For new people, here are links to the F.A.Q.

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Corliss
  • Start date Start date
Jason de Bougainville said:
You just love baiting the trolls don't you.
Click to expand...
How so? He is offering not only his recommended FAQ(s) but also the
alternative view. I think that's pretty even-handed.

And he didn't top post. :)
 
A flawed one I believe. If he includes the anti-faq as well then what
would the trolls have to complain about?
Click to expand...

That he posted. Stalkers are like that.

Not that John shouldn't post! I'm only addressing your question,
because I think it imputes too much sense and intelligence to the
stalker trolls. When the goal is simple disruption, they don't
need a real reason.
 
Mister Charlie said:
How so? He is offering not only his recommended FAQ(s) but also the
alternative view. I think that's pretty even-handed.

And he didn't top post. :)
Click to expand...

No, as the OP his was the "top post, so to speak.

BTW, Kudo's to John C for including all three.

BillR
 
Isn't it amazing how a third of the posts in this forum anymore are about
complaining about others posting style?

I personally, have never had trouble comprehending any post in the forum,
even the ones that you have to scrawl through 5 pages of previous posts to
even see the post.

Glenn
 
Mister Charlie wrote:
Click to expand...
That he posted. Stalkers are like that.
Click to expand...
Not that John shouldn't post! I'm only addressing your question,
because I think it imputes too much sense and intelligence to the
stalker trolls. When the goal is simple disruption, they don't
need a real reason.
Click to expand...

Exactly. When he doesn't post the FAQs address' they are critical
of him. When he does post them they are critical. So Mister Charlie's
expectation of improvement would not eventuate.

IMO the only thing that John is doing wrong is constantly changing
the header. This makes it harder to killfile. The majority of weekly/
monthly posts relating to usenet FAQs that I have seen have identical
headers, with each posting. I expect to make filtering easier.

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.aspects.org.au/index.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/
 
John said:
IMO the only thing that John is doing wrong is constantly changing
the header. This makes it harder to killfile.
Click to expand...

Sorry John. I forgot to include the following in the header:

*F.A.Q.*

so that killfiles can be set up on that inclusion.
 
John Corliss said:
I would say that it rates a "1" on that scale, since I'm only posting
it to this group.
Click to expand...

I've thought for a long while that you have no idea how spam is
measured; you seem to be confirming that. Why will you not read (or not
understand) the various resources to which you have been referred?
Also, F.A.Q. notices seem to be immune from spam criticisms as long as
they are legit.
Click to expand...

Indeed - though "being legit" means "not having a high BI". You have
already been told this, though.
This isn't to say that somebody like Mabbett might try to make a big
deal of it.
Click to expand...

Reds under the bed! Film at eleven!

Your obsession is showing, again.
On the other hand, he's complained so much to my ISP that they blocked
his domain range out of frustration with him.
Click to expand...

A lie.

You yourself have admitted to being warned by your ISP, after I
complained to them; not least about you forging my ID to subscribe me to
mailing lists.

What, by the way, is a "domain range"?
Thanks for the info, John. At this point though, since I use Mozilla it
will probably be identical subject headers.
Click to expand...

Oh, get a clue.
 
Back
Top