On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:50:42 +0200, 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?"
Most of whom are bogus. Do you really not get that?
>
> And the replies do give some indication.
Very little, and still no proof that hundreds have killfiled the posts.
>
> But the bottom line is : what do the posts give which a digest doesn't?
Well at least we don't get idiot's quoting *the entire digest* just to add
a few words.
>
> 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
That's what normal digest is. It's not intended to be a substitute for
the posts, it's a collection of posts made, all in one for convenience.
> OPs together complete with headers, and Roy's famous misinterpretations
That's *your* interpretation.
> - thus totally removing any advocacy value they might have had.
>
> Title : link
>
> what could be simpler?
Let's see an example, then, if you think you're so much better at it.
--
Kier
|
|
