Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #529523
| From | dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Editorial |
| Date | 2015-10-31 17:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d9kp8rFt1rlU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <pan.2015.10.29.21.52.47@localhost.localdomain> <d9h23nFueotU1@mid.individual.net> <a2363b2d-7611-418a-b17e-fde6e30cac8d@googlegroups.com> <d9jme3Fk8t2U1@mid.individual.net> <ff15291e-0148-4ebd-bdfd-4f3f23843922@googlegroups.com> |
On 10/31/2015 2:13 PM, Mahipal wrote: > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 7:19:36 AM UTC-4, dvus wrote: >> On 10/30/2015 10:22 AM, Mahipal wrote: >>> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 7:20:30 AM UTC-4, dvus wrote: >>>> On 10/29/2015 5:52 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:49:37 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> we should >>>>>> contribute back to the community [with an Apple product] >>>> >>>> It's bad form to post-edit other people's words, especially with >>>> commercial endorsements. >>> >>> That is a major hurdle to deal with one, of many, Usenet's >>> failings. Nobody else should be allowed to edit any post they are >>> responding to. Nobody's, not even one's own post should be alterable. >> >> We all post subject to our provider's TOS. Beyond that, unless posting >> in a moderated group, Usenet is self-policing. Often, bringing >> unacceptable behavior to a poster's attention is all that's needed. > > Policing? Like in Police? I'm not allowed to write about any Police. Wot? Ah, in perusing the balance of your rambling remarks I have come to the unavoidable conclusion that you must be a kook. You answer unasked questions with "facts" not relevant to any of the discussion. >>>>> Ha, ha, ha, ha! I knew that the responses to this would include both >>>>> pro and con. Some will agree and some will disagree. How wonderfully >>>>> libertarian. >>>> >>>> ...and wonderfully Usenettian, to coin a word. Everyone is free to post >>>> what they will in an unmoderated forum like s.p. >>> >>> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Usenettian, so fairly new word. >>> However, you can search for "Usenetian" or "Usenet Ian" getting many results. >> >> Just proves that great minds think alike. > > Or just can't type. Great minds have names, not mere self-praising ego. Call the police! Someone stole your sense of humor. >>>>> The sad truth, however, is that a discussion group is not the place >>>>> for news aggregation (if you want it there is plenty of cheap software >>>>> for it). Furthermore, the aggregation of debased, puerile, and sophomoric >>>>> science news is especially inappropriate. >>>> >>>> Sounds like you'd like to moderate the posts in here according to what >>>> you believe is appropriate. >>> >>> More likely Fabian would like to raise the quality of discussions. >> >> Then he should post quality material instead of telling others what they >> should or should not post. > > Fabian's quality of discussion in only a few posts has already > surpassed the quality of any content Sam Wormley (SW) has provided -- > combined, cummulative, cut&repasted -- ever since his first post like > 54321+ posts ago. What are you dvus, SW's algorithm handler/provider? Your veering into kookdom here. Straighten out. >>> Unmoderated NGs have always been quality controlled by their >>> community. Sam would do well to start his own moderated NG. >> >> Why? The group in its present form seems to be working fine. If there >> are those who wish to form a moderated group there's a process for that. > > The group is working just fine?! This NG is fine? You have your own > set of definitions for words, I presume, too. All we get to do is try > to get misanthrope Sam to STFU. Tell Sam's handlers to pull his and > their own psychotic plug. Trust me, I'm being very Very VERY polite. But you're not making any sense! Polite nonsense is still nonsense. >>>>> Discussion involves a sincere and freeform inquiry as well as a spontaneous >>>>> and unstructured exchange. The prepackaged jabber of popular journalists >>>>> does not qualify. >>> >>> I like that. All, however popular, journalism has always been about >>> product placement or advertising specific institutions or promoting >>> short-listed peer-reviewed approved authors. The prepackaged jabber >>> just leads to dull and boring same-old homogenous literature. iApple! >>> >>>> Yet it sounds like you'd like to structure the postings according to >>>> what you believe qualifies. >>> >>> Nettiquete. Read all about it. Did I make a typo? Again... darn. >>> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Nettiquete >> >> I'm not a member of the grammar police so don't expect me to correct (or >> point out) yours. As long as I can extract the gist of your remarks I'm >> good to go. > > Spelling in science groups is rather a minor complaint given that the > vast majority of scientists are actually foreign to the English > language. Hell, I've been in crowded physics and engineering graduate > classes, as many as five students huddled together, like in any > no-brains@all TV_SITCOM (i.e., TBBT and every other sitcom else) > ... even the professors are English Pronunciation Challenged (EPC). > > If you want a career in Miss Spelling, go into Marketing, YouAssOfA@#. You appear to have a comprehension problem. I indicated I didn't care about grammar or spelling mistakes and you proceed to call me names over supposed spelling