Dusty Hendrix wrote:
>
> "Mark Kent" <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:hoak35-79n.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> SW <sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:03:37 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
>>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> ____/ AZ Nomad on Monday 17 December 2007 13:20 : \____
>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:56:54 +0000, Mark Kent
>>>>>> <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> In today's digest, we have:
>>>>>>> * Next Linux Kernel Approaches Final Release (RC5), X Server
>>>>>>> 1.4.1 is Near
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Put it on a fucking website. Nobody asked you to repost everything
>>>>>> again.
>>>>
>>>>> It's tagged "[News Digest]". Why not just filter that out? It's
>>>>> actually the trolls who wanted a digest.
>>>>
>>>> Who gives a rat's ass what trolls want?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Message-ID: 158hr3-tj3.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Agreed. that would be a nice feature. One large msg digest. I know slrn
>>> can handle that fine."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Message-ID: <LLednXVkNq_WynnZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> "I know you probably mean well, but it is behaving more like spam than
>>> actual
>>> advocacy. It is getting in the way of seeing/finding discussions.
>>> If you feel compelled to post [News] could you batch all your stories in
>>> one
>>> or two messages a day?"
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>> I intend to continue posting the digest.
> Why? Nobody has EVER bothered to read this tripe and nobody has ever
> resplied to it.
>
Are you "Nobody"?
>> It has a strong readership.
> Bullshit. Nobody has ever read that huge turd you post.
You know that exactly why?
>> If the trolls are now complaining, it's
>> probably because it has a strong readership.
> It has ZERO readership asshole.
>
You can certainly supply the numbers, with links how you got them? Right?
--
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice which can be equally well
explained by stupidity
|
|
