Am I missing the point of news groups?

that is the beauty of free speech…You choose what you want to read.

"DjD" wrote in message

I find it so disappointing, to see someone make a posting than others lunge at it, like its a home run baseball flying into the bleachers. It seems that, there are people on every news group, who must go from post to post, just looking for anything they can pounce on, and complain about. If a posting is of no intrust, then just keep going. If you have to correct someone’s post, it should be done so politely. Unless something is posted that will cause a less knowledgeable person problems, it is only the posters opinion, and there is no need to correct it any way. This and all news groups, are intended to be a source of assistance for each other. When someone attacks another’s post, it discourages the person who posted from posting again, and worst it prevents readers from posting out of fear of being picked apart if they do. People who attack others, do so because they want attention. As a child they acted out to get attention, and thats how they deal with others as adults. The superior aptitude they think they display, is suppose to be impressive, but it comes across as a prick who thinks he knows everything.

DjD

in article caTQb.15501$, DjD at
wrote on 1/25/04 9:39 AM:

This and all news
groups, are intended to be a source of assistance for each other.

You have a very limited view of how newsgroups can be used. Each person that uses a newsgroup gets to decide how they will use the newsgroup. There is no "one way" that a newsgroup must be used.

You might want to consider opening your mind a little.

":^) ®

When
someone attacks another’s post, it discourages the person who posted from posting again, and worst it prevents readers from posting out of fear of being picked apart if they do.

Small price to pay to exercise the right of free speech.

If you don’t have a tough "hide" then you should not be posting in Usenet.

":^) ®

People who attack others, do so because they
want attention.

Thus you responded and supplied what they wanted.

How cute.

":^) ®

The superior aptitude they think they
display, is suppose to be impressive, but it comes across as a prick who thinks he knows everything.

Thus you responded with your attitude.

hahahaha.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:39:37 -0600, "DjD" wrote:

I find it so disappointing, to see someone make a posting than others lunge at it, like its a home run baseball flying into the bleachers. It seems that, there are people on every news group, who must go from post to post, just looking for anything they can pounce on, and complain about. If a posting is of no intrust, then just keep going. If you have to correct someone’s post, it should be done so politely. Unless something is posted that will cause a less knowledgeable person problems, it is only the posters opinion, and there is no need to correct it any way. This and all news groups, are intended to be a source of assistance for each other. When someone attacks another’s post, it discourages the person who posted from posting again, and worst it prevents readers from posting out of fear of being picked apart if they do. People who attack others, do so because they want attention. As a child they acted out to get attention, and thats how they deal with others as adults. The superior aptitude they think they display, is suppose to be impressive, but it comes across as a prick who thinks he knows everything.

DjD

I believe this is a real problem with online communities.

I don’t really know of a solution yet. IRC is horrible. Usenet can be much better, but I am beginning to see that some web based forums and blog-"rings" might be the future for communities less inhabited by those who require medication for normal day to day social operation. 😉

-AB

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:15:57 -0800, Combaticus
wrote:

in article caTQb.15501$, DjD at
wrote on 1/25/04 9:39 AM:

If you don’t have a tough "hide" then you should not be posting in Usenet.

Yes, well, online communities have changed.

Perhaps they have changed at a rate proportional to their accessibility, or perhaps proportional to their latency. Either way, IRC was the first to become much less useful. I believe Usenet is second.

What is next? Where is haven?

In a cruel twist of fate, almost a catch-22, most answers to these questions these days will be useless.

-AB

in article , Afanasiy at
wrote on 1/25/04 11:41 AM:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:15:57 -0800, Combaticus
wrote:

in article caTQb.15501$, DjD at
wrote on 1/25/04 9:39 AM:

If you don’t have a tough "hide" then you should not be posting in Usenet.

Yes, well, online communities have changed.

Perhaps they have changed at a rate proportional to their accessibility, or perhaps proportional to their latency. Either way, IRC was the first to become much less useful. I believe Usenet is second.

