OT,OT,OT.-BYE.

Discussion in 'Recumbent bicycles' started by Christopher Jor, Nov 22, 2003.

  1. Why some f-in' screwballs cannot realize the words Bicycles and Recumbents is the desired subject is
    beyond me; so I am outta here. Leave OT discussions to nonsensical radio and television talk shows
    which have an on/off switch. Broken records, over and over- disgusting.

    Chris Jordan Santa Cruz, CA.
     
    Tags:


  2. Rocketman

    Rocketman Guest

    "Christopher Jordan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Why some f-in' screwballs cannot realize the words Bicycles and Recumbents is the desired subject
    > is beyond me; so I am outta here. Leave OT discussions to nonsensical radio and television talk
    > shows which have an on/off switch. Broken records, over and over- disgusting.

    Chris, you have a right to be disgusted, I guess; but I think you're overreacting.

    Doesn't your news reader allow you to ignore threads? Mine does. Just ignore the OT postings. That's
    what the "OT" is for - to alert you to Off Topic threads, so you can avoid them as you like. We're
    playing by the rules. Cut us a little slack, will ya?

    Cheers,

    -=B=-
     
  3. Dh

    Dh Guest

    I've responded to a few OT posts and started at least one myself. If _I_ am responsible for you
    leaving, please reconsider.

    Just 'kill file' the OT posts and reconsider staying. My two cents. DH
     
  4. Rorschandt

    Rorschandt Guest

    "DH" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > I've responded to a few OT posts and started at least one myself. If _I_ am responsible for you
    > leaving, please reconsider.> Just 'kill file' the OT posts and reconsider staying. My two
    > cents. DH
    >
    >
    >

    I don't blame you one bit Chris. Of course, we can still coresspond via e- mail, yes?

    happy trails, rorschandt
    --
    May all beings be happy. May they be joyous and live in safety. All living beings, whether weak or
    strong, in high or middle or low realms of existence, small or great, visible or invisible, near or
    far, born or to be born, Let no one deceive another, nor despise any being in any state; Let none by
    anger or hatred wish harm to another. Even as a mother at the risk of her life watches over and
    protects her only child, so with a boundless mind should one cherish all living things,
     
  5. Doug Huffman

    Doug Huffman Guest

    Nope. CJ is right. If y'all want to play in your little world of ,deleted. the do so where it is on
    topic. Until then a.r.b.r is too offensively stupid to do more than look at the subject lines
    occasionally.

    "Rocketman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]_s01...
    > "Christopher Jordan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Why some f-in' screwballs cannot realize the words Bicycles and Recumbents is the desired
    > > subject is beyond me; so I am outta here. Leave OT discussions to nonsensical radio and
    > > television talk shows which have an on/off switch. Broken records, over and over- disgusting.
    >
    > Chris, you have a right to be disgusted, I guess; but I think you're overreacting.
    >
    > Doesn't your news reader allow you to ignore threads? Mine does. Just ignore the OT postings.
    > That's what the "OT" is for - to alert you to Off Topic threads, so you can avoid them as you
    > like. We're playing by the rules. Cut us a little slack, will ya?
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > -=B=-
     
  6. "DH" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > I've responded to a few OT posts and started at least one myself. If _I_ am responsible for you
    > leaving, please reconsider.
    >
    > Just 'kill file' the OT posts and reconsider staying. My two cents. DH
    >
    >

    True enough. Doesn't work if you access the NG via google. Also, it's still really rude to force
    everyone to download the thread, then decide to throw it away when a simple RFC might lead to the
    creation of a newsgroup specifically for the two most offensive individuals. Say something like
    alt.blithering.rant [1]

    [1] you know who you are - both of you - now cut it out or I'm tellin' your ISPs.
     
  7. <Chas>

    <Chas> Guest

    And, the individuals involved don't have the courtesy to mark their political screeds as OT. For
    example, the topic "Re: BiGHA Comments" has been nothing but political drivel for several days now.
    As long as these jerks hijack legitimate topics for their own purposes, we get stuck reading them.

