Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #452967 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 05:53 +0200 |
| Last post | 2018-06-03 09:44 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 177 — 40 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-06-01 05:53 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 08:41 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 08:23 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions ooze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 10:12 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 07:29 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 08:05 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-06-01 08:16 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 08:27 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-01 16:59 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 15:06 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-01 19:02 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2018-06-02 01:09 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-01 19:24 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:21 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 11:36 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 09:01 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2018-06-01 13:14 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 17:15 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit ignores the 9th amendment <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 15:19 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-01 23:44 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 18:57 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 16:03 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 19:24 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 16:27 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit ignores the 9th amendment <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 16:54 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:21 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 05:23 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-02 20:20 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:25 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 16:31 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:35 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 16:43 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-03 14:59 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-03 11:03 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-03 15:12 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-06-03 17:35 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:19 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-03 14:23 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-03 19:00 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:17 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <nobody@haph.org> - 2018-06-03 16:42 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:49 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-02 20:50 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 17:02 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-03 14:59 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-03 11:03 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:20 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-08 11:11 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 08:29 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 10:38 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2018-06-08 18:40 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-08 13:03 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2018-06-08 12:20 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 11:21 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 12:31 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 12:14 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Knarf Gewtools <that@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-06-08 20:12 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-08 17:54 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2018-06-09 01:04 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Karen <karen.sandler@videoanimationshub.com> - 2018-06-09 16:10 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 16:00 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@anonymous.com> - 2018-06-01 11:36 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 11:40 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit wants to repeal the 2A <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 09:51 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 17:03 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2018-06-02 00:12 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-01 22:23 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-01 18:02 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 14:14 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit wants to repeal the 2A <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 11:39 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-06-02 00:19 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-06-01 22:21 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-06-02 00:25 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-02 09:15 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-01 22:36 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 15:39 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-06-01 22:44 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 18:57 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 16:01 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 22:03 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 22:12 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Md" <mdhonda6@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 03:43 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit ignores the 9th amendment <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 16:06 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2018-06-02 02:10 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2018-06-02 01:36 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 11:32 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-01 22:18 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 15:26 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <nobody@haph.org> - 2018-06-01 19:47 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 17:14 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 14:21 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@foto.nl1.torservers.net> - 2018-06-01 17:38 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 01:19 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit ignores the 9th amendment <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 17:40 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-02 01:18 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:19 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-02 03:14 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:23 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-02 03:39 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:55 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 00:01 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 21:04 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:12 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 00:25 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:36 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-02 04:40 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:43 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-06-01 23:12 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 23:57 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 14:04 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-06-02 10:18 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 18:28 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:54 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@foto.nl1.torservers.net> - 2018-06-02 17:30 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 22:36 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-06-02 22:13 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 21:21 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-06-02 11:01 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-06-02 11:21 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 11:28 -0700
