On 2004-03-14 15:33:15 PST, Lee Bell ([log in to unmask])
wrote on Newsgroups: rec.scuba:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=20040314204755.20595.00001380%40mb-m28.aol.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.scuba>
> Rec.Scuba, meet Michael Doelle [log in to unmask] .
> I'm sure that Michael didn't really intend to post this to a newgroup
> without sharing it with rec.scuba. That would be cowardly and surely,
> htat was not Michael's intent. I helped him out by ensuring the
> message to to the right place.Enjoy.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> If I were ever to really wish someone grief (I don't), I'd consign
> them to a subscription and active participation on that "news list" is it?
>
> > Hehh, but they think (well, they mostly just think that they think) that
> > they "are in the know on rec.scuba", as one of them just reaffirned. Then
> > proceeded to write complete drivel on the subject of PFOs. And nobody
> > seemed to catch it. Maybe someone did after I stopped scanning, but that
> > crap is simply beyond unreadable. Currently dick sizes seem to be their
> > favourite subject. Hehh, somebody has to respond to the spammers, might
> > as well be the rec.scubans.
> >
> > Once in a while one of them is full enough of himself and pops over to the
> > Tech lists and proposes "changes" to DIR. Usually gets chased out of town
> > within 3 days, but not before having made a complete ass of himself, then,
> > while licking his wounds, spends the next year or three bragging about
> > 'how they stood up to George'. Clearly the most incompetent of the sports
> > newsgroups that I know. Although rec.skiing got fairly close, back when I
> > still popped in there once in a while ...
Sheeeeesh, I was bored, and found the above.
I somehow wish I hadn't.
Lee,
Whilst I appreciate that you didn't quote my disparaging remarks,
well, at least you didn't quote me and my address. You did however
quote Michael's (subsequent) disparaging remarks and you already know
what I think of cross postings. I've rabbitted on enough about that
where RFLNG is concerned.
What concerns me (even) more is that you included Michael's address in
your posting. Seems to me that that is plain vindictive since just
about everyone has a caveat on their address as a matter of routine on
that list. Look at your own address quoted above! I know that you and
Michael don't get on, that's fine. I don't get on with just one person
on S-SE (even then I like to think we have some respect) but I do NOT
condone the intentional broadcast of a person's address. That's SPAM
gathering stuff, it also allows twit heads on that forum to e-mail
personally. That was your intent? After all, Michi is not a member of
that forum so I would assume that to be the case.
That, pretty well, disgusts me. AIUI you're in the investigation
and/or security industry? If so, frankly, I'm surprised at you! I
would have thought you'd know better.
Copy the post, if you must, NEVER post an address (in the clear). At
worst tell people that they can get it privately if they ask.
Bob, since I suspect that there'll be enough others, leave it alone
please even though I know that you'll be sorely tempted. :)
That, but of course, does not apply if you have another angle on this.
"Metooism" is, however, a singularly ugly charicature of a word.
Cheers,
Christian
|