    My $0.02 worth

    <Chas
     
  8. Larry Varney

    Larry Varney Guest

    wrote:
    > And, the individuals involved don't have the courtesy to mark their political screeds as OT. For
    > example, the topic "Re: BiGHA Comments" has been nothing but political drivel for several days
    > now. As long as these jerks hijack legitimate topics for their own purposes, we get stuck
    > reading them.
    >
    > My $0.02 worth
    >
    > <Chas>
    >
    >
    >

    And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
    suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it! An easy rule
    (which may occasionally backfire) is to look at a string of posts, and if one of two or three
    posters seems to be contributing the majority of posts, it's going to be the same, tired old
    political rants interspersed with childish vulgarities.

    --
    Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
     
  9. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

    footnote this <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > "DH" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
    >
    > > I've responded to a few OT posts and started at least one myself. If _I_ am responsible for you
    > > leaving, please reconsider.
    > >
    > > Just 'kill file' the OT posts and reconsider staying. My two cents. DH
    > >
    > >
    >
    > True enough. Doesn't work if you access the NG via google. Also, it's still really rude to force
    > everyone to download the thread, then decide to throw it away when a simple RFC might lead to the
    > creation of a newsgroup specifically for the two most offensive individuals. Say something like
    > alt.blithering.rant [1]
    >
    > [1] you know who you are - both of you - now cut it out or I'm tellin' your ISPs.

    Holy Cow, footnote! Google posting works even better than any newsreader, provided that Google is up
    and working like it should be. I have got a couple of newsreaders now but I never use them much as I
    prefer to access ARBR via the Google website. This way I can see at a glance without any searching
    what it is I want to read and what it is I want to respond to. The subject threads don't even have
    to be labeled OT. I know what they are all about based on previous reading of them (and so do you
    and everyone else who is a regular on this newsgroup I suspect). Nothing could be simpler. All you
    guys with newsreaders ought to lose them and get with Google.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota
     
  10. "Larry Varney" skrev...
    > And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
    > suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it!

    Well, if you've killfiled an obnoxious thread and think you're rid of it and some dork then changes
    the name a few times its easy to be miffed.

    Mikael
     
  11. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

    Larry Varney <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > wrote:
    > > And, the individuals involved don't have the courtesy to mark their political screeds as OT. For
    > > example, the topic "Re: BiGHA Comments" has been nothing but political drivel for several days
    > > now. As long as these jerks hijack legitimate topics for their own purposes, we get stuck
    > > reading them.
    > >
    > > My $0.02 worth
    > >
    > > <Chas>

    > And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
    > suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it! An easy
    > rule (which may occasionally backfire) is to look at a string of posts, and if one of two or
    > three posters seems to be contributing the majority of posts, it's going to be the same, tired
    > old political rants interspersed with childish vulgarities.

    The post referred to above was ruined the minute someone posted to it with a political comment.
    Please note that Mr. Sherman and I are never the ones to do this sort of thing. We are both nothing
    but "responders". But once a thread has been infected by someone posting a political comment to it,
    then you are right. Nothing can save it from that point onwards. It should be changed to OT of
    course, but I am very reluctant to do that as I believe it just creates more confusion. And it means
    that I now have to check several message threads searching for the OT political comments (in order
    to refute them of course since they are invariably asinine liberal comments). I suggest to one and
    all that when you have determined that a thread is ruined that you abandon it and let us OT'ers take
    possession of it once and for all.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota
     
  12. Larry Varney

    Larry Varney Guest

    Mikael Seierup wrote:
    > "Larry Varney" skrev...
    >
    >> And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
    >> suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it!
    >
    >
    > Well, if you've killfiled an obnoxious thread and think you're rid of it and some dork then
    > changes the name a few times its easy to be miffed.
    >
    > Mikael

    Gee, so now if the subject line no longer reflects the subject, it should remain the same?
    Otherwise, changing it means that person who changed it is a "dork"? Well, 'scuse me, but it
    would seem more beneficial to the readers to know that a string of posts no longer has any
    reference to the subject header, that something that by subject line would refer to the BiGHA has
    now become some mudfest regarding the tired old crap about liberals and conservatives, instead of
    just leaving it alone - and incorrect. But you may have a point. It's much better to ignore what
    the hell the subject line says at all, on any string, and just ignore any string in which a
    certain few people have posted. Right?