lames I didn't make. What's wrong with you? >> That said, it seems you feel Wormley has committed a breach of >> Netiquette by posting excerpts from scientific sources in a scientific >> newsgroup. I don't agree, but that's the beauty of Usenet. We get to >> disagree without worrying the Usenet police will come for us in the >> middle of the night! > > More police? You should know I helped engineer police tech, from their > guns, cars, lasers, body cameras, heat, coffee, donuts, databases > E-ZPass or BigDataBrother of WhatSoFuckYouEver@# fame, their over > weightness, bad haircuts, bald females, their macho high school > dropout sadistic attitudes, pathetic uniformed storm trooper looks, > their we are not of the people demeanor... o shit... traffic cop on my > ass again. I knew I should've got my tail and its light fixed. Damn > damn DAMN! What's my skin tone today, now?! Damn damn DMAN Squared! > It's been real folks. Bye bye BYE. I've to run to get shot now. I really don't care about your law enforcement career nor your apparent dislike for the police. That's filed under personal problems, please keep them personal. >>>> If a poster's contributions don't measure up to your standards you can >>>> always kill-file him or her. >>> >>> I notice you dvus are very new to Usenet, like only four posts. Why? >> >> Heh, you notice wrongly. But that's not important, on Usenet even >> beginners are welcome. > > Your doublespeak indicates you are no newborn to Usenet. How nice. Double-speak? PKB my friend. > I rely on the digital technology that tracks every keystroke ever > submitted to the WWW, of which Usenet is a mere subset. If said SW > tech is wrong, in error, which it very well could be since all the > development work is outsourced to ...youKnow, while all the real > brainy talent remains unemployed in WestVA, so... give me links to > your subject matter history. Or, better still, retype every word you > ever had the chance to write. Word for word, by Tuesday. Tia. Since the demise of Deja News I wonder where you're getting this complete archive of Usenet postings. My understanding is that Google Groups is far from complete in this area. >>> Killfiles are rather a bad idea, in retrospect. Would you not want to >>> correct abusive posters/trolls that would and do spread falsehoods >>> about other people on Usenet? Anonymized Nym-shifting psychotic >>> behaviour ought be prevented from happening. Repeated, routinely, >>> deliberately editing others' content; effectively attributing words to >>> someone else who never wrote them, is another major Usenet weakness. >> >> I have no desire to prevent anyone from saying anything. If I don't like >> something someone posts I'll say so, but I'll defend to the end their >> right to post what they wish in an unmoderated group. Remember, group >> names and even charters of unmoderated groups are merely advisory. If >> someone doesn't like reading an author's words he can kill-file him. > > You're infatuation with kill-files is strong. Are you in many of them? None I know of. You're welcome to add me to yours, though. > Or... would you==dvus care to publicize your own never-ending killfile? > Ftr, anybody who has posted their kill-file lists, only amounted to a > forgetful pile of heaping stinking this ...youKnow. I would, but I don't have a kill-file. I'm capable of ignoring people without one. > Moral: If all you got from Usenet is killfiles, then you really > ought go someplace else and find a worth your while hobby. See above. > Conundrum: Why do posters crap on Usenet to land in killfiles? Oye. > > Lesson: You may waste your own life's time, don't waste others'. If I'm wasting your time just move on to the next post. >>> Usenet NNTP servers end up propagating Sam's count of unwelcomed >>> bits. Perhaps bits are still not cheap for all those download NGs. >>> For part of 2015 alone, here's Sam's count of posts: >>> Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct >>> 283 890 618 602 607 >>> >>> Sam must be the most well read human on Earth, discussing ||0||! >> >> Good for him! If I didn't like what he posted I'd simply make sure I >> never saw it again. As it happens, I peruse everything he posts. It's >> unfortunate I have to also read the cut-n-paste replies of that other >> whiner, but that's Usenet for you. You take the good with the bad. > > Jim Pennino is allowed to cut and paste his own words/writings. Duh. Sure. I don't have to agree with his whinings, though. Yours either, for that matter. >>> If Sam, or anyone, displayed his kind of behaviour in a physical >>> discussion room, he would be hauled out of the building. Period. >> >> Have you considered that if there were rules against what he posts he >> might not do it? Since there isn't there's no reason for him not to. > > Yes, I have. Also, my motto too is 'Rules? There Are No Rules!' Well, there are some, they're in your providers TOS. Ignore them at your own peril. >>> Sam Worm Lie hounds this NG like there's no consequence of having a >>> posting history. Sam claims that jimp waits for his daily cut and >>> pastes. Seriously? Who in hell needs to wait?! What wait? Oye. >> >> Heh, nice ad hominem there. AFAIC, whether jimp waits or not is irrelevant. > > Whether Sam writes that Jim Pennino waits is relevant. If I wanted > just to hear people call eachother ad hominem insults, I would've > stayed married. Your wife used to call you names? I can't imagine why... >>> Sam Wormley, the greatest hypocrite in this NG, of