|
Posted by What's in a Name? on June 10, 2008, 1:14 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On 6/10/2008 12:13 AM, VanguardLH after much thought,came up with this
jewel:
Note: I'm sure there will be more rants to follow.....a.s.p. added back
for anyone who cares.
> "What's in a Name?" wrote in
>
> NOTE: Original newsgroups in reply were reinstated to maintain access to
> this discussion in the newsgroups to which the author chose to include
> his discussion.
I got it the first time. I'm sorry you have a sense of humor.
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>> Note: a.p.s. removed from reply and follow-up reinstated just for Van
>> (for maximum confusion)
>>> "What's in a Name?" wrote:
>>>
>>>> <link to article about encrypted malware>
>>> NOTE: Inappropriate use of FollowUp-To header was ignored. Original
>>> list of newsgroups was used for this reply.
>>>
>>> --- Rant on inappropriate use of the FollowUp-To header --- --- Snip
>>> rant --- --- End of rant ---
>> So if you knew I would be checking a.p.s. and not the others, why did
>> you feel it necessary to rant in all 3 groups?
>
> So all visitors to the other groups from which you yanked away the
> discussion would know what happened, and so you couldn't hide the
> negative reply regarding your behavior which is typical of spammers and
> malcontents. I doubt you want to be likened to those types of users.
I misunderstood the use of the follow-up and therefore misused it.
I wasn't hiding anything....would you like me to include a.u.k. for you?
They might enjoy your ranting. Your like a woman-give em a word and they
hand you back a story.
>
> YOU were the one that chose that the groups to which you cross-posted
> were related to each other regarding the topic of your post. I wasn't
> arguing with your choice of groups, only in your choice to use the
> FollowUp-To header to hide any continued discussion.
>
> Apparently now your decision is that alt.privacy.spyware was not an
> appropriate group to include your discussion. That again was YOUR
> choice as to which groups are appropriate for your discussion. However,
> in your reply, you included 2 groups but again attempted to force follow
> ups to only 1 group and thus rudely yank the conversation away from
> those you chose to expose your post in the other group, so I again
> reinstated the original groups (as per YOUR decision in your reply) and
> ignored your lame attempt to use FollowUp-To.
I didn't attempt anything
>
>> i still have a lot to learn. Will multi-post more in the future. See
>> you then.
>
> Multi-posting isn't the solution, either. Cross-post when the
> newsgroups are related (usually keeping the count to under 4) but do
> NOT use the FollowUp-To header. If you cross-post to a newsgroup, YOU
> have deemed your discussion is appropriate over there, so don't be rude
> by yanking that discussion away from those you impinged with your post
> in trying to elicit responses from over there. If later it is deemed
> that your discussion is off-topic, you can always change the Newsgroups
> header to omit the unrelated group - but whether you use FollowUp-To or
> change the Newsgroups header, you should notify of such in the body of
> your post (which you did in your reply - sort of).
It was humor- but you didn't get it
>
> However, thanks for the heads up on the link to the article. It's a bit
> terse to do anything about it or to provide any direction for a user to
> commit protections against it, so it will be interesting to see what
> comes of it.
I don't think a solution will be found soon....
--
Virus Removal http://max.shplink.com/removal.html
I block all spam/googlegroupers-you can too!
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply by email.
| 
XML site map