| |
Main
Date: 26 Jun 2007 22:29:26
From: Plonkmaster
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always hope to
retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short time, we
post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control what
happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility, these
or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long enough.
I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that we're
all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or later be
in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little bit to
treat him as we would like to be treated.
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Jun 2007 12:33:03
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 28, 7:34 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1183034012.996488.226...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 12:29 am, Plonkmaster <Plonkmas...@plonk.com> wrote:
> > > You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always
> > > hope to retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow
> > > newsgroup users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here
> > > for a short time, we post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
>
> > > Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to
> > > control what happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome,
> > > Alzheimers, Senility, these or other raveages of old age will
> > > encumber us all, if we live long enough.
>
> > > I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams
> > > posts with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind
> > > that we're all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will
> > > sooner or later be in Jim's situation some day, and we should try
> > > at least a little bit to treat him as we would like to be treated.
>
> > Gotta wonder if the 'tone' would be the same if all the players were
> > there in person..doubt it..or else some would end up on the floor..
>
> > BTW-anybody know how to block specific writers on Google groups? A
> > couple of authors come to mind during this thread.....
>
> If you use FireFox as your browser, there is at least one killfile
> script that you can use with Google Groups. I've not tried it myself,
> so the usual disclaimers apply:
>
> http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
Use Safari...not 'puter literate enough to change.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jun 2007 01:51:09
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 28, 8:53 pm, RBrickston <rb20170REM...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> In article <1183074299.081057.82...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> datak...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> > > How do we do that we you ("jim beam") go by a pseudonym???
>
> > GOOD QUESTION! many posts are contrived, some of those are cuckoo,
> > some creative writing. But that matters not as the journalism, the
> > discussion, the content, is the thing.
> > Is it posssible to conduct an entire 10 poster discussion from one
> > site with 10 email addresses?
> > probabbly.
> > Is Jobst Brandt Jobst Brandt? or are there 3-4 Jobst Brandts?
>
> WTH, let's go all the way... Maybe Brandt and Beam are one and the same?
>
>
>
> > But once the discussion moves radically away from CONTENT to sniping
> > then eventual ugliness then that's FUCKING ENOUGH STUPID- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
why would someone by impressed by France? hahahahhehehhe
but yasee, I don't carry on and on and on about the damn frogs running
stanford into the ground. do I? gnawwww. its the the same as ugh
whasthisname. we are impressed, superpressed and oppressed by the
ugliness's frequency, that losses its humor on the bedpost over night
right?
Yes, in the worst form, Brandt One thru 3 are the same as Beam, that's
what Beam wants, he drools for it...
|
| |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 23:44:59
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
>
> How do we do that we you ("jim beam") go by a pseudonym???
GOOD QUESTION! many posts are contrived, some of those are cuckoo,
some creative writing. But that matters not as the journalism, the
discussion, the content, is the thing.
Is it posssible to conduct an entire 10 poster discussion from one
site with 10 email addresses?
probabbly.
Is Jobst Brandt Jobst Brandt? or are there 3-4 Jobst Brandts?
But once the discussion moves radically away from CONTENT to sniping
then eventual ugliness then that's FUCKING ENOUGH STUPID
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jun 2007 00:53:44
From: RBrickston
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
In article <1183074299.081057.82960@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
datakoll@yahoo.com says...
>
> >
> > How do we do that we you ("jim beam") go by a pseudonym???
>
> GOOD QUESTION! many posts are contrived, some of those are cuckoo,
> some creative writing. But that matters not as the journalism, the
> discussion, the content, is the thing.
> Is it posssible to conduct an entire 10 poster discussion from one
> site with 10 email addresses?
> probabbly.
> Is Jobst Brandt Jobst Brandt? or are there 3-4 Jobst Brandts?
WTH, let's go all the way... Maybe Brandt and Beam are one and the same?
> But once the discussion moves radically away from CONTENT to sniping
> then eventual ugliness then that's FUCKING ENOUGH STUPID
>
>
|
| |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 11:12:37
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:29:26 -0800, Plonkmaster
<Plonkmaster@plonk.com > wrote:
>You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always hope to
>retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
>users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short time, we
>post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
>
>Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control what
>happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility, these
>or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long enough.
>
>I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
>with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that we're
>all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or later be
>in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little bit to
>treat him as we would like to be treated.
Fuck you if you can't take a joke.
Configure a kill file or STFU.
It's 2007 and threads like this - and trolls like that Dolan asshole -
are so 10 years ago.
Actually, Dolan and Vandeman are the only trolls on my killfile list.
Everybody else - even Sornson - are free game in the social Darwinian
uncensored world of usenet.
