Re: Looking for a word
- From: Robert Lieblich <robert.lieblich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:30:19 -0500
Default User wrote:
>
> JF wrote:
>
> > X-No-Archive: yes
> > In message <1133824749.290764.129240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > pointed <poppypurity@xxxxxxxxx> writes
> >
> > > I call it nauseatingly disgusting...with all due respect.
> >
> > Posting without context? Yep. I agree.
> >
> > I've finally done it and set the killrule:
> >
> > /^Path: .*news\.postnews.google.com\.com./h
>
> Well, I have to say while there are number of clueless posters coming
> from Google these days, there are also a number of quite respectable
> ones as well, ones who use the quoting mechanisms correctly. It is very
> possible to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. I think filtering
> the entire group is overkill by several degrees.
Knowing James, he'll probably take the accusation of overkill as a
compliment.
And it goes without saying that if the majority of the clueless are
posting from Google, their foibles become ascribed to Google-posters
generally. Witness the earlier, and continuing, anathemization of
AOL.
--
Bob Lieblich
Reformed clueless newbie
.
- References:
- Looking for a word
- From: Arcadian Rises
- Re: Looking for a word
- From: J. W. Love
- Re: Looking for a word
- From: pointed
- Re: Looking for a word
- From: JF
- Re: Looking for a word
- From: Default User
- Looking for a word
- Prev by Date: Re: Wiuff
- Next by Date: Re: Assorted questions 2
- Previous by thread: Re: Looking for a word
- Next by thread: Looking for a word
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|