Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #244144 > unrolled thread

"The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet"

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.freeware

Contents

  "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2015-09-27 15:43 +0200
    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Derald <derald@invalid.net> - 2015-09-27 13:02 -0400
    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2015-09-27 16:26 -0300
      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" G. Morgan <sealteam6@osama-is-dead.net> - 2015-09-30 04:51 -0500
    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Jonno <me@privacy.nob> - 2015-09-27 20:48 +0100
    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-28 01:39 -0700
      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2015-09-28 12:24 +0100
        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "John Corliss (ES)" <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-28 08:36 -0700
      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-09-28 12:34 +0100
        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-09-28 08:12 -0700
          Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-09-30 11:21 +0100
            Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-09-30 15:18 -0700
              Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-01 11:23 +0100
                Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> - 2015-10-01 14:47 +0200
                  Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-10-01 13:10 +0000
                    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2015-10-01 14:14 +0100
                      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" John Corliss <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-01 09:22 -0700
                        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2015-10-01 18:47 +0100
                    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> - 2015-10-01 15:40 +0200
                      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-10-01 14:09 +0000
                        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2015-10-01 15:17 +0100
                          Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-01 08:06 -0700
                        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> - 2015-10-01 17:00 +0200
                          Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-10-01 15:11 +0000
                            Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-01 08:27 -0700
                      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Bucky Breeder <Breeder_Bucky-Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out> - 2015-10-01 14:17 +0000
                    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-10-09 16:30 -0400
                      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-10-09 21:14 +0000
                        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-10-20 06:03 -0400
                          Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 12:23 +0200
                          Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-10-20 12:15 +0000
                  Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2015-10-01 14:12 +0100
                    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-01 06:36 -0700
                      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2015-10-01 15:14 +0100
                        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-01 07:38 -0700
                Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-01 06:24 -0700
                  Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-03 11:22 +0100
                    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-03 07:10 -0700
                      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-03 15:44 +0100
                        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-03 14:12 -0700
                          Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-04 09:09 +0100
                            Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-10-04 05:11 -0700
        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-10-09 16:42 -0400
      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "The Sorceress of Qar" <sorceress@qar.qanar.com> - 2015-09-28 09:44 -0500
      Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2015-09-28 19:12 +0200
        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2015-09-28 16:46 -0300
        Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" "John Corliss (ES)" <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 03:05 -0700
    Re: "The rise of ad-blocking could herald the end of the free internet" Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2015-10-01 10:43 -0400

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#244422

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:09:53 +0000, Stormin' Norman
<norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:40:19 +0200, FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Fred, since when is a "guideline", published on an obscure web site, by someone with no authority, considered
>>>a rule?  
>>>
>>>none is correct, Stephen is advertising on Usenet and is a hypocrite, this is one of several reasons he was
>>>relegated to my bozo bin.
>>
>>I am very sorry, but "none" is a moody, very grumpy person,
>>who can only tell people that they are doing things totally wrong,
>>in a most insulting and abusive way.
>>
>>He does so in several newsgroups.
>>He is more than just a rude netcop, but another exampple of someone who
>>thinks he can be very rude because he/she is anonymous.
>>I always delete messages when I notice they are coming from him/her.
>
>OK....., you don't like him, but specifically, what did he write that was incorrect?  As for anonymity, isn't
>that somewhat hypocritical?  You are anonymous also.
>
>
>>
>>As to the word hypocrite, this word has no place in this discussion.
>>It is not done (al least in my opinion)  to call everyone a hypocrite
>>who does not agree with you or you do not agree with.
>
>
>Stephen was identified as a hypocrite because he advocated 'killing all the advertisers' but he continues to
>advertise in all of his posts.  That behavior conforms to the definition of a hypocrite. Show me the error in
>my thought process?
>
>
>>
>>The difference between a guideline and a rule?
>>I have no idea, a guideline is a voluntarily rule, while a Usenet rule
>>can never be enforced, so cannot be a rule, but should be a guideline?
>>
>>There was a time that everybody followed the guidelines as being a rule,
>>that should be kept out of politeness to other users.
>>
>>Nowadays the word rule makes people going wild (in rage) fighting any
>>rule because they do not want to be restricted by any rule.
>>
>>Many rules are there for the convenience of all people (stop for red
>>light, etc.), but with the coming of the (anti-)social media all rules
>>have become suspect.
>
>People "go wild" because you and others play net cop, posting fake rules in an effort to control the behavior
>of others.  If you have an issue with someone, as I do with Stephen, make a logical case.  It is
>intellectually lazy, if not disingenuous, to point to some fallacious rule as if it is the law of Usenet.
>
>
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>>By the way,
>>since when is the Faqs.org an obscure website ???
>>http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/
>>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/
>>It used to be the bible on how to behave on Usenet.
>
>
>I get it, the good old days, but there are no rules. Usenet is only governed by the laws of individual
>countries and the T & C's of individual NSPs.  Regardless, the thread has nothing to do with rules, it has to
>do with Stephen's hypocrisy when it comes to advertising.  Stephen attempted to conflate two unrelated issues
>and you stepped in and gave him an assist in his attempt to divert.  ;-)

