SCUBA-SE Archives

March 2001

SCUBA-SE@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reef Fish <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SouthEast US Scuba Diving Travel list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:31:11 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (76 lines)
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:58:26 -0500, Wade G. Pemberton
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Strike:
>
>>  I've had a bellyful of
>> bickering and nit-picking.
>>
>
>You too can become your own list administrator!  A 4-5 clicks, type a
>couple of words, and Eureka......peace at last.

Wade, your Clueless Newbie disease is having a relapse.

Strike has been around.  He KNOWS what to do.  He has also read
the "Natural Cycles of a Mailing List" many times, because it had
been posted many times.  What is happening here is nothing new.

Apparently YOU have never read that post that had found its way
into NUMEROUS Listserv LISTS, because it captures the same history
on most of them.

The post was dated 1993.  It taught readers how to use the DELETE
KEY.  That is AFTER a reader sees what author and what subject
s/he wants to delete.

The killfile is just a newer gimmick that makes an OSTRICH out of
you.  It doesn't work.  You'll read what OTHERS quotes on the
person you didn't want to read.  What you read will be OUT OF
CONTEXT.


>Just build a message filter on your inbox, and the offending authors,
>message titles, your choice, go straight to the trash bin.  No fuss,
>no muss. You won't even see 'em.

See my paragraph above.

The fact that Strike know how to RECALL past articles, cite them
properly, and understood each thread, strongely suggests that he
already knew what to do MUCH BETTER THAN Wade.

Just use the webpage archives.  There is NOTHING to filter.
You selectively read (or not read) what has been posted, based
on AUTHOR and SUBJECT.

I have said it to Lee, who boasted that he filtered me, that anyone
who resorts to a filter is "intellectually bankrupt".  I stated
the same in rec.scuba recently (perhaps it was on the days you didn't
read me there <smirk>).

Therefore, Wade, you are no exception.  You are INTELLECTUALLY
BANKRUPT, and don't try to spread your bad influence here.


>You'll wonder how you ever lived without it.

That's what censors said about the fire that burnt books.
>
>It's amazing how quiet it gets.

It's also amazing how nuggets or pearls of wisdom are blissfully
missed by said intellectually bankrupt "reader".

>If you ever want to see what you've missed, just look in the trash
>before you take it out.
>
>Wade

Besides intellectually bankrupt, you are also very OUTDATED in your
knowledge about the TECHNOLOGY of archives retrieval which exists
under your very eye -- but of course you're so clever that you
are BLIND to it.

-- Bob.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2