If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] first rule of usenet (Was: [SI] Special category: Kodachrome)
On 2009-07-08 23:42:17 -0700, Troy Piggins said:
* Savageduck wrote : On 2009-07-08 23:30:10 -0700, Troy Piggins said: [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 8 lines snipped |=---] The first rule of Usenet is that the person who makes the claim has to provide the proof. I thought the first rule of usenet is, you don't talk about usenet. There's a Usenet? Where? Where? Did you take the blue pill or the red pill? Remember, all I'm offering you is the truth. Nothing more. There are pills to take? Isn't that a dimensional thing? I was thinking more in terms of the green & yellow capsule with the white band. That will delete all traces of the whatever it was net thing. :-) -- Regards, Savageduck |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
[OT} first rule of usenet (Was: [SI] Special category: Kodachrome)
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:30:10 +1000, Troy Piggins wrote:
The first rule of Usenet is that the person who makes the claim has to provide the proof. I thought the first rule of usenet is, you don't talk about usenet. Of course. Why talk when a rant will do. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Special category: SHOOTIN EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF USENET?
Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 6/07/2009 9:01 PM:
Try a free site? So which free site is free for the volume of images and views SI generates, and doesn't have ads? The SI generates a dozen photos every second month or so. For chrissakes, stop mis-representing its relevance/importance/size! I can't say I've seen any free sites that are ad free, although I'd be glad to be proven wrong. So what? Couldn't care less about the adds. Never click on them anyway. Just bleeding ignore them. Or are you saying you'd prefer everyone who looks at it be subjected to ads, rather than one or 2 people paying out of the goodness of their hearts, so that everyone else can see the photos sans-advertisements. And of course jack-up the traffic for pbase in the process? If that is what you would prefer, then you are an idiot. And I think you are nothing but another low-life scumbag cocksucker scammer, like the lot of pbase are. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Special category: SHOOTIN EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF USENET?
Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 9:29 PM:
Adblockers are a good thing you know Yeah. Ads aren't a problem. Personally I couldn't give a damn where the thing is hosted. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of their stance. Bull****. Apparently, by their warped view of the world: Pasting a link to an image stored on a "free" site that gets its revenue by advertising - OK. Pasting a link to an image stored on pbase, which directly charges it's users - NOT OK, because that is "advertising" a commercial website. No moron. Stop mis-quoting. It's scamming. Nothing to do with advertising, which is perfectly legit. Got it now, cocksucker? Of course the finer points of that hypocrisy seem to be wasted on Noons and Doug/Shonkei or whatever his sockpuppet is this minute. Of course simple reality is wasted on cocksuckers like you. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Special category: SHOOTIN EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF USENET?
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:15:46 +1000, Noons
wrote: The SI generates a dozen photos every second month or so. For chrissakes, stop mis-representing its relevance/importance/size! And of course jack-up the traffic for pbase in the process? There's some deep thinking. First he points out that the Shoot In generates very few photos, then he claims the Shoot In jacks-up pBase traffic. How many additional hits-per-month does the Shoot In bring pBase? 15? 20? 30, maybe? It's a wonder pBase's system doesn't crash under that load. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Special category: SHOOTIN EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF USENET?
Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 6:50 PM:
about pro-quality photos, winning cameras etc. It is about a bunch of people who read this newsgroup taking photos on a specific subject, then "this" newsgroup? Given this crap has been cross-posted across half a dozen newsgroups as usual, it's very hard to figure out what sort of distorted, idiotic reality you live in when calling it the singular "this". getting feedback on their photos to 1) widen people's photographic repertoire (so they don't get stuck in a rut of taking photos of dogs in Bret's case; or in your case, ugly dogs on their wedding day), and 2)allow people to receive constructive criticism on their photos. Really? Here is a hint: open up a forum in pbase and do all that crap in there. Instead of polluting public newsgroups with your backyard ventures. There are oodles of photographic contests on the web and in magazines where you can win your D3 if that's what floats your boat. If that's what you want SI to be, then **** off and join one of those other contests. In the meantime leave SI participants alone. No. The SI Participants **** OFF public newsgroups so they can be used by the general public. Instead of by a bunch of backyard rednecks. Jealous because you couldn't take it over and make it a commercial venture? I'm glad you openly admit Bret's ulterior motives. Is your little obsession with causing **** in these newsgroups an effort to get out of obscurity? Now it's "these" newsgroups? Make up your mind, MORON! Is it one or many? So it hasn't occurred to you that some people can have altruistic motives? If next you get cry, I'm gonna throw up... Who the **** is Emily and what do I care what the size of their server farm and data centre is? Presumably you are making some reference to the owners of pbase. They run a website hosting photos. Amazing. Just that, photos? Are you absolutely sure? Do you still believe in Santa as well? principle of business as being a means to earn money. But then, you don't even earn enough to register for GST, so maybe you are all **** and wind. Given that you don't either, it's all **** and wind with you as well, eh? |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Special category: SHOOTIN EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF USENET?
Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 9:37 PM:
Noons wrote: Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:23 PM: Now you're just being stupid. In your opinion, where the hell is he supposed to host the photos? - They have to go *somewhere*! Try a free site? A free site, so we'd have to look at ads when we look at the SI photos? No thanks. You don't have to look at ads, moron. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Special category: SHOOTIN EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF USENET?
Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 9:33 PM:
Stop lying, twit. He's telling the truth, genius. Bwecause you say so, twit? |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Special category: SHOOTIN EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF USENET?
Savageduck wrote,on my timestamp of 6/07/2009 11:24 PM:
That much I understood. No, you did not. I was just amused at his strangely affected use of the word. "strangely affected"? WTF does that mean, moron? Did he somehow think it was to be used to imply a threat? How pathetic. Whenever I feel I have to threaten you, I'll do it directly, moron. No need to use foreign languages. Capice? |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Special category: Kodachrome (or more pbase scam)
Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 9/07/2009 4:15 PM:
The first rule of Usenet is that the person who makes the claim has to provide the proof. The first rule of Usenet is that idiots like you should be exposed for the fakes they are. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help with Image Category Experiment | PTKen | Digital Photography | 19 | April 29th 06 10:47 PM |
Help with Image Category Experiment | PTKen | Digital SLR Cameras | 14 | April 29th 06 10:47 PM |
darkroom: 4 Millions Domains data with Category | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 0 | October 28th 04 10:11 AM |