+SHADDUP I'm sticking pins in my eyes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

-- 
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath, 
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme, 
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook, 
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag, 
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, 
the most complete ignoid, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244430

on 10.01.2015, p-0''0-h the cat (ES) supposed :
> +SHADDUP I'm sticking pins in my eyes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pins in your eyes?  That would only serve to improve your appearance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244429

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:09:53 +0000, Stormin' Norman
<norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:40:19 +0200, FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>I get it, the good old days, but there are no rules. Usenet is only governed by the laws of individual
>countries and the T & C's of individual NSPs.  Regardless, the thread has nothing to do with rules, it has to
>do with Stephen's hypocrisy when it comes to advertising.  Stephen attempted to conflate two unrelated issues
>and you stepped in and gave him an assist in his attempt to divert.  ;-)

You got nothing!

I tried to explain my point of view.
I did not judge who is right or not.

But you seem not to be able to accept that not everybody thinks like
you.

Have a nice day.

-- 
Fred W. (NL)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244431

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:00:18 +0200, FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:09:53 +0000, Stormin' Norman
><norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>>On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:40:19 +0200, FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>I get it, the good old days, but there are no rules. Usenet is only governed by the laws of individual
>>countries and the T & C's of individual NSPs.  Regardless, the thread has nothing to do with rules, it has to
>>do with Stephen's hypocrisy when it comes to advertising.  Stephen attempted to conflate two unrelated issues
>>and you stepped in and gave him an assist in his attempt to divert.  ;-)
>
>I've got nothing!
>
>I tried and failed to explain my point of view.
>I like to be the judge of who is right and wrong.
>
>But you seem not to be able to accept that not everybody thinks logically like
>you.
>
>Have a nice day.

You made a few errors above, I fixed them for you...... ;-)

Have a REALLY nice day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244432

Stormin' Norman wrote :
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:00:18 +0200, FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:09:53 +0000, Stormin' Norman
>> <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:40:19 +0200, FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I get it, the good old days, but there are no rules. Usenet is only 
>>> governed by the laws of individual countries and the T & C's of individual 
>>> NSPs.  Regardless, the thread has nothing to do with rules, it has to do 
>>> with Stephen's hypocrisy when it comes to advertising.  Stephen attempted 
>>> to conflate two unrelated issues and you stepped in and gave him an assist 
>>> in his attempt to divert.  ;-)
>> 
>> I've got nothing!
>> 
>> I tried and failed to explain my point of view.
>> I like to be the judge of who is right and wrong.
>> 
>> But you seem not to be able to accept that not everybody thinks logically 
>> like you.
>> 
>> Have a nice day.
>
> You made a few errors above, I fixed them for you...... ;-)
>
> Have a REALLY nice day.

Christ!  That was hillarious! :')

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244423

FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> posted this via 
news:odcq0b13a4b76uq383o3itco5dg719s22l@7ax.com:

> since when is the Faqs.org an obscure website ???
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/
> It used to be the bible on how to behave on Usenet.
> 
> -- 
> Fred W. (NL)

No, no, no!  It was merely some luzer's webpage that purported itself to be 
"The Bible" on usenetizenship...  Just like the actual "Bible" it's 
proponents were/are self-righteous "thumpers" who abuse/d any/all concepts 
of civility until the ripple-effects infected nearly everybody who 
contacted it, and in the name of Biblical-concepts countless numbers of 
innocent people were permanently damaged and continue to be carriers of the 
diseased behaviors that were so thoughtfully and callously inflicted upon 
them at the onset of their explorations and experiences -- mostly by 
doodie-diapered grumpy nym-shyfting and nym-morphing geriatric mentally 
disordered old people who rely on thier own collection of sock-poopettes 
for support and welfare checks and foodstamps to support their malicious 
menacing ex-cathedra malfeasance.

Like Joseph Smith's conveinant "Book of Morman" providing that a man can 
marry as many women and little girls as the current environment might 
allow...  How cool is that?  I'm going to write me a "Bible" legalizing the 
groping of female boobs!... Post it on the internets and reference it 
often.  Like 'Godwin's Law' proclaiming himself as the only person who can 
reference Hitler without being in violation of Godwin's Law.

