Re: Query Help

"Captain Paralytic" <paul_lautman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194603188.838479.254790@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On 8 Nov, 21:40, "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
> | first of all, it's a thread, dude.
> Err no. A thread is a linked collection of posts on a particular
> subject. When you post a reply you do so to a previous post within a
> thread, dude.

hmmm. so i was in a thread dealing with a particular subject and posted a
reply to a previous post within the thread, dude. did you want to make a
dashing, stand-out point here.

> | second, it's usenet. like it, or lump it.
> It is not usenet's fault. Usenet is quite capable of attaching
> responses correctly. What is needed is a bit of intelligence on the
> part of the user, dude.

actually, usenet is a venue and takes *no* action in attaching messages to
others...dude. perhaps you should have a look at the nntp protocol and learn
how it all works. either way, your bit ot an attempt at insults is lost in
translation since it went to intellect - the irony meter just went of the
scale as soon as you tried to talk about things you obviously have *no* idea
work.

as for my exact point, it's usenet. people do what they like. the internet
and all it's venues are supremely facist-free at this point. bitching about
how people behave on the internet is a moot point at best.

next time, try harder...dude.

On Nov 9, 6:08 am, "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
> "Captain Paralytic" <paul_laut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194603188.838479.254790@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > On 8 Nov, 21:40, "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
> > | first of all, it's a thread, dude.
> > Err no. A thread is a linked collection of posts on a particular
> > subject. When you post a reply you do so to a previous post within a
> > thread, dude.
>
> hmmm. so i was in a thread dealing with a particular subject and posted a
> reply to a previous post within the thread, dude. did you want to make a
> dashing, stand-out point here.
>
> > | second, it's usenet. like it, or lump it.
> > It is not usenet's fault. Usenet is quite capable of attaching
> > responses correctly. What is needed is a bit of intelligence on the
> > part of the user, dude.
>
> actually, usenet is a venue and takes *no* action in attaching messages to
> others...dude. perhaps you should have a look at the nntp protocol and learn
> how it all works. either way, your bit ot an attempt at insults is lost in
> translation since it went to intellect - the irony meter just went of the
> scale as soon as you tried to talk about things you obviously have *no* idea
> work.
>
> as for my exact point, it's usenet. people do what they like. the internet
> and all it's venues are supremely facist-free at this point. bitching about
> how people behave on the internet is a moot point at best.
>
> next time, try harder...dude.

Thanks for your help guys. Appreciate it very much.
john cage

On 9 Nov, 14:08, "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
> hmmm. so i was in a thread dealing with a particular subject and posted a
> reply to a previous post within the thread, dude. did you want to make a
> dashing, stand-out point here.

And you posted the reply attached to the wrong previous post

> people do what they like
People like you obviously do. Others have more sense.

> the irony meter just went of the
> scale as soon as you tried to talk about things you obviously have *no* idea
> work.
Now that's ironic coming from you!

"Captain Paralytic" <paul_lautman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194624587.319538.252680@v2g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com...
> On 9 Nov, 14:08, "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
>> hmmm. so i was in a thread dealing with a particular subject and posted a
>> reply to a previous post within the thread, dude. did you want to make a
>> dashing, stand-out point here.
>
> And you posted the reply attached to the wrong previous post

'wrong'? no, i responded to the one i intended to respond to.

>> people do what they like
> People like you obviously do. Others have more sense.

'people like me'? you mean those who aren't so bent up about fictious or
preceived rules? and the ones with more sense, those who enjoy the binding
that holds to tightly bundled sticks together. (based on your iq, i doubt
you even get to what that refers.)

>> the irony meter just went of the
>> scale as soon as you tried to talk about things you obviously have *no*
>> idea
>> work.
> Now that's ironic coming from you!

really? here's a clue. when hurling insults that actually hit a target, it
is best to provide examples...like when you say things like usenet does this
or that when it actually doesn't. see, that's so well delivered that the
hilarity is just a side-line bene. the meat of the comment was to show you
have no idea about what you're trying to discuss.

on that note, please inform us all of what irony i specifically provide. if
you don't, we call that a red-herring coupled with ad-homonym - a diversion
from your previous embarrassment. :)