On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:49:07 +0100, "bombthrower"
 wrote:

>So ok i top posted but plainly the girl called mother could read what i 
>posted so why did she feel the need to post the response she did?

Because you're a top posting snipwit fucktard who can't correctly
attribute or use their news client correctly maybe?

>Maybe it is because she can hide behind a computer and not receive the good 
>slap across the face she deserves and would without doubt receive were she 
>in front of me , a face no doubt as ugly as her attitude to others.

Yep, violent redneck fucktard.  Don't bother sending any more emails.

".mother"  wrote in message 
news:8dkl85t951voqiuukp8t9nr66rqmfe9u1l@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:49:07 +0100, "bombthrower"
>  wrote:
>
>>So ok i top posted but plainly the girl called mother could read what i
>>posted so why did she feel the need to post the response she did?
>
> Because you're a top posting snipwit xxxxxxx who can't correctly
> attribute or use their news client correctly maybe?
>
>>Maybe it is because she can hide behind a computer and not receive the 
>>good
>>slap across the face she deserves and would without doubt receive were she
>>in front of me , a face no doubt as ugly as her attitude to others.
>
> Yep, violent redneck xxxxxxx.  Don't bother sending any more emails.


At least he has reformed from top posting  --  thank you ams.
Perhaps mother could now be persuaded not to use offensive words in posts.

Regards
Pete (the xxxxxxxx s are mine)
www.thecanalshop.com

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:32:14 +0100, "Pete Stockdale"
 wrote:

>Perhaps mother could now be persuaded not to use offensive words in posts.

I use whatever I deem to be appropriate - as is my right.  It is
equally your right, should you feel it unacceptable to your
sensitivities, not to read anything I type.  

I've long since given up arguing for or against any particular
language used on netnews so long as it isn't top-posted and the poster
has half a clue to understand that snipping is not only polite, but
also good practice.

I fully reserve the right, as in this particular case, to highlight to
those without clue, that incorrect attribution, together with
top-posting and no snippage, is the trait of a fucktard, or perhaps
more correctly, a fuckwit - as defined by www.fuckwit.info

Neither terminology, in my opinion, should be any more offensive than
Penistone or Scunthorpe, as has been established and accepted over
many years of netnews usage.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:30:16 +0100, "Nicholas D. Richards"
 wrote:

>There is really no need for that level of abuse and aggression so as is
>my right......

You seem to have a strange understanding of "aggression", but fair
enough, I've little time to be the slightest bit bothered about being
resident in the kf of a snipwit.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:12:18 +0100, David Long <David@n0ne.c0m> wrote:

>Whether you find it acceptable or not, or whether half the world finds 
>it acceptable, is not the point. Most of us in this group would rather 
>folk used moderate language out here in public.


Netnews doesn't work that way.  There have been many arguments over
the years, and protestations along the lines of "I don't want my
children to read stuff like that" which have all been duly dismissed
as it's accepted that usenet is a grown-up place on the Internet.
Problems do arise when any group becomes either cliquey or little used
and predominantly inhabited by a group who self-identify as a pseudo
'private club'.

"Because I don't like it" is not a valid reason to censure a posting
or poster.  "We the majority" simply enforces the clique.

Whatever is, or is not acceptable is too subjective within the context
of usenet to be worthy of discussion in its own right, until a general
consensus is reached broadly within any group that the frequency and
veracity of such posts is perceived as disruptive.  In such a case the
subscribers to the group have four options;

1.  Deploy a filter to remove posts or posters from view.
2.  Leave the group and join a web-based forum where a stated
    acceptable use policy is understood and accepted.
3.  Propose the creation of a new usenet group that will be moderated.
4.  Do nothing, it's usenet, nobody died.  Live with it.

Anyone here is more than capable of opting for any of these options -
in the case of a new moderated newsgroup (uk.rec.waterways.moderated)
however, I'd hope to see a moderation policy that encompassed correct
attribution in replies, a ban on top-posting and the un-necessary
inclusion of the entirety of the previous message in responses
(promoting snipping and correct editing enhances the usenet experience
for everyone) and a clear statement that postings of a sexist, racist
or otherwise derogatory or oppressive nature, and especially those
which seek to promote, justify, endorse or condone acts of violence
are wholly and totally unacceptable.

For my own part, having reviewed this particular thread, I am happy to
stand by every comment posted - initially intended to be helpful,
adding to the OPs post with a potential explanation.  Latterly to
defend the hostile incorrectly attributed response, and subsequently
to clarify my position and belief that just because the asylum has
been taken over, it doesn't stop the inhabitants from being lunatics.



The group is quiet, the pack need blood.

".mother"  wrote in message 
news:6qrs85116nmhh03ekfronlrtppdku3d45s@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:12:18 +0100, David Long <David@n0ne.c0m> wrote:
>
>>Whether you find it acceptable or not, or whether half the world finds
>>it acceptable, is not the point. Most of us in this group would rather
>>folk used moderate language out here in public.
>
>
> Netnews doesn't work that way.

(sic)

It works "that way" on all the groups I frequent.
Regretfully though, there are  occasional  incursions of immoderate language 
.

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:50:47 +0100, "Pete Stockdale"
 wrote:

>It works "that way" on all the groups I frequent.
>Regretfully though, there are  occasional  incursions of immoderate language 

Define "immoderate language".  I find postings that are sexist, racist
or seek to promote, justify, endorse or condone acts of violence
equally, if not more objectionable, and certainly "immoderate".

Values are not polarised, neither are basic moral concepts, they're
all too subjective and open to individual interpretation.  As an
example, many dislike what may be termed 'Internet Piracy", but few
complained when (cough) a certain poster here made their entire
collection of Locks & Quays and Waterworld available via ftp.