I personally don’t have such a narrow view of what newsgroups are "for". I consider them forums that change over time. They are not static. It really does not matter what the "title" says on the newsgroup…the people using that particular newsgroup will decide how it is to be used.

As people come and go in a newsgroup the use of the newsgroup changes. Plus there is the factor of strong personalities coming into a newsgroup and changing the newsgroup. That happens.

One thing that does not change in all of the ".alt" newsgroups though is the fact that they are all free speech based at their core. Thus any type of topics are allowed in any of the ".alt" newsgroups.

No matter what the title says on the newsgroup.

":^) ®

Afanasiy wrote in
news::

What is next? Where is haven?

If you GOOGLE it, it. appears to be in Pennsylvania….I wooda never thunked

So, free speech to some means the right to belittle and insult others?

LS
"Combaticus" wrote in message

in article caTQb.15501$, DjD at
wrote on 1/25/04 9:39 AM:

This and all news
groups, are intended to be a source of assistance for each other.

You have a very limited view of how newsgroups can be used. Each person that uses a newsgroup gets to decide how they will use the newsgroup.

There

is no "one way" that a newsgroup must be used.
You might want to consider opening your mind a little.

":^)

Lightsmith wrote:

So, free speech to some means the right to belittle and insult others?
LS

Freedom of speech is all about the right to say that which is unpopular. The First Amendment has no use where everyone is in agreement. —
Jeff ‘The Wizard of Draws’ Bucchino

"Cartoons with a Touch of Magic"
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:07:40 -0500, Wizard of Draws
scribbled:

Lightsmith wrote:

So, free speech to some means the right to belittle and insult others?
LS

Freedom of speech is all about the right to say that which is unpopular. The First Amendment has no use where everyone is in agreement.

Seeing as the First Amendment ONLY guarantees the government will not make laws imposing on the rights of the people to speak their minds it has no bearing whatsoever here. People should try reading the Bill of Rights sometime before talking about it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:07:40 -0500, Wizard of Draws
scribbled:

Lightsmith wrote:

So, free speech to some means the right to belittle and insult others?
LS

Freedom of speech is all about the right to say that which is unpopular. The First Amendment has no use where everyone is in agreement.

Seeing as the First Amendment ONLY guarantees the government will not make laws imposing on the rights of the people to speak their minds it has no bearing whatsoever here. People should try reading the Bill of Rights sometime before talking about it.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress has made no law abridging Usenet insults, and since I assume that no one frequenting this group has been visited by jack-booted thugs in the night, the First Amendment seems to be working quite well here.

Unpopular speech such as insults or belittling *is* allowed on Usenet. It may not be polite or the right thing to do and I don’t engage in it myself, but I respect the right of those that do and ignore them. The original poster might do well to take the same position and avoid the pain of an ulcer.
—
Jeff ‘The Wizard of Draws’ Bucchino

"Cartoons with a Touch of Magic"
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Combaticus wrote:

in article caTQb.15501$, DjD at
wrote on 1/25/04 9:39 AM:

This and all news
groups, are intended to be a source of assistance for each other.

You have a very limited view of how newsgroups can be used. Each person that uses a newsgroup gets to decide how they will use the newsgroup. There is no "one way" that a newsgroup must be used.
You might want to consider opening your mind a little.

":^) ®

When
someone attacks another’s post, it discourages the person who posted from posting again, and worst it prevents readers from posting out of fear of being picked apart if they do.

Small price to pay to exercise the right of free speech.
If you don’t have a tough "hide" then you should not be posting in Usenet.
":^) ®

People who attack others, do so because they
want attention.

Thus you responded and supplied what they wanted.

How cute.

":^) ®

The superior aptitude they think they
display, is suppose to be impressive, but it comes across as a prick who thinks he knows everything.

Thus you responded with your attitude.

hahahaha.

Heard you the first time, Sparky, but the Usenet was divided up into groups for a reason.

