DRS - A legend in his own mind

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Mike VM, Aug 13, 2004.

  1. Mike VM

    Mike VM Guest

    It seems unlikely that DRS is going to see the error of his ways, and
    unless we could get in touch with his mother and get his computer
    privileges removed, I can't see he's going to stop posting.

    Since he clearly has fairly severe learning difficulties (although,
    more to do with social interaction and basic comprehension than use of
    simple English and typing), there is little point in continuing to try
    to show him the error of his ways.

    Even though a poster has now actually quoted the relevant section of
    the applicable RFC, and clearly explained why the OP was not wrong to
    post in the way that he did (the term "top posting" is irrelevant
    since what he posted was a new article, not a reply), DRS is still
    running off at the mouth at every opportunity.

    I suggest we leave the rancid little twerp to fester.

    He has said he won't be embarrassed by this episode when he hits
    puberty, but I suspect he will.
     
    Tags:


  2. DRS

    DRS Guest

    "Mike VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > It seems unlikely that DRS is going to see the error of his ways, and
    > unless we could get in touch with his mother and get his computer
    > privileges removed, I can't see he's going to stop posting.
    >
    > Since he clearly has fairly severe learning difficulties (although,
    > more to do with social interaction and basic comprehension than use of
    > simple English and typing), there is little point in continuing to try
    > to show him the error of his ways.


    You're repetitive and wrong, which is worse than just being wrong.

    > Even though a poster has now actually quoted the relevant section of
    > the applicable RFC, and clearly explained why the OP was not wrong to
    > post in the way that he did (the term "top posting" is irrelevant
    > since what he posted was a new article, not a reply),


    The RFC is inapplicable, but there's no persuading you of the error of your
    ways. The OP thought he was top-posting. That's why he "apologized" for it
    and yet went ahead and did it anyway.

    > DRS is still
    > running off at the mouth at every opportunity.


    You're not only stupid but a liar as well. I am merely answering my
    critics. Welcome to Usenet.

    --

    A: Top-posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
  3. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:35:59 +1000, "DRS"
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >The RFC is inapplicable


    If the RFC is inapplicable, then what exactly does apply?

    Provide a link, and paste the relevant text from it.
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  4. DRS

    DRS Guest

    "Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:35:59 +1000, "DRS"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> The RFC is inapplicable

    >
    > If the RFC is inapplicable, then what exactly does apply?


    I've already explained it several times.

    --

    A: Top-posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
  5. Chris B.

    Chris B. Guest

    On 13 Aug 2004 08:31:21 -0700, [email protected] (Mike VM) wrote:

    >It seems unlikely that DRS is going to see the error of his ways, and
    >unless we could get in touch with his mother and get his computer
    >privileges removed, I can't see he's going to stop posting.


    He won't. He's a kook.

    >Since he clearly has fairly severe learning difficulties (although,
    >more to do with social interaction and basic comprehension than use of
    >simple English and typing), there is little point in continuing to try
    >to show him the error of his ways.


    That's true. He's a kook.

    >Even though a poster has now actually quoted the relevant section of
    >the applicable RFC, and clearly explained why the OP was not wrong to
    >post in the way that he did (the term "top posting" is irrelevant
    >since what he posted was a new article, not a reply), DRS is still
    >running off at the mouth at every opportunity.


    Again, he's a kook.

    >I suggest we leave the rancid little twerp to fester.


    I'd suggest that anyone who wishes to reply to him make sure to top
    post.

    Enrage the kooks, don't let them enrage you.
     
  6. DRS

    DRS Guest

    "Chris B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 13 Aug 2004 08:31:21 -0700, [email protected] (Mike VM) wrote:
    >
    >> It seems unlikely that DRS is going to see the error of his ways, and
    >> unless we could get in touch with his mother and get his computer
    >> privileges removed, I can't see he's going to stop posting.

    >
    > He won't. He's a kook.


    No, I'm not. All I did was call out a self-confessed top-poster.

    --

    A: Top-posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
  7. Chris B.

    Chris B. Guest

    Classic.

    Thanks! <g>

    On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 22:01:10 +1000, "DRS"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Chris B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> On 13 Aug 2004 08:31:21 -0700, [email protected] (Mike VM) wrote:
    >>
    >>> It seems unlikely that DRS is going to see the error of his ways, and
    >>> unless we could get in touch with his mother and get his computer
    >>> privileges removed, I can't see he's going to stop posting.

