Bad News about D-MAC

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/10/2009 12:05 PM:
On Oct 29, 3:30 am, Noons wrote:
No one died and promoted you to deity.

You mean besides D-Mac?

Dunno, haven't heard from him in a while. I think he's seriously ill, as he was
about to go into some form of surgery. Regardless of some of his past
behaviour, I don't wish bad health on anyone.

David Nebenzahl wrote,on my timestamp of 30/10/2009 10:26 AM:

Boy, you spilled a bib full there, Noonsie. You are admitting that
your case is so bad that orthodox medicine and/or psychotherapy cannot
help you.

I'd agree with that, based on your overall pugilistically antagonistic
attitude displayed on this group.

What you need is nothing less than an exorcism. Go see a priest
forthwith.

If this is what you consider "taking the high road", then you're a
bigger jerk than I gave you credit for.

He's always been nothing but a jerk, David. "high road" is something he once
read in a used pamphlet in a public toilet. Problem is he never realized it was
a mountain resort ad.
The guy redefines stupidity. And the funny thing is this bunch of inbreds
thinks they are on that road as well just because they frequent a list. Fools.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/29/2009 1:17 PM ColinD spake thus:

Noons wrote:

ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 29/10/2009 5:17 PM:

You would make rich pickings for a shrink.

The shrink that can cope with me is not yet born.

Boy, you spilled a bib full there, Noonsie. You are admitting that
your case is so bad that orthodox medicine and/or psychotherapy cannot
help you.

I'd agree with that, based on your overall pugilistically antagonistic
attitude displayed on this group.

What you need is nothing less than an exorcism. Go see a priest
forthwith.

If this is what you consider "taking the high road", then you're a
bigger jerk than I gave you credit for.

First, Mr Nebenzahl, You are butting in on a dialogue between Noons and
myself, and I don't recall inviting you to insert your penny's worth.

Second, you come across as a Noons apologist, which brings into question
your judgment of character, at least the displayed signs of character
inherent in Noon's and my posts.

Third, your quote of the verse below is irrelevant and insulting to say
the least. That puts you lower than me, and about on a par with your
buddy Noons.

You leave me no choice but to trot out some relevant doggerel:

Don't be so ridiculous. Of course you had a choice. You could have
chosen not to include that verse, but you did choose to include it. The
inference that I am beneath a pig's dignity is grossly insulting. As I
said in an earlier post, I very rarely resort to profanity but I am
tempted to here. But I do have a choice, and I choose not to. You are
beneath contempt, Nebenzahl, (to use a cliché).

'Twas the pig fair last September, the day I well remember
I was walking up and down in drunken pride
When my knees began to flutter and I sank down in the gutter
And a pig came up and lay down by my side.

As I sat there in the gutter, thinking thoughts I could not utter
I thought I heard a passing lady say
"You can tell the man who boozes by the company he chooses"
And with that the pig got up and walked away.

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 31/10/2009 1:18 PM:

That's funny. I seem to remember you wishing it on me a number of
times.

Do you? Hey, I just found out why you don't have a clue how obvious your image
manipulations a you don't recall them at all, do you?

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 1/11/2009 1:30 AM:

Nothing wrong with my memory. Not only have you wished bad health on
me, you've often stated that you're the one who would like to
administer it.

In your case, a good clip around the ears is not a health issue: it's a health
improvement.

ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 2/11/2009 9:50 AM:


The only bandwidth penalty is that required to bring down the header,
well under 100 bytes.
Your bandwidth usage increases only if you open the post and bring down
the contents. You will agree that that is entirely a voluntary decision
resting on your shoulders, as is the case when you open any post, not
just mine.

See, KW? He knows a lot as well about the Usenet and how you use it. In
particular, that your bandwidth decreases when you open a message. If only he
had taught all network experts that pearl of wisdom!
Together with all the other subjects in which he's an expert, of course. One
wonders with such a wide range of abilities, what the heck is he doing scamming
his second rate digital gear on the Usenet: what a waste of talent!

Ah well, such is this world...


And compared to some of the threads in here running to more than 200
posts, my input is infinitesimal.

we could only wish...




Of course, it's like a fight, two contestants and and a hundred
onlookers. Human nature.

BWAHAHAHA!

I don't get the 'sez you' remark

together with a lot of other things you don't get...

Noons wrote:
ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 2/11/2009 9:50 AM:


The only bandwidth penalty is that required to bring down the header,
well under 100 bytes.
Your bandwidth usage increases only if you open the post and bring
down the contents. You will agree that that is entirely a voluntary
decision resting on your shoulders, as is the case when you open any
post, not just mine.

See, KW? He knows a lot as well about the Usenet and how you use it.
In particular, that your bandwidth decreases when you open a message.
If only he had taught all network experts that pearl of wisdom!

Noons, what don't you understand about "Your bandwidth usage *increases*
only if you open the post and bring down the contents."? Read it again,
and again, until your mind finally grasps the fact that you misread my
statement. Probably bamboozled by proper English without the epithets.

Clearly, you were so hell-bent on finding something to rubbish me with
that you made a stupid mistake that a five-year-old wouldn't have done.

A reasonable person would apologise for that error - but in your case I
won't hold my breath.

Together with all the other subjects in which he's an expert, of
course. One wonders with such a wide range of abilities, what the heck
is he doing scamming his second rate digital gear on the Usenet: what a
waste of talent!

