Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #15445 > unrolled thread
| Started by | apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-06-10 06:59 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-06-24 20:35 +0100 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 77 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php
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
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-06 11:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages |
| Message-ID | <mne8d8$bni$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15571 |
On 7/6/2015 7:36 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Am 2015-06-30 um 21:00 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: > >> On 6/30/2015 10:20 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Am 2015-06-30 um 14:45 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: >>> >>> [...] >>>> But then nobody cares what a psychotic troll thinks, Arno. Now why >>> >>> It seems YOU do. >>> >>> >> >> Not a bit, Arno. You flatter yourself too much. >> >> Just because I respond to a psychotic troll doesn't mean I give a damn >> about what you have to say. It's very much for the benefit of others >> who might look at this group and not know what you are. > > At least others also learn how friendly and kind you are calling others > "psychotic trolls" and ask them to get psychiatric help and "go running > to your mommy and let the adults carry on discussions" etc. > > I wonder who is the childish person here... the last time someone tried > (and did not succeed) to make me angry by saying "go running to your > mommy" to me was in primary school. > > 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... Then tries to get the last word in a newsgroup by changing the reply-to. Sounds to me like something a child or psychotic person would do. Or one who's both, like you. I wonder who's the child here? Better go running to your mommy and tell her how the mean old man called you what you are! And others will see you for what you really are - and understand why I stand up to you instead of caving like you want. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-06 18:54 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages |
| Message-ID | <mnefal$9ag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15572 |
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. > 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. > 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 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! > And others will see you for what you really are - and understand why I > stand up to you instead of caving like you want. Arno seems to me to be behaving like a grown-up. He is making sensible, dispassionate points in a neutral way. If you don't want to do your reputation (such as it is) any more damage, I suggest emulating him. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-06 16:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages |
| Message-ID | <mnepr0$lic$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15573 |
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. And why would he purposefully post an unmunged email address if it weren't to allow it to be harvested by spammers? Or maybe it's just something you would do, also. >> 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. >> 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. >> 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. >> And others will see you for what you really are - and understand why I >> stand up to you instead of caving like you want. > > Arno seems to me to be behaving like a grown-up. He is making sensible, > dispassionate points in a neutral way. If you don't want to do your > reputation (such as it is) any more damage, I suggest emulating him. > ROFLMAO! Only another third grader would consider Arno acting like a grown-up. Maybe you need to running to your mommy, too, and tell her the mean old man called you a troll - troll! Grow up! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-07 00:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages |
| Message-ID | <mnf177$ibd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15574 |
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. > 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. > Or maybe it's just something you would do, also. You have no rational grounds for that speculation. >>> 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. > >>> 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. >>> 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> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-06 22:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages |
| Message-ID | <mnfc90$6o2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15575 |
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 ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-07 07:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages |
| Message-ID | <mnfr7t$j56$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15576 |
On 07/07/15 03:08, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 7/6/2015 7:00 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 06/07/15 21:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 7/6/2015 1:54 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 06/07/15 16:56, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 7/6/2015 7:36 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>>> BTW: F'up to poster. >>>>> >>>>> Let's see here... someone who throws a fit and purposely demunges >>>>> someone else's email address to allow that address to be harvested by >>>>> spammers... >>>> >>>> You have no evidence that he threw a fit, and you don't know that the >>>> reason you guessed at was actually his reason for posting your correct >>>> email address [...]. So you're just making stuff up. >>> >>> Wrong on two counts. If you would have read the post, you would see he >>> was throwing a fit. >> >> I did read it, and I saw no evidence of a fit. >> > > ROFLMAO! You aren't very smart, are you? Maybe not, but I am at least smart enough to recognise when someone is far more interested in hurling insults than in learning. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-07 10:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages |
