Peter KÃhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:11:44 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter KÃhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> B Gruff <bbgruff@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday 03 October 2006 15:06 Hadron Quark wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There have been oodles of posters who have stated their dislike for
>>>>>>>> Roy's spamming. There have been about 5 supporters of it : and I
>>>>>>>> think we can guess who they all are. Hint you are one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you mind listing them all for us?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. Would you list all those that support these posts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *That* should be an easy job for you. After all, you claim that only 5
>>>>> suport it
>>>>>
>>>>> After that you could start compiling that list of those hundreds of
>>>>> posters who "filtered the news posts because they flood the NG"
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, BTW, you are a liar
>>>>
>>>> Just look at the replies to his spam News posts. It sums it all up
>>>> really.
>>>
>>> Not replying to posts gives zero indication of how many people actually
>>> *read* them, or how many may have plonked them. There are over a thousand
>>> subscribers to COLA, most of whom never post, so how can you possibly
>>> have any idea how many people have kilfiled the News posts?
>>
>> Call it intuition. Based on how many new names appear and say "WTF is
>> all this?"
>>
>
> To which you can put a "flatfish" tab nearly at once
> This proves nothing. It would rather *disprove* your claim, since flatfish
> feels the need to bolster this idiotic claim as nobody is going to buy it
>
>> And the replies do give some indication.
>>
>> But the bottom line is : what do the posts give which a digest doesn't?
>>
>
> Not your problem. Ask your little sister to set up a killfile for you.
> Problem solved, you will no longer see any [news] posts
err, I did. & Since I use Gnus, I can pretty much guarentee they're
pretty much more substantial than anything you can do on your win98
box. Unless youve mastered cygwin of course. Which I doubt.
>
>> The digest could have been a saviour, but for some reason mark insists
>> in listing all titles without links and then just concatenating all roys
>> OPs together complete with headers, and Roy's famous misinterpretations
>> - thus totally removing any advocacy value they might have had.
>>
>> Title : link
>>
>> what could be simpler?
>>
>
> What could be simpler than acceping the fact that most advocates in cola
> *want* it to be the way it is
> That you wintrolls have problems with that is just icing on the cake
But they dont. Thats the problem.
No one with any sense could want that. Oh. I see.
--
This is a scsi driver, scraes the shit out of me, therefore I tapdanced
and wrote a unix clone around it (C) by linus
-- Somewhere in the kernel tree
|
|
