Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.
Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).
I think maybe its time to do something about it. What I'd like to see happen
is an "upgrade" to usenet. I do not like th forum based communiations that
has sprung up lately but since it solves many of usenet's shortcommings I
believe that will will take over.
If many people feel the same way then maybe we can move on to something
better and increase the efficiency and productivity that usenet was meant
for.
Some ideas I have are:
1. Cook repellent - Some method to prevent cooks from interrupting normal
flow. Either having a voting scheme or some type of identifying means to
either completely remove them or at least make it easier to avoid them.
2. Spam repellent - Similar to Cooks.
3. Meta data - Have the ability to directly include graphics and things like
TeX into messages. For those that do not want to view it they can disable it
or have some other means to see it.
4. Specific tools for groups - Different groups have different needs for
communication. Mathematics groups need to efficiently communicate
mathematical formulas while electronics need to communicate schematics.
5. Moderation - Potentially give regular users of the group the ability to
"quasi-moderate" or in general just have a wide range of options to have
more control over groups(But not to much).
6. Non-anomality or some way to slow down spammers. Maybe better routing
data and such.
7. Potentially "Backwards compatible" with usenet - have the ability to surf
usenet with the same client to help make a smoother transition.
----
In any case this is extremely preliminary and just some thoughts. It seems
that usenet has started to go down the drain. Hopefully there are those out
there that are interested in keeping it alive. I'm thinking something very
similar to usenet but with just more "features".
If enough people are interested in doing this then maybe we can put
something together. All ideas and suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
Jon
Oct 8 '07
113  3016 
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:17:20 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:31:16 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:06:30 -0700, lo***@truthless.net wrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:21:37 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:46:34 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:06:28 -0500, John Fields
><jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>---
>>You've got a total of 13 posts on seb and not one of them contains
>>anything even remotely technical, so why are you pestering us with
>>your trash?
>
>Mainly because it isn't I expect but you can't tell the difference.
---
Your expectations and reality seem to be at odds with each other.
Like you can really tell the difference.
---
Like I can't?
No.
---
Have another drink...
--
JF
Lester Zick wrote:
>
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
Part of your service to the country no doubt.
No, you're just a special case.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
MacArthur's singing that song to congress keep him from leaving a corpse
when he died.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:52:34 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:17:20 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:31:16 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:06:30 -0700, lo***@truthless.net wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:21:37 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:46:34 -0700, Lester Zick
><do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:06:28 -0500, John Fields
>><jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>
>>>---
>>>You've got a total of 13 posts on seb and not one of them contains
>>>anything even remotely technical, so why are you pestering us with
>>>your trash?
>>
>>Mainly because it isn't I expect but you can't tell the difference.
>
>---
>Your expectations and reality seem to be at odds with each other.
Like you can really tell the difference.
---
Like I can't?
No.
---
Have another drink...
What makes you think I drink? You don't believe anything else I say.
~v~~
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:34:13 -0700, JosephKK
<jo************@sbcglobal.netwrote:
>Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:03:09 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:46:35 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>
>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my
>DD214 to prove it.
>>
>Never happened to me or anyone else of course.
>
>
Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
Part of your service to the country no doubt.
The sig
file is
used to
>remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere with
>my
>volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way
>you want to.
A lot of us have been there. That doesn't qualify us as idiots.
Fortunately relatively few were disabled. I was just trying to
understand how you think that bears on issues raised here.
---
It doesn't bear on any issues raised here. He uses it as his .sig,
and the only time he elaborates on it is when someone asks him about
what's up with that.
you seem to take it as a personal affrontery; what's up with _that_?
Usually I only take effrontery with bad spelling. But in your case
I'll make an acception.
~v~~
He typed boldly when the correct word is affront.
So why don't you take the matter up with the one who didn't use the
correct word? I had to make a choice. If he had the effrontery to use
poor composition the least I could do was to take affront or possibly
umbrage. In neither case would I have taken affrontery.
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:27:22 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>
Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
Part of your service to the country no doubt.
No, you're just a special case.
So instead of signing the cross, why not just wave the flag at me some
more to show me just how special I really am. That'll make me go away.
