Another Way the Endurance Tendrils Might Have Formed

Barbara's Cat wrote:

In article yZT_c.4057$AB6.2631@trndny04,
Chris S. said:


Dennis M. Hammes wrote:


Hammes posted a few paragraphs.

I was referring to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...73%40arvig.net

However, I admit I was mistaken. You actually did post a single
sentence. One sentence. In 8 pages. How could I have missed it?

Btw, do you often refer to yourself in the third person?


And "etiquette" in "science" froups (not to mention those
crossposting to people who follow the /development/ of a "lit'ry"
argument or pome) is to leave the whole steenking argument intact.
Set your newsreader to display the current post in bold, or
something.
Or keep jonathan on a shorter leash.
Or hit the "N" button.

Every modern newsreader can display messages in a nested format, so we
can follow your discussion without you having to repost it for us in
each message. So copiously reposting several pages of text that
everyone's already read not only wastes our hard drive space and our
time scrolling through it, but it's also unnecessary. There's no excuse,
so just stop doing it.

Modern newsreaders also have spell-checkers. Isn't technology neat?


You sound like a USENET Mommy. Are you a USENET Mommy? Because
if you are, you should quit wasting your time bitching about
these fictional infractions of Hammes' and go find Willma. Now,
there's someone that really doesn't know how to use a newsreader.

You sound like an moron, but you don't see me complaining.

In article dmV_c.825$9P4.807@trndny02,
Chris S. said:

Barbara's Cat wrote:

In article yZT_c.4057$AB6.2631@trndny04,
Chris S. said:


Dennis M. Hammes wrote:


Hammes posted a few paragraphs.

I was referring to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...73%40arvig.net

However, I admit I was mistaken. You actually did post a single
sentence. One sentence. In 8 pages. How could I have missed it?

Btw, do you often refer to yourself in the third person?


And "etiquette" in "science" froups (not to mention those
crossposting to people who follow the /development/ of a "lit'ry"
argument or pome) is to leave the whole steenking argument intact.
Set your newsreader to display the current post in bold, or
something.
Or keep jonathan on a shorter leash.
Or hit the "N" button.

Every modern newsreader can display messages in a nested format, so we
can follow your discussion without you having to repost it for us in
each message. So copiously reposting several pages of text that
everyone's already read not only wastes our hard drive space and our
time scrolling through it, but it's also unnecessary. There's no excuse,
so just stop doing it.

Modern newsreaders also have spell-checkers. Isn't technology neat?


You sound like a USENET Mommy. Are you a USENET Mommy? Because
if you are, you should quit wasting your time bitching about
these fictional infractions of Hammes' and go find Willma. Now,
there's someone that really doesn't know how to use a newsreader.

You sound like an moron, but you don't see me complaining.

You've done nothing but complain (more "**** and moan"), moron.

--
Cm~

Barbara's Cat wrote:

Nope. I'm an idiot.


Then shut the **** up, idiot.


Wow, you have to change people's words in order to win your non-existent
argument. How pathetic.

Now that your idiocy has became apparent, this is over.

Gary Merman wrote:

"Chris S." wrote in message
news:y_T_c.4058$AB6.2290@trndny04...

Dennis M. Hammes wrote:


"Chris S." wrote:


If you're going to quote the content of another post in your reply, the
general web etiquette is to snip the majority of the message,
particularly any layered quotes, and only include that which is relevant
to your reply. Failure to do so obfuscate's your text and annoys readers
who now have to scroll through several pages of redundant quotes which
are generally unneccessary in the context of your current reply.

All this is especially true if you fail to include any new message, in
which case it's better if you not post anything at all.


Hm. Then why did you?

Why did I what...?


He doesn't know what he's talking about, so don't bother. I think he and
his fellow kooksters suffer from some sort of compulsive disorder like OCD.
Call this one OFD -- Obsessive Flaming Disorder.

Excellent point. Although I'm sure it's nothing a little Ritalin and
time away from the computer couldn't cure.

In any case, this reminds me of an old adage; "Never argue with an
idiot. You'll just bring you down to their level and then beat you with
experience." We should just stand aside and let these imbeciles wear
themselves out.

In article %IW_c.1106$%N6.318@trndny01,
Chris S. said:

Barbara's Cat wrote:

Nope. I'm an idiot.


Then shut the **** up, idiot.


Wow, you have to change people's words in order to win your non-existent
argument. How pathetic.

Now that your idiocy has became apparent, this is over.

Was it something I said? I really hope it was something I said.

--
Cm~

"Chris S." wrote:

Barbara's Cat wrote:

Nope. I'm an idiot.


Then shut the **** up, idiot.


Wow, you have to change people's words in order to win your non-existent
argument. How pathetic.

Now that your idiocy has became apparent, this is over.

Over what?
--
-------(m+
~/)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
a built-in, shock-proof, **** detector. -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org

Barbara's Cat wrote:

In article %IW_c.1106$%N6.318@trndny01,
Chris S. said:

Barbara's Cat wrote:

Nope. I'm an idiot.


Then shut the **** up, idiot.


Wow, you have to change people's words in order to win your non-existent
argument. How pathetic.

Now that your idiocy has became apparent, this is over.

Was it something I said? I really hope it was something I said.


times like these i just want to celebrate. george your an ass shut up and
learn sumthing will ya. sheeeeeeeesh