P.S. Please put me on your list and I'll put you on mine, and then we
won't have to endure each other's existence.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 06:25:29
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 28, 8:18 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1183035908.510028.78140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.c=
om,
> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et=
puis a
> d=E9clar=E9 :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 11:37 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 27, 8:30 am, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
> >>>>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through
> >>>>> Brandt's whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple:
> >>>>> Brandt wants to get into a "credentials" pissing contest with
> >>>>> anyone who dares disagree with him. Why else would he use the
> >>>>> pretentious, totally irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting
> >>>>> email?
> >>> Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
> >>>> customer?
> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>> Yer a friggin' genius. Putz.
>
> >> I wrote essentially the same thing as Tom. I guess I still don't get
> >> it.
>
> > Which part? The email? If so, here's my take: I'm sure there are many
> > here who belong to alumni societies, and many of those have an email
> > from that organization. Most who do, use those email addys for
> > communication *within* the alumni society and with other alumnus.
> > Brandt seems to be alone in using it here. Email addys are a dime a
> > dozen today, many with great features and boundless storage. IMO,
> > Brandt uses the "stanford alumni.org" addy as a part of his Usenet MO
> > of obnoxious, overbearing, dismissive technical "superiority". IOW,
> > it's meant to impress and intimidate. YMMV.
>
> Why would someone be impressed by Stanford?- Hide quoted text -
>
You'll hafta work that one out for yourself.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 10:36:17
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:25:29 -0700, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
>On Jun 28, 8:18 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>> Dans le message denews:1183035908.510028.78140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
>> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> a réfléchi, et puis a
>> déclaré :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 27, 11:37 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>>> On Jun 27, 8:30 am, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>> >>>>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through
>> >>>>> Brandt's whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple:
>> >>>>> Brandt wants to get into a "credentials" pissing contest with
>> >>>>> anyone who dares disagree with him. Why else would he use the
>> >>>>> pretentious, totally irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting
>> >>>>> email?
>> >>> Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>> For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
>> >>>> customer?
>> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> >>> Yer a friggin' genius. Putz.
>>
>> >> I wrote essentially the same thing as Tom. I guess I still don't get
>> >> it.
>>
>> > Which part? The email? If so, here's my take: I'm sure there are many
>> > here who belong to alumni societies, and many of those have an email
>> > from that organization. Most who do, use those email addys for
>> > communication *within* the alumni society and with other alumnus.
>> > Brandt seems to be alone in using it here. Email addys are a dime a
>> > dozen today, many with great features and boundless storage. IMO,
>> > Brandt uses the "stanford alumni.org" addy as a part of his Usenet MO
>> > of obnoxious, overbearing, dismissive technical "superiority". IOW,
>> > it's meant to impress and intimidate. YMMV.
>>
>> Why would someone be impressed by Stanford?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>You'll hafta work that one out for yourself.
It certainly doesn't hold a candle to "Ozark Bicycle" or "Ron Sonic"
Ron
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 16:29:02
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
Dans le message de
news:1183037129.451490.146910@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> On Jun 28, 8:18 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>> Dans le message
>> denews:1183035908.510028.78140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Ozark
>> Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> a réfléchi, et puis
>> a déclaré :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 27, 11:37 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 27, 8:30 am, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through
>>>>>>> Brandt's whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple:
>>>>>>> Brandt wants to get into a "credentials" pissing contest with
>>>>>>> anyone who dares disagree with him. Why else would he use the
>>>>>>> pretentious, totally irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting
>>>>>>> email?
>>>>> Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
>>>>>> customer?
>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>> Yer a friggin' genius. Putz.
>>
>>>> I wrote essentially the same thing as Tom. I guess I still don't
>>>> get it.
>>
>>> Which part? The email? If so, here's my take: I'm sure there are
>>> many here who belong to alumni societies, and many of those have an
>>> email from that organization. Most who do, use those email addys for
>>> communication *within* the alumni society and with other alumnus.
>>> Brandt seems to be alone in using it here. Email addys are a dime a
>>> dozen today, many with great features and boundless storage. IMO,
>>> Brandt uses the "stanford alumni.org" addy as a part of his Usenet
>>> MO of obnoxious, overbearing, dismissive technical "superiority".
>>> IOW, it's meant to impress and intimidate. YMMV.
>>
>> Why would someone be impressed by Stanford?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> You'll hafta work that one out for yourself.
Well, a student with a solid C average gets a diploma, right ?
There's more ?
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 07:50:01
From: Tom Nakashima
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:4683c5ae$0$15757$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> Dans le message de
> news:1183037129.451490.146910@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> a réfléchi, et puis
> a déclaré :
>> On Jun 28, 8:18 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>>> Dans le message
>>> denews:1183035908.510028.78140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Ozark
>>> Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> a réfléchi, et puis
>>> a déclaré :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 27, 11:37 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 8:30 am, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through
>>>>>>>> Brandt's whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple:
>>>>>>>> Brandt wants to get into a "credentials" pissing contest with
>>>>>>>> anyone who dares disagree with him. Why else would he use the
>>>>>>>> pretentious, totally irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting
>>>>>>>> email?