Duck and dance as you may, the facts only smile. And congrats for proving DjD’s point.
—
Mike

DjD wrote:

I find it so disappointing, to see someone make a posting than others lunge at it, like its a home run baseball flying into the bleachers. It seems that, there are people on every news group, who must go from post to post, just looking for anything they can pounce on, and complain about. If a posting is of no intrust, then just keep going. If you have to correct someone’s post, it should be done so politely. Unless something is posted that will cause a less knowledgeable person problems, it is only the posters opinion, and there is no need to correct it any way. This and all news groups, are intended to be a source of assistance for each other. When someone attacks another’s post, it discourages the person who posted from posting again, and worst it prevents readers from posting out of fear of being picked apart if they do.

That’s the lack of self-confidence, without which one would do much better. Seriously, there’s no need to attack a person, and if your intention is not to attack, why not post? Post and if you get flamed, just get on with your life. Don’t respond to flames. Keep posting. If you’re dumb enough to sit there crying like a crybaby after getting busted on a news group, you won’t get far in your real life either, am I not right?

People who attack
others, do so because they want attention. As a child they acted out to get attention, and thats how they deal with others as adults. The superior aptitude they think they display, is suppose to be impressive, but it comes across as a prick who thinks he knows everything.

You know, it’s not a good practice to label people. Sometimes one can upload a load of bullshit, and the next day s/he may be saving your life. Besides, the very last lines of your post are also a display of elitism, *the* thing you’re complaining about.

DjD

—
Branko Vukelic ()

in article , Mike Richmann at
wrote on 1/25/04 3:49 PM:

Usenet was divided up into
groups for a reason.

It was divided so that people could find topics easier … but just because there are many newsgroups does not mean that topics can’t overlap into many newsgroups. It happens all the time.

For instance people like you like to argue about what is allowed in newsgroups. That is not the "on topic" issue for this newsgroup, now is it.

":^) ®

But you like to fuss and whine about what is allowed so you type your messages and you post them and don’t really care what the newsgroup name is.

":^) ®

I do the same thing. I don’t really care what the name of the newsgroup is, if I see a topic that interests me, I will sometimes respond. The newsgroup name is irrelevant.

":^) ®

in article MkWQb.13$, Lightsmith at
wrote on 1/25/04 1:14 PM:

So, free speech to some means the right to belittle and insult others?
LS

It is not my responsibility to decide what you feel and what you think. If you choose to feel belittled or insulted, that is your choice.

":^) ®

in article , Wizard of Draws at
wrote on 1/25/04 2:07 PM:

Lightsmith wrote:

So, free speech to some means the right to belittle and insult others?
LS

Freedom of speech is all about the right to say that which is unpopular. The First Amendment has no use where everyone is in agreement.

Exactly.

":^) ®

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 1/25/04 2:42 PM:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:07:40 -0500, Wizard of Draws
scribbled:

Lightsmith wrote:

So, free speech to some means the right to belittle and insult others?
LS

Freedom of speech is all about the right to say that which is unpopular. The First Amendment has no use where everyone is in agreement.

Seeing as the First Amendment ONLY guarantees the government will not make laws imposing on the rights of the people to speak their minds it has no bearing whatsoever here. People should try reading the Bill of Rights sometime before talking about it.

The laws of the land have a habit of leaking into the institutions of the land… Usenet was built by the Government. It should have been more free speech based when Usenet started, but it was not. The first newsgroups were not the ".alt" newsgroups. The first ones were moderated, and / or limited in their topics. That is why there were so many newsgroups started, they wanted to keep the topics to specific newsgroups. That had a tendency to limit what could be discussed in an individual newsgroup. The ".alt" newsgroups were built by "geeks" that did not want the restrictions of the "normal" newsgroups. The ".alt" newsgroups were in contrast to the limited topic newsgroups. They still had titles for the newsgroups, but there was no moderation, and no real way to keep people "on topic" in the ".alt" newsgroups.

You need to learn your history.

":^) ®

in article , Wizard of Draws at
wrote on 1/25/04 3:32 PM:

Unpopular speech such as insults or belittling *is* allowed on Usenet.

Exactly.

