crossposting ...

... to uk.tosspot

Sigh. I know it's Usenet, unmoderated, etc., and yes, I can killfile the offending arseholes from
uk.tosspot whose posts appear here and I will do. But, any chance that crossposting could be at
least diminished - check to what groups replies are being sent to? Ever in hope ;-)

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~

 

On 16 Feb 2003 18:19:04 GMT, [email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote:

>Sigh. I know it's Usenet, unmoderated, etc., and yes, I can killfile the offending arseholes from
>uk.tosspot whose posts appear here and I will do. But, any chance that crossposting could be at
>least diminished - check to what groups replies are being sent to? Ever in hope ;-)
>

Best joke I've heard for ages, Helen.

I have this little button, It's really rather small. But it does stop that X-posting, To bikes,
tosspots, and all.

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.

 

>Sigh. I know it's Usenet, unmoderated, etc., and yes, I can killfile the offending arseholes from
>uk.tosspot whose posts appear here and I will do. But, any chance that crossposting could be at
>least diminished - check to what groups replies are being sent to? Ever in hope ;-)

Hi Helen,

I live in mortal fear of a paving slab coming my way. Not only do I wear bib shorts with pride, but
I started a crossposted thread to uk.tosspot, "Congestion Charge".

My aim was to wind up the cagers, troll them if you like.

Not only are they to be subjected to a £5 fine for daring to drive into Central London, but I had
the audacity to suggest that this money be spent on the main object of their hatred - the cyclist.

I consider the wind up successful in so far as the cagers seem particularly annoyed with me. It was
never my intent to annoy you, but like wearing bib shorts, I make no appology.

I shall now go and hide in a paving slab proof bunker until next I dream up a way to annoy
the cagers.
--
remove remove to reply

 

>My aim was to wind up the cagers, troll them if you like.

No - wind them up as much as you want - it would be nice, pretty please, though if they were wound
up on their newsgroup and not on this one. Just my £0.02

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~

 

On 16 Feb 2003 21:56:27 GMT, [email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote:

>No - wind them up as much as you want - it would be nice, pretty please, though if they were wound
>up on their newsgroup and not on this one

I'm still technically keeping to my new year's resolution (except I didn't notice that Congestion
Charge was crossposted). The threads in uk.tosspot I'm playing with now are x-posted to
uk.cagers.whinhge.whinhge.whinhge or some such, but that doesn't count ;-)

Biggest problem with uk.tosspot is that the language is foul. I have been known to eff and blind a
bit, but really the name calling over there is repellant.

But it is good yanking Mr Safety's chain I've come up with some stats recently:

* 85% of drivers think they have above average skill
* drivers rate their own skills as 3.9 on a 1-5 scale, and other drivers as 2.7
* 40% rate the overall standard of driving as bad but only 2% rate themselves as bad
* 24% rate the overall standard as good, 75% rate themselves as good

in a thread hilariously titled "Radio opportunity for camera victim" (victim? Of enforcement?)

Mr Safety remains convinced that this is "pop psychology" and that "only 5% or so of drivers
seriously overestimate their skils" - based in part on the old canard about having more than the
average number of legs (hint for the slow: number of legs is not normally distributed).

He also thinks it safe to drive at 100mph on an unlit road at night. The best data I can find gives
vision distances for an unlit / non-reflective object of the order of 100m for full-beam headlights;
at 100mph you'll cover that in about 2.3s, and the stopping distance at night at 70mph is a shade
over 100m (longer thinking distances at night).

I believe he may be trying to prove the validity of point A via assertion B

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> ... to uk.tosspot
>
> Sigh. I know it's Usenet, unmoderated, etc., and yes, I can killfile the offending arseholes from
> uk.tosspot whose posts appear here and I will do. But, any chance that crossposting could be at
> least diminished - check to what groups replies are being sent to? Ever in hope ;-)

I think the trick is to post something reasonably confrontational, but quietly drop u.r.c off the
list. That way, they don't notice and all end up arguing amongst themselves...

James

 

>I think the trick is to post something reasonably confrontational, but quietly drop u.r.c off the
>list. That way, they don't notice and all end up arguing amongst themselves...

Can we come to a consensus then: if winding up uk.tosspot, initially drop a crosspost here, so
others can have a good chuckle, but set follow-ups to uk.tosspot groups only, and always remove urc
from any further replies?
--
remove remove to reply

 

"Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Can we come to a consensus then: if winding up uk.tosspot, initially drop a crosspost here, so
> others can have a good chuckle, but set follow-ups to uk.tosspot groups only, and always remove
> urc from any further replies?

Too complex. Much easier if each individual learns to use and takes full advantage of their killfile
-- or just skips over certain threads (i.e. those currently referring to the second tax on stupidity
(after the lottery)).

T

 

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <wafflycath[email protected]> wrote:

> How about - even better - post on uk.tosspot *only* with a note here to the effect so those who
> want to join in can do so without having the m*r*ns of uk.tosspot post over here even once
That, and learn how to use a killfile. If your newsreading software doesn't support such things,
then it's probably time consider changing to one that does.

Simon
--
Simon Ward, Accent Optical Technologies (UK) Ltd., York, YO31 8SD, UK "You'd never guess the things
that I do, I've had the Devil round for tea ..."
- "60 Miles an Hour", New Order

 

Gonzalez wrote:

> Can we come to a consensus then: if winding up uk.tosspot, initially drop a crosspost here, so
> others can have a good chuckle, but set follow-ups to uk.tosspot groups only, and always remove
> urc from any further replies?

That won't work - Mr Safety will add u.r.c back in with a sarky comment about restoring
"dishonestly" removed groups.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

>That won't work - Mr Safety will add u.r.c back in with a sarky comment about restoring
>"dishonestly" removed groups.

OK. Helen's idea it is, then. Crosspost to uk.tosspot and hell, but not urc. Post a pointer here to
the ensuing mayhem.

I'll abide by that.
--
remove remove to reply

 

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:
>Sigh. I know it's Usenet, unmoderated, etc., and yes, I can killfile the offending arseholes from
>uk.tosspot whose posts appear here and I will do.

Why not just killfile any articles so crossposted?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?