    >>
    >> He won't. He's a kook.

    >
    >No, I'm not. All I did was call out a self-confessed top-poster.
     
  8. DRS

    DRS Guest

    "Chris B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Classic.
    >
    > Thanks! <g>


    What do you think it says about you that you would inconvenience so many
    people just to try to irritate me?

    --

    A: Top-posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
  9. Chris B.

    Chris B. Guest

    This from the kook who changed the title of the thread unnecessarily
    for the same reason?

    The effect was devastating by the way; I simply cannot overstate this.
    <g>

    Thanks for another laugh!

    On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:00:45 +1000, "DRS"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Chris B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> Classic.
    >>
    >> Thanks! <g>

    >
    >What do you think it says about you that you would inconvenience so many
    >people just to try to irritate me?
     
  10. DRS

    DRS Guest

    "Chris B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:00:45 +1000, "DRS"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> "Chris B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>> Classic.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks! <g>

    >>
    >> What do you think it says about you that you would inconvenience so
    >> many people just to try to irritate me?

    >
    > This from the kook who changed the title of the thread unnecessarily
    > for the same reason?


    What it says is that you're are a selfish, inconsiderate shit. You are the
    real kook. I could never been in the same league as you.

    --

    A: Top-posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
  11. Chris B.

    Chris B. Guest

    Now your kind words are making me blush, Mr. Bean! <g>

    (Still, please don't try to hug me)

    On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:21:01 +1000, "DRS"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I could never been in the same league as you.
     
  12. Doug Evans

    Doug Evans Guest

    DRS, I would not describe you as a kook. Kooks usually have some sort
    of endearing quality, and you are, sadly, totally lacking in that
    department.

    I had thought it best to just ignore you. Continuing to point out the
    failings of a sad, pathetic, inadequate creature such as yourself did
    not seem a very noble enterprise, especially since you very definitely
    suffer from a fairly severe personality disorder.

    But you just won't shut up.

    You still don't understand that you were wrong. Wrong about the top
    posting (which never happened, whatever the OP may have said), and
    wrong about complaining about it in the particular context in which
    you deluded yourself that it occured.

    You either do not realise, or you do not care, that you are now the
    most despised poster on this group, and probably the pdp10 group as
    well.

    All these things point to your personality problem.

    I really, sincerely hope you are getting help (maybe ihug is a mental
    institutuion? it would make sense).

    In the mean time (in case you are not) I hope kind souls continue to
    post, to inform you of your errors, in the (possibly vain) hope that
    something will make it through the troubled layers of your brain, and
    perhaps help you, in your confused state, to realise that you *do*
    need help, and perhaps induce you to seek that help.


    "DRS" <[email protected]> ought to have embarrassed himself by whining,
    in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Chris B." <[email protected]> wrote in message


    > >
    > > He won't. He's a kook.

    >
    > No, I'm not. All I did was call out a self-confessed top-poster.
     
  13. DRS

    DRS Guest

    "Doug Evans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > DRS, I would not describe you as a kook. Kooks usually have some sort
    > of endearing quality, and you are, sadly, totally lacking in that
    > department.
    >
    > I had thought it best to just ignore you. Continuing to point out the
    > failings of a sad, pathetic, inadequate creature such as yourself did
    > not seem a very noble enterprise, especially since you very definitely
    > suffer from a fairly severe personality disorder.


    Not in the least. All I did was call out a self-confessed top-poster.
    That's it. That's all I did. It's you and your fellow retards who have the
    personality problems, not to mention the most severely skewed priorities
    I've seen in many years.

    > But you just won't shut up.


    Not for the first time, I'm merely answering my critics. Welcome to Usenet.

    > You still don't understand that you were wrong.


    I was not wrong.

    > Wrong about the top
    > posting (which never happened, whatever the OP may have said), and
    > wrong about complaining about it in the particular context in which
    > you deluded yourself that it occured.


    Obituaries are not a free pass. The OP thought he was top-posting, knew it
    was wrong and went ahead and did it anyway. He is the bad guy here, not me.

    > You either do not realise, or you do not care, that you are now the
    > most despised poster on this group, and probably the pdp10 group as
    > well.


    In your dreams, you top-posting drop-kick.

