Hello, David!
You wrote on Wed, 7 Apr 2010 20:37:40 -0400:
| It really isn't funny.
BYW
Remember the Golden Rule of the WWW:
"Thou Shalt NOT excessively annoy others or
allow Thyself to become excessively annoyed."
--
With best regards, gufus. E-mail: stop.nospam.gbbsg@shaw.ca
"Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2627f632391708b298a29a@us.news.astraweb.c om...
> In article <hpl9lo$dmh$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> So, to address your OT lesson - why have you not mentioned this to BD?
> He's been posting OT in this news group and many others, for many posts,
> but he's not marking them OT, not started a new thread with OT, not
> taking it somewhere else?
>
I just looked it up...Since I've never seen anyone do it, I thought it
was unusual to begin with.
Do you take into account that just about every thread on the internet has an
ebb and flow and it's normal for content within threads to vary away from
the subject title? Just a thought.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/
David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk>
>
> | Char Jackson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 16:03:38 -0700, "The Real Truth MVP"<trt@void.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> The trolls
>>>> don't seen to realize that people with issues want them fixed and when they
>>>> use my tools they work, that's why you see NO posts from users saying it did
>>>> not work.
>
>>> Kudos for apparently stealing only from the best.
>
>
> | Would you please remind me of the folk from whom TRT allegedly stole and
> | provide links to their respective web site web sites.
>
> | I'd like to ask *them* how they feel about someone using the fruits of
> | their labour to help people who are suffering from computer problems
> | caused by malware. To date I have only the word of those posting here
> | (not that I don't believe them, but that wouldn't satisfy a judge and
> | jury, would it?).
>
> Kelly Theriot
> Mike Burgess
> Stuart Saunders
> Robert A. Cooper / Miekiemoes
> Kevin Zoll
> Andrew Aronoff
> Dave Fear
>
>
>
Thank you for the names - I found some of the appropriate websites.
I'd be interested to learn if any/all of these individuals have,
themselves, complained about their 'property' being stolen and used to
help many more folk than their software would otherwise have reached.
I have certainly never noticed any posts by *them* bleating in these
groups. Maybe they, themselves, simply do not care
Maybe one of them has set up a 'our fight against PCButts1' website for
all interested parties to disseminate their views. If not, cannot
someone start one? (No - not me! I'm off to my boat shortly).
What would be gained? <shrug>
--
Dave
In article <hpljte$gio$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says...
> Do you take into account that just about every thread on the internet has an
> ebb and flow and it's normal for content within threads to vary away from
> the subject title? Just a thought.
>
Yes, this one has been off-topic for many posts, but, do we accept
wrongs just because it's not convenient or do we seek to correct wrongs
because it's the proper and right thing to do?
--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> Why not respect Usenet yourself?
>>>
>>> Usenet is not a chat group that you can ramble on about any given
>>> subject in any given group - the GROUP NAME DEFINES THE DISCUSSION
>>> TYPE AND CONTENT.
>>>
>>> If you want to "Talk" with people about non-Anti-Virus things, then
>>> you should respect Usenet and how it was intended to be used and
>>> take your discussion to email.
>>>
>>> It's simple to follow Usenet methods, if you care.
>>
>> Everyone has a different view! Here's an example:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> There, SeaNymph said ........
>
> "SeaNymph" is definitely not a person whose opinion should be used as a
> reference to describe how Usenet works.
That's like throwing down a gauntlet!
Perhaps you should consider saying that to her face, BTS.
*Why* is her opinion unworthy? Tell me that.
--
Dave
"Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.26281dfb4cde55fe98a29c@us.news.astraweb.c om...
> In article <hpljte$gio$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says...
>> Do you take into account that just about every thread on the internet has
>> an
>> ebb and flow and it's normal for content within threads to vary away from
>> the subject title? Just a thought.
>>
>
> Yes, this one has been off-topic for many posts, but, do we accept
> wrongs just because it's not convenient or do we seek to correct wrongs
> because it's the proper and right thing to do?
oh come on ......... it's a newsgroup .. not a moral dilema <wink>
;-)
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/
Jenn wrote:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_Topic
Wikipedia is not considered a reliable enough content source for
Usenet. ;-)
"Andy Walker" <awalker@nspank.invalid> wrote in message
news:4bbe549e.688634718@news.webtv.com...
> Jenn wrote:
>
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_Topic
>
> Wikipedia is not considered a reliable enough content source for
> Usenet. ;-)
well ... it was good enough for Lythos... so I used the same source ...
makes no nevermind to me...
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/
In article <hplkci$hs5$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says...
>
> "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.26281dfb4cde55fe98a29c@us.news.astraweb.c om...
> > In article <hpljte$gio$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says...
> >> Do you take into account that just about every thread on the internet has
> >> an
> >> ebb and flow and it's normal for content within threads to vary away from
> >> the subject title? Just a thought.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, this one has been off-topic for many posts, but, do we accept
> > wrongs just because it's not convenient or do we seek to correct wrongs
> > because it's the proper and right thing to do?
>
>
> oh come on ...
> ;-)
Why abandon your principals for your convenience? Doesn't that mean that
your own ethicals and morals are somewhat lacking if you choose to only
follow the rules that you agree with?
--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
In article <GLydnWiPGZ4TySPWnZ2dnUVZ8mOdnZ2d@bt.com>,
BoaterDave@hotmail.co.ukk says...
> *Why* is her opinion unworthy? Tell me that.
>
Chaos is not what the Structure and Ideal of Usenet is about, read it
for yourself and then follow the posts to determine if "I'll do it my
way because I want to do it my way, even if everyone says it's wrong" is
valid or just arrogance.
--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote