsgroups: often days or weeks between messages, maybe months.
> Many
> contributors to the same thread, in wildly divergent threads,
> with
> many, many different points and topics. Hugely diverse
> backgrounds and
> knowledge, often from many perspectives. Often very emotional
> responses, without much restraint or politeness, often without
> much
> reason, sometimes extremely rude and angry.
>
>> The intent of my post(s) was to show just one reason (a very
>> good one)
>> why IP people don't want the iPhone anywhere near their
>> networks.
>> It was not to argue the excruciating details of the OS itself.
>> I will
>> leave that to the more anal than I.
>>
>> Oxford makes wild, unsubstantiated and inflammatory statements.
>> Yet, you
>> attack those that make the rational (and factual) ones.
> Huh. If you didn't notice, I was attacking Oxford; he gives
> others a
> bad image.
> I was NOT attacking you. I was making a recommendation that
> would
> IMPROVE the way others saw your posts. (When you top-post other
> people
> find you annoying and defensive and clueless -- even if you yell
> out
> reasons you don't have to comply.)

"DanG" <dgriff23@7cox.net> wrote:

> I find you bottom posting twits that force me to scroll down
> several mouse wheels to read your lousy one line answer or "me
> too" response to be annoying, defensive, and clueless. It's a
> pain the butt also. I really cannot imagine anyone participating
> in a usenet group and conversation to be so ignorant and addle
> brained that they can't remember conversations in which they have
> participated. I even see some of them ask a poster if they hadn't
> asked that same question about a year ago.
>
> The issue will not be resolved. You will NOT convince me, just as
> I will not convince you. I would think the content and
> information should be what does count and I have had my belly
> plumb full of you sanctimonious twats that continue to harp on it.
>
> Boy, that made me feel better. I am sorry as I have just kept
> this drivel going, an issue I abhor. I wish I could promise to
> never fall so low again, Lord, but I know I am weak.

dan, quit embarrassing yourself, you NEVER top post on Usenet since it
screws up the reading of posts.

the problem is you are using MS Outlook, it doesn't do it properly, so
get a REAL newsreader, something like forte agent since you are still
trying to use Windows.

then you'll figure out why everyone is right and you are clearly wrong
on this topic.

"LoSebal" <lsebal@well.com> wrote in message
news:lsebal-B3B7CF.23015418112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net...
>
> dan, quit embarrassing yourself,
>
> then you'll figure out why everyone is right and you are clearly wrong
> on this topic.

Just like YOU are with the damn sock puppets??

"Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> > then you'll figure out why everyone is right and you are clearly wrong
> > on this topic.
>
> Just like YOU are with the damn sock puppets??

if you focus on the "message" not the pen name, you'll be better for it.

learn how usenet works, or quit complaining...

Oxford wrote:
> "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>>> then you'll figure out why everyone is right and you are clearly wrong
>>> on this topic.
>> Just like YOU are with the damn sock puppets??
>
> if you focus on the "message" not the pen name, you'll be better for it.
>
> learn how usenet works, or quit complaining...
or how about you just kill yourself?

Oxford wrote:
> "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>>> then you'll figure out why everyone is right and you are clearly wrong
>>> on this topic.
>> Just like YOU are with the damn sock puppets??
>
> if you focus on the "message" not the pen name, you'll be better for it.
>
> learn how usenet works, or quit complaining...
or how about Ox**** kills himself via exploding iPhail

There is NOTHING in the message to focus on.
Ever! Just fanatical fanboy fantasy.

It always just trolling and a deliberate attempt to be
as totally obnoxious as possible.

Pen name - my ***. Sock puppets, pure and simple.


"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-47B1CD.18472219112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> > then you'll figure out why everyone is right and you are clearly wrong
>> > on this topic.
>>
>> Just like YOU are with the damn sock puppets??
>
> if you focus on the "message" not the pen name, you'll be better for it.
>
> learn how usenet works, or quit complaining...

Oxford wrote:
> "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>then you'll figure out why everyone is right and you are clearly wrong
>>>on this topic.
>>
>>Just like YOU are with the damn sock puppets??
>
>
> if you focus on the "message" not the pen name, you'll be better for it.
>
> learn how usenet works, or quit complaining...


Better idea: stop behaving like a bipolar/multi-polar shill, Oxturd.

In article <u9-dnUBzHMub1d_anZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, News
<News@Groups.com> wrote:

"Oxford":
> > if you focus on the "message" not the pen name, you'll be better for it.
True enough -- you do it first. Use one name only.

> > learn how usenet works, or quit complaining...
"How usenet works" is not about changing identities.
Just because it is possible doesn't mean it is polite, smart, useful,
or how the system has to work.

> Better idea: stop behaving like a bipolar/multi-polar shill, Oxturd.
Seconded.