«

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 03:36:07 +0800, "Billabong" <> wrote:

Live with it. This is Usenet and totally unregulated and that is how
most prefer it. I have a cyber stalker who has followed me around for
at least 5 years now and I don't even kill file him. He has advertised
in my name in Homosexual NG and regularly posts sexual advertisements
in my name or even in my wife's name together with telephone numbers
and email addys. It is something I learned to live with long ago but
originally I did go around having posts withdrawn and ISP disconnects
but I realised I was spending my time on nonsense. Just ignore it.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:04:21 +0800, Billabong wrote:

> I will probably do the same, as I have described in my new webpsge
> yesterday. See below if interested.

Nobody is interested in your bullshit "website", you ignorant ****ing
spammer. **** off and die.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

Billabong wrote:
> "Peter Clements"

>> I realised I was spending my time on nonsense. Just ignore it.
>
> I will probably do the same, as I have described in my new webpsge
> yesterday. See below if interested.
> www.usenet1.hrvat.name

That link above, your page indicates a significant
misunderstanding/misrepresentation of a conversation seen here, the mid
below is the first message in a thread which later contains remarks by BTS

http://snipr.com/u1oil
Newsgroups: alt.comp.anti-virus
Subject: AVG with MBAM
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:40:03 -0600
Message-ID: <

and more specifically this post by BTS

From: "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:56:35 -0500
Message-ID: <hiajh3$fij$

In that message thread, BTS is criticizing the way you were posting the
link to your site, namely, you gave an answer to a question and posted a
tinyurl link integrated with the answer to the question, as if there
were an answer to the question at the tinyurl link.

He is saying that -1- your site's link doesn't need a tiny because the
actual link itself is short -2- your site's link should be in a *sig*
which is what I said earlier, not as part of a signoff which looks like
an answer to a question

Altogether, the way you are doing it is spammish; because you are
misleading the people who read your message to believe that if they
click the tiny link they will get a more comprehensive answer to their
question; and/but in reality, you are just posting a link to your
personal website.

A link to your personal website does not belong up in a normal message
body. That kind of link only belongs in a sig.

The 'definition' of a sig is that it be at the end of a message and
properly delimited. The last line of message body content is followed
by an empty line and that empty line is followed by a line which
contains only dash dash space and then the next line is such as a line
or so containing your name and a link to your personal website, which in
this case should not be obfuscated by a tiny url.


--
Mike Easter

Mike Easter wrote:
> Billabong wrote:

>> I will probably do the same, as I have described in my new webpsge
>> yesterday. See below if interested.
>> www.usenet1.hrvat.name
>
> That link above, your page indicates a significant
> misunderstanding/misrepresentation of a conversation

> In that message thread, BTS is criticizing the way you were posting the
> link to your site,

> He is saying that -1- your site's link doesn't need a tiny because the
> actual link itself is short -2- your site's link should be in a *sig*
> which is what I said earlier, not as part of a signoff which looks like
> an answer to a question
>
> Altogether, the way you are doing it is spammish;

This recent message by you...

From: "Billabong"
Newsgroups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Subject: Re: Improve the quality of Usenet
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:12:55 +0800
Message-ID: <>

.... shows a properly delimited sig which contains a link to your site
which is not shortened/obscured with a tiny.

That type of sig link is acceptable and doesn't misrepresent, not the
way you were doing it in a.c.a-v which led to the BTS criticism.


--
Mike Easter

Billabong wrote:
> "Mike Easter"

>> That link above, your page indicates a significant
>> misunderstanding/misrepresentation of a conversation

> OK Mike, I have done as BTS requested, and have done it in a way you have
> just outlined, which you can check for yourself.

Good.

Another good thing to understand is what is top posting, what is
untrimmed bottom posting, and what is trim and context.

Top posting is undesirable. Untrimmed bottom posting is undesirable.
Trim and context is optimal.

You answered my message with an untrimmed bottom post which was so
severely untrimmed as to leave my sig in place. I am answering your
message with trim and context.

Your newsreader trims nothing for you. You have to do 100% of your
trimming by hand editing.


--
Mike Easter

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:35:24 -0500, Alec Lourmier
<> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:47:45 +0000, Peter Clements <>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 03:36:07 +0800, "Billabong" <> wrote:
>>
>>Live with it. This is Usenet and totally unregulated and that is how
>>most prefer it. I have a cyber stalker who has followed me around for
>>at least 5 years now and I don't even kill file him. He has advertised
>>in my name in Homosexual NG and regularly posts sexual advertisements
>>in my name or even in my wife's name together with telephone numbers
>>and email addys. It is something I learned to live with long ago but
>>originally I did go around having posts withdrawn and ISP disconnects
>>but I realised I was spending my time on nonsense. Just ignore it.
>
>I have to give you credit for learning to deal with that... but how
>and (more importantly) why did you make that information public in the
>first place?

I am a public person and there is much about me publically available.

Billabong wrote:
> "Mike Easter"

>> Top posting is undesirable. Untrimmed bottom posting is undesirable. Trim
>> and context is optimal.

> I thought that fiddling with people's messages is an awfull
> thing to do, unpolite to say the least.

When someone posts a message, *that* is /their/ message.