Re: Off-Topic in the privacy group "Orland" <orland.tamlinson@aol.com> - 2018-06-03 02:41 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-03 03:23 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 20:45 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2018-06-02 13:12 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 21:19 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-03 03:29 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-03 18:52 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-03 21:20 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-06-04 00:18 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions tom <tom@0.0.0.0> - 2018-06-12 23:22 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2018-06-14 00:29 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 00:01 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:15 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 21:36 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:40 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-06-03 03:08 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 20:48 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:22 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 14:05 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 01:18 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-06-02 01:15 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2018-06-02 04:56 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 14:08 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 06:13 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 14:09 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions tom <tom@0.0.0.0> - 2018-06-01 18:00 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 06:27 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@anonymous.com> - 2018-06-01 08:40 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 07:14 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-01 23:43 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <anonymous@foto.nl1.torservers.net> - 2018-06-01 19:19 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> - 2018-06-02 00:24 +0100
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions tom <tom@0.0.0.0> - 2018-06-01 17:57 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit ignores the 9th amendment <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 18:27 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 11:21 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-01 11:38 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 10:42 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 09:02 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 10:40 -0500
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 09:03 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions tom <tom@0.0.0.0> - 2018-06-01 17:54 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Anonymous <nobody@haph.org> - 2018-06-01 21:48 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-02 09:28 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 09:55 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 07:31 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-06-02 17:48 +0200
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 10:24 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:41 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Landon" <coordinarter@googlemail.com> - 2018-06-02 21:05 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-02 22:38 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:45 -0700
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-03 00:42 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions "Landom" <coordinarter@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:57 +0000
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-02 23:14 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-06-02 23:46 -0400
Re: Consumers' privacy concerns not backed by their actions oOze <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-06-03 09:44 -0400
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Anonymous <nobody@haph.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 16:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d04d7caf6c9ca8e63482b5f7d1065e12@haph.org> |
| In reply to | #453699 |
In article <pf1ktd.3co.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > On 6/3/18 7:59 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > >> On 6/2/18 1:31 PM, nospam wrote: > > >>> In article <fngcqiF8a4tU1@mid.individual.net>, Snit > > >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>>>>> I'll stick to the one 90% of the population uses. More programs > > >>>>>>>> available > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> yep > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> (no I won't say "apps", those are for phones), > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> app is short for application, a term that dates back at least to the > > >>>>>>> 80s, probably even earlier > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Right. It is the term Apple has used since AT LEAST the start of the Mac. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Who cares!? We're talking about the *real* world! (Just kidding!) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> FWIW, I only first encountered the term for mobile devices, yes > > >>>>> Apples'. OTOH, 'applet' was known (to me) well before that time. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> You only encountered it with mobile devices so you think that means the > > >>>> term was not used... and more than that want to restrict how others use > > >>>> the term! > > >>>> > > >>>> Why? > > >>> > > >>> <https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/10/14/the-rise-of-the-app/> > > >>> But, unlike smartphones and tablets, app isnšt new. According to the > > >>> OED?s historical entry for the word, app as a shortening of > > >>> application (as in application program) first found its way into > > >>> print in the 1980s. Back then it was mainly a colloquial term used in > > >>> computing circles: the OED?s early quotations for it come from such > > >>> computing trade publications as Info World and Dr. Dobbšs Journal. It > > >>> often appeared not by itself but as part of the phrase killer app, > > >>> meaning a software application which makes a new computing platform > > >>> desirable or necessary. Later, it became part of webapp, meaning an > > >>> application made available as a website, but as a word used on its > > >>> own it remained relatively uncommon. > > >> > > >> Good to see you found where "application" has been in use for quite some > > >> time in this context. Heck, if you go to 1984 with the Macintosh it was > > >> the primary term used. Since then it has been often shortened to just > > >> "app", much as "Macintosh" itself has been shortened to "Mac". > > > > > > Huh? The discussion was not about the term 'application', but about > > > the term 'app'. IME, the term 'application' has been in use at least as > > > > "App" as an abbreviation for "application" goes back to at least 1981. > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/app> > > ----- > > First Known Use of APP > > 1981 > > ----- > > It would have been nice if this part gave a actual reference. Not that > I doubt it, but without a reference, it's just a date. > > > The word itself, with any meaning, has been around a LOT longer, tjough > > in recent years spiking in 1991 and 2003: > > <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/app> > > > > (See the "Trends of 'app'" section. " > > But *because* the word "has been around a LOT longer", we have no > indication whether or not that spike is (only) for the computer-related > meaning of the word or (also) for the *non* computer-related meanings > (appendix, applied, appointed, apprentice, approved, etc. (appetizer > (Merriam-Webster)). > > Anyway, considering what this (non-)discussion is about, it's funny to > see that both your references *do* confirm *our* (Jimmy Wilkinson Knife's > and my) POV! :-) : > > [Emphasis mine:] > > <MW> > *especially* : an application designed for a mobile device (such as a > smartphone) > </MW> > > <CD> > An app is a computer program that is designed for use on a mobile > digital device. > ... > App in British > ... > *esp* downloaded to a mobile device > </CD> > > (AFAIC,) EOD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 13:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f56b0db-49cc-4cf0-84b2-1b69c0387df1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453699 |
On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 12:00:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > On 6/3/18 7:59 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > >> On 6/2/18 1:31 PM, nospam wrote: > > >>> In article <fngcqiF8a4tU1@mid.individual.net>, Snit > > >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>>>>> I'll stick to the one 90% of the population uses. More programs > > >>>>>>>> available > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> yep > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> (no I won't say "apps", those are for phones), > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> app is short for application, a term that dates back at least to the > > >>>>>>> 80s, probably even earlier > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Right. It is the term Apple has used since AT LEAST the start of the Mac. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Who cares!? We're talking about the *real* world! (Just kidding!) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> FWIW, I only first encountered the term for mobile devices, yes > > >>>>> Apples'. OTOH, 'applet' was known (to me) well before that time. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> You only encountered it with mobile devices so you think that means the > > >>>> term was not used... and more than that want to restrict how others use > > >>>> the term! > > >>>> > > >>>> Why? > > >>> > > >>> <https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/10/14/the-rise-of-the-app/> > > >>> But, unlike smartphones and tablets, app isnıt new. According to the > > >>> OED?s historical entry for the word, app as a shortening of > > >>> application (as in application program) first found its way into > > >>> print in the 1980s. Back then it was mainly a colloquial term used in > > >>> computing circles: the OED?s early quotations for it come from such > > >>> computing trade publications as Info World and Dr. Dobbıs Journal. It > > >>> often appeared not by itself but as part of the phrase killer app, > > >>> meaning a software application which makes a new computing platform > > >>> desirable or necessary. Later, it became part of webapp, meaning an > > >>> application made available as a website, but as a word used on its > > >>> own it remained relatively uncommon. > > >> > > >> Good to see you found where "application" has been in use for quite some > > >> time in this context. Heck, if you go to 1984 with the Macintosh it was > > >> the primary term used. Since then it has been often shortened to just > > >> "app", much as "Macintosh" itself has been shortened to "Mac". > > > > > > Huh? The discussion was not about the term 'application', but about > > > the term 'app'. IME, the term 'application' has been in use at least as > > > > "App" as an abbreviation for "application" goes back to at least 1981. > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/app> > > ----- > > First Known Use of APP > > 1981 > > ----- > > It would have been nice if this part gave a actual reference. Not that > I doubt it, but without a reference, it's just a date. > > > The word itself, with any meaning, has been around a LOT longer, tjough > > in recent years spiking in 1991 and 2003: > > <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/app> > > > > (See the "Trends of 'app'" section. " > > But *because* the word "has been around a LOT longer", we have no > indication whether or not that spike is (only) for the computer-related > meaning of the word or (also) for the *non* computer-related meanings > (appendix, applied, appointed, apprentice, approved, etc. (appetizer > (Merriam-Webster)). > > Anyway, considering what this (non-)discussion is about, it's funny to > see that both your references *do* confirm *our* (Jimmy Wilkinson Knife's > and my) POV! :-) : > > [Emphasis mine:] > > <MW> > *especially* : an application designed for a mobile device (such as a > smartphone) > </MW> > > <CD> > An app is a computer program that is designed for use on a mobile > digital device. > ... > App in British > ... > *esp* downloaded to a mobile device > </CD> > > (AFAIC,) EOD. After yesterday's update I no longer have a working system. Thanks Fedora! I am not fuming, he wants me to be but I'm busting a gut because William Poaster's nonsense is so juvenile. He actively did not list all the specifications that he would later focus on... and we all know why, William Poaster could not hide it if he tried. At least he has his own socks in his corner. LOL! Right, William Poaster is seeking to retail a WordPress reference, which Michael Glasser Snit can get for free, that allows him to flood multiple groups. If he could stop being so screwed up he would realize how ignorant he is ;) -- One Smart Penny! http://comp.os.linux.advocacy.narkive.com/711dskzA/steven-petruzzellis-admits-he-can-not-back-his-claims-about-snit http://www.5z8.info/killallimmigrants_j6f7mm_gruesome-gunshot-wounds http://www.5z8.info/freeanimalporn.com-start-download_s9j7do_dogporn Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pev707.8dg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453345 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/2/18 1:20 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/1/18 3:57 PM, nospam wrote:
> >>> In article <op.zjyb4ah9u3fn8d@red.lan>, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
> >>> <nowhere@somewear.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'll stick to the one 90% of the population uses. More programs available
> >>>
> >>> yep
> >>>
> >>>> (no I won't say "apps", those are for phones),
> >>>
> >>> app is short for application, a term that dates back at least to the
> >>> 80s, probably even earlier
> >>
> >> Right. It is the term Apple has used since AT LEAST the start of the Mac.
> >
> > Who cares!? We're talking about the *real* world! (Just kidding!)
> >
> > FWIW, I only first encountered the term for mobile devices, yes
> > Apples'. OTOH, 'applet' was known (to me) well before that time.
>
> You only encountered it with mobile devices so you think that means the
> term was not used... and more than that want to restrict how others use
> the term!
>
> Why?
First of all, as I said, I was kidding, so easy does it.
Secondly, don't read between the lines and don't put words in my mouth
("you think", "want to restrict").
FWIW, I've been working in the computer industry since the late 60s
and I did not encounter the term 'app' before mobile devices. I think
it was probably mostly an Apple-thing. nospam says that it's not (an
Apple-thing), but as usual he doesn't back up his claims.
