On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:41:01 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
> Stuart Krivis <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:17:18 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch
>> <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:51:24 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2006-08-17, mlw <mlw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> I know you probably mean well, but it is behaving more like spam than actual
>>>>> advocacy. It is getting in the way of seeing/finding discussions.
>>>>
>>>> How? They're rediculously well marked. You could just put it
>>>> in your killfile and never know those messages were there.
>>>
>>>There are at least 5 reasons.
>>>
>>>1) The volume of messages are such that unless you're using a news server
>>>with monstrous retention times, it causes newsgroup content to get purged
>>>very quickly.
>>
>> You must be using some dinky little newservers, or else the admins
>> don't know how to set them up. It's child's play and costs peanuts to
>> setup enough spool to keep hundreds of days of articles in the text
>> newsgroups.
>
> FFS : if he desisted then there would be no reason. It is too much noise
> : use a digest format as already suggested.
Why should he do what *you* want? If everyone agreed with you, you might
have a case, but so far, I see nothing to suggest they do.
>
>>
>>>
>>>2) He uses deceptively crafted headlines to imply (and sometimes outright
>>>state) things that the stories themselves don't support.
>>
>> You imply (and sometimes outright state) things that the facts don't
>> support. Maybe you should leave?
>
> Maybe Roy should stay on topic and stop with the spam.
He usually is on topic, and he's not a spammer.
>
>>
>> I think his headlines are generally pretty good. If you don't like
>> 'em, don't read 'em.
>
> How do you know if you dont read them? DIGEST SUMMARY!! What is so
> fucking difficult for you to understand. When I buy a newspaper, I dont
> expect 200000 little pieces of paper - I expect one document.
So? This is not a newspaper, it's a news*group*. I for one wouldn't
particularly wish to wade through a huge Digest - I always hated those
things when I was on mailing lists. You do realise there are some eejits
that will actally quote the entire digest just to reply to three lines
that interest them?
>
>>
>> The more you wintrolls complain about Roy's posts, the better I think
>> they are. It's really funny that you've got your panties in such a
>> bunch over this. Are you afraid of Roy?
>
> Afraid for him actually. I think he might be disturbed to want to spend
> so long posting spam and info that we are quite able to find ourselves.
>
Don't be so bloody melodramatic. He's not posting spam, and I very much
doubt he's any more disturbed than you are.
--
Kier
|
|