Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

From	Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.php
Subject	Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages
Date	2015-07-06 22:08 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<mnfc90$6o2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(22 earlier) <559A6843.4020406@arnowelzel.de> <mne8d8$bni$1@dont-email.me> <mnefal$9ag$1@dont-email.me> <mnepr0$lic$1@dont-email.me> <mnf177$ibd$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/6/2015 7:00 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 06/07/15 21:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 7/6/2015 1:54 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 06/07/15 16:56, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/2015 7:36 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> BTW: F'up to poster.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see here... someone who throws a fit and purposely demunges
>>>> someone else's email address to allow that address to be harvested by
>>>> spammers...
>>>
>>> You have no evidence that he threw a fit, and you don't know that the
>>> reason you guessed at was actually his reason for posting your correct
>>> email address (which he is perfectly within his rights to do, and which
>>> does not, generally speaking, result in an increase in spam emails to
>>> that address). So you're just making stuff up.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong on two counts.  If you would have read the post, you would see he
>> was throwing a fit.
> 
> I did read it, and I saw no evidence of a fit.
> 

ROFLMAO!  You aren't very smart, are you?

>> And why would he purposefully post an unmunged
>> email address if it weren't to allow it to be harvested by spammers?
> 
> You'll have to ask him that, but the fact that you can't think of
> another reason doesn't mean that no other reason exists.
>

Ah, but that's because you're not very smart.

>> Or maybe it's just something you would do, also.
> 
> You have no rational grounds for that speculation.
> 

You sure stick up for the troll, so one can only assume you approve of
his actions and would do the same thing.  A logical conclusion.

>>>> Then tries to get the last word in a newsgroup by changing
>>>> the reply-to.
>>>
>>> Since the thread has descended into abusive name-calling, attempting to
>>> switch to email is actually a reasonable thing to do: "- If you should
>>> find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make your responses to
>>> each other via mail rather than continue to send messages to the list or
>>> the group.  If you are debating a point on which the group might have
>>> some interest, you may summarize for them later" (RFC1855). Arno's
>>> process for attempting to do this (setting followups and warning you
>>> that he had done so) was perfectly correct.
>>>
>>
>> If he wanted to stop it, he didn't have to post.  But like all trolls,
>> he needs to have the last word.
> 
> Perhaps he wanted to continue the discussion with you, but without
> burdening the newsgroup with it - a reasonable offer, which you
> declined, de facto, by replying to the group rather than to email. It is
> clear that you, too, wish to continue the discussion, because you don't
> have to post either. As for the last word, on Usenet there really is no
> such thing.
> 

Then he could have continued the discussion privately, instead of
posting in the forum and setting the FUP so he would get the last word
in the forum.

And yes, there is a last word - on usenet, just like other places in the
world.  But trolls don't understand that.

>>
>>>> Sounds to me like something a child or psychotic person
>>>> would do.  Or one who's both, like you.
>>>
>>> Abusive name-calling may be good for your blood pressure, but it doesn't
>>> move the debate on. Arno does not strike me as being either childish or
>>> child-like, and I see no evidence here that would justify a diagnosis of
>>> "psychotic". If you are not medically qualified, you have no basis for
>>> the adjective other than that of hyperbole (in which case, learn some
>>> new adjectives). If you /are/ medically qualified, you should know
>>> better than to offer a hasty and intemperate diagnosis over Usenet.
>>>
>>
>> I call them like I see them.  Trolls are trolls.  And psychos are
>> psychos.
> 
> Assertions are ten a penny on Usenet. Arno is not behaving like a troll.
> As for "psycho", is that code for "someone who disagrees with Jerry
> Stuckle"? If so, I suppose you must meet a /lot/ of psychos.
> 

Not behaving like a troll?  ROFLMAO!  I guess you think that's the case
because you act the same way.  But the trolls of a feather...

And just disagreeing is not being psycho.  Purposely trying to harm
someone by getting their email harvested by spammers IS psychotic. But
then you think what it did was ok, also... So psychotic trolls of a
feather...