Current standing: Two versus two.
(AFAIC,) EOD (of this issue).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 17:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <020620181702060489%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #453359 |
In article <pev707.8dg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > FWIW, I've been working in the computer industry since the late 60s > and I did not encounter the term 'app' before mobile devices. I think > it was probably mostly an Apple-thing. nospam says that it's not (an > Apple-thing), but as usual he doesn't back up his claims. as usual, i did. here it is again: <https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/10/14/the-rise-of-the-app/> But, unlike smartphones and tablets, app isn¹t new. According to the OEDŒs historical entry for the word, app as a shortening of application (as in application program) first found its way into print in the 1980s. Back then it was mainly a colloquial term used in computing circles: the OEDŒs early quotations for it come from such computing trade publications as Info World and Dr. Dobb¹s Journal. It often appeared not by itself but as part of the phrase killer app, meaning a software application which makes a new computing platform desirable or necessary. Later, it became part of webapp, meaning an application made available as a website, but as a word used on its own it remained relatively uncommon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 14:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf150c.80s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453361 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <pev707.8dg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I've been working in the computer industry since the late 60s
> > and I did not encounter the term 'app' before mobile devices. I think
> > it was probably mostly an Apple-thing. nospam says that it's not (an
> > Apple-thing), but as usual he doesn't back up his claims.
>
> as usual, i did.
Yeah, I saw your reference after my post. Too small a time difference,
20 minutes.
> here it is again:
> <https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/10/14/the-rise-of-the-app/>
> But, unlike smartphones and tablets, app isn¹t new. According to the
> OED?s historical entry for the word, app as a shortening of
> application (as in application program) first found its way into
> print in the 1980s. Back then it was mainly a colloquial term used in
> computing circles: the OED?s early quotations for it come from such
> computing trade publications as Info World and Dr. Dobb¹s Journal. It
> often appeared not by itself but as part of the phrase killer app,
> meaning a software application which makes a new computing platform
> desirable or necessary. Later, it became part of webapp, meaning an
> application made available as a website, but as a word used on its
> own it remained relatively uncommon.
Your reference confirms that the use of 'app' by itself was uncommon.
Anyway, I was only describing *my* experience with the term ('app'),
but apparently some people have problems parsing 'I', 'me', etc..
EOD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 11:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <030620181103489865%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #453644 |
In article <pf150c.80s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > > FWIW, I've been working in the computer industry since the late 60s
> > > and I did not encounter the term 'app' before mobile devices. I think
> > > it was probably mostly an Apple-thing. nospam says that it's not (an
> > > Apple-thing), but as usual he doesn't back up his claims.
> >
> > as usual, i did.
>
> Yeah, I saw your reference after my post. Too small a time difference,
> 20 minutes.
>
> > here it is again:
> > <https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/10/14/the-rise-of-the-app/>
> > But, unlike smartphones and tablets, app isn¹t new. According to the
> > OED?s historical entry for the word, app as a shortening of
> > application (as in application program) first found its way into
> > print in the 1980s. Back then it was mainly a colloquial term used in
> > computing circles: the OED?s early quotations for it come from such
> > computing trade publications as Info World and Dr. Dobb¹s Journal. It
> > often appeared not by itself but as part of the phrase killer app,
> > meaning a software application which makes a new computing platform
> > desirable or necessary. Later, it became part of webapp, meaning an
> > application made available as a website, but as a word used on its
> > own it remained relatively uncommon.
>
> Your reference confirms that the use of 'app' by itself was uncommon.
common or not, the use of the term began well before smartphones.
> Anyway, I was only describing *my* experience with the term ('app'),
> but apparently some people have problems parsing 'I', 'me', etc..