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:56:47 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:52:34 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:17:20 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:31:16 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:06:30 -0700, lo***@truthless.net wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:21:37 -0500, John Fields
><jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:46:34 -0700, Lester Zick
>><do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:06:28 -0500, John Fields
>>><jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>
>>>>---
>>>>You've got a total of 13 posts on seb and not one of them contains
>>>>anything even remotely technical, so why are you pestering us with
>>>>your trash?
>>>
>>>Mainly because it isn't I expect but you can't tell the difference.
>>
>>---
>>Your expectations and reality seem to be at odds with each other.
>
>Like you can really tell the difference.
---
Like I can't?
No.
---
Have another drink...
What makes you think I drink? You don't believe anything else I say.
---
Well, you keep bringing it up so often and associating yourself with
drunkenness that it's hard not to believe it. Especially after:
news:fj********************************@4ax.com
--
JF
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:10:30 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:34:13 -0700, JosephKK
<jo************@sbcglobal.netwrote:
>>Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:03:09 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:46:35 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>
>>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my
>>DD214 to prove it.
>>>
>>Never happened to me or anyone else of course.
>>
>>
> Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
>
>Part of your service to the country no doubt.
>
> The sig
> file is
> used to
>>remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere with
>>my
>>volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way
>>you want to.
>
>A lot of us have been there. That doesn't qualify us as idiots.
>Fortunately relatively few were disabled. I was just trying to
>understand how you think that bears on issues raised here.
---
It doesn't bear on any issues raised here. He uses it as his .sig,
and the only time he elaborates on it is when someone asks him about
what's up with that.
you seem to take it as a personal affrontery; what's up with _that_?
Usually I only take effrontery with bad spelling. But in your case
I'll make an acception.
~v~~
He typed boldly when the correct word is affront.
So why don't you take the matter up with the one who didn't use the
correct word? I had to make a choice. If he had the effrontery to use
poor composition the least I could do was to take affront or possibly
umbrage.
---
No, the least you could have done was nothing at all.
---
In neither case would I have taken affrontery.
---
???
affrontery - to insult to the face by behavior or language
Used: "And you, Scarecrow, have the affrontery
to ask for a brain..."
(The Wizard speaking to the Scarecrow as the
foursome first meet him)
--
JF
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
--
JF
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:14:36 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:27:22 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
Part of your service to the country no doubt.
No, you're just a special case.
So instead of signing the cross, why not just wave the flag at me some
more to show me just how special I really am. That'll make me go away.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
--
JF
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
~v~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:49:54 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:10:30 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:34:13 -0700, JosephKK
<jo************@sbcglobal.netwrote:
>>>Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:03:09 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:46:35 -0700, Lester Zick
><do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>
>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>>
>>>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my
>>>DD214 to prove it.
>>>>
>>>Never happened to me or anyone else of course.
>>>
>>>
>> Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
>>
>>Part of your service to the country no doubt.
>>
>> The sig
>> file is
>> used to
>>>remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere with
>>>my
>>>volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way
>>>you want to.
>>
>>A lot of us have been there. That doesn't qualify us as idiots.
>>Fortunately relatively few were disabled. I was just trying to
>>understand how you think that bears on issues raised here.
>
>---
>It doesn't bear on any issues raised here. He uses it as his .sig,
>and the only time he elaborates on it is when someone asks him about
>what's up with that.
>
>you seem to take it as a personal affrontery; what's up with _that_?
Usually I only take effrontery with bad spelling. But in your case
I'll make an acception.
~v~~
He typed boldly when the correct word is affront.
So why don't you take the matter up with the one who didn't use the
correct word? I had to make a choice. If he had the effrontery to use
poor composition the least I could do was to take affront or possibly
umbrage.
---
No, the least you could have done was nothing at all.
In which case I'd be fully on a par with you.
>In neither case would I have taken affrontery.
---
???
affrontery - to insult to the face by behavior or language
Used: "And you, Scarecrow, have the affrontery
to ask for a brain..."
(The Wizard speaking to the Scarecrow as the
foursome first meet him)
My dictionary disagrees. But then I expect it would with most movie
citations.
~v~~
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
Or you could keep showing your ignorant ass to everyone on comp.dsp,
comp.lang.c++, microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp,
sci.electronics.basics, sci.electronics.design, and sci.math. That will
definately convince everyone that you're too stupid to live.