    --

    A: Top-posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
  14. DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Obituaries are not a free pass. The OP thought he was top-posting, knew it
    > was wrong and went ahead and did it anyway. He is the bad guy here, not me.


    dumbfuck. top posting is not murder. the "violation" was not large enuf to
    warrant popping your voice into the middle of an obituary and screaming
    bloody murder about a comparatively minor usenet infraction. your judgement
    in doing so is what's putting you in everyone's crosshairs. duh, duh, duh.
    get it?
    --
    david reuteler
    [email protected]
     
  15. DRS

    DRS Guest

    "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Obituaries are not a free pass. The OP thought he was top-posting,
    >> knew it was wrong and went ahead and did it anyway. He is the bad
    >> guy here, not me.

    >
    > dumbfuck.


    > top posting is not murder.


    I know. I've been saying words to that effect for some time. Would you
    mind ever so much letting all the fucktards know?

    > the "violation" was not large
    > enuf to warrant popping your voice into the middle of an obituary


    Obituaries are not a free pass. In any event, I cut the obituary entirely.
    I didn't go near it.

    > and
    > screaming bloody murder about a comparatively minor usenet
    > infraction.


    I've done nothing of the sort. The only ones "screaming bloody murder" are
    the retards.

    > your judgement in doing so is what's putting you in
    > everyone's crosshairs. duh, duh, duh. get it?


    I get there's a lot of hypocrites around who are perfectly happy to condemn
    top-posting except when one of their mates is doing it.

    --

    A: Top-posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
  16. S o r n i

    S o r n i Guest

    DRS wrote:
    > "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Obituaries are not a free pass. The OP thought he was top-posting,
    >>> knew it was wrong and went ahead and did it anyway. He is the bad
    >>> guy here, not me.

    >>
    >> dumbfuck.

    >
    >> top posting is not murder.

    >
    > I know. I've been saying words to that effect for some time. Would
    > you mind ever so much letting all the fucktards know?


    Then you've got to stop using words and phrases like "bad guy", "calling
    out", and "self-admitted". Sure /sounds/ like you're taking it way too
    seriously.

    > the "violation" was not large
    >> enuf to warrant popping your voice into the middle of an obituary

    >
    > Obituaries are not a free pass. In any event, I cut the obituary
    > entirely. I didn't go near it.


    I still maintain that the fact that it was an obit is immaterial. *Any*
    bike-related piece forwarded with a brief explanatory introduction would be
    exactly the same, despite a little more sensitivity (obviously lacking on
    your part) in this case.

    >> and
    >> screaming bloody murder about a comparatively minor usenet
    >> infraction.

    >
    > I've done nothing of the sort. The only ones "screaming bloody
    > murder" are the retards.


    D, you could have let this drop after the first few flame exchanges. You've
    been downright Zaumenesque in that regard.

    >> your judgement in doing so is what's putting you in
    >> everyone's crosshairs. duh, duh, duh. get it?

    >
    > I get there's a lot of hypocrites around who are perfectly happy to
    > condemn top-posting except when one of their mates is doing it.


    In the last few days there have been at least 8 or 10 really egregious cases
    of top-posting (where it messes up the thread and is just plain stupid), and
    you haven't said a word about even one of them -- WHEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
    WARRANTED. What's ironic in all this is that the OP /didn't/ truly
    top-post! He merely cc'd or cut & pasted an item he thought would be of
    interest to this group, and mistakenly called his little one-paragraph
    comment a "top post" when in fact it wasn't. Every single person who has
    entered this fray has seen that...except you.

    Bill "I was out but they keep dragging me back in" S.
     
  17. DRS

    DRS Guest

    "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]
    > DRS wrote:
    >> "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>> Obituaries are not a free pass. The OP thought he was top-posting,
    >>>> knew it was wrong and went ahead and did it anyway. He is the bad
    >>>> guy here, not me.
    >>>
    >>> dumbfuck.

    >>
    >>> top posting is not murder.

    >>
    >> I know. I've been saying words to that effect for some time. Would
    >> you mind ever so much letting all the fucktards know?

    >
    > Then you've got to stop using words and phrases like "bad guy",
    > "calling out", and "self-admitted". Sure /sounds/ like you're taking
    > it way too seriously.


    Oh, come *on*! When I get called "human garbage" just for calling out a
    top-poster do *not* complain to me about the mildness of my language!

    >> the "violation" was not large
    >>> enuf to warrant popping your voice into the middle of an obituary

    >>
    >> Obituaries are not a free pass. In any event, I cut the obituary
    >> entirely. I didn't go near it.