>>>>>> Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
>>>>>>> customer?
>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>> Yer a friggin' genius. Putz.
>>>
>>>>> I wrote essentially the same thing as Tom. I guess I still don't
>>>>> get it.
>>>
>>>> Which part? The email? If so, here's my take: I'm sure there are
>>>> many here who belong to alumni societies, and many of those have an
>>>> email from that organization. Most who do, use those email addys for
>>>> communication *within* the alumni society and with other alumnus.
>>>> Brandt seems to be alone in using it here. Email addys are a dime a
>>>> dozen today, many with great features and boundless storage. IMO,
>>>> Brandt uses the "stanford alumni.org" addy as a part of his Usenet
>>>> MO of obnoxious, overbearing, dismissive technical "superiority".
>>>> IOW, it's meant to impress and intimidate. YMMV.
>>>
>>> Why would someone be impressed by Stanford?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>
>> You'll hafta work that one out for yourself.
>
> Well, a student with a solid C average gets a diploma, right ?
> There's more ?
Actually some of the Stanford alumni can still use the usernet for free,
as well as the library and other privileges.
-tom
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 17:22:46
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
Dans le message de news:f60hqp$cmg$1@news.Stanford.EDU,
Tom Nakashima <tom@slac.stanford.edu > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote in message
> news:4683c5ae$0$15757$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
>> Dans le message de
>> news:1183037129.451490.146910@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
>> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> a réfléchi,
>> et puis a déclaré :
>>> On Jun 28, 8:18 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>>>> Dans le message
>>>> denews:1183035908.510028.78140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Ozark
>>>> Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> a réfléchi, et
>>>> puis a déclaré :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 27, 11:37 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 8:30 am, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through
>>>>>>>>> Brandt's whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple:
>>>>>>>>> Brandt wants to get into a "credentials" pissing contest with
>>>>>>>>> anyone who dares disagree with him. Why else would he use the
>>>>>>>>> pretentious, totally irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting
>>>>>>>>> email?
>>>>>>> Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
>>>>>>>> customer?
>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>>> Yer a friggin' genius. Putz.
>>>>
>>>>>> I wrote essentially the same thing as Tom. I guess I still don't
>>>>>> get it.
>>>>
>>>>> Which part? The email? If so, here's my take: I'm sure there are
>>>>> many here who belong to alumni societies, and many of those have
>>>>> an email from that organization. Most who do, use those email
>>>>> addys for communication *within* the alumni society and with
>>>>> other alumnus. Brandt seems to be alone in using it here. Email
>>>>> addys are a dime a dozen today, many with great features and
>>>>> boundless storage. IMO, Brandt uses the "stanford alumni.org"
>>>>> addy as a part of his Usenet MO of obnoxious, overbearing,
>>>>> dismissive technical "superiority". IOW, it's meant to impress
>>>>> and intimidate. YMMV.
>>>>
>>>> Why would someone be impressed by Stanford?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>
>>> You'll hafta work that one out for yourself.
>>
>> Well, a student with a solid C average gets a diploma, right ?
>> There's more ?
>
> Actually some of the Stanford alumni can still use the usernet for
> free, as well as the library and other privileges.
> -tom
Double golly !
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 08:48:09
From: Tom Nakashima
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:4683d246$0$22442$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> Dans le message de news:f60hqp$cmg$1@news.Stanford.EDU,
> Tom Nakashima <tom@slac.stanford.edu> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote in message
>> news:4683c5ae$0$15757$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
>>> Dans le message de
>>> news:1183037129.451490.146910@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
>>> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> a réfléchi,
>>> et puis a déclaré :
>>>> On Jun 28, 8:18 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>>>>> Dans le message
>>>>> denews:1183035908.510028.78140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Ozark
>>>>> Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> a réfléchi, et
>>>>> puis a déclaré :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 27, 11:37 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 8:30 am, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through
>>>>>>>>>> Brandt's whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple:
>>>>>>>>>> Brandt wants to get into a "credentials" pissing contest with
>>>>>>>>>> anyone who dares disagree with him. Why else would he use the
>>>>>>>>>> pretentious, totally irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting
>>>>>>>>>> email?
>>>>>>>> Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
>>>>>>>>> customer?
>>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yer a friggin' genius. Putz.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wrote essentially the same thing as Tom. I guess I still don't
>>>>>>> get it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which part? The email? If so, here's my take: I'm sure there are
>>>>>> many here who belong to alumni societies, and many of those have
>>>>>> an email from that organization. Most who do, use those email
>>>>>> addys for communication *within* the alumni society and with
>>>>>> other alumnus. Brandt seems to be alone in using it here. Email
>>>>>> addys are a dime a dozen today, many with great features and
>>>>>> boundless storage. IMO, Brandt uses the "stanford alumni.org"
>>>>>> addy as a part of his Usenet MO of obnoxious, overbearing,
>>>>>> dismissive technical "superiority". IOW, it's meant to impress
>>>>>> and intimidate. YMMV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would someone be impressed by Stanford?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You'll hafta work that one out for yourself.