| Message-ID | <mngocb$l30$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15577 |
On 7/7/2015 2:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 07/07/15 03:08, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> 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 [...]. 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? > > Maybe not, but I am at least smart enough to recognise when someone is > far more interested in hurling insults than in learning. > I guess that's why you're so good at it, troll. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-09 22:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages |
| Message-ID | <0afb4ea6-bedc-4c19-b2d6-8f2b14905258@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15578 |
On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 8:11:45 PM UTC+5:30, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 7/7/2015 2:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > On 07/07/15 03:08, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> 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 [...]. 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? > > > > Maybe not, but I am at least smart enough to recognise when someone is > > far more interested in hurling insults than in learning. > > > > I guess that's why you're so good at it, troll. > > -- > ================== > Remove the "x" from my email address > Jerry Stuckle > jstucklex@attglobal.net > ================== Lo and behold we started with a response from a server and then we have a fight between users weather it's javascript or ECMA and then we have a fight about email. after all this time my project is about to finish and it's going good I have to take a dedicated server. all right every body time to let this thread die.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-02 03:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages |
| Message-ID | <mn29tp$l6g$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15543 |
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:14:20 -0500, Peter H. Coffin wrote: > "should" != "must". Conventions of use of "may", "should", and "must" > are established in many RFC, including the elsewhere-mentioned > son-of-1036. Don't assume that specific defined meanings of certain words used in RFCs also apply to those same words when used in the T&C of a provider. -- Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-26 21:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <31900651.Av84BTji5X@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #15527 |
Arno Welzel wrote: > JFTR: > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01#section-3.1.2.1> > is a text by the University of Manchester. JFTR: It is not. It is an IETF Usenet Article Standard Update (usefor) working group’s [1] working draft written by Charles H. Lindsey *of* the University of Manchester. That he is working at that university carries no weight whatsoever within the IETF; anyone can write an Internet Draft and submit it to the IETF (example: RFC 4329, by Björn Höhrmann, which caused some controversy afterwards). It should also be noted that this particular working draft has expired “in September 2005”, and that said working group is concluded (as it has produced “a standards-track successor to RFC 1036” [ibid.]). If the relevant text has made it into an RFC or STD (Internet standard), I have not found that one yet. However, Mr. Lindsey is also the co-author of what is now RFC 5536, the successor of RFC 1849 (“son of RFC 1036”), and of RFC 5537. *That* carries weight because those have been and are today the Internet (quasi-)standards that define Network News, the protocols underlying Usenet. Also, he is a renowned computer scientist; the Web (for example, Wikipedia), has more about him. Finally, he is actively participating in the administration of newsgroups (see e.g. Google Groups for his postings). So it is reasonable to assume, and I see that confirmed by the other follow-ups, that he does know what he is writing about in there about Usenet signatures. [1] <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/usefor/charter/> -- PointedEars Zend Certified PHP Engineer Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 09:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmdr27$aum$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15490 |
On 24/06/15 00:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 6/23/2015 6:06 PM, Thomas 'Pointed Head' Lahn wrote: >> Erwin Moller wrote: <snip> >>> Free advise: You might consider putting that in your sig. >> ^c >> >> Too long; a sig should not exceed 4 lines à 80 characters. Also, I would >> have to remove “Zend Certified PHP Engineer” from it, thereby an important >> hint that I am also qualified to make such statements as I did elsewhere in >> my posting. >> > > More nonsense from the pedantic troll. This is not your personal newsgroup. Neither is it /anyone's/ personal newsgroup, which is why we have long-established conventions, known as "Netiquette", to help us to get along better in email and on Usenet. One of those conventions, which was codified twenty years ago and already well-established before that, is that sig blocks should not exceed four lines of sixty-five characters. Another is: "Don't get involved in flame wars. Neither post nor respond to incendiary material." (And here's me doing just that.) There is an argument for allowing longer sig blocks nowadays, with increased bandwidth availability and so on, but it's a lot harder to justify constant bickering. Could I suggest that you folks try the following every time you see something written by the other that you disagree with: (1) try to write your reply as if the original article had been written by a close and dear relative whom you don't wish to offend, but whom needs putting right on a technical matter; (2) try to find a way to end on a positive note. It might be less exciting for you, but it will make much better reading in the archives. In the mirror of history, flame wars *always* look bad. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 09:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mmeaq2$13q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15496 |