As you've chosen to dismiss the rest of my comment, I'll take it that
you'd prefer usenet to reshape in order to fit your view of what it
should look like.  Your view will be different from mine.

".mother"  wrote in message 
news:0rvs85hmg73c4tru50ikv7tljr7fq6h8tb@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:50:47 +0100, "Pete Stockdale"
>  wrote:
>
>>It works "that way" on all the groups I frequent.
>>Regretfully though, there are  occasional  incursions of immoderate 
>>language
>
> Define "immoderate language". >

(sic)

Any words, phrases or sentences that cause offence to the vast majority of 
readers or listeners.

I trust that is your last request of me today (:-)

Regards
Pete

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:53:29 +0100, "Pete Stockdale"
 wrote:

>Any words, phrases or sentences that cause offence to the vast majority of 
>readers or listeners.
>
>I trust that is your last request of me today (:-)

Only apart from pointing out that 'cause offence' is not objective, in
fact it's totally subjective and will vary in different groups and
within different contexts - oh, and also that there's no way anyone
can ever ascertain what a majority is, let alone 'vast majority' when
it comes to usenet.  One can say "those who are most vocal", or "those
who are a part of the clique", but as there are no means of measuring
how many subscribers there are to any particular nntp feed - or by
what means, it's highly incorrect to use any term to denote a
non-existent collective.

".mother"  wrote in message news:
>
> Define "immoderate language".  I find postings that are sexist, racist
> or seek to promote, justify, endorse or condone acts of violence
> equally, if not more objectionable, and certainly "immoderate".
>
> Values are not polarised, neither are basic moral concepts, they're
> all too subjective and open to individual interpretation.  As an
> example, many dislike what may be termed 'Internet Piracy", but few
> complained when (cough) a certain poster here made their entire
> collection of Locks & Quays and Waterworld available via ftp.
>
> As you've chosen to dismiss the rest of my comment, I'll take it that
> you'd prefer usenet to reshape in order to fit your view of what it
> should look like.  Your view will be different from mine.
>
Oh my , how your family must suffer.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:04:26 +0100, "bombthrower"
 wrote:

>Oh my , how your family must suffer.

Well I don't resort to violence, as you appear to believe is
acceptable, which in turn leads me to believe that you're a poorly
educated, socially inadequate, technically inept retard.  Such
characteristics often manifest in toilet trading, so I'll happily
leave you to your fantasies in the safety of your local cottage.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:42:52 +0100, David Long <David@n0ne.c0m> wrote:

>Was that posting really necessary?

I thought the challenge had now become futile, therefore reducing to
the lowest personal level may provoke 'clue'.  It was either that or
or other time established traditional usenet retorts such as calling
'nazi', suggesting kiddie-fiddling etc.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:35:17 -0700 (PDT), John Slee
 wrote:

>> 1.  Deploy a filter to remove posts or posters from view.
>Not possible if you prefer the daily digest.

What daily digest would this be then?

Do you know what usenet is?

>And why should I be forced to change?

Because you don't appear to either know what you're talking about - or
case a toss about the medium you're using?


>> 2.  Leave the group and join a web-based forum where a stated
>>     acceptable use policy is understood and accepted.
>And let one individual spoil my enjoyment of a set of friends' posts?

I think you're being a bit of a tosser if you let one thread and a
couple of wibbling comments about fuckwits 'spoil your enjoyment'.


>> 3.  Propose the creation of a new usenet group that will be moderated.
>Already done - and the memebers of this group rejected it

You suggested creating what exactly?  Do try to understand the
difference between usenet, mailing lists and forums.

>> 4.  Do nothing, it's usenet, nobody died.  Live with it.
>Nah!
>
>> Anyone here is more than capable of opting for any of these options -
>And you are capable of being considerate?

Generally I'd say 'yes', and have around 25 years netnews history that
will, on balance, demonstrate such - it will also demonstrate that I
really have a very low tolerance threshold for fuckwits.

".mother"  wrote in message 
news:rglt85d5kdu9k56cudnlf1r7r0uc8tvi71@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:04:26 +0100, "bombthrower"
>  wrote:
>
>>Oh my , how your family must suffer.
>
> Well I don't resort to violence, as you appear to believe is
> acceptable, which in turn leads me to believe that you're a poorly
> educated, socially inadequate, technically inept retard.  Such
> characteristics often manifest in toilet trading, so I'll happily
> leave you to your fantasies in the safety of your local cottage.
>
When the likes of you come along a bleeding good hiding ending with a large 
boot up left blocking the anal passage is one way of stopping your verbal 
poo.
I like violence ,it is often used as a short cut to the place i want to be , 
no apoligy for it violence is not just acceptable to me i have at times 
wallowed joyfully in it , its better than drugs.

Poorly educated , yes you are right in that , those charged and paid to 
educate me showed little interest in doing the job the were paid to.
i come into contact with people who have had very good education but it 
never fails to surprise me that some of them people , like yourself are as 
thick as pig muck.

socially inadequate , well i get along pretty well in the social circles i 
move in , your circle probably very small due to your personality i would 
aviod like swine flu , unless you had something i want in which case i would 
come along and just take it off you .

techniclly inept , well computer wise yes i agree , i have never needed to 
learn but the kids have several around the house and they say i should go on 
them.
From boiling sugar to building houses i have grasped the technacalities and 
managed to make a pound out of it , thats all i wanted or needed.

The world of computers is more than likely the only place you can get anyone 
to take any notice of you for a short while before they just laugh at you.
now go put clean knickers on missus.