>>>
>>> Well, a student with a solid C average gets a diploma, right ?
>>> There's more ?
>>
>> Actually some of the Stanford alumni can still use the usernet for
>> free, as well as the library and other privileges.
>> -tom
>
> Double golly !
Gooooooooooooooooolly!
http://blogmeisterusa.mu.nu/archives/GomerPyle.bmp
-tom
|
| |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 06:05:08
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 27, 11:37 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 8:30 am, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
> >>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through Brandt's
> >>> whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple: Brandt wants to
> >>> get into a "credentials" pissing contest with anyone who dares
> >>> disagree with him. Why else would he use the pretentious, totally
> >>> irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting email?
> > Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
> >> customer?
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Yer a friggin' genius. Putz.
>
> I wrote essentially the same thing as Tom. I guess I still don't get it.
Which part? The email? If so, here's my take: I'm sure there are many
here who belong to alumni societies, and many of those have an email
from that organization. Most who do, use those email addys for
communication *within* the alumni society and with other alumnus.
Brandt seems to be alone in using it here. Email addys are a dime a
dozen today, many with great features and boundless storage. IMO,
Brandt uses the "stanford alumni.org" addy as a part of his Usenet MO
of obnoxious, overbearing, dismissive technical "superiority". IOW,
it's meant to impress and intimidate. YMMV.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 18:30:07
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
>>>> "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>>>>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through Brandt's
>>>>> whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple: Brandt wants to
>>>>> get into a "credentials" pissing contest with anyone who dares
>>>>> disagree with him. Why else would he use the pretentious, totally
>>>>> irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting email?
>>> Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
>>>> customer?
>>>> "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>>> Yer a friggin' genius. Putz.
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> I wrote essentially the same thing as Tom. I guess I still don't get it.
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Which part? The email? If so, here's my take: I'm sure there are many
> here who belong to alumni societies, and many of those have an email
> from that organization. Most who do, use those email addys for
> communication *within* the alumni society and with other alumnus.
> Brandt seems to be alone in using it here. Email addys are a dime a
> dozen today, many with great features and boundless storage. IMO,
> Brandt uses the "stanford alumni.org" addy as a part of his Usenet MO
> of obnoxious, overbearing, dismissive technical "superiority". IOW,
> it's meant to impress and intimidate. YMMV.
Geez, lighten up.
Do you suggest a writer who's primary address is a free account at
mensa.org would be, ipso facto, a jerk? It's an email address fer chrissake.
Would you also kvetch at jbrandt@hp_engineering or some such? What
address is humble enough? XX@aol?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 17:06:12
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
A Muzi wrote:
{snip}
> Do you suggest a writer who's primary address is a free account at
> mensa.org would be, ipso facto, a jerk? It's an email address fer
> chrissake.
I think that someone who posted to a Usenet cycling group under a user name
that included "mensa.org" would, in fact, most likely be a pretentious jerk.
If it's that important to him or her, there are other, subtler ways to make
sure people know.
> Would you also kvetch at jbrandt@hp_engineering or some such? What
> address is humble enough? XX@aol?
How about doing what roughly 90% or more people (including you) on here
do -- namely, use a user name? It's VERY easy to do.
It's ego and/or laziness.
BS
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 15:18:15
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
Dans le message de
news:1183035908.510028.78140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> On Jun 27, 11:37 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 27, 8:30 am, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>>>>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through
>>>>> Brandt's whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple:
>>>>> Brandt wants to get into a "credentials" pissing contest with
>>>>> anyone who dares disagree with him. Why else would he use the
>>>>> pretentious, totally irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting
>>>>> email?
>>> Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
>>>> customer?
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> Yer a friggin' genius. Putz.
>>
>> I wrote essentially the same thing as Tom. I guess I still don't get
>> it.
>
> Which part? The email? If so, here's my take: I'm sure there are many
> here who belong to alumni societies, and many of those have an email
> from that organization. Most who do, use those email addys for
> communication *within* the alumni society and with other alumnus.
> Brandt seems to be alone in using it here. Email addys are a dime a
> dozen today, many with great features and boundless storage. IMO,
> Brandt uses the "stanford alumni.org" addy as a part of his Usenet MO
> of obnoxious, overbearing, dismissive technical "superiority". IOW,
> it's meant to impress and intimidate. YMMV.
Why would someone be impressed by Stanford?
