Do newsgroups need net nannies?

Edward Dolan said:

Newsgroups NEVER need net nannies! The only way to handle trolls, spammers
and stalkers is never to respond to them. However, those that do respond
need not bother anyone else either. The best filter ever invented is the one
in our own minds. I can tell in a split second whether I want to read a
message or not and also whether I want to respond or not. The mere fact of
their presence should never bother anyone in the slightest.

Yet there is always some fool who wants to kill-file and/or report and to
urge others to do the same. You wonder if such types were born yesterday.
The very best thing that such fools could do is to leave the group. They
clearly do not belong.

All newsgroups are basically made up of dumbbells who have about an 8th
grade education. So what do you expect? If and when you ever get an
intelligent post on anything, just be grateful. Even one so Great as Myself
cannot hit a home run every time I come to bat.

All newsgroups need tolerance for every kind of fool that mankind is capable
of producing. Hells Bells, I don't even bother to read 95% of all posts to
any newsgroup. It pays to be very selective about how you spend your time on
a newsgroup, especially when you get to be my age and you do not have much
time left to waste.

The only kind of fool who ever needs to be reported are those who threaten
violence or who urge others to violence. Such miscreants should be reported
to your local police and to the FBI so that there is at least a record of
it.

If I were any of you, I would just read the messages of the Great Ed Dolan
and not bother with anyone else. That way your time will be well spend and
you will reap many rewards, both in this world and in the world to come -
since I am also a Great Saint.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Are you intentionally trying to self destruct?
Jeesh,
Give it a rest.

Sure we do. It's full of Muslims here!

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Newsgroups NEVER need net nannies! The only way to handle trolls, spammers
and stalkers is never to respond to them. However, those that do respond
need not bother anyone else either. The best filter ever invented is the

one

Quoted message said:

in our own minds. I can tell in a split second whether I want to read a
message or not and also whether I want to respond or not. The mere fact of
their presence should never bother anyone in the slightest.

Yet there is always some fool who wants to kill-file and/or report and to
urge others to do the same. You wonder if such types were born yesterday.
The very best thing that such fools could do is to leave the group. They
clearly do not belong.

All newsgroups are basically made up of dumbbells who have about an 8th
grade education. So what do you expect? If and when you ever get an
intelligent post on anything, just be grateful. Even one so Great as

Myself

Quoted message said:

cannot hit a home run every time I come to bat.

All newsgroups need tolerance for every kind of fool that mankind is

capable

Quoted message said:

of producing. Hells Bells, I don't even bother to read 95% of all posts to
any newsgroup. It pays to be very selective about how you spend your time

on

Quoted message said:

a newsgroup, especially when you get to be my age and you do not have much
time left to waste.

The only kind of fool who ever needs to be reported are those who threaten
violence or who urge others to violence. Such miscreants should be

reported

Quoted message said:

to your local police and to the FBI so that there is at least a record of
it.

If I were any of you, I would just read the messages of the Great Ed Dolan
and not bother with anyone else. That way your time will be well spend and
you will reap many rewards, both in this world and in the world to come -
since I am also a Great Saint.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

?!?

"JimmyMac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a retiree IT specialist with 38+ years of experience in the computing
field, who has been on the internet when connectivity was via a 300
baud modem,

If you've got 38 years in, you should go all the way back to 110 modems and
KSR-33's. I'll grant you that was not on the internet, however.

Jeff Grippe said:

"JimmyMac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a retiree IT specialist with 38+ years of experience in the computing
field, who has been on the internet when connectivity was via a 300
baud modem,

If you've got 38 years in, you should go all the way back to 110 modems and
KSR-33's. I'll grant you that was not on the internet, however.

I stand corrected. I just redid the math and you have about two years
on me. The very first modems go way back into the 50's and were first
used in military applications followed shortly thereafter by the
airline industry. Fortunately, acoustic couplers were on the wane when
I first got connected. In the mid 80's things really heated up. I
recall the transition from 300 - 900 - 1.2kbps - 2.4kbps - 9.6kbps.
The 90's brought us 14.4kbps - 19.2kbps and digital phones ushered in
even faster speeds from increased bandwidth and still faster speeds ...
28.8 kbps - 33.6kbps, but soon after we reached the upper limit for
phone line transmission capacity ... 56kbps.

Jeff Grippe said:

"JimmyMac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a retiree IT specialist with 38+ years of experience in the computing
field, who has been on the internet when connectivity was via a 300
baud modem,

If you've got 38 years in, you should go all the way back to 110 modems and
KSR-33's. I'll grant you that was not on the internet, however.

I stand corrected. I just redid the math and you have about two years
on me. The very first modems go way back into the 50's and were first
used in military applications followed shortly thereafter by the
airline industry. Fortunately, acoustic couplers were on the wane when
I first got connected. In the mid 80's things really heated up. I
recall the transition from 300 - 900 - 1.2kbps - 2.4kbps - 9.6kbps.
The 90's brought us 14.4kbps - 19.2kbps and digital phones ushered in
even faster speeds from increased bandwidth and still faster speeds ...
28.8 kbps - 33.6kbps, but soon after we reached the upper limit for
phone line transmission capacity ... 56kbps and believe it or not, I'm
still using that and for the most par r it suffices for my needs, since
I don't do huge uploads and downloads. Besides I am on the outer
fringe of the distance limitation from my telcom switching station so
DSL performance is not stellar and I still use Win98 and my local cable
company doesn't support cable internet on Win98, so I'll just sit tight
for a little while longer.

Jim McNamara