all time, projects >>> he is providing a service by hogging all bandwidth without more than a >>> single word of 'discussion' or his always poorly written one sentence >>> responses. Sam is the psychology experiment of Unmoderated Gone Mad. >> >> You're accusing Wormley of violating rules that don't exist. That's not >> nice! > > I measurably do not complain that much about spellings or grammar. If > my teachers/professors who grade me for my potentially marketable Yawn > Career@#, then I will desperately bitch: How in Hell is Sam a Professor?! Ask Sam if you're that interested. Why the straw man about spelling lames? >>> There are only a handful of readers and posters on any given NG. Sam >>> bombarding them with copyright violating posts demonstrates a severe >>> misunderstanding of the Usenet Charter, in any language. It's also >>> very poor marketing. It's not even very good propoganda. Most of all, >>> his contribution is not a discussion. >> >> I'm aware of no rule that states one must include any original content >> in ones posts. If you know of such a rule please cite it. > > Copyright Laws, within USA or WIPO, for one. If you have no original > content, or mere original discussion of other's content, of your own, > then stay the fuck off of your key SEND buttons. Have I forgotten to include original content or is that accusation just a deflection? >>> -- Mahipal "IPMM, wow I get four whole lines for a signature?!" >>> In today's media -- paper or otherwise -- Comedians want for being >>> Journalists while Journalism has become Comedy. Very JCJC or CJCJ... >>> >> BTW, you're using unconventional syntax in your .sig. The "-- " >> delineator should be on a line by itself in order to be properly read >> and acted upon by a reader's news client. > > Thanks, I know. But that's m(y) thing, a double negative makes a +. > >> -- >> dvus > > I write for human eyes, SW news clients just block way to get there. > > -- Mahipal "IPMM, word games are not just a PunIshMent! O weight..." So you use a .sig deliminator that doesn't deliminate? Weird, but it's your choice. -- dvus
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Editorial Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 15:49 -0500
Re: Editorial gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-29 16:21 -0500
Re: Editorial jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-29 21:24 +0000
Re: Editorial Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 18:59 -0500
Re: Editorial jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 05:04 +0000
Re: Editorial Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 08:25 -0500
Re: Editorial jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 16:58 +0000
Re: Editorial "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:14 -0800
Re: Editorial Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-29 21:52 +0000
Re: Editorial dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-10-30 07:20 -0400
Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 07:22 -0700
Re: Editorial dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-10-31 07:19 -0400
Re: Editorial Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-31 18:14 +0000
Re: Editorial dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-10-31 17:15 -0400
Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 11:13 -0700
Re: Editorial dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-10-31 17:14 -0400
Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 16:28 -0700
Re: Editorial xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-31 18:20 -0700
Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 01:54 -0800
Re: Editorial "Bobby Enriquez" <invalide@eyample.com> - 2015-11-01 06:36 -0800
Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:35 -0800
Re: Editorial "Mike Smith" <invalidd@example.com> - 2015-11-01 09:06 -0800
Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 09:32 -0800
Re: Editorial "Hank Hill" <invalidd@example.com> - 2015-11-01 11:03 -0800
Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:25 -0800
Re: Editorial gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-01 23:18 -0600
Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 04:02 -0800
Re: Editorial gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-02 08:41 -0600
Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:34 -0800
Re: Editorial "Maple Hall" <invalud@example.com> - 2015-11-02 07:01 -0800
Re: Editorial dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-01 10:36 -0500
Re: Editorial Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:55 -0800
Re: Editorial Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-10-30 11:32 -0400
Re: Editorial "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 13:18 -0700
Re: Editorial jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 20:36 +0000
Re: Editorial pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 15:18 -0700
Re: Editorial "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 23:16 -0700
Re: Editorial dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-10-31 07:42 -0400
Re: Editorial Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 18:54 -0500
Re: Editorial Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 18:51 -0500
Re: Editorial David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2015-11-01 18:59 -0500
Re: Editorial Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 19:32 -0600
Re: Editorial benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 01:06 -0500
csiph-web