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 19:08:05
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> a réfléchi, et puis a
> déclaré :
>>>>>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through
>>>>>> Brandt's whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple:
>>>>>> Brandt wants to get into a "credentials" pissing contest with
>>>>>> anyone who dares disagree with him. Why else would he use the
>>>>>> pretentious, totally irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting
>>>>>> email?
-blah blah blah- >
Sandy wrote:
> Why would someone be impressed by Stanford?
Not quite University of Chicago economics department is it?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jun 2007 00:03:45
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
In article <1388jboeu185h82@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> a réfléchi,
> > et puis a déclaré :
> >>>>>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through
> >>>>>> Brandt's whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple:
> >>>>>> Brandt wants to get into a "credentials" pissing contest with
> >>>>>> anyone who dares disagree with him. Why else would he use the
> >>>>>> pretentious, totally irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting
> >>>>>> email?
It's probably free.
> -blah blah blah->
>
> Sandy wrote:
> > Why would someone be impressed by Stanford?
>
> Not quite University of Chicago economics department is it?
Even the University of Chicago Economics Department isn't quite, any
more. "We're all Keynesians now." Whatever the hell that meant.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 22:31:39
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through
>>>>>>>> Brandt's whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple:
>>>>>>>> Brandt wants to get into a "credentials" pissing contest with
>>>>>>>> anyone who dares disagree with him. Why else would he use the
>>>>>>>> pretentious, totally irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting
>>>>>>>> email?
> It's probably free.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the user name he chooses to display.
(IOW, *everyone* has an e-mail address in the blah@blah.blah format; only a
few use that as their user name -- usually newbies who haven't figured out
how to set up their Usenet account(s).)
Here's an ironic note: if I were to use MY e-mail addy as my user name, and
Jobst deigned to reply to one of my posts, he undoubtedly would start the
quotation with "{e-mail address} WHO??? wrote:"
He's quick (and certain) to pick at anonymous posters, yet too lazy and/or
egotistical to fix his own user name. It literally would take about 30
seconds to change it to...gasp...HIS NAME.
BS (and how)
|
| |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 12:33:32
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 27, 12:29 am, Plonkmaster <Plonkmas...@plonk.com > wrote:
> You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always hope to
> retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
> users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short time, we
> post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
>
> Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control what
> happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility, these
> or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long enough.
>
> I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
> with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that we're
> all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or later be
> in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little bit to
> treat him as we would like to be treated.
Gotta wonder if the 'tone' would be the same if all the players were
there in person..doubt it..or else some would end up on the floor..
BTW-anybody know how to block specific writers on Google groups? A
couple of authors come to mind during this thread.....
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 08:34:34
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
In article <1183034012.996488.226340@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
Qui si parla Campagnolo <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On Jun 27, 12:29 am, Plonkmaster <Plonkmas...@plonk.com> wrote:
> > You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always
> > hope to retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow
> > newsgroup users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here
> > for a short time, we post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
> >
> > Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to
> > control what happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome,
> > Alzheimers, Senility, these or other raveages of old age will
> > encumber us all, if we live long enough.
> >
> > I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams
> > posts with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind
> > that we're all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will
> > sooner or later be in Jim's situation some day, and we should try
> > at least a little bit to treat him as we would like to be treated.
>
> Gotta wonder if the 'tone' would be the same if all the players were
> there in person..doubt it..or else some would end up on the floor..
>
> BTW-anybody know how to block specific writers on Google groups? A
> couple of authors come to mind during this thread.....
If you use FireFox as your browser, there is at least one killfile
script that you can use with Google Groups. I've not tried it myself,
so the usual disclaimers apply:
http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 18:13:58
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 27, 8:09 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jun 27, 8:30 am, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through Brandt's
> > whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple: Brandt wants to
> > get into a "credentials" pissing contest with anyone who dares
> > disagree with him. Why else would he use the pretentious, totally
> > irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting email?
>
> For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
> customer?
>
Yer a friggin' genius. Putz.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 23:37:37
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
>> On Jun 27, 8:30 am, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through Brandt's
>>> whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple: Brandt wants to
>>> get into a "credentials" pissing contest with anyone who dares
>>> disagree with him. Why else would he use the pretentious, totally
>>> irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting email?
> Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
>> customer?
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Yer a friggin' genius. Putz.
I wrote essentially the same thing as Tom. I guess I still don't get it.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 18:09:47
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 27, 8:30 am, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>
> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through Brandt's
> whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple: Brandt wants to
> get into a "credentials" pissing contest with anyone who dares
> disagree with him. Why else would he use the pretentious, totally
> irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting email?
For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
customer?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 18:23:55
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> On Jun 27, 8:30 am, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>>
>> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through Brandt's
>> whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple: Brandt wants to
>> get into a "credentials" pissing contest with anyone who dares
>> disagree with him. Why else would he use the pretentious, totally
>> irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting email?
