Re: Improve the quality of Usenet

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Peter Clements, Jan 10, 2010.

  1. 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    originally I did go around having posts withdrawn and ISP disconnects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.
     
    Peter Clements, Jan 10, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter Clements

    Dan C Guest

    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 fucking
    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/
     
    Dan C, Jan 11, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter Clements

    Mike Easter Guest

    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$fij$-september.org

    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, Jan 11, 2010
    #3
  4. Peter Clements

    Mike Easter Guest

    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
     
    Mike Easter, Jan 11, 2010
    #4
  5. Peter Clements

    Mike Easter Guest

    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
     
    Mike Easter, Jan 11, 2010
    #5
  6. 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.
     
    Peter Clements, Jan 11, 2010
    #6
  7. Peter Clements

    Mike Easter Guest

    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
     
    Mike Easter, Jan 12, 2010
    #7
  8. Peter Clements

    Aardvark Guest

    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 fuckwits there.

    Thanks Mike



    --
    Algy met a bear
    The bear was bulgy
    The bulge was Algy
     
    Aardvark, Jan 12, 2010
    #8
  9. Peter Clements

    RonNNN Guest

    One simple in-line reply.

    "Aardvark" <> wrote in message
    news:higl27$u71$-september.org...
    > 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 fuckwits here>

    > Cross posted wholesale to alt.politics.scorched-earth in the hope of
    > educating the top-posting fuckwits there.
    >
    > Thanks Mike
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Algy met a bear
    > The bear was bulgy
    > The bulge was Algy
     
    RonNNN, Jan 12, 2010
    #9
  10. Peter Clements

    Mike Easter Guest

    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
     
    Mike Easter, Jan 12, 2010
    #10
  11. Peter Clements

    Mike Easter Guest

    Sorry wrote:
    > Mike, see down what the issue is about.


    Usenet is unregulated. That means that you have no control over what
    someone else posts, only what you post.

    When you post, if you want someone else/ others/ to understand what you
    are saying, then you should try to say it as clearly as possible. Trim
    context order makes for clarity.

    If it offends you to see what someone else says, then you should ignore
    what they have posted. You can ignore 'mentally', or you can ignore by
    using a filter on your newsreader.

    If you want to have a conversation in a controlled environment, you can
    set up web forum software on your site. Then /if/ people come to that
    forum and have conversations, you can moderate the conversations
    yourself and delete or move the posts as you like. Being responsible
    for a webforum is a chore.

    Alternatively, you can participate in conversations on a webforum which
    has been established by someone else and moderated by them. Generally
    the offensive posts will be eliminated/deleted by moderators.

    > Public deserves nothing but contempt;


    The public is made of all different kinds of people. You are part of
    the public. I am part of the public.

    --
    Mike Easter
     
    Mike Easter, Jan 13, 2010
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. BigBen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,784
    BigBen
    Aug 4, 2005
  2. lbbs
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    15,490
    Lucas Tam
    Jul 2, 2003
  3. Bill
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    567
    Whoops! SCOTTIES
    May 10, 2004
  4. Tony

    Re: Improve the quality of Usenet

    Tony, Jan 8, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    359
    thund3rstruck
    Jan 8, 2010
  5. Mike Easter

    Re: Improve the quality of Usenet

    Mike Easter, Jan 8, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    772
    Mike Easter
    Jan 10, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page