":^) ®

Combaticus wrote:

in article MkWQb.13$, Lightsmith at
wrote on 1/25/04 1:14 PM:

So, free speech to some means the right to belittle and insult others?
LS

It is not my responsibility to decide what you feel and what you think. If you choose to feel belittled or insulted, that is your choice.
":^) ®

That’s about the best answer to the original post, IMO.

—
Branko Vukelic ()

Combaticus wrote:

in article , Mike Richmann at
wrote on 1/25/04 3:49 PM:

Usenet was divided up into
groups for a reason.

It was divided so that people could find topics easier … but just because there are many newsgroups does not mean that topics can’t overlap into many newsgroups. It happens all the time.

For instance people like you like to argue about what is allowed in newsgroups. That is not the "on topic" issue for this newsgroup, now is it.

[Drivelpurge<tm>]

Come now, Spurticus…

Surely you know what a followup is? Afterall, any newbie who’s read the newsgroups.announce.* heirarchy does.
—
Mike

Thank you Mike, AB and all who responded to the post. Some of you seem to have a keen perception of the obvious. Unless a group functions as a whole, there is no point in having one. I was curious as to how many people would correlate the meaning of freedom of speech, with there having the legal right to attack others in sociopathic fashion. Someone made the statement "You might want to consider opening your mind a little", that may actually apply after all. The right to free speech is one of our most important rights, but redefined every day in the legal system. In most states, any verbal communication you have with another, that they claim made them feel threatened by you, (whether you intended to, or not) is now a "must arrest" for "criminal assault". If you still feel that you have unrestricted freedom of speech, to say what you want ever you want to, because its your right, then make a few sexual remarks to a female coworker. Tell a handicapped person to go ahead and die, stop living off of your tax dollars, or better yet, make a few racial remarks, to a minority individual. You can explane the right to free speach to your cell mate while you do your, 11/29. Just as a suggestion, learn a little about Constitutional Law and codicils to repeal, before you say you have the right to free speech.

DjD

———————————————————

"Mike Richmann" wrote in message

Combaticus wrote:

in article caTQb.15501$, DjD at
wrote on 1/25/04 9:39 AM:

This and all news
groups, are intended to be a source of assistance for each other.

You have a very limited view of how newsgroups can be used. Each person that uses a newsgroup gets to decide how they will use the newsgroup.

There

is no "one way" that a newsgroup must be used.
You might want to consider opening your mind a little.

":^)

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:50:47 -0600, "DjD" wrote:

Thank you Mike, AB and all who responded to the post. Some of you seem to have a keen perception of the obvious. Unless a group functions as a whole, there is no point in having one. I was curious as to how many people would correlate the meaning of freedom of speech, with there having the legal right to attack others in sociopathic fashion. Someone made the statement "You might want to consider opening your mind a little", that may actually apply after all. The right to free speech is one of our most important rights, but redefined every day in the legal system. In most states, any verbal communication you have with another, that they claim made them feel threatened by you, (whether you intended to, or not) is now a "must arrest" for "criminal assault". If you still feel that you have unrestricted freedom of speech, to say what you want ever you want to, because its your right, then make a few sexual remarks to a female coworker. Tell a handicapped person to go ahead and die, stop living off of your tax dollars, or better yet, make a few racial remarks, to a minority individual. You can explane the right to free speach to your cell mate while you do your, 11/29. Just as a suggestion, learn a little about Constitutional Law and codicils to repeal, before you say you have the right to free speech.

There you go again, assuming that American law has anything whatsoever to do with Usenet. It doesn’t, hasn’t and never will. newsgroups, and alt. newsgroups in particular, are havens where anyone is allowed to say whatever they want to anyone else. You may not like it, and of course, you have the right to reply if you want to, but please remember that Usenet does not "belong" to Americans. In fact, I find that idea quite insulting…

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

in article 1p_Qb.19476$, DjD at
wrote on 1/25/04 5:50 PM:

Unless a group functions as a whole,
there is no point in having one.

Such things are not going to happen in a newsgroup. There are just too many people reading and posting in newsgroups for a newsgroup to "function as a whole".

Plus I have never been a fan of "group think" or the benefit of "herd mentality". Such things never impress me.

