Re: Off Topic - But Heinous

["Sharx35" <sharx35@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"David DeLaney" <dbd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrnhsk84r.f8d.dbd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:35:22 -0500, G. Morgan <usenet_abuse@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>Bob <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>You're like kids, each with an icecream, not eating, arguing; and each
>>>demanding first lick. :-)
>>
>>Nope, I just dislike self-appointed Net-cops. I known Joe from his
>>postings for
>>years, and felt like he was treated unfairly by "David DeLaney".
>
> He made a mistake. I notice he hasn't come here to apologize. You,
> however, are
> making a much bigger mistake, by being vociferously wrong at length when
> you
> also haven't done the research.
>
>> In my opinion
>>he (David) should have said nothing at all instead of classifying Joe's
>>post as
>>SPAM (which it clearly is not).
>
> Off-topic post.
>
>> I don't see anyone else calling the OP "SPAM".
>
> The clue here: DIFFERENT NEWSGROUPS HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS. You're
> posting
> to one where you don't know the rules. This should mean you lurk a bit and
> see if you can figure out some of the rules by observation, right?
>
>>It's a very personal issue for him (and me).
>
> So post to alt.personals.meandmymarinebuddy - sure, it'll have dismal
> propagation, but you and he DON'T GET TO BUST INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S THREADS
> with stuff that's just plain out of left field.
>
> Your buddy doesn't post here, and neither do you. He spammed an "I think
> everyone in these groups should see this! Listen up! This is IMPORTANT! I
> SAY SO!" which was exactly as relevant as telling us why our penises
> really
> DESERVE to be longer, or why our spare gold NEEDS to be sent to the
> following
> address. He made a mistake by doing so, but just one. We're making sure he
> doesn't do it again. It appears more corrective therapy shall be needed
> for
> you, however.
>
>> Since the two .alt groups he
>>posted to don't give a rat's ass about off-topic stuff (I don't read the
>>other
>>one),
>
> ...okay, so you don't know the rules for TWO of the groups you're posting
> to.
>
>>I think he should have been given a "pass", rather than being chastised by
>>someone who doesn't like what he had to say.
>
> So we give every person on Usenet one "pass" per newsgroup on Usenet? Do
> you
> know how many newsgroups there ARE? (No, you don't.) Of course there are
> fewer
> people on Usenet than there used to be, but there's still enough to make
> every
> single newsgroup unreadable if everyone decided they wanted to post to
> every
> other newsgroup about an issue that was important to them.
>
> (ObSF: The recent thread about people having to cope with increasingly
> intrusive advertisements, holographic and otherwise, and the various
> mechanisms
> used to battle them. I don't _remember_ an SF story where "shoot the
> source of
> the advertisement so it explodes" was used, but real life HAS come up with
> the
> TV-zapper, which can turn off almost any TV that can be remote-controlled
> and
> fits in your pocket...)
>
>> Accusing him of going in
>>alphabetical order and adding a big-8 group to propagate his message is
>>unfounded.
>
> This just shows that you haven't been paying attention. If he's not doing
> it,
> then he shouldn't be mimicking the form of the many many spammers that DO
> do it.
>
>>That's how things get changed, and
>>injustices get righted.
>
> So is this. Think please.
>
> Dave
> --
> \/David DeLaney posting from dbd@xxxxxxx "It's not the pot that grows the
> flower
> It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone
> to see
> Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET
> VRbeable<BLINK>
> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all
> CAPS! --K.

YOU are fucking idiot wannabe net cop. FOAD. NOW.