Alternate discussion groups

On 12/11/2004 5:08 PM Rebecca Ore spake thus:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Still don't understand what you're suggesting; what do you mean by "his
admin"? Do you mean someone at my [yours, anyone else's] ISP? And who or what
is Supernews and what does that have to do with me?

Your headers say that you're posting through Supernews. Your news
provider has some of the most respect spam-filters on the planet,
written in house by one or more of the most respected news admins ditto.

If you don't want to see Simmons anymore, I suggest a killfilter,
really. I have been mildly annoyed by Simmons on occasion, but I tend
to find the people who get into twenty plus wrangles with him really
almost funny.

It's even funnier that you didn't know you were posting through
Supernews:

[snip headers]

OK, I guess I've seen that name before. I don't post directly through
Supernews; my ISP does (through their news.xxxxx.net server), and it's a
detail I don't really care about, like the manufacturer's name stamped on a
part of my car.

Yes, I could killfilter Simmons, or anyone else. However, I don't see any
reason to do so. I simply read those messages I want to and don't read the
rest. It doesn't bother me to see headers of messages from people like Simmons
I disagree with. I don't like to view the world through killfile-colored
glasses: it's a distorted, Pollyanna view.


--
Don't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom.

On 12/11/2004 5:08 PM Rebecca Ore spake thus:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Still don't understand what you're suggesting; what do you mean by "his
admin"? Do you mean someone at my [yours, anyone else's] ISP? And who or what
is Supernews and what does that have to do with me?

Your headers say that you're posting through Supernews. Your news
provider has some of the most respect spam-filters on the planet,
written in house by one or more of the most respected news admins ditto.

If you don't want to see Simmons anymore, I suggest a killfilter,
really. I have been mildly annoyed by Simmons on occasion, but I tend
to find the people who get into twenty plus wrangles with him really
almost funny.

It's even funnier that you didn't know you were posting through
Supernews:

[snip headers]

OK, I guess I've seen that name before. I don't post directly through
Supernews; my ISP does (through their news.xxxxx.net server), and it's a
detail I don't really care about, like the manufacturer's name stamped on a
part of my car.

Yes, I could killfilter Simmons, or anyone else. However, I don't see any
reason to do so. I simply read those messages I want to and don't read the
rest. It doesn't bother me to see headers of messages from people like Simmons
I disagree with. I don't like to view the world through killfile-colored
glasses: it's a distorted, Pollyanna view.


--
Don't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom.

Tom Phillips wrote:



Stacey wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:

In article ,


Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you
seriously suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?

No, but anyone who thinks he's a sociopath can see if his admin would
like to filter him (my guess is that Supernews would suggest taking a
look at some group that has real problems).


But sociopaths have a right to post too don't they? :-)

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...



If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one
of Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to
change their habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to
suggest preemptive censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is
applied to.

People have been yelling at Simmons for enough years that it is obvious
that neither side of the thing are going to affect each other in the
least.

I wonder if he has a clue to how many sales he loses vs gains doing this
here?

The only people I see complaining are you, stafford, and David,

Maybe today, in the past there have been DOZENS of different people
complaining about his actions here. Most have left because of him and were
a valuable resource of information, unlike Steve who basically posts links
to his site as an answer to anything.


Like I said, I used to subscribe to his mag till I saw what a buffoon
he is.

If so, he's not the only one. His critics easily surpass him
in their petty, insignificant self importance on USENET...

But they aren't breaking the group's charter or trying to sell anything.

--

Stacey

Tom Phillips wrote:



Stacey wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:

In article ,


Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you
seriously suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?

No, but anyone who thinks he's a sociopath can see if his admin would
like to filter him (my guess is that Supernews would suggest taking a
look at some group that has real problems).


But sociopaths have a right to post too don't they? :-)

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...



If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one
of Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to
change their habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to
suggest preemptive censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is
applied to.

People have been yelling at Simmons for enough years that it is obvious
that neither side of the thing are going to affect each other in the
least.

I wonder if he has a clue to how many sales he loses vs gains doing this
here?