As far as the US flag? I posted some pictures that I took on
Memorial Day at our Veteran's Park. It brought out a horde of idiots
like you to bitch, and make lewd comments.
<465C7552.DFCAE84C%40earthlink.netif your news server is any good.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
I use that sig file for all the newsgroups I use, and a lot of my
E-mail. I am tired of the anti-American and anti Veteran jackasses, so I
will continue to be posted to set you little idiots into a hissy fit.
It really burns your sorry ass that some veterans aren't ashamed of
having served, or continue to serve their community after they receive
their honorable discharge.
BTW: A sig file is a statment. Yours says that you aren't worth the
time to create a real sig file.
~v~~
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:34:13 -0700, JosephKK
<jo************@sbcglobal.netwrote:
>>Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:03:09 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:46:35 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>
>>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my
>>DD214 to prove it.
>>>
>>Never happened to me or anyone else of course.
>>
>>
> Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
>
>Part of your service to the country no doubt.
>
> The sig
> file is
> used to
>>remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere
>>with my
>>volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way
>>you want to.
>
>A lot of us have been there. That doesn't qualify us as idiots.
>Fortunately relatively few were disabled. I was just trying to
>understand how you think that bears on issues raised here.
---
It doesn't bear on any issues raised here. He uses it as his
.sig, and the only time he elaborates on it is when someone asks
him about what's up with that.
you seem to take it as a personal affrontery; what's up with
_that_?
Usually I only take effrontery with bad spelling. But in your case
I'll make an acception.
~v~~
He typed boldly when the correct word is affront.
So why don't you take the matter up with the one who didn't use the
correct word? I had to make a choice. If he had the effrontery to
use poor composition the least I could do was to take affront or
possibly umbrage. In neither case would I have taken affrontery.
~v~~
And how about you reread, with more care this time, your own previous
post Mr. "take effrontery".
Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names
of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
> and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like
he's the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it
somehow has a bearing on the issues raised here.
~v~~
Have you been there or done that? I have others here have not. And
no, it matters not to Michael's credibility. Dissing his previous
service matters to your credibility, newcomer.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:52:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:05:19 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:52:25 -0400, Jerry Avins <jy*@ieee.org>
wrote:
>>>John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:06:30 -0700, lo***@truthless.net wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:21:37 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:46:34 -0700, Lester Zick
><do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:06:28 -0500, John Fields
>><jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>---
>>>You've got a total of 13 posts on seb and not one of them contains
>>>anything even remotely technical, so why are you pestering us with
>>>your trash?
>>Mainly because it isn't I expect but you can't tell the difference.
>---
>Your expectations and reality seem to be at odds with each other.
Like you can really tell the difference.
---
Like I can't?
Do you two need the exposure you get by cross posting this pissing
match?
---
Well, I kinda like the fact that the dynamics of a public pissing
match cause the pissers to realize that they can't just slough off a
particularly well-aimed squirt, since they're being watched and the
quality of their pissing judged.
Do try to alert us before that happens.
---
Us???
--
JF
John Fields wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:52:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
Do try to alert us before that happens.
---
Us???
Lester, and his stall mate, Eeyore.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:26:13 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
> and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
---
Funny, but in my view that's not the way he comes across at all in
that he very seldom, if ever, brings up his military experiences
unless someone asks him about them.
You, however, have made a couple of unwarranted references to
flag-waving and have been generally belligerent toward him,
ostensibly because of his military background, so I think there's a
little more going on in your head than you want to admit.
--
JF
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:42:24 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:49:54 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:10:30 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:34:13 -0700, JosephKK
<jo************@sbcglobal.netwrote:
Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:03:09 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:46:35 -0700, Lester Zick
>><do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>
>>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>>>
>>>>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my
>>>>DD214 to prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>Never happened to me or anyone else of course.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
>>>
>>>Part of your service to the country no doubt.
>>>
>>> The sig
>>> file is
>>> used to
>>>>remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere with
>>>>my
>>>>volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way
>>>>you want to.
>>>
>>>A lot of us have been there. That doesn't qualify us as idiots.
>>>Fortunately relatively few were disabled. I was just trying to
>>>understand how you think that bears on issues raised here.
>>
>>---
>>It doesn't bear on any issues raised here. He uses it as his .sig,
>>and the only time he elaborates on it is when someone asks him about
>>what's up with that.