>
> For the same reason Carl Fogel is so proud of being a Comcast
> customer?
Ah, laziness.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 18:08:19
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 27, 8:21 am, "jim beam" wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 1:13 am, "jim beam" wrote:
> >> "Plonkmaster" wrote:
> >>> You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always hope to
> >>> retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
> >>> users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short time, we
> >>> post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
> >>> Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control what
> >>> happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility, these
> >>> or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long enough.
> >>> I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
> >>> with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that we're
> >>> all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or later be
> >>> in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little bit to
> >>> treat him as we would like to be treated.
> >> you don't have to like what i say, much less read it. and if your
> >> delicate sensibilities are wounded by the temerity to call a spade a
> >> spade, save yourself and follow your own advice, plonkmaster - simply
> >> kill any thread in which you see my name!...
>
> > How do we do that w[h]e[n] you ("jim beam") go by a pseudonym???
>
> pointless red herring.
Whooosh! It's a joke son!
> and just so you know, trying to say that "tom sherman" is the identity
> of the person posting under that name, even if that poster were to cite
> an address with pics, ssn and d/l, and there is indeed a verifiable "tom
> sherman" at that location, means nothing. there's no way, on usenet,
> that it's possible to definitively connect the name with the poster.
> not unless you have access to federal security systems. and even then,
> you'd pretty much have to fingerprinted and keylogged at that physical
> machine since zombies and the like make remote control such a breeze.
> get real, "tom", or whatever your name is.
[Yawn]
If I behaved badly by calling people "fucking retards", I would not
want my real name on the posts either.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 10:37:09
From: amakyonin
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 27, 11:45 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:Yrtgi.1478$rR.1350@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne=
t,
> Callistus Valerius <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9=
clar=E9 :
> > From years of reading Usenet posts, I would like to share some
> > observations that I have made. Regardless of what group, but more
> > specifically technical groups, when I suddenly observe links to
> > photos of Albert Einstein, or quotes from Albert Einstein, then a
> > firestorm of ugliness in the group will shortly follow. The original
> > Star Trek series, had a lot of episodes of the dangers of people with
> > superior intellect, have on the community.
>
> No kidding ?????!!!!!!!!
>
> --
> Sandy
How apropos:
http://images.google.com/images?q=3Deinstein%20bike
Let the carnage commence! Can we get a positive ID on Albert's bike?
What is his fredliness factor?
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 07:17:54
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 27, 8:39 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 27, 8:30 am, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 8:21 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > On Jun 27, 1:13 am, "jim beam" wrote:
> > > >> "Plonkmaster" wrote:
> > > >>> You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always hope to
> > > >>> retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
> > > >>> users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short time, we
> > > >>> post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
> > > >>> Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control what
> > > >>> happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility, these
> > > >>> or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long enough.
> > > >>> I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
> > > >>> with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that we're
> > > >>> all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or later be
> > > >>> in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little bit to
> > > >>> treat him as we would like to be treated.
> > > >> you don't have to like what i say, much less read it. and if your
> > > >> delicate sensibilities are wounded by the temerity to call a spade a
> > > >> spade, save yourself and follow your own advice, plonkmaster - simply
> > > >> kill any thread in which you see my name!...
>
> > > > How do we do that we you ("jim beam") go by a pseudonym???
>
> > > pointless red herring.
>
> > > and just so you know, trying to say that "tom sherman" is the identity
> > > of the person posting under that name, even if that poster were to cite
> > > an address with pics, ssn and d/l, and there is indeed a verifiable "tom
> > > sherman" at that location, means nothing. there's no way, on usenet,
> > > that it's possible to definitively connect the name with the poster.
> > > not unless you have access to federal security systems. and even then,
> > > you'd pretty much have to fingerprinted and keylogged at that physical
> > > machine since zombies and the like make remote control such a breeze.
> > > get real, "tom", or whatever your name is
>
> > Right on point and very well said.
>
> > I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through Brandt's
> > whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple: Brandt wants to
> > get into a "credentials" pissing contest with anyone who dares
> > disagree with him. Why else would he use the pretentious, totally
> > irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting email?
>
> I bet the bastewarde doesn't even regularly eat mackerels!
>
Only mackerels with verified identities. ;-)
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 13:39:20
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 27, 8:30 am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Jun 27, 8:21 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > On Jun 27, 1:13 am, "jim beam" wrote:
> > >> "Plonkmaster" wrote:
> > >>> You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always hope to
> > >>> retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
> > >>> users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short time, we
> > >>> post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
> > >>> Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control what
> > >>> happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility, these
> > >>> or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long enough.
> > >>> I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
> > >>> with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that we're
> > >>> all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or later be
> > >>> in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little bit to
> > >>> treat him as we would like to be treated.