":^) ®

I was curious as to how many people would
correlate the meaning of freedom of speech, with there having the legal right to attack others in sociopathic fashion.

Being "attacked in a sociopathic" fashion is not possible in a newsgroup. Words can not harm you.

Now if you want to break the law and write libelous statements, then there are legal steps that can be taken. But that is not what you are crying about, now is it.

":^) ®

Someone made the statement
"You might want to consider opening your mind a little", that may actually apply after all. The right to free speech is one of our most important rights, but redefined every day in the legal system. In most states, any verbal communication you have with another, that they claim made them feel threatened by you, (whether you intended to, or not) is now a "must arrest" for "criminal assault".

None of which is happening in a newsgroup. This is not a face to face communication medium. Just written words.

":^) ®

If you still feel that you have unrestricted freedom
of speech, to say what you want ever you want to, because its your right, then make a few sexual remarks to a female coworker.

None of that applies to newsgroups.

Move on.

Tell a handicapped
person to go ahead and die, stop living off of your tax dollars…

Happens all the time in newsgroups.

Move on.

or better
yet, make a few racial remarks, to a minority individual.

Happens all the time in newsgroups.

Move on.

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:50:47 -0600, "DjD" wrote:

Thank you Mike, AB and all who responded to the post. Some of you seem to have a keen perception of the obvious. Unless a group functions as a whole, there is no point in having one. I was curious as to how many people would correlate the meaning of freedom of speech, with there having the legal right to attack others in sociopathic fashion. Someone made the statement "You might want to consider opening your mind a little", that may actually apply after all. The right to free speech is one of our most important rights, but redefined every day in the legal system. In most states, any verbal communication you have with another, that they claim made them feel threatened by you, (whether you intended to, or not) is now a "must arrest" for "criminal assault". If you still feel that you have unrestricted freedom of speech, to say what you want ever you want to, because its your right, then make a few sexual remarks to a female coworker. Tell a handicapped person to go ahead and die, stop living off of your tax dollars, or better yet, make a few racial remarks, to a minority individual. You can explane the right to free speach to your cell mate while you do your, 11/29. Just as a suggestion, learn a little about Constitutional Law and codicils to repeal, before you say you have the right to free speech.

There you go again, assuming that American law has anything whatsoever to do with Usenet. It doesn’t, hasn’t and never will. newsgroups, and alt. newsgroups in particular, are havens where anyone is allowed to say whatever they want to anyone else. You may not like it, and of course, you have the right to reply if you want to, but please remember that Usenet does not "belong" to Americans. In fact, I find that idea quite insulting…

By your own logic, so what if you do?

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:50:47 -0600, "DjD" wrote:

Thank you Mike, AB and all who responded to the post. Some of you seem to have a keen perception of the obvious. Unless a group functions as a whole, there is no point in having one. I was curious as to how many people would correlate the meaning of freedom of speech, with there having the legal right to attack others in sociopathic fashion. Someone made the statement "You might want to consider opening your mind a little", that may actually apply after all. The right to free speech is one of our most important rights, but redefined every day in the legal system. In most states, any verbal communication you have with another, that they claim made them feel threatened by you, (whether you intended to, or not) is now a "must arrest" for "criminal assault". If you still feel that you have unrestricted freedom of speech, to say what you want ever you want to, because its your right, then make a few sexual remarks to a female coworker. Tell a handicapped person to go ahead and die, stop living off of your tax dollars, or better yet, make a few racial remarks, to a minority individual. You can explane the right to free speach to your cell mate while you do your, 11/29. Just as a suggestion, learn a little about Constitutional Law and codicils to repeal, before you say you have the right to free speech.

There you go again, assuming that American law has anything whatsoever to do with Usenet. It doesn’t, hasn’t and never will. newsgroups, and alt. newsgroups in particular, are havens where anyone is allowed to say whatever they want to anyone else. You may not like it, and of course, you have the right to reply if you want to, but please remember that Usenet does not "belong" to Americans. In fact, I find that idea quite insulting…

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

I find that quite understandable, although unfortunate. Cultural diversity was never celebrated on the Usenet, I’m afraid. Probably has to do with the fact that Americans are the majority on the news groups that do not have the national prefixes (fr. or yu. for example).