>>
>>you seem to take it as a personal affrontery; what's up with _that_?
>
Usually I only take effrontery with bad spelling. But in your case
I'll make an acception.
>
~v~~
He typed boldly when the correct word is affront.
So why don't you take the matter up with the one who didn't use the
correct word? I had to make a choice. If he had the effrontery to use
poor composition the least I could do was to take affront or possibly
umbrage.
---
No, the least you could have done was nothing at all.
In which case I'd be fully on a par with you.
---
Oh, my, what a stunning rebuke!
What are you, about 12 years old?
---
>>In neither case would I have taken affrontery.
---
???
affrontery - to insult to the face by behavior or language
Used: "And you, Scarecrow, have the affrontery
to ask for a brain..."
(The Wizard speaking to the Scarecrow as the
foursome first meet him)
My dictionary disagrees. But then I expect it would with most movie
citations.
---
Perhaps an unabridged, or newer, dictionary is something you might
want to look for.
Also, it seems to be in more or less common use: http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...n&q=affrontery
--
JF
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:50:17 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:42:24 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:49:54 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:10:30 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:34:13 -0700, JosephKK
<jo************@sbcglobal.netwrote:
>Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
>
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:03:09 -0500, John Fields
><jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:46:35 -0700, Lester Zick
>>><do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>>><mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my
>>>>>DD214 to prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Never happened to me or anyone else of course.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
>>>>
>>>>Part of your service to the country no doubt.
>>>>
>>>> The sig
>>>> file is
>>>> used to
>>>>>remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere with
>>>>>my
>>>>>volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way
>>>>>you want to.
>>>>
>>>>A lot of us have been there. That doesn't qualify us as idiots.
>>>>Fortunately relatively few were disabled. I was just trying to
>>>>understand how you think that bears on issues raised here.
>>>
>>>---
>>>It doesn't bear on any issues raised here. He uses it as his .sig,
>>>and the only time he elaborates on it is when someone asks him about
>>>what's up with that.
>>>
>>>you seem to take it as a personal affrontery; what's up with _that_?
>>
>Usually I only take effrontery with bad spelling. But in your case
>I'll make an acception.
>>
>~v~~
>
>He typed boldly when the correct word is affront.
So why don't you take the matter up with the one who didn't use the
correct word? I had to make a choice. If he had the effrontery to use
poor composition the least I could do was to take affront or possibly
umbrage.
---
No, the least you could have done was nothing at all.
In which case I'd be fully on a par with you.
---
Oh, my, what a stunning rebuke!
To a stupid rejoinder.
>What are you, about 12 years old?
Yes.
>>>In neither case would I have taken affrontery.
---
???
affrontery - to insult to the face by behavior or language
Used: "And you, Scarecrow, have the affrontery
to ask for a brain..."
(The Wizard speaking to the Scarecrow as the
foursome first meet him)
My dictionary disagrees. But then I expect it would with most movie
citations.
---
Perhaps an unabridged, or newer, dictionary is something you might
want to look for.
And you might want to look for some new scripts.
>Also, it seems to be in more or less common use:
Most movie script citations are. Try science for a change.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:50:11 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:52:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:05:19 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:52:25 -0400, Jerry Avins <jy*@ieee.org>
wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:06:30 -0700, lo***@truthless.net wrote:
>
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:21:37 -0500, John Fields
><jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:46:34 -0700, Lester Zick
>><do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:06:28 -0500, John Fields
>>><jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>>---
>>>>You've got a total of 13 posts on seb and not one of them contains
>>>>anything even remotely technical, so why are you pestering us with
>>>>your trash?
>>>Mainly because it isn't I expect but you can't tell the difference.
>>---
>>Your expectations and reality seem to be at odds with each other.
>Like you can really tell the difference.
>
---
Like I can't?
Do you two need the exposure you get by cross posting this pissing
match?
---
Well, I kinda like the fact that the dynamics of a public pissing
match cause the pissers to realize that they can't just slough off a
particularly well-aimed squirt, since they're being watched and the
quality of their pissing judged.
Do try to alert us before that happens.
---
Us???
The royal "we" sport. Your science is a little weak, or maybe it's
just your mind.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:56:31 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>John Fields wrote:
>>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:52:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>
Do try to alert us before that happens.