ok.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 07:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k4tkhd5s3erkq09m30qrs7bjusmlasblgf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #453343 |
Frank Slootweg wrote: >Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: *plonk*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 11:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <o47lhd96envucuetgm17op3ef25l34sd15@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #454398 |
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 07:20:41 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >Frank Slootweg wrote: > >>Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >*plonk* Soon, the only things that won't be "plonked" are your own posts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 08:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46fb175e-bc6e-4649-af71-07c9fea09b59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454414 |
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 8:11:47 AM UTC-7, SilverSlimer wrote: > On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 07:20:41 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > > >Frank Slootweg wrote: > > > >>Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > > >*plonk* > > Soon, the only things that won't be "plonked" are your own posts. I think we have different views entirely. Just look at what Jonas Eklundh Communication AB has posted and look at Steven Carroll's, there is nothing for anyone to learn from a mindless moron like Jonas Eklundh Communication AB. But hey, let him keep making a dunce of himself. I am sure one of his stooges will come to the rescue. What is Jonas Eklundh Communication AB's tool for the flooding deluge? SC? That is the only database he knows, at least that I have seen. He must be programming it to create these goofy "flooding" threads. Lemme idea, Jonas Eklundh Communication AB took a FireFox extension that he hacked and pretended was his... he's feeding it data from the program, grabbing hand-picked paragraphs, then altering those using the Bellman–Ford algorithm and then he actively posts them because his insomnia enables him to do that almost constantly. I shan't ask Jonas Eklundh Communication AB how any part of Steven Carroll's body tastes no matter how habitually Jonas Eklundh Communication AB kisses it. Why do you keep rephrasing yourself? You installed and benchmarked it and your "extensive experience" lead you to that conclusion, so what? Just nonsense from Jonas Eklundh Communication AB. But he has completely left reason behind and is merely holding me culpable for the deeds of himself. What did Jonas Eklundh Communication AB have to say about this miraculous, years long string of oddities? Most of the time he would try to push Steven Carroll to believe they're "honest and honorable" posters who just happened to have great timing. Makes no sense. -- This broke the Internet! https://goo.gl/Fho5Nq https://redd.it/6sfkup https://redd.it/6sfhq6 Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 10:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ia8lhddnpf13gpa6dnkvsauj71hko9hi23@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #454414 |
SilverSlimer wrote: > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >>Frank Slootweg wrote: >> >>>Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>*plonk* > > Soon, the only things that won't be "plonked" are your own posts. Nah. Today's batch of plonkees were all from other newsgroups. I just felt like making the point that troll feeding is not advisable behavior. -- 'I have noted before how the herd sees me as a god.' - the "Snit" thing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d6559e02f871af866218652ba4c8b673@hoi-polloi.org> |
| In reply to | #454418 |
In article <ia8lhddnpf13gpa6dnkvsauj71hko9hi23@4ax.com> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > SilverSlimer wrote: > > > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > >>Frank Slootweg wrote: > >> > >>>Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> > >>*plonk* > > > > Soon, the only things that won't be "plonked" are your own posts. > > Nah. Today's batch of plonkees were all from other newsgroups. I > just felt like making the point that troll feeding is not advisable > behavior. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 13:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <endlhd57mvta3vkg22j3k72nsaiir94o95@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #454418 |
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 10:38:37 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >-- >'I have noted before how the herd sees me as a god.' - the "Snit" >thing Damn, our standards must have dropped to critical levels!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 12:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fnvs6jF6mv9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454441 |
On 06/08/2018 12:03 PM, SilverSlimer wrote: > On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 10:38:37 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > >> -- >> 'I have noted before how the herd sees me as a god.' - the "Snit" >> thing > > Damn, our standards must have dropped to critical levels! > Yep, its a bitch when you have to dig *up* to find the bottom. Rene
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 11:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <765314f4-a4b9-4cd8-991e-1f11a5586aa4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454441 |
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 10:03:54 AM UTC-7, SilverSlimer wrote: > On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 10:38:37 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > > >-- > >'I have noted before how the herd sees me as a god.' - the "Snit" > >thing > > Damn, our standards must have dropped to critical levels! John Gohde can't get anything else to work, either. Snit and Berners-Lee had their public farts and their errors. But one played it well and didn't do anything too publicly that could not be presented as stage magic. You're clueless! Rambling cretin. So, yeah, I buy into my own make believe world, fully knowing it is not real, because it makes me reconsider my program, improving it. Having to tolerate the use of Mint it can hardly be called "free" when you include your time. -- Top 15 Ways John Gohde Trolls http://prescottcomputerguy.com/screenflow http://bit.ly/2oNYRgv Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 12:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo03spF8581U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454448 |
On 6/8/18 11:21 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 10:03:54 AM UTC-7, SilverSlimer wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 10:38:37 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> --
>>> 'I have noted before how the herd sees me as a god.' - the "Snit"
>>> thing
>>
>> Damn, our standards must have dropped to critical levels!
>
>
>
> John Gohde can't get anything else to work, either. Snit and Berners-Lee had their public farts and their errors.
More of one than the other! :)
> But one played it well and didn't do anything too publicly that could not be presented as stage magic. You're clueless! Rambling cretin.
>
> So, yeah, I buy into my own make believe world, fully knowing it is not real, because it makes me reconsider my program, improving it.