    >
    > I still maintain that the fact that it was an obit is immaterial.


    Thank you. At least somebody has a modicum of sense.

    > *Any* bike-related piece forwarded with a brief explanatory
    > introduction would be exactly the same, despite a little more
    > sensitivity (obviously lacking on your part) in this case.


    Since you've agreed that the fact of the post being an obituary is neither
    here nor there then it follows I didn't display any lack of sensitivity.

    >>> and
    >>> screaming bloody murder about a comparatively minor usenet
    >>> infraction.

    >>
    >> I've done nothing of the sort. The only ones "screaming bloody
    >> murder" are the retards.

    >
    > D, you could have let this drop after the first few flame exchanges.
    > You've been downright Zaumenesque in that regard.


    Every time I've tried to let it drop a new swathe of fucktards has chimed
    in. And I neither need nor will seek anybody's permission to respond to
    those who criticise me, especially when I have done nothing worthy of
    criticism and they, hypocrites and fools that they are, insist in not
    criticising the one person who did do something wrong.

    >>> your judgement in doing so is what's putting you in
    >>> everyone's crosshairs. duh, duh, duh. get it?

    >>
    >> I get there's a lot of hypocrites around who are perfectly happy to
    >> condemn top-posting except when one of their mates is doing it.

    >
    > In the last few days there have been at least 8 or 10 really
    > egregious cases of top-posting (where it messes up the thread and is
    > just plain stupid), and you haven't said a word about even one of
    > them -- WHEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WARRANTED.


    I haven't necessarily seen them. I don't read every thread. In particular
    I tend to avoid the political ones.

    > What's ironic in all this
    > is that the OP /didn't/ truly top-post!


    But he thought he was. And, since he knew full well it was wrong, he
    "apologised" for it but did it anyway.

    > He merely cc'd or cut &
    > pasted an item he thought would be of interest to this group, and
    > mistakenly called his little one-paragraph comment a "top post" when
    > in fact it wasn't. Every single person who has entered this fray has
    > seen that...except you.
    >
    > Bill "I was out but they keep dragging me back in" S.


    Then don't complain about me responding.

    --

    A: Top-posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
  18. AustinMN

    AustinMN Guest

    DRS wrote:
    <snip>
    >
    > Since you've agreed that the fact of the post being an obituary is neither
    > here nor there then it follows I didn't display any lack of sensitivity.


    If someone brushes against you in a crowded location and says "excuse me" do
    you then say to them "If you knew it was wrong, then you shouldn't have done
    it?"

    That is your real lack of sense or sensitivity.

    Austin
    --
    I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
    There are no X characters in my address
     
  19. DRS

    DRS Guest

    "AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > DRS wrote:
    > <snip>
    >>
    >> Since you've agreed that the fact of the post being an obituary is
    >> neither here nor there then it follows I didn't display any lack of
    >> sensitivity.

    >
    > If someone brushes against you in a crowded location and says "excuse
    > me" do you then say to them "If you knew it was wrong, then you
    > shouldn't have done it?"
    >
    > That is your real lack of sense or sensitivity.


    Your analogy is completely arse about and displays only your lack of
    understanding of the issue. In your analogy the brush is unforseen and
    there is nothing to indicate it was intentional. It's completely the
    opposite of this case, where the OP "apologized" first and went ahead
    anyway.

    --

    A: Top-posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
  20. Doug Evans

    Doug Evans Guest

    "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > No, I'm not. All I did was call out a self-confessed top-poster.


    But that isn't "all" you did, is it?

    First, you decided to launch a crusade against top posters without
    actually understanding when the term is applicable.

    Then you appoint yourself as some sort of vigillante.

    Then you start mouthing off in your particularly obnoxious fashion.

    Then you choose to have a go at someone under circumstances that could
    only be called extremely crass.

    Then you ignore everybody who takes the trouble to explain to you why
    you were wrong about existance of an actual incident of top posting
    (despite the explantions being clear, detailed, and in some cases
    undeservedly polite).

    Then you start screaming "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right", when you
    are so very clearly wrong, in the manner of the spoilt snot nosed brat
    that we can all see you are.

    And you *really* believe that you are not the most despised person
    posting on this group?

    That truly does show your confused, bewildered and self delusional
    state in high relief.
     
Loading...
Loading...