Here's the "Usenet law": Do unto others and they'll damn sure spread the 
malice - like in any model chicken-peck society.

People need to shed themselves of the demon internet anyway... and get back 
to NORMAL behavior...  like egging grumpy old people's cars and houses and 
blowing up their mailboxes with holiday fireworks!

HTH

-- 

I AM Bucky Breeder,  (*(^; and,
It's like Yogi Berra, RIP 9/22/2015, always used to say:
"The future ain't what it used to be!"

	<http://i.imgur.com/f193YWS.jpg?1>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#245817

Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> writes:

> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:47:25 +0200, FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:23:47 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
>><steve@easynn.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:18:33 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>There are no Usenet "rules" and you know that.  You are simply a 
>>>>hypocrite, criticizing others who pay to advertise but yet you pollute 
>>>>Usenet with your bullshit advertising.
>>>
>>>There were Usenet rules ...
>>
>>Please don't feed the trolls.
>>
>>http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
>>
>>2.1.1
>>- If you include a signature keep it short.  Rule of thumb
>>      is no longer than 4 lines.  Remember that many people pay for
>>      connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
>>      the more they pay.
>
> Fred, since when is a "guideline", published on an obscure web site, by someone with no authority, considered
> a rule?  

The RFCs on faqs.org are not obscure, and they certainly _are_ published
by people with authority. Just because you haven't bothered to learn
about how the Internet works doesn't mean that everyone is ignorant of
the mores and bylaws of it.

>
> none is correct, Stephen is advertising on Usenet and is a hypocrite, this is one of several reasons he was
> relegated to my bozo bin.

There is nothing that says that he can't use whatever signature he
likes. It would be a different story if he were _posting_ ads, but his
posts are topical for the groups I have seen him post in.

If you don't want to see his signature, then I suggest you configure
your newsreader so you won't see his sigs. Or perhaps you should just
plonk him and stop complaining?

No, I'm not going to teach you how to configure your newsreader,
whatever it is, and I won't teach you to use a killfile either. I'm sure
you can figure this out on your own. (If not, maybe you can hire the
neighbor's 12-year-old to help you out.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#245831

On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:30:32 -0400, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:


>
>The RFCs on faqs.org are not obscure, and they certainly _are_ published
>by people with authority. Just because you haven't bothered to learn
>about how the Internet works doesn't mean that everyone is ignorant of
>the mores and bylaws of it.
>

Firstly, this is not the "Internet" it is Usenet.

Bud you are a perfect example of why people should not comment on older threads without reading the entire
thread first.

Bud, you can claim groups have authority, but without the ability to enforce such "rules", they are simply
suggestions made by people with no power.  In other words, they are completely without meaning and are
strictly nostalgic.

>>
>> none is correct, Stephen is advertising on Usenet and is a hypocrite, this is one of several reasons he was
>> relegated to my bozo bin.
>
>There is nothing that says that he can't use whatever signature he
>likes. It would be a different story if he were _posting_ ads, but his
>posts are topical for the groups I have seen him post in.

That was not the point, you should read the entire thread. You are making yourself look foolish.

>
>If you don't want to see his signature, then I suggest you configure
>your newsreader so you won't see his sigs. Or perhaps you should just
>plonk him and stop complaining?
>
>No, I'm not going to teach you how to configure your newsreader,
>whatever it is, and I won't teach you to use a killfile either. I'm sure
>you can figure this out on your own. (If not, maybe you can hire the
>neighbor's 12-year-old to help you out.)

Again, you have made yourself look foolish, you did not read the entire thread before commenting, you didn't
even read the post you were replying too.  I indicated SW had been relegated to my "bozo bin".

It would be a good habit if you were to refrain from posting when you have been drinking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#246853

Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> writes:

> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:30:32 -0400, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>The RFCs on faqs.org are not obscure, and they certainly _are_ published
>>by people with authority. Just because you haven't bothered to learn
>>about how the Internet works doesn't mean that everyone is ignorant of
>>the mores and bylaws of it.
>>
>
> Firstly, this is not the "Internet" it is Usenet.

Not the Internet? You don't have a clue about this, do you?

>
> Bud you are a perfect example of why people should not comment on older threads without reading the entire
> thread first.
>
> Bud, you can claim groups have authority, but without the ability to enforce such "rules", they are simply
> suggestions made by people with no power.  In other words, they are completely without meaning and are
> strictly nostalgic.

In other words, you're a selfish little prick that doesn't give a shit
about anyone but himself. There are well-established rules and customs
on the Internet and, yes, the Usenet. You may choose to ignore them, but
that says everything we need to know about you.