---
Us???
Lester, and his stall mate, Eeyore.
Ha. Ha.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:55:29 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
I use that sig file for all the newsgroups I use, and a lot of my
E-mail. I am tired of the anti-American and anti Veteran jackasses, so I
will continue to be posted to set you little idiots into a hissy fit.
Patriotism being the last resort of scoundrels, of course.
>It really burns your sorry ass that some veterans aren't ashamed of
having served, or continue to serve their community after they receive
their honorable discharge.
No, it really burns my sorry ass that some of us are stupid enough to
put their sorry asses in sig files.
BTW: A sig file is a statment. Yours says that you aren't worth the
time to create a real sig file.
Only because you're too lazy or stupid to read and construe it.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:34:13 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:26:13 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
>
>
>
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
>200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
>> and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
---
Funny, but in my view that's not the way he comes across at all in
that he very seldom, if ever, brings up his military experiences
unless someone asks him about them.
He brings it up in every sig file attached to every post. You're being
disingenuous which I suppose is about the most we can expect from you.
>You, however, have made a couple of unwarranted references to
flag-waving and have been generally belligerent toward him,
ostensibly because of his military background, so I think there's a
little more going on in your head than you want to admit.
You really are incredibly stupid. I offer disclaimers and explain the
disclaimers and you go right on insisting that I'm dissing Michael's
military service. Military partisanship has no bearing on the course
of science, truth, or issues of public censorship.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:48:59 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
Or you could keep showing your ignorant ass to everyone on comp.dsp,
comp.lang.c++, microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp,
sci.electronics.basics, sci.electronics.design, and sci.math. That will
definately convince everyone that you're too stupid to live.
When science and truth are convinced by your flag waving then I'll be
convinced.
As far as the US flag? I posted some pictures that I took on
Memorial Day at our Veteran's Park. It brought out a horde of idiots
like you to bitch, and make lewd comments.
I suspect they may have been complaining more about your religion than
their partiotism.
><465C7552.DFCAE84C%40earthlink.netif your news server is any good.
~v~~
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:55:29 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:53:14 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:12:33 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
---
What is it you find disturbing about Michael's pride in his military
life
Nothing at all.
and why do you find it necessary to try to berate him at every
opportunity?
Because he insists on draping himself in the flag and acting like he's
the only one who's ever been there or done that and that it somehow
has a bearing on the issues raised here.
I use that sig file for all the newsgroups I use, and a lot of my
E-mail. I am tired of the anti-American and anti Veteran jackasses, so I
will continue to be posted to set you little idiots into a hissy fit.
Patriotism being the last resort of scoundrels, of course.
I take it you're an expert on scoundrels? There is no way that
you're a patriot.
It really burns your sorry ass that some veterans aren't ashamed of
having served, or continue to serve their community after they receive
their honorable discharge.
No, it really burns my sorry ass that some of us are stupid enough to
put their sorry asses in sig files.
BTW: A sig file is a statment. Yours says that you aren't worth the
time to create a real sig file.
Only because you're too lazy or stupid to read and construe it.
~v~~
yawn
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:48:59 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:18:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
Show up at our next memorial service and you'll hear the names of
200+ read that prove that is a lie.
Or you could just wave the flag at us some more. That'll be
convincing.
Or you could keep showing your ignorant ass to everyone on comp.dsp,
comp.lang.c++, microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp,
sci.electronics.basics, sci.electronics.design, and sci.math. That will
definately convince everyone that you're too stupid to live.
When science and truth are convinced by your flag waving then I'll be
convinced.
As far as the US flag? I posted some pictures that I took on
Memorial Day at our Veteran's Park. It brought out a horde of idiots
like you to bitch, and make lewd comments.
I suspect they may have been complaining more about your religion than
their partiotism.
You truly are the donkey's twin. When you run out of facts, drag ANY
relgion into the thread as a smokescreen.
>
<465C7552.DFCAE84C%40earthlink.netif your news server is any good.
~v~~
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>What are you, about 12 years old?
Yes.
---
That certainly explains your immaturity.
But it doesn't explain yours.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>Oh, my, what a stunning rebuke!
To a stupid rejoinder.