On 6/24/2015 4:52 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 24/06/15 00:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 6/23/2015 6:06 PM, Thomas 'Pointed Head' Lahn wrote: >>> Erwin Moller wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> Free advise: You might consider putting that in your sig. >>> ^c >>> >>> Too long; a sig should not exceed 4 lines à 80 characters. Also, I >>> would >>> have to remove “Zend Certified PHP Engineer” from it, thereby an >>> important >>> hint that I am also qualified to make such statements as I did >>> elsewhere in >>> my posting. >>> >> >> More nonsense from the pedantic troll. This is not your personal >> newsgroup. > > Neither is it /anyone's/ personal newsgroup, which is why we have > long-established conventions, known as "Netiquette", to help us to get > along better in email and on Usenet. > > One of those conventions, which was codified twenty years ago and > already well-established before that, is that sig blocks should not > exceed four lines of sixty-five characters. > First of all, that convention was more than 20 years ago. At that time Usenet was a lot more active and most people were using modems. There is very little usenet traffic now, and most people are using broadband. Bitching about a 5 line sig vs. a 4 line sig are just being pedantic. But Pointed Head is well known for that. > Another is: "Don't get involved in flame wars. Neither post nor respond > to incendiary material." (And here's me doing just that.) > Then I suggest you keep out of it. Pointed Head is a well-known troll in several newsgroups - not just this one. > There is an argument for allowing longer sig blocks nowadays, with > increased bandwidth availability and so on, but it's a lot harder to > justify constant bickering. Could I suggest that you folks try the > following every time you see something written by the other that you > disagree with: (1) try to write your reply as if the original article > had been written by a close and dear relative whom you don't wish to > offend, but whom needs putting right on a technical matter; (2) try to > find a way to end on a positive note. It might be less exciting for you, > but it will make much better reading in the archives. In the mirror of > history, flame wars *always* look bad. > Nice idea, but it's been tried before with the troll. It doesn't work. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 18:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmeqfq$1g8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15498 |
On 24/06/15 14:21, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 6/24/2015 4:52 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 24/06/15 00:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 6/23/2015 6:06 PM, Thomas 'Pointed Head' Lahn wrote: >>>> Erwin Moller wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>>> Free advise: You might consider putting that in your sig. >>>> ^c >>>> >>>> Too long; a sig should not exceed 4 lines à 80 characters. Also, I >>>> would >>>> have to remove “Zend Certified PHP Engineer” from it, thereby an >>>> important >>>> hint that I am also qualified to make such statements as I did >>>> elsewhere in >>>> my posting. >>>> >>> >>> More nonsense from the pedantic troll. This is not your personal >>> newsgroup. >> >> Neither is it /anyone's/ personal newsgroup, which is why we have >> long-established conventions, known as "Netiquette", to help us to get >> along better in email and on Usenet. >> >> One of those conventions, which was codified twenty years ago and >> already well-established before that, is that sig blocks should not >> exceed four lines of sixty-five characters. >> > > First of all, that convention was more than 20 years ago. At that time > Usenet was a lot more active and most people were using modems. There > is very little usenet traffic now, and most people are using broadband. Nevertheless, it still makes sense for there to be a limit, does there not? > Bitching about a 5 line sig vs. a 4 line sig are just being pedantic. Pedantry is a Good Thing in a programmer. Getting it right is actually rather important. People who don't care about little details like that generally don't make good programmers. > But Pointed Head is well known for that. Noting the tone of your reply to my appeal for reason, common sense, and civility has taught me something important. Thank you. <snip> >> Could I suggest that you folks try the >> following every time you see something written by the other that you >> disagree with: (1) try to write your reply as if the original article >> had been written by a close and dear relative whom you don't wish to >> offend, but whom needs putting right on a technical matter; (2) try to >> find a way to end on a positive note. It might be less exciting for you, >> but it will make much better reading in the archives. In the mirror of >> history, flame wars *always* look bad. >> > > Nice idea, but it's been tried before with the troll. It doesn't work. You have just supplied ample evidence, so I can hardly fault your conclusion. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 20:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6587477.92XpVGFXCJ@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #15499 |
Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 24/06/15 14:21, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> Bitching about a 5 line sig vs. a 4 line sig are just being pedantic. > > Pedantry is a Good Thing in a programmer. Getting it right is actually > rather important. People who don't care about little details like that > generally don't make good programmers. JFTR: I did not even “bitch” about anyone else’s signature. I said that if I modified *my* signature as suggested by Erwin, it would no longer comply with Usenet convention. That was in part tongue-in-cheek of course, because the suggestion itself was not to be taken seriously. Nuff said. -- PointedEars Zend Certified PHP Engineer Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 20:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmf1sc$jd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15503 |