>
> Again, you have made yourself look foolish, you did not read the entire thread before commenting, you didn't
> even read the post you were replying too.  I indicated SW had been relegated to my "bozo bin".

I have no idea what a "bozo bin" is. Is that a Mormon thing?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#246856

On 10/20/2015 12:03 PM, Bud Frede wrote:
> 
> I have no idea what a "bozo bin" is. Is that a Mormon thing?
> 
Some Usenet clients - like Gravity - use it
as a synonym for a killfile.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#246860

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 06:03:38 -0400, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:30:32 -0400, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>The RFCs on faqs.org are not obscure, and they certainly _are_ published
>>>by people with authority. Just because you haven't bothered to learn
>>>about how the Internet works doesn't mean that everyone is ignorant of
>>>the mores and bylaws of it.
>>>
>>
>> Firstly, this is not the "Internet" it is Usenet.
>
>Not the Internet? You don't have a clue about this, do you?

Apparently not.  I suspect your knowledge base is quite different from mine.

>
>>
>> Bud you are a perfect example of why people should not comment on older threads without reading the entire
>> thread first.
>>
>> Bud, you can claim groups have authority, but without the ability to enforce such "rules", they are simply
>> suggestions made by people with no power.  In other words, they are completely without meaning and are
>> strictly nostalgic.
>
>In other words, you're a selfish little prick that doesn't give a shit
>about anyone but himself. There are well-established rules and customs
>on the Internet and, yes, the Usenet. You may choose to ignore them, but
>that says everything we need to know about you.
>

Brilliant reply, reminds me of the following quote:


    "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea. Massive, difficult to redirect,
awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
    — Gene Spafford, 1992


>>
>> Again, you have made yourself look foolish, you did not read the entire thread before commenting, you didn't
>> even read the post you were replying too.  I indicated SW had been relegated to my "bozo bin".
>
>I have no idea what a "bozo bin" is. Is that a Mormon thing?
>


Bozo was a clown on American television during the 50's & 60's.  For example, if I were to say "Bud Frede is a
bozo", it would be a derogatory statement meaning you come across as a clown.  Of course, I would never say
such a thing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244406

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:47:25 +0200, FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:23:47 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
><steve@easynn.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:18:33 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>There are no Usenet "rules" and you know that.  You are simply a 
>>>hypocrite, criticizing others who pay to advertise but yet you pollute 
>>>Usenet with your bullshit advertising.
>>
>>There were Usenet rules ...
>
>Please don't feed the trolls.

Do as I say not as I do eh?

>http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
>
>2.1.1
>- If you include a signature keep it short.  Rule of thumb
>      is no longer than 4 lines.  Remember that many people pay for
>      connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
>      the more they pay.

I think dinosaurs still roamed the earth when that was written.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

-- 
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath, 
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme, 
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook, 
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag, 
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, 
the most complete ignoid, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244410

p-0''0-h the cat (ES) presented the following explanation :
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:47:25 +0200, FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:23:47 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
>> <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:18:33 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> There are no Usenet "rules" and you know that.  You are simply a 
>>>> hypocrite, criticizing others who pay to advertise but yet you pollute 
>>>> Usenet with your bullshit advertising.
>>> 
>>> There were Usenet rules ...
>> 
>> Please don't feed the trolls.
>
> Do as I say not as I do eh?
>

p-0''0-h, FFS, if people didn't feed the trolls you would have starved 
many years ago.  Now, toddle off and lick your ass.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244420

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 06:36:57 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>p-0''0-h the cat (ES) presented the following explanation :
>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:47:25 +0200, FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:23:47 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
>>> <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:18:33 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are no Usenet "rules" and you know that.  You are simply a 
>>>>> hypocrite, criticizing others who pay to advertise but yet you pollute 
>>>>> Usenet with your bullshit advertising.
>>>> 
>>>> There were Usenet rules ...
>>> 
>>> Please don't feed the trolls.
>>
>> Do as I say not as I do eh?
>>
>
>p-0''0-h, FFS, if people didn't feed the trolls you would have starved 
>many years ago.  Now, toddle off and lick your ass.