> > >> you don't have to like what i say, much less read it. and if your
> > >> delicate sensibilities are wounded by the temerity to call a spade a
> > >> spade, save yourself and follow your own advice, plonkmaster - simply
> > >> kill any thread in which you see my name!...
>
> > > How do we do that we you ("jim beam") go by a pseudonym???
>
> > pointless red herring.
>
> > and just so you know, trying to say that "tom sherman" is the identity
> > of the person posting under that name, even if that poster were to cite
> > an address with pics, ssn and d/l, and there is indeed a verifiable "tom
> > sherman" at that location, means nothing. there's no way, on usenet,
> > that it's possible to definitively connect the name with the poster.
> > not unless you have access to federal security systems. and even then,
> > you'd pretty much have to fingerprinted and keylogged at that physical
> > machine since zombies and the like make remote control such a breeze.
> > get real, "tom", or whatever your name is
>
> Right on point and very well said.
>
> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through Brandt's
> whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple: Brandt wants to
> get into a "credentials" pissing contest with anyone who dares
> disagree with him. Why else would he use the pretentious, totally
> irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting email?
I bet the bastewarde doesn't even regularly eat mackerels!
/slither
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 06:30:03
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 27, 8:21 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 1:13 am, "jim beam" wrote:
> >> "Plonkmaster" wrote:
> >>> You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always hope to
> >>> retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
> >>> users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short time, we
> >>> post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
> >>> Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control what
> >>> happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility, these
> >>> or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long enough.
> >>> I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
> >>> with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that we're
> >>> all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or later be
> >>> in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little bit to
> >>> treat him as we would like to be treated.
> >> you don't have to like what i say, much less read it. and if your
> >> delicate sensibilities are wounded by the temerity to call a spade a
> >> spade, save yourself and follow your own advice, plonkmaster - simply
> >> kill any thread in which you see my name!...
>
> > How do we do that we you ("jim beam") go by a pseudonym???
>
> pointless red herring.
>
> and just so you know, trying to say that "tom sherman" is the identity
> of the person posting under that name, even if that poster were to cite
> an address with pics, ssn and d/l, and there is indeed a verifiable "tom
> sherman" at that location, means nothing. there's no way, on usenet,
> that it's possible to definitively connect the name with the poster.
> not unless you have access to federal security systems. and even then,
> you'd pretty much have to fingerprinted and keylogged at that physical
> machine since zombies and the like make remote control such a breeze.
> get real, "tom", or whatever your name is
Right on point and very well said.
I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through Brandt's
whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple: Brandt wants to
get into a "credentials" pissing contest with anyone who dares
disagree with him. Why else would he use the pretentious, totally
irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting email?
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 22:58:38
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> I'm surprised that anyone is so dense as not to see through Brandt's
> whole "identity" schtick. It's really quite simple: Brandt wants to
> get into a "credentials" pissing contest with anyone who dares
> disagree with him. Why else would he use the pretentious, totally
> irrelevent "stanfordalumni.org" posting email?
Because it's his email address maybe?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 13:17:44
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
> You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always hope to
> retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
> users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short time,
we
> post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
>
> Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control what
> happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility, these
> or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long enough.
>
> I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
> with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that we're
> all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or later
be
> in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little bit to
> treat him as we would like to be treated.
--------------
From years of reading Usenet posts, I would like to share some observations
that I have made. Regardless of what group, but more specifically technical
groups, when I suddenly observe links to photos of Albert Einstein, or
quotes from Albert Einstein, then a firestorm of ugliness in the group will
shortly follow. The original Star Trek series, had a lot of episodes of the
dangers of people with superior intellect, have on the community.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 17:45:27
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
Dans le message de news:Yrtgi.1478$rR.1350@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net,
Callistus Valerius <jazzyboss@hotmail.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always
>> hope to retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow
>> newsgroup users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for
>> a short time, we post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
>>
>> Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control
>> what happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers,
>> Senility, these or other raveages of old age will encumber us all,
>> if we live long enough.
>>
>> I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams
>> posts with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind
>> that we're all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will
>> sooner or later be in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at
>> least a little bit to treat him as we would like to be treated.
> --------------
> From years of reading Usenet posts, I would like to share some
> observations that I have made. Regardless of what group, but more
> specifically technical groups, when I suddenly observe links to
> photos of Albert Einstein, or quotes from Albert Einstein, then a
> firestorm of ugliness in the group will shortly follow. The original
> Star Trek series, had a lot of episodes of the dangers of people with
> superior intellect, have on the community.
No kidding ?????!!!!!!!!
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine
*******
La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 04:04:11
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 27, 1:32 am, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jun 27, 1:13 am, "jim beam" wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Plonkmaster" wrote:
> > > You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always hope to
> > > retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
> > > users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short time, we
> > > post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
>
> > > Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control what
> > > happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility, these
> > > or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long enough.
