Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Peter Kai Jensen wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>> More of your repeated spamming of the group...
>>>> More of YOUR spamming. Maybe you should learn how to quote properly
>>>> previous posts?
>>> When Roy stops spamming, I'll stop commenting.
>> 1. Roy is not spamming, he is (mostly) on-topic. That you don't like it
>> is really not a usable criterion for labeling it as spam.
>> 2. You aren't commenting as such. You're mostly just leaving little
>> junk one-liners with absolutely no content. A more suspicious person
>> might conclude that you're attempting to make it harder for casual
>> readers to find the interesting/controversial articles (which usually
>> have more replies), but surely you would not stoop that low?
> Oh, he certainly does. He can stoop even much lower, and regularly does
> And isn't it interesting to see how flatfish just cheerfully chimes in with
> his gang-leader?
> Nonetheless, I think Erik F, Hadron Quark and flatfish can now forget about
> their "clogging the group" and "driving posts off servers" argument.
> By purposefully quoting the whole post they would do exactly what they claim
> about Roys news posts. Nice self-nuke, that
It's an interesting change of view, isn't it? Previously, they were
studiously ignoring the postings, I think in the hope that Roy would get
bored or give up. In fact, Roy's done no such thing, and has continued
with this very useful work, so they've now legitimised the postings by
responding to them. As you say, in Erik's case, they're puerile
one-liners in the main, but as he's marked down, I don't see them unless
someone else responds too.
I'd suggest that if anyone has an /on topic/ remark to make about the
original news posting, it might be better to reply to the original, not
to Erik's rather unpleasant one liners.
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Someone who knowns 101 ways to make love, but can't get a date.