"[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 14:35:20 +0100, Hardon Quirk wrote
>
>> "[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>>> <snip massive post>
>>>
>>> I like Roy's posts, but I don't read them all; the subject is usually
>>> enough for me to decide what is interesting.
>>>
>>> Conversely, a digest post requires that I read through the whole message
>>> to find topics of interest. This is time consuming, laborious, and not
>>> very helpful.
>
>> Rubbish. A single digest is much easier to read. Or "digest". You can
>> also tag it for further perusal - much easier than tagging 300 articles.
>
> So you think wading through 1432 lines of a digest post is quicker than
> glancing at 60 subject lines?
If its a proper digest yes : one line summary and a hot link. Its quite
a common concept you might be familiar : basically a table of contents
with links to the in details information.
>
> You're an idiot.
Sure : and you dont even know what I'm talking about. And I'm the idiot?
LOL.
>
> Oh, and in reply to that other Troll, yttrx, who's ramblings I also
> don't see, unless I use Google (Ref: Usenet netiquette):
yttrx is a true linux advocate you sad little man.
>
> No, there are no "rules", since unfortunately there's nobody to enforce
> them. Netiquette is about a voluntary code of conduct on the Net (i.e.
> good manners), something you are obviously incapable of.
Err, and yet its Roy that spams the NG because he can. Do you have
comprehension issues?
>
> Oh and I got a good laugh at your reference to the 80's, like you
> personally invented the era, and everyone except for you on the Internet
> is a spotty teenager who barely remembers last week, let alone 2.5
> decades ago. Allow me to return your "compliment":
Sorry? Link please : you've lost me.
>
> Think about *this* for a minute, fuckwit; what use is the "download
> headers only" function, if you have to download the message body in
> order to discover the subject lines of 60 posts, that would otherwise be
> available as headers, if they hadn't been shovelled into a "digest"?
Are you really so stupid? Subject == "Digest" or somethign similar, hit
space, download it. tag it, Browse it at leisure. Easy.
>
> A digest is useful as a summary, but not as a substitute, unless this
Its not a substitute you dickhead : it contains the links to all the
original posts which he has copied from other sites anyway.
> were a mailing list and you chose to receive just one summary post per
> day. Usenet is not Email; but of course you already knew that, since
> you've been online for 400 years, right?
Who are you replying to? I think you should learn to quote properly and
use a newsreader before you start slinging insults around you
nOOb. Incidentally, thats *exactly* why such email lists exist - to
prevent spamming of forums and NGs. People subscribe to distribution of
lists that they are interested in. Get it? I dont hold my breath.
>
> It's bullshit that anyone should feel coerced into summarising their
> entire daily contribution to a newsgroup into a single digest, just to
No : not their entire contribution. Just the hundreds of links.
> appease scum like you and "Hardon". If you don't like it, then fuck
> off;
No. You "fuck off" if you want.
> it's not like either of you contribute anything anyway, so trust me -
> you won't be missed.
By whom? Your gang? There's not many left really is there? I'll bet a
penny to a pound that yttrx has posted more good stuff about Linux than
you've had wanks - so thats quite a lot. I'll also hazard a guess that I
have too. All you do is sing from the choir song sheet : and make
yourself look like an ignorant little twat while you're about it.
>
> --
> K.
> http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
> This message has not been photoshopped in any way.
>
> Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
> 19:07:56 up 76 days, 19:24, 5 users, load average: 0.09, 0.55, 0.69
--
|
|