>
> > > I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
> > > with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that we're
> > > all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or later be
> > > in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little bit to
> > > treat him as we would like to be treated.
>
> > you don't have to like what i say, much less read it. and if your
> > delicate sensibilities are wounded by the temerity to call a spade a
> > spade, save yourself and follow your own advice, plonkmaster - simply
> > kill any thread in which you see my name!...
>
> How do we do that w[h]e[n] you ("jim beam") go by a pseudonym???
Correction above. I should know better than to post in the middle of
the night when suffering from insomnia.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2007 23:32:27
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
On Jun 27, 1:13 am, "jim beam" wrote:
> "Plonkmaster" wrote:
> > You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always hope to
> > retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
> > users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short time, we
> > post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
>
> > Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control what
> > happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility, these
> > or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long enough.
>
> > I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
> > with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that we're
> > all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or later be
> > in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little bit to
> > treat him as we would like to be treated.
>
> you don't have to like what i say, much less read it. and if your
> delicate sensibilities are wounded by the temerity to call a spade a
> spade, save yourself and follow your own advice, plonkmaster - simply
> kill any thread in which you see my name!...
How do we do that we you ("jim beam") go by a pseudonym???
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 06:21:07
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> On Jun 27, 1:13 am, "jim beam" wrote:
>> "Plonkmaster" wrote:
>>> You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always hope to
>>> retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
>>> users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short time, we
>>> post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
>>> Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control what
>>> happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility, these
>>> or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long enough.
>>> I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
>>> with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that we're
>>> all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or later be
>>> in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little bit to
>>> treat him as we would like to be treated.
>> you don't have to like what i say, much less read it. and if your
>> delicate sensibilities are wounded by the temerity to call a spade a
>> spade, save yourself and follow your own advice, plonkmaster - simply
>> kill any thread in which you see my name!...
>
> How do we do that we you ("jim beam") go by a pseudonym???
>
pointless red herring.
and just so you know, trying to say that "tom sherman" is the identity
of the person posting under that name, even if that poster were to cite
an address with pics, ssn and d/l, and there is indeed a verifiable "tom
sherman" at that location, means nothing. there's no way, on usenet,
that it's possible to definitively connect the name with the poster.
not unless you have access to federal security systems. and even then,
you'd pretty much have to fingerprinted and keylogged at that physical
machine since zombies and the like make remote control such a breeze.
get real, "tom", or whatever your name is.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Jun 2007 22:56:57
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
>>> "Plonkmaster" wrote:
>>>> You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always
>>>> hope to
>>>> retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
>>>> users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short
>>>> time, we
>>>> post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
>>>> Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control
>>>> what
>>>> happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility,
>>>> these
>>>> or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long
>>>> enough.
>>>> I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
>>>> with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that
>>>> we're
>>>> all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or
>>>> later be
>>>> in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little
>>>> bit to
>>>> treat him as we would like to be treated.
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> you don't have to like what i say, much less read it. and if your
>>> delicate sensibilities are wounded by the temerity to call a spade a
>>> spade, save yourself and follow your own advice, plonkmaster - simply
>>> kill any thread in which you see my name!...
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
>> How do we do that we you ("jim beam") go by a pseudonym???
jim beam wrote:
> pointless red herring.
>
> and just so you know, trying to say that "tom sherman" is the identity
> of the person posting under that name, even if that poster were to cite
> an address with pics, ssn and d/l, and there is indeed a verifiable "tom
> sherman" at that location, means nothing. there's no way, on usenet,
> that it's possible to definitively connect the name with the poster. not
> unless you have access to federal security systems. and even then,
> you'd pretty much have to fingerprinted and keylogged at that physical
> machine since zombies and the like make remote control such a breeze.
> get real, "tom", or whatever your name is.
Your point is logical. In this instance, I actually know Tom Sherman.
--
Figment of Imagination
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2007 23:13:28
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jim Beam
|
Plonkmaster wrote:
> You know, as ethereal and impersonal as usenet is, I still always hope to
> retain some measure of humanity when dealing with my fellow newsgroup
> users. Regardless of our differences, we are all here for a short time, we
> post our messages, then *poof* we're gone....
>
> Along that journey try as we might, is there any real way to control what
> happens as we grow old? Tourettes syndrome, Alzheimers, Senility, these
> or other raveages of old age will encumber us all, if we live long enough.
>
> I'd like to hope that before any of us again replies to Jim Beams posts
> with vehemence, disgust, or scorn, that we could keep in mind that we're
> all humans here just riding it all out. Each of us will sooner or later be
> in Jim's situation some day, and we should try at least a little bit to
> treat him as we would like to be treated.
you don't have to like what i say, much less read it. and if your
delicate sensibilities are wounded by the temerity to call a spade a
spade, save yourself and follow your own advice, plonkmaster - simply
kill any thread in which you see my name!
[now, that wasn't too hard was it?]
|
|