On 24/06/15 19:55, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> On 24/06/15 14:21, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> Bitching about a 5 line sig vs. a 4 line sig are just being pedantic. >> >> Pedantry is a Good Thing in a programmer. Getting it right is actually >> rather important. People who don't care about little details like that >> generally don't make good programmers. > > JFTR: I did not even “bitch” about anyone else’s signature. I said that if > I modified *my* signature as suggested by Erwin, it would no longer comply > with Usenet convention. That's right, and it had not gone unnoticed. It seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable observation, which is why I chipped in. Thanks for your constructive and moderate reply. Okay, now it's time to take the bull by the horns and start a new thread. This interchange has actually been quite instructive, in that it gives me a clue about what to expect when I do so. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 15:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mmevst$oai$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15499 |
On 6/24/2015 1:48 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 24/06/15 14:21, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 6/24/2015 4:52 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 24/06/15 00:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 6/23/2015 6:06 PM, Thomas 'Pointed Head' Lahn wrote: >>>>> Erwin Moller wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>> Free advise: You might consider putting that in your sig. >>>>> ^c >>>>> >>>>> Too long; a sig should not exceed 4 lines à 80 characters. Also, I >>>>> would >>>>> have to remove “Zend Certified PHP Engineer” from it, thereby an >>>>> important >>>>> hint that I am also qualified to make such statements as I did >>>>> elsewhere in >>>>> my posting. >>>>> >>>> >>>> More nonsense from the pedantic troll. This is not your personal >>>> newsgroup. >>> >>> Neither is it /anyone's/ personal newsgroup, which is why we have >>> long-established conventions, known as "Netiquette", to help us to get >>> along better in email and on Usenet. >>> >>> One of those conventions, which was codified twenty years ago and >>> already well-established before that, is that sig blocks should not >>> exceed four lines of sixty-five characters. >>> >> >> First of all, that convention was more than 20 years ago. At that time >> Usenet was a lot more active and most people were using modems. There >> is very little usenet traffic now, and most people are using broadband. > > Nevertheless, it still makes sense for there to be a limit, does there not? > Whatever you say. You're the boss. >> Bitching about a 5 line sig vs. a 4 line sig are just being pedantic. > > Pedantry is a Good Thing in a programmer. Getting it right is actually > rather important. People who don't care about little details like that > generally don't make good programmers. > >> But Pointed Head is well known for that. > > Noting the tone of your reply to my appeal for reason, common sense, and > civility has taught me something important. Thank you. > Noting that you jumped into a conversation you had no part of to support a widely known troll has also taught me something important. Thank you. > <snip> > >>> Could I suggest that you folks try the >>> following every time you see something written by the other that you >>> disagree with: (1) try to write your reply as if the original article >>> had been written by a close and dear relative whom you don't wish to >>> offend, but whom needs putting right on a technical matter; (2) try to >>> find a way to end on a positive note. It might be less exciting for you, >>> but it will make much better reading in the archives. In the mirror of >>> history, flame wars *always* look bad. >>> >> >> Nice idea, but it's been tried before with the troll. It doesn't work. > > You have just supplied ample evidence, so I can hardly fault your > conclusion. > Just look him up. Check comp.lang.javascript, for instance (where I don't hang out - but Pointed Head has been all but kicked out of). -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 20:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmf0nt$s2f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15504 |
On 24/06/15 20:21, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 6/24/2015 1:48 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 24/06/15 14:21, Jerry Stuckle wrote: <snip> >>> First of all, that [sig block length] convention was [established] more >>> than 20 years ago. At that time >>> Usenet was a lot more active and most people were using modems. There >>> is very little usenet traffic now, and most people are using broadband. >> >> Nevertheless, it still makes sense for there to be a limit, does there not? > > Whatever you say. You're the boss. No, I'm not. Neither are you. That's why we have standards. >>> Bitching about a 5 line sig vs. a 4 line sig are just being pedantic. >> >> Pedantry is a Good Thing in a programmer. Getting it right is actually >> rather important. People who don't care about little details like that >> generally don't make good programmers. >> >>> But Pointed Head is well known for that. >> >> Noting the tone of your reply to my appeal for reason, common sense, and >> civility has taught me something important. Thank you. > > Noting that you jumped into a conversation you had no part of to support > a widely known troll has also taught me something important. Thank you. Usenet is a public discussion forum, and everyone is part of every conversation. If we want private conversations, we use email. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php
csiph-web