Troll feeder! *PLONK* him good guys.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

-- 
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath, 
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme, 
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook, 
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag, 
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, 
the most complete ignoid, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244425

After serious thinking p-0''0-h the cat (ES) wrote :
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 06:36:57 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>> p-0''0-h the cat (ES) presented the following explanation :
>>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:47:25 +0200, FredW <fredw@ninmule.invalid> wrote:
>>>  
>>>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:23:47 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
>>>> <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:18:33 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> There are no Usenet "rules" and you know that.  You are simply a 
>>>>>> hypocrite, criticizing others who pay to advertise but yet you pollute 
>>>>>> Usenet with your bullshit advertising.
>>>>>  
>>>>> There were Usenet rules ...
>>>>  
>>>> Please don't feed the trolls.
>>>  
>>> Do as I say not as I do eh?
>>>  
>>  
>> p-0''0-h, FFS, if people didn't feed the trolls you would have starved 
>> many years ago.  Now, toddle off and lick your ass.
>
> Troll feeder! *PLONK* him good guys.

Very clever reply...... LOL!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244409

Stephen Wolstenholme has brought this to us :

>
> There were Usenet rules when I started in 1980 but they are no longer
> enforced by ISPs. Signatures were restricted to four lines which may
> separated by single blank lines. URL's to sites owned by the person
> signing the posting providing that they use a real name. I make no
> attempt to hide my name or IP address.

This isn't about rules, but nice attempt at diversion.

Your signature conatins advertising, plain and simple.

You bitch about other advertisers, even though their advertising is 
allowed, but yet you continue to advertise in each post.

Pure hypocrisy, the fact you cannot see this makes me question your 
logic and competency.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244553

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 06:24:56 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>Stephen Wolstenholme has brought this to us :
>
>>
>> There were Usenet rules when I started in 1980 but they are no longer
>> enforced by ISPs. Signatures were restricted to four lines which may
>> separated by single blank lines. URL's to sites owned by the person
>> signing the posting providing that they use a real name. I make no
>> attempt to hide my name or IP address.
>
>This isn't about rules, but nice attempt at diversion.
>

You said there where no rules, I replied that there were once.

>Your signature conatins advertising, plain and simple.
>

It contain the URL of my WEB sites.

>You bitch about other advertisers, even though their advertising is 
>allowed, but yet you continue to advertise in each post.
>

All advertising it "allowed" by somebody or other. I choose not to
read it.

>Pure hypocrisy, the fact you cannot see this makes me question your 
>logic and competency.

I give most of my products away without any advertising.

To demonstrate this I will give you a free copy. If you email me I'll
tell you how to get it.

Steve

-- 
Neural Network Software for Windows                 http://www.npsnn.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244565

Stephen Wolstenholme formulated the question :

>> Your signature conatins advertising, plain and simple.
>> 
>
> It contain the URL of my WEB sites.
>

Are you daft?  Your signature contains the url's of your commercial web 
sites and it also contains additional marketing, a.k.a. advertising.

"Neural Network Software for Windows"

"EasyNN-plus   More than just a neural network"


>> You bitch about other advertisers, even though their advertising is 
>> allowed, but yet you continue to advertise in each post.
>> 
>
> All advertising it "allowed" by somebody or other. I choose not to
> read it.
>

You continue trying to divert the topic.  You advocated "killing all 
the advertisers", but yet you continue to pollute Usenet with your own 
bullshit.


>> Pure hypocrisy, the fact you cannot see this makes me question your 
>> logic and competency.
>
> I give most of my products away without any advertising.

Completely irrelevant. You are advertising.

>
> To demonstrate this I will give you a free copy. If you email me I'll
> tell you how to get it.

More diversion.  You are an illogical hypocrite. You advocate killing 
people who advertise, but you continue to pollute Usenet with your own 
advertising.  Really, can you not see your own hypocrisy?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244571

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:10:43 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>>
>> To demonstrate this I will give you a free copy. If you email me I'll
>> tell you how to get it.
>
>More diversion.  You are an illogical hypocrite. You advocate killing 
>people who advertise, but you continue to pollute Usenet with your own 
>advertising.  Really, can you not see your own hypocrisy?

Where do you get the idea that I'm killing people? I just don't read
WEB sites with adverts. 

Just to please you I'll try to remember to post with no signature.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244586

Stephen Wolstenholme was thinking very hard :
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:10:43 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> 
>>> To demonstrate this I will give you a free copy. If you email me I'll
>>> tell you how to get it.
>> 
>> More diversion.  You are an illogical hypocrite. You advocate killing 
>> people who advertise, but you continue to pollute Usenet with your own 
>> advertising.  Really, can you not see your own hypocrisy?
>
> Where do you get the idea that I'm killing people? I just don't read
> WEB sites with adverts. 

Here is the MID where you advocated "killing the advertisers"

Message-ID: <8d9i0bhqa71s8onfblj6ohkjmqg2em9den@4ax.com>

>
> Just to please you I'll try to remember to post with no signature.

Thank you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.freeware

csiph-web