Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #6057
| From | blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer, comp.lang.lisp |
| Subject | Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) |
| Date | 2011-07-10 19:15 +0000 |
| Organization | None |
| Message-ID | <97uc2sFag8U5@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <d0bb9e06-16f0-4282-a37e-47e9ca9630ec@r2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> <97p5rcF9ofU1@mid.individual.net> <47c858b8-e02c-4fc8-9557-9b224d932de9@u30g2000vby.googlegroups.com> <q9fi17d6ighs81ck2qqr8j8evoecq0fdif@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
In article <q9fi17d6ighs81ck2qqr8j8evoecq0fdif@4ax.com>, Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> wrote: > lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote: > >blm...@myrealbox.com wrote: > >> Steve Erwin wrote: > > >>> The fact you are bothered to break thread, creating > >>> a new topic, yet fixing your nym display isn't a big > >>> deal to you... is very interesting. But I aint got the > >>> time .. > >> > > > >There's nothing whatsoever wrong with her "nym display", as you are > >pleased to call it. If you really didn't have the time to pursue this > >meaningless and pointless complaint of yours, you'd've never pressed > >"Send". Advice you should consider. > > > pkb... anyone? > > >> "Break thread"? I'm following what I understood to be the > >> convention for signaling that the subject of a discussion > >> has changed without losing the connection to the previous > >> discussion: I changed the subject line to "$NEWTOPIC > >> (was $OLDTOPIC)" and included (or more properly "allowed > >> my newsreader to supply) a References header that links to > >> the replied-to post. I understood this to be considered > >> good Usenet etiquette. I guess mileage varies. > >> > My point - Ms Massingill - is, it is interesting you follow this > "rule of etiquette" yet ignore basic rules of network protocol > in tX'n an unkempt (shoddy - bogan) Could you try that again in something more closely resembling standard English .... Nah, I probably get enough of the intended meaning. > piece of bagatelle as > your "From". Small chops (as it is) it has certainly signaled to > Paul Derbyshire (lewbloch+KitKat) Are you seriously suggesting that both of these posters are Mr. Derbyshire in disguise? That would surprise me very much in the case of the person who posts as Lew Bloch. I've been following this group for several years, and -- I'm skeptical. <shrug> > you are > "ripe for the fucking with of". I guess it's possible, but really, didn't *I* start this particular exchange by involving myself in the "names ending in 'a' are feminine" subthread? foolishly, no doubt, but "yeah well". Also, if your theory about real identities is correct, there may be a history -- but that's all I'm going to say about that. > However, as said, you have been informed. You make your > choice, as you will. [ snip ] -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Alex J <vstrength@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 02:29 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 07:33 -0400
OT "sic" (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 15:56 +0000
Re: OT "sic" (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 12:19 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 18:41 +0200
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 13:10 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 19:53 +0200
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 14:13 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-28 14:23 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 14:33 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-28 14:52 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 16:20 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 00:53 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-29 01:04 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 01:43 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-28 11:42 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-28 14:54 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-28 12:34 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? markspace <-@.> - 2011-06-28 13:20 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 01:05 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 16:21 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 01:06 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-28 14:30 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-29 18:56 +0200
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-28 13:43 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-28 20:43 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-28 21:14 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 01:12 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 18:28 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-02 00:19 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-07-01 19:05 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-02 00:26 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-04 09:39 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-05 02:11 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Alex J <vstrength@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 16:56 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-07-06 00:57 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-06 05:55 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 14:40 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-29 19:15 +0200
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-06-30 23:04 +0100
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-06-30 18:29 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-30 17:05 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-06-30 20:17 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-07-01 21:22 +0100
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-07-01 21:40 +0100
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-01 18:08 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 12:15 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-05 15:30 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 21:10 +0000
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 22:08 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 05:57 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 17:07 +0000
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 04:08 +1000
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 19:09 +0000
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 09:26 +1000
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 20:25 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:37 +0000
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:35 +0000
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 14:34 -0700
OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 17:19 +0000
Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-09 05:41 +1000
Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 19:58 +0000
Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:45 -0700
Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-10 01:50 -0400
Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 19:15 +0000
Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-10 18:38 -0400
Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-09 00:29 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-09 00:26 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 20:05 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 10:24 +1000
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 21:52 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 12:43 +1000
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 23:00 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 20:27 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 20:30 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Henderson <h1@g1.f1> - 2011-07-22 00:20 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 10:17 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-22 09:30 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-22 09:45 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 14:53 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2011-07-22 04:39 +0000
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 10:19 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 20:33 -0400
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-21 21:08 -0700
Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 10:20 -0400
csiph-web