When you /reply/ to someone's message, that is *your* message. It is
your responsibility to cause your message to be responding *directly* to
some particular line or lines in what they said. That way people know
exactly what you are saying (about).

You only want to keep some tiny fragment of someone else's message to
serve as a 'key' or intro - introduction/ context/ lead in/ - to
whatever your message is.

When you reply to someone's message and your newsreader 'quotes' every
single thing they said, including their sig in your newsreader's case,
you need to remove almost everything which your newsreader has quoted.

Save one line or part of one line if possible. If (absolutely)
necessary, save a little bit more.

While you are trimming, it will focus your 'gaze' on the exact words of
their message to which you are getting ready to reply.

That trimming and that 'gaze' will cause your reply to be especially
responsive to the exact words to which you should reply just under an
empty line under those exact words to which you are replying.

> I will try to do that in the future.

If you are not responding to one single line or so, but instead you are
responding 'globally' to some big complicated concept which the other
posting party has posted, then you should not quote anything of what
they said before, because that is not sufficiently /succinct/ or to the
point.

Instead, you should delete *everything* they said, and then 'paraphrase'
their message meaning as accurately as you can, by saying "So and so
explained that Croatia's territory has been populated by Neanderthals,
Greeks, Romans, and Avars before the Kingdom of Croatia in the 7th century."


--
Mike Easter

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:07:51 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> Billabong wrote:
>> "Mike Easter"
>
>>> Top posting is undesirable. Untrimmed bottom posting is undesirable.
>>> Trim and context is optimal.
>
>> I thought that fiddling with people's messages is an awfull thing to
>> do, unpolite to say the least.
>
> When someone posts a message, *that* is /their/ message.
>
> When you /reply/ to someone's message, that is *your* message. It is
> your responsibility to cause your message to be responding *directly* to
> some particular line or lines in what they said. That way people know
> exactly what you are saying (about).
>
> You only want to keep some tiny fragment of someone else's message to
> serve as a 'key' or intro - introduction/ context/ lead in/ - to
> whatever your message is.
>
> When you reply to someone's message and your newsreader 'quotes' every
> single thing they said, including their sig in your newsreader's case,
> you need to remove almost everything which your newsreader has quoted.
>
> Save one line or part of one line if possible. If (absolutely)
> necessary, save a little bit more.
>
> While you are trimming, it will focus your 'gaze' on the exact words of
> their message to which you are getting ready to reply.
>
> That trimming and that 'gaze' will cause your reply to be especially
> responsive to the exact words to which you should reply just under an
> empty line under those exact words to which you are replying.
>
>> I will try to do that in the future.
>
> If you are not responding to one single line or so, but instead you are
> responding 'globally' to some big complicated concept which the other
> posting party has posted, then you should not quote anything of what
> they said before, because that is not sufficiently /succinct/ or to the
> point.
>
> Instead, you should delete *everything* they said, and then 'paraphrase'
> their message meaning as accurately as you can, by saying "So and so
> explained that Croatia's territory has been populated by Neanderthals,
> Greeks, Romans, and Avars before the Kingdom of Croatia in the 7th
> century."

Cross posted wholesale to alt.politics.scorched-earth in the hope of
educating the top-posting ****wits there.

Thanks Mike



--
Algy met a bear
The bear was bulgy
The bulge was Algy

One simple in-line reply.

"Aardvark" <> wrote in message
news:higl27$u71$...
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:07:51 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> Billabong wrote:
>>>> Top posting is undesirable. Untrimmed bottom posting is undesirable.

<Wholesale snipped in an attempt to educate bottom-posting ****wits here>

> Cross posted wholesale to alt.politics.scorched-earth in the hope of
> educating the top-posting ****wits there.
>
> Thanks Mike
>
>
>
> --
> Algy met a bear
> The bear was bulgy
> The bulge was Algy

Billabong wrote:
> "Mike Easter"

>> He is saying that -1- your site's link doesn't need a tiny because the
>> actual link itself is short -2- your site's link should be in a *sig*
>> which is what I said earlier, not as part of a signoff which looks like an
>> answer to a question
>>
>> Altogether, the way you are doing it is spammish;
>
> my
> question is related to "obfuscating" by tiny url: is the tiny url illegal
> when put in sig instead of real url or is it not just not, but it is just so
> desirable to place the real one?
>
IMO inmyopinion, it doesn't matter whether the link to your site is
shortened with a tiny or 'real' as long as it is in the sig where it
belongs.

> So, I am prepared to disclose my real url to proper authorities, but for
> ordinary public I feel it is not necessary to do so. What you think, Mike?
>
I don't understand the concept of what you are trying to hide from the
ordinary public by putting your site's url into a tiny. You didn't do a
good job of explaining yourself about that.

And, it is much much much harder for me to extract the 'meat' or gist
out of what you say when you bury your message in a reply the way that
you do.

You don't seem to understand the problem with not trimming and
contexting. You are not communicating successfully because of your
failure to provide proper context, because it is aggravated by your
wordiness.

The difficulties of communicating in this medium are made more difficult
by the posting method, especially if there is a cultural or native/first
language difference.

When I'm trying to tell you to trim and context, it is not because it
just looks better, it is because when you don't, I can't figure out what
you are trying to talk about.

--
Mike Easter