---
Hardly. My reply to your statement that the least you could do
would be to take affront or possibly umbrage was to illustrate the
logical inconsistency in your reasoning by pointing out that there
was a course you could have taken which would have allowed you to
do even less.
Why don't you explain it to us.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>Also, it seems to be in more or less common use:
Most movie script citations are.
---
Art reflects life, dontcha know?
But nothing reflects you.
>>Try science for a change.
---
LOL, what would _you_ know about science other than it's a word with
seven letters?
And you aren't either.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:12:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Patriotism being the last resort of scoundrels, of course.
I take it you're an expert on scoundrels? There is no way that
you're a patriot.
I don't claim partriotism as a basis for truth; you do.
~v~~
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:14:01 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>When science and truth are convinced by your flag waving then I'll be
convinced.
As far as the US flag? I posted some pictures that I took on
Memorial Day at our Veteran's Park. It brought out a horde of idiots
like you to bitch, and make lewd comments.
I suspect they may have been complaining more about your religion than
their partiotism.
You truly are the donkey's twin. When you run out of facts, drag ANY
relgion into the thread as a smokescreen.
And which facts did you have in mind exactly? Yours or someone elses.
~v~~
In article <47***************@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mi**********@earthlink.net>
wrote:
465C7552.DFCAE84C%40earthlink.net
Not found on my server,
and not found by the Google Message-ID
look up widget.
--
Michael Press
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:20:08 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>>What are you, about 12 years old?
Yes.
---
That certainly explains your immaturity.
But it doesn't explain yours.
---
Well here's the explanation, junior: Whenever I run across nasty
little half-baked juvenile dipshits like you, who have an axe to
grind and want to be slapped around a little, I'm always happy to
oblige, but I always post at a level which I'm sure you'll be able
to comprehend. And, of course, that level falls into the area of
maturity which your pubescent raging hormones force upon you, so I
gauged my target accurately, it seems.
--
JF
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:21:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>>Oh, my, what a stunning rebuke!
To a stupid rejoinder.
---
Hardly. My reply to your statement that the least you could do
would be to take affront or possibly umbrage was to illustrate the
logical inconsistency in your reasoning by pointing out that there
was a course you could have taken which would have allowed you to
do even less.
Why don't you explain it to us.
---
Silly boy, I just did.
--
JF
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:23:24 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>>Also, it seems to be in more or less common use:
Most movie script citations are.
---
Art reflects life, dontcha know?
But nothing reflects you.
---
A mirror do.
And my art reflects my life.
A US patent, several articles published in trade journals, a
successful company, and many original free designs posted to USENET
pro bono.
And you?
---
>>>Try science for a change.
---
LOL, what would _you_ know about science other than it's a word with
seven letters?
And you aren't either.
---
Here, kitty, kitty...
--
JF
Lester Zick do********@nowhere.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:14:01 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>>When science and truth are convinced by your flag waving then I'll
be convinced.
As far as the US flag? I posted some pictures that I took on
Memorial Day at our Veteran's Park. It brought out a horde of
idiots like you to bitch, and make lewd comments.
I suspect they may have been complaining more about your religion
than their partiotism.
You truly are the donkey's twin. When you run out of facts, drag
ANY
relgion into the thread as a smokescreen.
And which facts did you have in mind exactly? Yours or someone
elses.
~v~~
The track record of your posts is facts enough.
John Fields wrote:
>
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:21:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>Oh, my, what a stunning rebuke!
To a stupid rejoinder.
---
Hardly. My reply to your statement that the least you could do
would be to take affront or possibly umbrage was to illustrate the
logical inconsistency in your reasoning by pointing out that there
was a course you could have taken which would have allowed you to
do even less.
Why don't you explain it to us.
---
Silly boy, I just did.
I doubt that you can go low enough to reach its level. I've seen
smarter dogs than 'Sick'.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Lester Sick wrote:
>
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:12:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Patriotism being the last resort of scoundrels, of course.
I take it you're an expert on scoundrels? There is no way that
you're a patriot.
I don't claim partriotism as a basis for truth; you do.
~v~~
Where? Give proof to all the people that you've been bothering with
your mindless drivel.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Michael Press wrote:
>
In article <47***************@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mi**********@earthlink.net>
wrote:
465C7552.DFCAE84C%40earthlink.net
Not found on my server,
and not found by the Google Message-ID
look up widget.