    --
    Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
     
  13. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

    "Mikael Seierup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...

    > "Larry Varney" skrev...
    > > And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
    > > suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it!
    >
    > Well, if you've killfiled an obnoxious thread and think you're rid of it and some dork then
    > changes the name a few times its easy to be miffed.
    >
    > Mikael

    I think you are right Mikael. There are presently several threads running which are a mess (Can We
    Surrender sometimes alone and sometimes with RE and sometimes with OT RE). That is why I think it is
    never correct to change a subject heading once it is there. Barry does this at the drop of a hat and
    then are a few other offenders who do this sort of thing. Those who have been following the thread
    will know what it is about and those who haven't been following it can began at the beginning and
    then leave it when they have determined that it has been ruined. Almost all subject threads if they
    go on too long get sidetracked and get ruined. I say let them die a natural death and not be trying
    to resurrect them by changing the subject heading.

    I may initiate a new policy of never responding to any subject thread which has been changed
    willy-nilly by someone because he thinks it is a good idea to have the topic header match the
    subject. That is actually a bad idea. It creates confusion for the reader and keeps the thread under
    another name going longer than it should.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota
     
  14. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

    Larry Varney <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Mikael Seierup wrote:
    > > "Larry Varney" skrev...
    > >
    > >> And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
    > >> suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it!
    > >
    > >
    > > Well, if you've killfiled an obnoxious thread and think you're rid of it and some dork then
    > > changes the name a few times its easy to be miffed.
    > >
    > > Mikael
    >
    > Gee, so now if the subject line no longer reflects the subject, it should remain the same?
    > Otherwise, changing it means that person who changed it is a "dork"? Well, 'scuse me, but it
    > would seem more beneficial to the readers to know that a string of posts no longer has any
    > reference to the subject header, that something that by subject line would refer to the BiGHA
    > has now become some mudfest regarding the tired old crap about liberals and conservatives,
    > instead of just leaving it alone - and incorrect. But you may have a point. It's much better to
    > ignore what the hell the subject line says at all, on any string, and just ignore any string in
    > which a certain few people have posted. Right?

    Wrong, unless you are a sissy boy and do not like to read anything with which you disagree. When the
    liberals totally dominated this newsgroup and were posting their asinine comments will-nilly all
    over the place, we did not hear you complaining about it then. Any moron can quickly get the drift
    of a thread and if it has wandered off topic then so be it.

    What are you anyway - some kind of a confounded controller? If you had half a brain in your head
    you would know that any thread that is going on for more than 20 messages is probably going to be
    off topic and have lots of crap like yours in it to boot. I figure the only way to look at it is
    if I can stand your crap than you can stand my crap. So far I have not discovered any geniuses
    here on ARBR.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota
     
  15. "Larry Varney" skrev...
    > Gee, so now if the subject line no longer reflects the subject, it should remain the same?
    > Otherwise, changing it means that person who changed it is a "dork"?

    Yes, if they do like they usually do. "Re: Bigha comments" goes way off topic. (Not that listening
    to LL was any fun) Some wellmeaning soul sticks an OT in front. Now its called "OT Re: Bigha
    comments" Unfortunately when the next person replies it will be "Re: OT Re:Bigha comments". Thats
    three threads to killfile instead of one unless you got it set up to ignore anything that has an
    "OT" in it. Then theres people who take it to the logical limit and change the name every time
    they reply.

    Anyway since people think its their godgiven right to toppost, not trim off stuff they are replying
    to etc. why should they have to stick OT on threads. ;-) We also need more crossposting.

