Re: Off Topic - But Heinous

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

David DeLaney wrote:
> 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.

Nothing to apologize for.  I've lurked in the SF ng for quite a while
and there is not a zero-tolerance for off topic.  I admit to a bit of a
faux pas by cross posting - but I guess it isn't that big of a problem
or you would trimmed the headers when you replied.

>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?
>

Seen lots of off topic conversations here.

>> 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.
>

Didn't bust into anyone's thread - started my own, which you have easily
ignored and let it die.

But you didn't, so I guess I should thank you for keeping it alive.

> 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.
>

LOL - I made one post to three ng's.  A post that could have been easily
ignored and allowed to wither away, never to be heard from again.

> (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.
>

I posted to three ng's I subscribe to.

Sorry to have pissed in your Wheaties.  I guess you should have the
moderators ban me...