A typical belligerent Noons remark, no truth in it and designed to
offend. Classic Noons.

Ah well, such is this world...

unfortunately with you in it, Noonsie, I have to agree.

And compared to some of the threads in here running to more than 200
posts, my input is infinitesimal.

we could only wish...




Of course, it's like a fight, two contestants and and a hundred
onlookers. Human nature.

BWAHAHAHA!

What's to laugh at, Moron? It's a perfectly reasonable statement. Do
you usually shriek with laughter at ordinary remarks?

I don't get the 'sez you' remark

together with a lot of other things you don't get...

After your little effort above, you can talk .. NOT.

Noons wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:12 pm, ColinD wrote:


Noons, what don't you understand about "Your bandwidth usage *increases*
only if you open the post and bring down the contents."? Read it again,
and again, until your mind finally grasps the fact that you misread my
statement. Probably bamboozled by proper English without the epithets.

Bandwidth is a constant of the connection, genius.

Of course, Noonsie. I said nothing about bandwidth per se (that means
'by itself')

Usage is what you do with the connection, regardless of bandwidth.

Of course, again. Didn't I say 'bandwidth usage'?
??
Bandwidth only changes if you get shaped or there is a comms hiccup.
Your usage changes: the amount of data you are metered for.

Exactly. and *usage* is what KW was complaining about.

Bandwidth has nothing to do with that other than time.

Of course, for the third time. Most people's connections are fast enough
that time ceases to be a factor when they download data from the net.
USAGE is what counts, because you pay for that, and that is what KW was
meaning. Get it now, Noon****?? (probably not, I imagine)

But don't let a simple fact spoil your hazy dreams.

The only simple fact here is your mind, Noonso.

It sounds kewl to use the word "bandwidth" together with usage,
doesn't it?

Maybe to your laboured mind, weary from putting two words together. To
anyone else, it's just a phrase. Get over it, take an aspirin or something.

You removed a relevant sentence of yours here. Are you wriggling again,
Noonswot? Here, I'll put it in again for you. Noonslop wrote:

"Ah well, such is this world..."

unfortunately with you in it, Noonsie, I have to agree.

and there is preciously nothing you and your cohort of troll friends
can do about it. Ain't it exasperating?

There is nothing to be done, or can be done. It was an observation,
Noons, nothing more. Boy, you sure are hell-bent on making arguments,
aren't you. Better see that shrink I mentioned earlier.

Ah yes: the emails. As if... ?

That email remark was made by KW, not me. Why bring it up here, other
than to reinforce your abysmal lack of comprehension skills?

Oops, Noonsie, another slip; you left out this relevant piece as well:

"Of course, it's like a fight, two contestants and and a hundred
onlookers. Human nature.
BWAHAHAHA!"

What's to laugh at, Moron? It's a perfectly reasonable statement. Do
you usually shriek with laughter at ordinary remarks?

No, only at deranged and demented comments.

You can't tell the difference between reasonable and deranged?

After your little effort above, you can talk .. NOT.

I can always talk, Colon. Always. Get that through your thick mind.

Sure. Talk is cheap, Noonswallop, and your talk is even cheaper. When
(if ever) your mouthings contain useful information, I'll congratulate you.

Colin D.

ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 3/11/2009 11:16 AM:

Of course, again. Didn't I say 'bandwidth usage'?
??

Yes, you did. And wrongly. But don't let that stop you further down from
denying you said it.


Exactly. and *usage* is what KW was complaining about.

Make up your mind, Colon: is it "bandwidth usage" or "usage" now?

KW complained about usage of his total capacity. After which he gets shaped.

Nothing to do with your "bandwidth". Capice, or is it all too hard?

Stay with me he no "bandwidth". It's "usage". Got it?


USAGE is what counts, because you pay for that, and that is what KW was
meaning. Get it now, Noon****?? (probably not, I imagine)

You on the other hand, said "bandwidth usage". Which makes no sense.
Check it out at the top, the first quote from you.
Your words, Colon. Not mine.


The only simple fact here is your mind, Noonso.

Exactly. That is why it doesn't fail. KISS. You on the other hand, are so
over the capacity of your single neuron, it's frightening...


Maybe to your laboured mind, weary from putting two words together.

It sounds kewl to you to use the word "bandwidth" together with "usage" as if it
meant something, doesn't it?


To
anyone else, it's just a phrase.

Yes, and a nonsense one. That's why you are the *only* one still using it.

Get over it, take an aspirin or
something.

I'm well over it. You on the other hand, have kept digging your grave. Be my
guest.


There is nothing to be done, or can be done. It was an observation,
Noons, nothing more. Boy, you sure are hell-bent on making arguments,
aren't you. Better see that shrink I mentioned earlier.

For someone who has done nothing but argue nonsense, you have a lot of nerve
calling others. But then again, that is the hallmark of the low-life troll and
you are certainly in that class.

That email remark was made by KW, not me. Why bring it up here, other
than to reinforce your abysmal lack of comprehension skills?

To hammer your thick head with it. Why, isn't it clear?


You can't tell the difference between reasonable and deranged?

Why should I? All I have to do is point out nonsense, uninformed, deranged
remarks such as yours.

Sure. Talk is cheap, Noonswallop, and your talk is even cheaper. When
(if ever) your mouthings contain useful information, I'll congratulate you.

I'd consider a personal failure any reason for a "congratulation" from a
low-life uninformed troll such as you, Colon.