Great quote!
Steve Carroll:
-----
So, yeah, I buy into my own make believe world, fully knowing
it is not real, because it makes me reconsider my program,
improving it.
-----
I should start a list like I have for Peter with your comments.
> Having to tolerate the use of Mint it can hardly be called "free" when you include your time.
What is?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo02t8F80giU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454441 |
On 6/8/18 10:03 AM, SilverSlimer wrote: > On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 10:38:37 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > >> -- >> 'I have noted before how the herd sees me as a god.' - the "Snit" >> thing > > Damn, our standards must have dropped to critical levels! > Hey, Carroll still claims I am a Hollywood Hacker who can do things it took he and Sandman years to figure out, AND that I hacked his Gmail account in a way Google and "several federal agencies" could not (and cannot) stop. Yeah, pretty much a god. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Knarf Gewtools <that@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 20:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfev0l.mio.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454418 |
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > SilverSlimer wrote: > > > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > >>Frank Slootweg wrote: > >> > >>>Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> > >>*plonk* > > > > Soon, the only things that won't be "plonked" are your own posts. > > Nah. Today's batch of plonkees were all from other newsgroups. I > just felt like making the point that troll feeding is not advisable > behavior. If *that* is your opinion/criticism, then *say* so! Publicly announcing a plonk is one of the most childish things one can do and doing so, you put yourself in the 'troll' - or worse - category. FYI, your opinion/advice is duly noted and will be honoured/ignored as *I* see fit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 17:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jlulhd1401oig7qrtpu182fqml3oh5fcjn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #454466 |
On 8 Jun 2018 20:12:48 GMT, Knarf Gewtools <that@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> SilverSlimer wrote: >> >> > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >>Frank Slootweg wrote: >> >> >> >>>Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>*plonk* >> > >> > Soon, the only things that won't be "plonked" are your own posts. >> >> Nah. Today's batch of plonkees were all from other newsgroups. I >> just felt like making the point that troll feeding is not advisable >> behavior. > > If *that* is your opinion/criticism, then *say* so! > > Publicly announcing a plonk is one of the most childish things one can >do and doing so, you put yourself in the 'troll' - or worse - category. > > FYI, your opinion/advice is duly noted and will be honoured/ignored as >*I* see fit. In addition to his "plonk" and "snipped, unread" posts, chrisv also contributes a number of articles containing the "fsck" used to replace the f-word and quotes of people "lying shamelessly." He's highly entertaining when he's not being a dick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 01:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a27d0d5d71be8df6b6e8491824e32d32@hoi-polloi.org> |
| In reply to | #454492 |
In article <jlulhd1401oig7qrtpu182fqml3oh5fcjn@4ax.com> SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > On 8 Jun 2018 20:12:48 GMT, Knarf Gewtools <that@ddress.is.invalid> > wrote: > > >chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> SilverSlimer wrote: > >> > >> > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> > > >> >>Frank Slootweg wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>*plonk* > >> > > >> > Soon, the only things that won't be "plonked" are your own posts. > >> > >> Nah. Today's batch of plonkees were all from other newsgroups. I > >> just felt like making the point that troll feeding is not advisable > >> behavior. > > > > If *that* is your opinion/criticism, then *say* so! > > > > Publicly announcing a plonk is one of the most childish things one can > >do and doing so, you put yourself in the 'troll' - or worse - category. > > > > FYI, your opinion/advice is duly noted and will be honoured/ignored as > >*I* see fit. > > In addition to his "plonk" and "snipped, unread" posts, chrisv also > contributes a number of articles containing the "fsck" used to replace > the f-word and quotes of people "lying shamelessly." > > He's highly entertaining when he's not being a dick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Karen <karen.sandler@videoanimationshub.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 16:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a9430005e0c76f169682e41ae7c37b4a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> |
| In reply to | #454466 |
In article <pfev0l.mio.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> Knarf Gewtools <that@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > SilverSlimer wrote: > > > > > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > > > >>Frank Slootweg wrote: > > >> > > >>>Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>*plonk* > > > > > > Soon, the only things that won't be "plonked" are your own posts. > > > > Nah. Today's batch of plonkees were all from other newsgroups. I > > just felt like making the point that troll feeding is not advisable > > behavior. > > If *that* is your opinion/criticism, then *say* so! > > Publicly announcing a plonk is one of the most childish things one can > do and doing so, you put yourself in the 'troll' - or worse - category. > > FYI, your opinion/advice is duly noted and will be honoured/ignored as > *I* see fit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web