--
Michael Press
It is a group of photos from our Veteran's park earlier this year.
It was posted to news:alt.binaries.schematics.electronic and
news:alt.binaries.pictures.radio
Subject:
Only in America - Memorial Day photos! 766 KB
Date:
Tue, 29 May 2007 18:47:39 GMT
From:
"Michael A. Terrell" <mi**********@earthlink.net>
It is still on the Supernews servers, but I put it up as a temporary
web page until I launch my new website. http://home.earthlink.net/~fay.terre...-day-2007.html
These are reduced images, because of the 10 MB limit for that website.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Lester Sick wrote:
>
Bitch, bitch, bitch.
Admitting your problem is the first step to getting help. Not only
are you a bitch, but you have MPD. :(
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:51:54 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:20:08 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>>>What are you, about 12 years old?
Yes.
---
That certainly explains your immaturity.
But it doesn't explain yours.
---
Well here's the explanation, junior: Whenever I run across nasty
little half-baked juvenile dipshits like you, who have an axe to
grind and want to be slapped around a little, I'm always happy to
oblige, but I always post at a level which I'm sure you'll be able
to comprehend. And, of course, that level falls into the area of
maturity which your pubescent raging hormones force upon you, so I
gauged my target accurately, it seems.
Word salad and buzzword bingo. And we're still awaiting demonstrations
of truth for your opinions, princess.
~v~~
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:55:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:21:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>>>Oh, my, what a stunning rebuke!
To a stupid rejoinder.
---
Hardly. My reply to your statement that the least you could do
would be to take affront or possibly umbrage was to illustrate the
logical inconsistency in your reasoning by pointing out that there
was a course you could have taken which would have allowed you to
do even less.
Why don't you explain it to us.
---
Silly boy, I just did.
Obviously you missed the point of my hyperbolic irony, Captain
Obvious. Here, let me explain it to you . . .
~v~~
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 08:21:58 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>John Fields wrote:
>>
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:21:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
Oh, my, what a stunning rebuke!
To a stupid rejoinder.
---
Hardly. My reply to your statement that the least you could do
would be to take affront or possibly umbrage was to illustrate the
logical inconsistency in your reasoning by pointing out that there
was a course you could have taken which would have allowed you to
do even less.
Why don't you explain it to us.
---
Silly boy, I just did.
I doubt that you can go low enough to reach its level. I've seen
smarter dogs than 'Sick'.
And I've seen smarter martyrs.
~v~~
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:52:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Sick wrote:
>>
Bitch, bitch, bitch.
Admitting your problem is the first step to getting help. Not only
are you a bitch, but you have MPD. :(
Whereas your problem is you wrap the flag around your ass and tell
people to kiss it.
~v~~
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:18:01 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:23:24 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>>>>Also, it seems to be in more or less common use:
Most movie script citations are.
---
Art reflects life, dontcha know?
But nothing reflects you.
---
A mirror do.
>And my art reflects my life.
And now you're being tedious, tendentious, and pompous. Why don't you
admire your reflection in the mirror some more. And we're still
awaiting demonstrations of truth for your opinions, princess.
>A US patent, several articles published in trade journals, a
successful company, and many original free designs posted to USENET
pro bono.
That's just swell, princess.
>And you?
Demonstrations of universal truth by finite tautological reduction to
self contradictory alternatives and exhaustive reduction of boolean
conjunctions in mechanical terms. Nothing much.
>>>>Try science for a change.
---
LOL, what would _you_ know about science other than it's a word with
seven letters?
And you aren't either.
---
Here, kitty, kitty...
Yadayada whatever, princess.
~v~~
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:54:51 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:55:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:21:14 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:42:50 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>>Oh, my, what a stunning rebuke!
>
>To a stupid rejoinder.
---
Hardly. My reply to your statement that the least you could do
would be to take affront or possibly umbrage was to illustrate the
logical inconsistency in your reasoning by pointing out that there
was a course you could have taken which would have allowed you to
do even less.
Why don't you explain it to us.
---
Silly boy, I just did.
Obviously you missed the point of my hyperbolic irony, Captain
Obvious. Here, let me explain it to you . . .
---
Just more hyperbole.
--
JF This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Jon Slaughter |
last post by:
Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.
Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and...
| |