OTOH, it is kinda strange that citizens of such a multi-ethnic country like the US show such lack of understanding for the multi-national structure of the Usenet… Not the mention the lack of understanding of the fact that the US is not the only country in the world where there are laws to guarantee the freedom of speech…

—
Branko Vukelic ()

DjD,

There are certainly some nasty commenter in this NG. PS is not for the faint of heart and neither is this NG. As you read, you will see that certain individuals contribute nothing but verbal assaults, some contribute great advice with their verbal assaults and most are really helpful and don’t need to attack at all. Just block the ones that offer no help and you will get a new perspective of the group.

As someone said in a reply to yours:
"As people come and go in a newsgroup the use of the newsgroup changes. Plus
there is the factor of strong personalities coming into a newsgroup and changing the newsgroup. That happens."

That is so true. Perhaps, as the folks that see NG’s as a way to vent are ignored, they will go away?

Suzi

"DjD" wrote in message

I find it so disappointing, to see someone make a posting than others

lunge

at it, like its a home run baseball flying into the bleachers. It seems that, there are people on every news group, who must go from post to post, just looking for anything they can pounce on, and complain about. If a posting is of no intrust, then just keep going. If you have to correct someone’s post, it should be done so politely. Unless something is posted that will cause a less knowledgeable person problems, it is only the

posters

opinion, and there is no need to correct it any way. This and all news groups, are intended to be a source of assistance for each other. When someone attacks another’s post, it discourages the person who posted from posting again, and worst it prevents readers from posting out of fear of being picked apart if they do. People who attack others, do so because

they

want attention. As a child they acted out to get attention, and thats how they deal with others as adults. The superior aptitude they think they display, is suppose to be impressive, but it comes across as a prick who thinks he knows everything.

DjD

"DjD" …

I find it so disappointing, to see someone make a posting than others lunge at it, like its a home run baseball flying into the bleachers. It seems that, there are people on every news group, who must go from post to post, just looking for anything they can pounce on, and complain about.

That’s what happens when they allow kids on these things 🙂

There’s no way I would ever take anything personal from comments of complete strangers.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 08:26:12 -0500, "The Data Rat" < remove X> wrote:

That is so true. Perhaps, as the folks that see NG’s as a way to vent are ignored, they will go away?

Suzi

Hi Suzi,

That, of course, is the basis of the statement "Don’t feed the Trolls" 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

in article , Hecate at
wrote on 1/26/04 4:56 PM:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 08:26:12 -0500, "The Data Rat" < remove X> wrote:

That is so true. Perhaps, as the folks that see NG’s as a way to vent are ignored, they will go away?

Suzi

Hi Suzi,

That, of course, is the basis of the statement "Don’t feed the Trolls" 😉

And how many years have you guys been trying to make people "go away" by "not feeding the trolls"?

Is it working?

hahahahaha.

But of course you will continue to do the same thing, even though it does not get you want you want. How funny is that.

hahaha.

You are of course not missing the point of this news group. Your are good words, and sadly there are those who make an art form out of "pouncing" on people who post here and on other public forums.

I find the best two solutions are to try to post straight ahead information, and attempt to stay out of the drama. It is also helpful, if your newsreader allows, to block certain individuals who are consistently more provocative than productive. I make great use of this feature.

BTW, I don’t block Mike C – currently provoking as the ignominious Combaticus – because his posts are always 100% content free: and aimed incisively at the ego of the previous poster. People who buy into his game for very long – trading sentences and paragraphs for his one liners – appear foolish. Perhaps their eventual realization of this is the sum of Mike C’s contribution.