The only people I see complaining are you, stafford, and David,

Maybe today, in the past there have been DOZENS of different people
complaining about his actions here. Most have left because of him and were
a valuable resource of information, unlike Steve who basically posts links
to his site as an answer to anything.


Like I said, I used to subscribe to his mag till I saw what a buffoon
he is.

If so, he's not the only one. His critics easily surpass him
in their petty, insignificant self importance on USENET...

But they aren't breaking the group's charter or trying to sell anything.

--

Stacey

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...

I cannot tell who wrote that, but regardless; it is clear that this group is
has become a place full of nothing important. Bye.

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...

I cannot tell who wrote that, but regardless; it is clear that this group is
has become a place full of nothing important. Bye.

Stacey wrote:
: Tom Phillips wrote:

:
:
: Stacey wrote:
:
: Rebecca Ore wrote:
:
: In article ,
:
:
: Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you
: seriously suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?
:
: No, but anyone who thinks he's a sociopath can see if his admin would
: like to filter him (my guess is that Supernews would suggest taking a
: look at some group that has real problems).
:
:
: But sociopaths have a right to post too don't they? :-)
:
: Including john stafford, who has a long history of
: sociopathic postings...
:
:
:
: If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one
: of Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to
: change their habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to
: suggest preemptive censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is
: applied to.
: People have been yelling at Simmons for enough years that it is obvious
: that neither side of the thing are going to affect each other in the
: least.
:
: I wonder if he has a clue to how many sales he loses vs gains doing this
: here?
:
: The only people I see complaining are you, stafford, and David,

: Maybe today, in the past there have been DOZENS of different people
: complaining about his actions here. Most have left because of him and were
: a valuable resource of information, unlike Steve who basically posts links
: to his site as an answer to anything.

While Steve's posts can be annoying they're normally non-offensive. I doubt anyone
has left this group becuase of him.

: Like I said, I used to subscribe to his mag till I saw what a buffoon
: he is.
:
: If so, he's not the only one. His critics easily surpass him
: in their petty, insignificant self importance on USENET...

: But they aren't breaking the group's charter or trying to sell anything.

: --
:
: Stacey

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Stacey wrote:
: Tom Phillips wrote:

:
:
: Stacey wrote:
:
: Rebecca Ore wrote:
:
: In article ,
:
:
: Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you
: seriously suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?
:
: No, but anyone who thinks he's a sociopath can see if his admin would
: like to filter him (my guess is that Supernews would suggest taking a
: look at some group that has real problems).
:
:
: But sociopaths have a right to post too don't they? :-)
:
: Including john stafford, who has a long history of
: sociopathic postings...
:
:
:
: If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one
: of Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to
: change their habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to
: suggest preemptive censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is
: applied to.
: People have been yelling at Simmons for enough years that it is obvious
: that neither side of the thing are going to affect each other in the
: least.
:
: I wonder if he has a clue to how many sales he loses vs gains doing this
: here?
:
: The only people I see complaining are you, stafford, and David,

: Maybe today, in the past there have been DOZENS of different people
: complaining about his actions here. Most have left because of him and were
: a valuable resource of information, unlike Steve who basically posts links
: to his site as an answer to anything.

While Steve's posts can be annoying they're normally non-offensive. I doubt anyone
has left this group becuase of him.

: Like I said, I used to subscribe to his mag till I saw what a buffoon
: he is.
:
: If so, he's not the only one. His critics easily surpass him
: in their petty, insignificant self importance on USENET...

: But they aren't breaking the group's charter or trying to sell anything.

: --
:
: Stacey

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

jjs wrote:

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...

I cannot tell who wrote that, but regardless; it is clear that this group is
has become a place full of nothing important. Bye.

Then leave, John. You yourself contribute little
technical knowledge to _any_ nsg I see your posts
in...

jjs wrote:

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...

I cannot tell who wrote that, but regardless; it is clear that this group is
has become a place full of nothing important. Bye.

Then leave, John. You yourself contribute little
technical knowledge to _any_ nsg I see your posts
in...