Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs
- From: "Mike Easter" <MikeE@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 23:30:51 -0700
Robert Singers wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:
I remember a few discussions about snipping styles a couple of years ago
which a believe were in this NG. I can't remember if you expressed an
opinion.
I'm an aggressive snipper. I snip everything I'm not replying to, and I
don't leave any snip marks. It is a very simple system. In doing so, I
am committed or pledged to myself to not misrepresent what the other
poster was saying.
I find it rather disingenuous
I don't consider it disingenuous -- where disingenuous can mean insincere
or even worse, giving a false impression of sincerity - ie not 'genuinely'
sincere - which borders on a euphemism for 'falseness'
that you snipped the entire portion of
my post where I asked you as a moral person to judge the behaviour that
is happening in this thread from the UIP fan base
I chose to not reply to that part of your post. I snip everythng I'm not
replying to, because it is my 'policy' or style to leave only the very
words to which I am replying for a context. It is as simple as that. It
has nothing to do with falseness, insincerity, or disingenuousness or
disingenuity.
and then accuse me of
having an Anti-Blinky agenda because I include a one line warning in a
FAQ about an Anti-Google backlash. I don't mention the UIP or Blinky.
You didn't need to mention the UIP or Blinky for me to recognize that your
alleged faq for which you posted no link to a website bore a resemblance
of purpose to the Blinky page on "Need A New News Feed?"
http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
.... which is the same Blinky of UIP fame/notoriety.
And the the backlash is real. For one who is arguing I should do what
is in the FAQ readers best interests it seems a contrary position to
take.
I don't understand those two sentences.
Being a GGer puts one into a 'class' of those who commonly spam
newsgroups, who often are using GG as an anonymizer just like
mail2news ie dizum and others, as well as those who are an annoyance
for other nonspecific reasons related to being inexperienced at
interacting in newsgroups.
What, like the denizens of rec.ponds, alt.wicca, the scientology group
and tens if not other hundreds of groups who have caused a great deal of
discussion in this NG for years about how to filter them? Can you
please provide some evidence that the number of undesirables using GG
outweighs those using NNTP clients or other tools?
I don't read rec.ponds, alt.wicca, or numerous other groups which are
teeming with weirdos.
Can you? It's very trendy to Google-bash but so far there is no
empirical evidence that backs it up.
I'm giving you the 'benefit' of repeating words of yours which I'm not
planning on replying to partly to illustrate that my usual position would
be to not cite your words there because I'm not replying to them. I don't
consider those questions of 'can you' to be a 'job' or an assignment which
I am required to fulfill for any reason whatsoever.
Do you?
--
Mike Easter
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs
- From: Robert Singers
- Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs
- References:
- Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs
- From: Robert Singers
- Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs
- From: Mike Easter
- Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs
- From: Robert Singers
- Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs
- Prev by Date: Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs
- Next by Date: Re: User-Agent:
- Previous by thread: Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs
- Next by thread: Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|