Individuals who post anonymously are a pet peeve of mine. With the exception of established favorites like Hecate, Tacit, MSD/wharfrat, and others whose contributions are uniformly positive, it is unclear what anonymous people are trying to do here at all. They have no obligation to make sense, and when anonymous posters adopt insulting language, this is IMHO is the root of the problem to which you refer.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

DjD wrote:

I find it so disappointing, to see someone make a posting than others lunge at it, like its a home run baseball flying into the bleachers. It seems that, there are people on every news group, who must go from post to post, just looking for anything they can pounce on, and complain about. If a posting is of no intrust, then just keep going. If you have to correct someone’s post, it should be done so politely. Unless something is posted that will cause a less knowledgeable person problems, it is only the posters opinion, and there is no need to correct it any way. This and all news groups, are intended to be a source of assistance for each other. When someone attacks another’s post, it discourages the person who posted from posting again, and worst it prevents readers from posting out of fear of being picked apart if they do. People who attack others, do so because they want attention. As a child they acted out to get attention, and thats how they deal with others as adults. The superior aptitude they think they display, is suppose to be impressive, but it comes across as a prick who thinks he knows everything.

DjD

in article iEsRb.6693$, Mike Russell at
wrote on 1/27/04 4:16 AM:

BTW, I don’t block Mike C – because his posts are always … aimed incisively at the ego of the previous poster. People who buy into his game for very long – trading sentences and paragraphs for his one liners – appear foolish.

€º°`°º€ø,¸¸,ø€º°`°º€ø,¸¸,ø€º°`° º€ø,¸¸,ø€º°`°º€ø The New 2004 List
€ø,¸¸,ø€º°`°º€ø,¸¸,ø€º°`°º€ø,¸¸ ,ø€º°`°º€ø,¸¸,ø€

Version 666.9
27, Tuesday January, 2004 8:35:02 AM

–=*=—-=*=—-=*=—-=*=—-=*=—-=*=–

========================================
Past Tributes to "Mike C."
http://www.artistmike.com/MC.Tribute/Tribute1.html
http://www.artistmike.com/MC.Tribute/Tribute2.html
http://www.artistmike.com/MC.Tribute/Tribute3.html
========================================

Uhoh…Ron just threw the door wide open to being
a MIke Christy net toy

Brian Mays

[Mike] Are you the devil?

Brian Mays

I’m a Mike (C.)olohic … What about you???

Dave Moon

It’s a sad man who actually TRIES to
get on the list…

Brian

Mike hasn’t lost the plot,
he just rewrites it as he goes.

Emil Mroz

See, Mike writes his little messages of
independence and responsibility to people
like you… but most ‘get’ the exact opposite
message, and start jumping through that hoop.

You have spent most of your time here doing
cartoons… Now you seem to need Mike for your
inspiration. Like Rubens needed women,
many of you need a Mike.

Joske

To understand the concept, you have to look
for past posts about MikeC’s "game", which he
plays with his "net toys"… it’s surreal…
like Mr Bean doing "The Matrix"…

"The Game"… it’s actually a social thing…
a phenomenon only possible in the Virtual world.

Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio

BTW, I don’t block Mike C – because his posts
are always … aimed incisively at the ego of the
previous poster. People who buy into his game
for very long – trading sentences and paragraphs
for his one liners – appear foolish.

Mike Russell

There actually is no Mike C. He is a computer
program developed in 1983 as a class project
in artificial intelligence by a unnamed student
at MIT. This now-antiquated software has taken
a life of it’s own and has infected thousands of
Web servers around the world. In 1996 a cult of
Mike C. fans attempted to further humanize the
hoax by designing a Web site, creating Mike’s
bio and adding staged photos of cult members
in disguise. The cult pre-paid the artistmike.com
hosting for 1001 years in 1999…

Dave Moon

€º°`°º€ø,¸¸,ø€º°`°º€ø,¸¸,ø€º°`° º€ø,¸¸,ø€º°`°º€ø

"Think you have what it takes to be added?"

No.

OpinionMan (Drew)
Thanking the good Lord.

€ø,¸¸,ø€º°`°º€ø,¸¸,ø€º°`°º€ø,¸¸ ,ø€º°`°º€ø,¸¸,ø€

Can you please write in plain english the meaning of the " ":^)

ued wrote:

Can you please write in plain english the meaning of the " ":^)