    Mikael
     
  16. Larry Varney

    Larry Varney Guest

    Edward Dolan wrote:
    > Larry Varney <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    >
    >>Mikael Seierup wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Larry Varney" skrev...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
    >>>> suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Well, if you've killfiled an obnoxious thread and think you're rid of it and some dork then
    >>>changes the name a few times its easy to be miffed.
    >>>
    >>>Mikael
    >>
    >> Gee, so now if the subject line no longer reflects the subject, it should remain the same?
    >> Otherwise, changing it means that person who changed it is a "dork"? Well, 'scuse me, but it
    >> would seem more beneficial to the readers to know that a string of posts no longer has any
    >> reference to the subject header, that something that by subject line would refer to the BiGHA
    >> has now become some mudfest regarding the tired old crap about liberals and conservatives,
    >> instead of just leaving it alone - and incorrect. But you may have a point. It's much better to
    >> ignore what the hell the subject line says at all, on any string, and just ignore any string in
    >> which a certain few people have posted. Right?
    >
    >
    > Wrong, unless you are a sissy boy and do not like to read anything with which you disagree. When
    > the liberals totally dominated this newsgroup and were posting their asinine comments will-nilly
    > all over the place, we did not hear you complaining about it then. Any moron can quickly get the
    > drift of a thread and if it has wandered off topic then so be it.
    >
    > What are you anyway - some kind of a confounded controller? If you had half a brain in your head
    > you would know that any thread that is going on for more than 20 messages is probably going to be
    > off topic and have lots of crap like yours in it to boot. I figure the only way to look at it is
    > if I can stand your crap than you can stand my crap. So far I have not discovered any geniuses
    > here on ARBR.
    >
    > Ed Dolan - Minnesota

    whether or not I agree with what the post contains. Listen closely: if the topic has long since
    changed from what the subject line indicates, then what is the point of having a subject line at
    all, if not to indicate what the post is about? And off you go with your childish insults, your
    nonsense about liberals, when it comes down to nothing of the sort. "The liberals" are only a
    figment of your tired, limited imagination. And what "crap" of mine have you had to put up with?
    "Any moron" should not have to put up with endless threads that have nothing to do with the subject
    line. There is nothing more off-putting for a reader to keep finding out that what appears to be the
    topic for discussion after discussion is quite the opposite - especially when the fix is so simple.

    --
    Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
     
  17. "Mikael Seierup" skrev...
    > Yes, if they do like they usually do. "Re: Bigha comments" goes way off topic. (Not that listening
    > to LL was any fun) Some wellmeaning soul sticks an OT in front. Now its called "OT Re: Bigha
    > comments" Unfortunately when the next person replies it will be "Re: OT Re:Bigha comments". Thats
    > three threads to killfile instead of one unless you got it set up to ignore anything that has an
    > "OT" in it. Then theres people who take it to the logical limit and change the name every time
    > they reply.
    >
    > Anyway since people think its their godgiven right to toppost, not trim off stuff they are
    > replying to etc. why should they have to stick OT on threads. ;-) We also need more crossposting.

    Actually I take it all back. Sticking OT in a thread is a good idea if its done as soon as it goes
    off topic. For threads that have developed umpteen subthreads it gets a bit tricky.

    Regards Mikael
     
  18. Hmmm. Not possible to make a filter on 'OT'. It removes all threads with 'ot' in them. Like "Not
    needed tools" which was just an excuse to test that.

    So 'OT' is useless. Can we get people to write O.T. or [OT]?

    M.
     
  19. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

    Larry Varney <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Edward Dolan wrote:
    > > Larry Varney <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > >
    > >
    > >>Mikael Seierup wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>"Larry Varney" skrev...
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>> And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
    > >>>> suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it!
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>Well, if you've killfiled an obnoxious thread and think you're rid of it and some dork then
    > >>>changes the name a few times its easy to be miffed.
    > >>>
    > >>>Mikael
    > >>
    > >> Gee, so now if the subject line no longer reflects the subject, it should remain the same?
    > >> Otherwise, changing it means that person who changed it is a "dork"? Well, 'scuse me, but it
    > >> would seem more beneficial to the readers to know that a string of posts no longer has any
    > >> reference to the subject header, that something that by subject line would refer to the BiGHA
    > >> has now become some mudfest regarding the tired old crap about liberals and conservatives,
    > >> instead of just leaving it alone - and incorrect. But you may have a point. It's much better
    > >> to ignore what the hell the subject line says at all, on any string, and just ignore any
    > >> string in which a certain few people have posted. Right?
    > >
    > >
    > > Wrong, unless you are a sissy boy and do not like to read anything with which you disagree. When
    > > the liberals totally dominated this newsgroup and were posting their asinine comments will-nilly
    > > all over the place, we did not hear you complaining about it then. Any moron can quickly get the
    > > drift of a thread and if it has wandered off topic then so be it.
    > >
    > > What are you anyway - some kind of a confounded controller? If you had half a brain in your head
    > > you would know that any thread that is going on for more than 20 messages is probably going to
    > > be off topic and have lots of crap like yours in it to boot. I figure the only way to look at it
    > > is if I can stand your crap than you can stand my crap. So far I have not discovered any
    > > geniuses here on ARBR.
    > >
    > > Ed Dolan - Minnesota
    >