>>>> I wonder who's the child here?
>>>
>>> Tell ya what, let's find out...
>>>
>>>> Better go running to your mommy and tell
>>>> her how the mean old man called you what you are!
>>>
>>> ...well, that answered /that/ question!
>>>
>>
>> Yup, he needs to go running to his mommy.
> 
> You reinforce my point nicely, although probably not intentionally.
> 
> <more nonsense snipped>
> 

Yup, you need to go running to your mommy.  Tell here the mean old man
called you a psychotic troll.  Maybe she'll comfort you.

But then I see you're well-known in other newsgroups, also - such as
comp.lang.c, comp.programming, and others.

BTW - how did that "C" book you edited turn out?  I see it was a
failure, too.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Thread

response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-10 06:59 -0700
  Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-10 10:18 -0400
  Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-10 16:41 +0200
    Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-10 11:55 -0400
      Re: response for server every second Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> - 2015-06-10 16:50 +0000
        Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-10 13:23 -0400
          Re: response for server every second Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2015-06-10 10:37 -0700
            Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-10 14:27 -0400
    Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-10 23:38 -0700
    Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-11 00:14 -0700
      Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-11 12:09 +0200
        Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-11 04:16 -0700
          Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-11 14:37 +0200
            Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-11 06:20 -0700
              Re: response for server every second Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-06-11 13:45 -0400
            Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-11 23:35 -0700
              Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-12 09:10 -0400
          Re: response for server every second Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-06-12 03:59 +0000
            [off topic nodejs advertisement] Was Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-15 16:08 +0200
              Performance of PHP vs. Node.js (was: [off topic nodejs advertisement]) "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-06-15 20:42 +0200
                Re: Performance of PHP vs. Node.js Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-16 00:20 +0200
                Re: Performance of PHP vs. Node.js "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-06-16 00:58 +0200
          Re: response for server every second gordonb.890nt@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-06-13 13:39 -0500
            Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-18 23:16 -0700
              Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-19 08:16 -0400
                Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-21 23:06 -0700
                Re: response for server every second "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2015-06-22 08:03 -0500
                Re: response for server every second Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:39 +0000
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-23 07:23 -0400
    Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-22 18:37 +0200
      Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-22 18:42 +0200
      Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-23 17:11 +0200
        Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-24 00:06 +0200
          Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-23 19:10 -0400
            Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-24 01:45 +0200
              Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-23 20:21 -0400
                Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-23 23:34 -0700
                Re: response for server every second bill <william@TechServSys.com> - 2015-06-24 06:58 -0400
                Re: response for server every second Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-25 17:18 +0200
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-25 20:31 -0400
                Technical requiremenets for Usenet messages (was: Re: response for server every second) Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-26 10:43 +0200
                Re: Technical requiremenets for Usenet messages Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-26 21:47 +0200
                Re: Technical requiremenets for Usenet messages Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-26 22:19 +0200
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-25 23:07 -0400
                Re: response for server every second Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-26 10:21 +0200
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-26 06:48 -0400
                Technical requirements for Usenet messages (was Re: response for server every second) Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-26 13:48 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages (was Re: response for server every second) Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-26 14:29 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-27 14:49 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-27 10:25 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-28 17:52 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-28 20:08 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2015-06-27 22:14 -0500
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-28 17:54 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-28 20:10 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-30 09:54 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-30 08:45 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-30 16:20 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-30 15:00 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-07-06 13:36 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-07-06 11:56 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-06 18:54 +0100
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-07-06 16:54 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-07 00:00 +0100
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-07-06 22:08 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-07 07:24 +0100
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-07-07 10:41 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-07-09 22:52 -0700
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 03:07 +0000
                Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-26 21:13 +0200
            Re: response for server every second Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 09:52 +0100
              Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-24 09:21 -0400
                Re: response for server every second Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 18:48 +0100
                Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-24 20:55 +0200
                Re: response for server every second Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 20:55 +0100
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-24 15:21 -0400
                Re: response for server every second Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 20:35 +0100

csiph-web