«

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:39:06 +1300, Stephen Worthington wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:09:25 -0600, "impossible" <>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>"peterwn" <> wrote in message
>>news:aacaa716-0245-4ca4-9376-...
>>> On Feb 27, 6:12 pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> > <snip (I have snipped all of this in interests of bandwidth
>>>> > economy) > 0
>>>>
>>>> Below, I have restored Peter the Whiner's censorship of my post.
>>>
>>> Rubbish, your posting is there for the world to see.
>>>
>>>
>>Your crude attempt to doctor posts is there for the world to see. This
>>is usenet, scumbag, not your personal playground.
>
> Impossible, you are completely wrong about wanting people to quote
> everything that has come before. I refer you to RFC 1855 "Netiquette
> Guidelines" Section 3.1.3 "NetNews Guidelines":
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
>
> where it says:
>
> - Read all of a discussion in progress (we call this a thread)
> before posting replies. Avoid posting "Me Too" messages, where
> content is limited to agreement with previous posts. Content of a
> follow-up post should exceed quoted content.
>
> Note the last sentence.

You're wasting your breath.

He has consistently refused to comply with the concept of quoting only sufficient to enable the reader to
understand how the response relates to the original post - which the reader can find and read in the
previous post in the thread.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:24:38 +0000 (UTC), Sweetpea
<> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:39:06 +1300, Stephen Worthington wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:09:25 -0600, "impossible" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"peterwn" <> wrote in message
>>>news:aacaa716-0245-4ca4-9376-...
>>>> On Feb 27, 6:12 pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> > <snip (I have snipped all of this in interests of bandwidth
>>>>> > economy) > 0
>>>>>
>>>>> Below, I have restored Peter the Whiner's censorship of my post.
>>>>
>>>> Rubbish, your posting is there for the world to see.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Your crude attempt to doctor posts is there for the world to see. This
>>>is usenet, scumbag, not your personal playground.
>>
>> Impossible, you are completely wrong about wanting people to quote
>> everything that has come before. I refer you to RFC 1855 "Netiquette
>> Guidelines" Section 3.1.3 "NetNews Guidelines":
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
>>
>> where it says:
>>
>> - Read all of a discussion in progress (we call this a thread)
>> before posting replies. Avoid posting "Me Too" messages, where
>> content is limited to agreement with previous posts. Content of a
>> follow-up post should exceed quoted content.
>>
>> Note the last sentence.
>
>You're wasting your breath.
>
>He has consistently refused to comply with the concept of quoting only sufficient to enable the reader to
>understand how the response relates to the original post - which the reader can find and read in the
>previous post in the thread.

I wonder what ISP he uses. Some of them still have the requirement to
obey the Nettiquette rules in their terms and conditions. If he is
using one of them, then maybe he should be reported to them.

On Mar 1, 9:39*pm, Stephen Worthington
<step...@jsw12.gen34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:09:25 -0600, "impossible"
>
>
>
>
>
> <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >"peterwn" <pmiln...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:aacaa716-0245-4ca4-9376-...
> >> On Feb 27, 6:12 pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >>> > <snip (I have snipped all of this in interests of bandwidth economy) >
> >>> > 0
>
> >>> Below, I *have restored Peter the Whiner's censorship of my post.
>
> >> Rubbish, your posting is there for the world to see.
>
> >Your crude attempt to doctor posts is there for the world to see. This is
> >usenet, scumbag, not your personal playground.
>
> Impossible, you are completely wrong about wanting people to quote
> everything that has come before. *I refer you to RFC 1855 "Netiquette
> Guidelines" Section 3.1.3 "NetNews Guidelines":
>
> *http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
>
> where it says:
>
> * * - Read all of a discussion in progress (we call this a thread)
> * * * before posting replies. *Avoid posting "Me Too" messages,
> * * * where content is limited to agreement with previous posts.
> * * * Content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content.
>
> Note the last sentence.

RFCs are written by loserite thugs and their sock puppets!

--
Cheers
Anton

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:34:37 -0800 (PST), "AD." <>
wrote:

>On Mar 1, 9:39*pm, Stephen Worthington
><step...@jsw12.gen34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:09:25 -0600, "impossible"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"peterwn" <pmiln...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:aacaa716-0245-4ca4-9376-...
>> >> On Feb 27, 6:12 pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > <snip (I have snipped all of this in interests of bandwidth economy) >
>> >>> > 0
>>
>> >>> Below, I *have restored Peter the Whiner's censorship of my post.
>>
>> >> Rubbish, your posting is there for the world to see.
>>
>> >Your crude attempt to doctor posts is there for the world to see. This is
>> >usenet, scumbag, not your personal playground.
>>
>> Impossible, you are completely wrong about wanting people to quote
>> everything that has come before. *I refer you to RFC 1855 "Netiquette
>> Guidelines" Section 3.1.3 "NetNews Guidelines":
>>
>> *http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
>>
>> where it says:
>>
>> * * - Read all of a discussion in progress (we call this a thread)
>> * * * before posting replies. *Avoid posting "Me Too" messages,
>> * * * where content is limited to agreement with previous posts.
>> * * * Content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content.
>>
>> Note the last sentence.
>
>RFCs are written by loserite thugs and their sock puppets!

RFCs are what define the Internet.