    > whether or not I agree with what the post contains.

    say any damn fool thing that pops into their empty heads, but the minute a conservative does the
    same thing, lo and behold, there is Mr. Varney of Kentucky complaining about all the OT's.

    Main Entry: sis┬Ěsy Pronunciation: 'si-sE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural sissies Etymology:
    sis Date: 1891
    : an effeminate man or boy; also : a timid or cowardly person
    - sissy adjective

    Merriam-Webster

    I am thinking you are a timid person if you can't stand some balance in the OT's.

    > Listen closely: if the topic has long since changed from what the subject line indicates, then
    > what is the point of having a subject line at all, if not to indicate what the post is about?

    Look at what has happened to "Can We Surrender". It has split into 3 or 4 different threads because
    of posters playing around with the subject heading. One of them has disappeared entirely from Google
    as far as I can tell. Even Google can't keep up with all the foolishness that goes on here. I say
    leave the subject headings alone. When you change them you create nothing but confusion. Most
    subject threads that stay on topic don't last more than a few days anyway. You are always creating a
    tempest in a teapot.

    > And off you go with your childish insults, your nonsense about liberals, when it comes down to
    > nothing of the sort. "The liberals" are only a figment of your tired, limited imagination. And
    > what "crap" of mine have you had to put up with?

    The crap I am talking about is what you have so far contributed to this thread. There is nothing
    constructive - just whine, whine, whine!

    > "Any moron" should not have to put up with endless threads that have nothing to do with the
    > subject line. There is nothing more off-putting for a reader to keep finding out that what
    > appears to be the topic for discussion after discussion is quite the opposite - especially when
    > the fix is so simple.

    If a thread is very long chances are that it is off topic even if recumbents are still being
    discussed. It is inevitable. Threads get off topic for reasons other than political rants. I have
    seen it over and over. It is impossible to stay on topic very long unless you have a moderator (in
    essence an editor) to see to it.

    You say the fix is simple, but it is not. To have more than one thread going with the same subject
    heading, although slightly varied, is confusing - not to me, but to many others. But even I do not
    like to hunt around to find the proper thread because of minor variations in the wording of the
    subject heading.

    Nonetheless, I do know what you are talking about and I can appreciate what you are saying, but it
    won't work on this newsgroup. It won't work because we are all mature intelligent folks here and
    when something gets said that is off the mark, someone else is going to have something to say about
    it. It is inevitable. What you want will only work with an editor (moderator).

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota
     
  20. Bill G

    Bill G Guest

    Mikael Seierup wrote:

    > Hmmm. Not possible to make a filter on 'OT'. It removes all threads with 'ot' in them. Like "Not
    > needed tools" which was just an excuse to test that.
    >
    > So 'OT' is useless. Can we get people to write O.T. or [OT]?
    >
    > M.

    Mikael, If they are inconsiderate enough to start or continue OT threads you don't really think they
    will go to the trouble of a filterable title do you? Then folks could skip 'em and the OT posters
    wouldn't get their desired audience. What amazes me are the folks who continue to argue the OT posts
    trying to get in the last word when none of the parties are likely to suddenly say, "Gee you are
    correct. Thanks for setting me straight." bill g

    --
    "There are three truths: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." John Allen Muhammad
     
Loading...