Re: Why Usenet is worthless! - Page 2

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:24:42 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech Mike Vandeman
<mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Now THAT's actually a great idea! But why didn't you post it in the
>proper newsgroups?

See, Ed... Mike likes my idea!

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:18:04 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:

>> Well, it's not about how worthless Usenet is, either, is it Ed? You
>> opened this thread, I didn't. And, while we're at it, posts about how
>> someone is "off topic" are off topic except on alt.on-topic, "a
>> newsgroup dedicated to the discussion and resolution of the question:
>> 'What exactly *IS* the topic of this newsgroup?'"
>
>Go back and read the original post. That is what you need to comment on if
>you want to be on topic.

Come on, Ed... I told you that I'm a troll. I freely admit it; in
fact; I'm proud of it! Now, with that in mind, please explain why I
would care one way or the other about being "on topic".

Actually, I'm an agent of alt,usenet,kooks (or a similar
organization); I was sent here to recruit you. Have you ever read
"Brave New World"?

The fact that you recognize that most of Usenet is mind-numbing tripe
means that you're really one of us... that, and the fact that you are
able to form a complete sentence.

You *will* be refuted!!! It's hopeless; join us! We represent the
last, best chance for humankind!

(Should I show him the secret handshake?)

Jones

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:31:51 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:

>> Come on, Ed... I told you that I'm a troll. I freely admit it; in
>> fact; I'm proud of it! Now, with that in mind, please explain why I
>> would care one way or the other about being "on topic".
>
>You have no subtlety as a troll. It is one thing to sidetrack a conversation
>and it is quite another to just plunge in like an idiot. Get some subtlety
>or get lost!

I'm as subtle as a heart attack. Trolls aren't subtle! Do you think
I'm an idiot? Hey... lots of folks herein do, you know. Would you
like to see the secret places trolls meet?

Well, you're talking to me, so, from that, I will assume you do... we
own Usenet, Ed. Surrender to the power!

Jones

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:01:14 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:

>You are not a criminal vandal troll and so you are OK by me. But you are
>wasting your time posting to these cycling newsgroups. They are composed
>mainly of 'Freds' and never have a clue about anything. Anyone with any
>brains has long since left. I am sticking around to see just how low these
>groups can sink. After that, I am going back to contemplating my navel,
>something I should never have ceased doing in the first place.

The cycling groups are fetish groups... one finds an identical mindset
in all of them. You know, the participants believe that their topic
is important and, for some inexplicable reason, will flame anyone else
who thinks so. They're all the same. You may go to the rock climbers
or the jet skiers; there is simply no difference.

A troll group exists as a meta-newsgroup on a local server. Our group
does not propagate, so you must point your reader at that server. We
are, in fact, criminal vandals... we're the anarchists of Usenet.

Jones

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:14:57 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:

>Some jerk who reads these cycling newsgroups gave your group a post of mine,
>thinking perhaps to shut me up. I will shut up when I get god damn good and
>ready and not one minute before.
>
>By the way, as long as you are responsive to what is being said, I do not
>consider you a troll, criminal or otherwise.

Nobody (present company, anyway) is trying to shut you up. Have I
suggested any such thing?

I am aware that there are some who call themselves "trolls" who post
mindless nonsense, simply flooding the bandwidth. These people
usually have some political or philosophical agendum and their posts
are quite predictable. If I can predict the content, then I do not
need to read it, would you agree? But the troll worth his or her
beans must engage on a much deeper level.

Jones

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:52:13 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech
JimmyMac <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote:

>the
>discussion of trolls is undeniable off topic

As is a discussion of what is and is not the topic of this group.
Please stay on topic...

.... or flame my ass; I need a good laugh.

Jones

On Jun 22, 8:20 pm, !Jones <h...@there.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:52:13 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech
>
> JimmyMac <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >the
> >discussion of trolls is undeniable off topic
>
> As is a discussion of what is and is not the topic of this group.
> Please stay on topic...
>
> ... or flame my ass; I need a good laugh.
>
> Jones

No need for the flame thrower. You're correct. Discussing what is
and what is not on or off topic is itself off topic but cannot be
communicated as such without being off topic ... a sort of rock an a
hard place scenario, so to speak.