Re: Off Topic
- From: "Cats" <CATS@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:31:51 +1000
Sorry John - I'm piggybacking here.
OK - I picked up on this in a reply 'cos I have this
"person" blocked but just for a laugh I checked out the
reference link he gave.
You have to be kidding! He expects this ng to comply with a
set of guidelines developed by a committee in no way
associated with or endorsed by us and with no authority to
impose any conditions on internet usage NOW, and (according
to them) offered then only as a minimum standard protocol
for adaptation to meet individual requirements . . . . AND
WRITTEN IN OCTOBER 1995!
In the cyber world the general convention where I come from
is that two years is a "generation", where in human terms
this is usually considered to be between 20 and 30 years
(depending on who you ask). So these "rules" he wants us to
use are 5-6 generations old and relate to a world where home
pc connections and widespread daily use of the internet had
not happened yet.
Oh, but wait . . . . that would make the rules kind of
mid-Victorian in attitude in human generational terms, so I
guess they would appeal to him!
I do wish this annoying little person would go back to
reading his printed newspaper in the library of his stuffy
members only club, wearing his smoking jacket and his
handembroidered slippers ROFLMAO (not that I have
anything against any or all of those things I hasten to add,
just the stereotype image they can conjure from too many "B"
movie scenes)
He is obviously hopelessly ill-equipped to cope with the
20th century, let alone the 21st! And I suspect he is
equally incapable of dealing rationally with men and women
who are not so restricted in their attitudes and thinking.
I wish he would just come to terms with his limitations and
go away. And if he can't manage both - I wish he would just
go away LOL
(sigh) I suppose this response will just encourage him to
have another little hissy fit, but I won't notice.
I am only lambasting him now because I am ebullient over the
return of my renegade feline QI. ;-P Boof is back!
BTW John - I loved the wiki ref.
Cheryl & the Cats
0 0 o o 0 0
( > Y < ) ( > Y < ) ( > Y < )
U O U
Enness Boofhead Donut
(Boof just back from 3+ days missing -
injuries unknown at this stage but seem minor)
http://community.webshots.com/user/witchofthewest
catsatararatATyahooDOTcomDOTau
"John A." <no.john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message
news:nv8lg2h3fbga809sp1ov63sqqa6vpqqg1j@xxxxxxxxxx
: On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:34:58 +0100, Edward W. Thompson
: <thomeduk1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:
: >On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:11:29 -0400, Ellen
<nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: >
: >>Edward W. Thompson wrote:
: >>> For your interest or not when I logged on today in
this group there
: >>> were a total of 105 post of which 44 were acknowledged
by the 'poster'
: >>> as off topic. That is 42% of the posts are off topic.
: >>>
: >>> Exactly what do you think this NG is for? You really
are a very
: >>> silly bunch of 'wimin'.
: >>
: >>When I logged on today in this group there was a total
of one post from
: >>Edward W Thompson which was off-topic and acknowledged
as same by the
: >>poster's choice of subject line. That is 100% of the
posts made by
: >>Edward W Thompson.
: >>
: >>Exactly what do you think this NG is for? You really are
a very stupid man.
: >>
: >>
: >>Ellen
: >
: >I respond to this post as being typical of the inane
responses. I
: >think the response to my post makes my point for me: most
especially
: >'silly wimin'. Do you really think I don't know how to
spell women
: >and do you understand the significance of single inverted
commas?
: >
: >This NG is no ones private preserve and because a group
of you 'like
: >it this way' that is no reason that you use your bully
type tactics to
: >take the Group away from the more considerate who do post
on topic.
: >
: >Does OT posts do any harm?, Likely not but they are a
discourtesy. I
: >thought perhaps you weren't aware of the discourtesy you
were
: >inflicting on others but apparently you are and
unfortunately you
: >simply don't care. Certainly the kill file can be used
but why is it
: >necessary in this circumstance?
: >
: >I suggest you go to http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html that will
explain to
: >you the point I am making to you. I especially refer to
page 8 of the
: >article. From your posts I assume you will immediately
reject the
: >'Rules' of Netiquette, but for most who have responded it
is nothing
: >more than I would expect. Arrogance comes to mind!
:
: I suggest you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk
that will
: explain to you the point I am making to you.
:
: JA
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Off Topic
- From: KJ
- Re: Off Topic
- References:
- Off Topic
- From: Edward W . Thompson
- Re: Off Topic
- From: Ellen
- Re: Off Topic
- From: Edward W . Thompson
- Off Topic
- Prev by Date: Re: Creative Grids (mostly for UK-ers I think)
- Next by Date: Re: quilt for me happy dance
- Previous by thread: Re: Off Topic
- Next by thread: Re: Off Topic
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
