MFW & "Killfiles"!!

Charles said:

In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!

The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
with the truth.

During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
of "killfiles".

I'm not going to name those two in order to avoid causing further
friction, but the game is quite clearly up for those *alleged*
"killfilers", who should really start being a great deal more honest
if they are to retain any credibility.

Ignoring the killfile theme of the thread, I joined this group about a
year back. Lurking a lot while trying to be a sponge. I was not a
newgroup newbie but I sure was to lifting back then, even at my age.
While this group still has a few bits of spring water in the sewer of
the net, ( which will keep me subscribed) I miss some of the inspiration
of Keith and Lyle etc. I realise that the group goes way back and that I
only take a newbie perception and that generations change over and over.
I guess my plea is to keep the [censored] coming, but keep the odd lifting Gem
there as well.

--
Bob Volkmer
rev@IRC

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

Quoted message said:

In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!

The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
with the truth.

During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
of "killfiles".

I'm not going to name those two in order to avoid causing further
friction, but the game is quite clearly up for those *alleged*
"killfilers", who should really start being a great deal more honest
if they are to retain any credibility.

Charles, I didn't bother to participate in your earlier discussion, but
I make heavy use of my killfile in this and other newsgroups, and I am a
"regular contributor" here. I use it mostly for spam, typically
killfiling all messages from a sender who simultaneously posts to this
and a lot of other newsgroups, but I have also used it to remove the
messages from several regulars here whose contributions I find
contribute nothing I ever wish to read.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Steve Freides said:

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

Quoted message said:

In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!

The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
with the truth.

During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
of "killfiles".

I'm not going to name those two in order to avoid causing further
friction, but the game is quite clearly up for those *alleged*
"killfilers", who should really start being a great deal more honest
if they are to retain any credibility.

Charles, I didn't bother to participate in your earlier discussion, but
I make heavy use of my killfile in this and other newsgroups, and I am a
"regular contributor" here. I use it mostly for spam, typically
killfiling all messages from a sender who simultaneously posts to this
and a lot of other newsgroups, but I have also used it to remove the
messages from several regulars here whose contributions I find
contribute nothing I ever wish to read.

I didn't suggest that you weren't one of the two genuine "killfilers"
Steve, I just said that I wouldn't indicate who they are.

However, if anyone has had a justifiable reason for using them here,
then I would suggest it would be you. Particularly when Hoff was
'amusing' himself at your expense by pursuing you about "spamming",
while allowing other more worthy recipients a clear run!!

I'm pleased for you that all that nonsense has finished!! ;o)

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!

The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
with the truth.

During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
of "killfiles".

I'm not going to name those two in order to avoid causing further
friction, but the game is quite clearly up for those *alleged*
"killfilers", who should really start being a great deal more honest
if they are to retain any credibility.

Charles, I didn't bother to participate in your earlier discussion, but I
make heavy use of my killfile in this and other newsgroups, and I am a
"regular contributor" here. I use it mostly for spam, typically
killfiling all messages from a sender who simultaneously posts to this and
a lot of other newsgroups, but I have also used it to remove the messages
from several regulars here whose contributions I find contribute nothing I
ever wish to read.

Which is an intelligent way to manage your time.

I find it ironic that some folks feel the need to digest every message on
usenet. Do they watch every commercial on TV? Do they read every ad or
story in a newspaper? We all edit our existence in one way or another. It
is a rational, intelligent way to respond to information glut.

Unless, of course, you are a troll trying to whip up business on a slow day.
And I find it ironic that this so called "survey" took place in places
unknown or unseen by almost everybody on this forum. Indicating clearly that
Chucky is hearing voices again. But how else would he be able to get some
folks together for a "discussion, survey or research"?

And as for a test of authenticity, who cares? Just because I ignore most ads
or writers in a newspaper, I do look at things that interest me or I find to
be particularly topical. Does that make me "unauthentic" in some fashion? I
read what interests me. I never consult with the mentally ill or incompetent
when making important decisions in my life.

Being able to edit your environment is a basic skill of human beings. And a
sign of higher intelligence. Something that Chucky knows nothing about.
(hint, trolling is not a sign of higher intelligence)

Unless, of course, he decides to do some more fantasy play at "research".
Here is a litttle hint chucky. Legitimate research does not include the
voices you hear in your head.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:24:19 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<[email hidden]> who is "trolling" again, but is
apparently delighted to have something to which he can respond (which

is all too rare these days) said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!

The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
with the truth.

During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
of "killfiles".

I'm not going to name those two in order to avoid causing further
friction, but the game is quite clearly up for those *alleged*
"killfilers", who should really start being a great deal more honest
if they are to retain any credibility.

Charles, I didn't bother to participate in your earlier discussion, but I
make heavy use of my killfile in this and other newsgroups, and I am a
"regular contributor" here. I use it mostly for spam, typically
killfiling all messages from a sender who simultaneously posts to this and
a lot of other newsgroups, but I have also used it to remove the messages
from several regulars here whose contributions I find contribute nothing I
ever wish to read.

Which is an intelligent way to manage your time.

I find it ironic that some folks feel the need to digest every message on
usenet. Do they watch every commercial on TV? Do they read every ad or
story in a newspaper? We all edit our existence in one way or another. It
is a rational, intelligent way to respond to information glut.

Unless, of course, you are a troll trying to whip up business on a slow day.
And I find it ironic that this so called "survey" took place in places
unknown or unseen by almost everybody on this forum. Indicating clearly that
Chucky is hearing voices again. But how else would he be able to get some
folks together for a "discussion, survey or research"?

And as for a test of authenticity, who cares? Just because I ignore most ads
or writers in a newspaper, I do look at things that interest me or I find to
be particularly topical. Does that make me "unauthentic" in some fashion? I
read what interests me. I never consult with the mentally ill or incompetent
when making important decisions in my life.

Being able to edit your environment is a basic skill of human beings. And a
sign of higher intelligence. Something that Chucky knows nothing about.
(hint, trolling is not a sign of higher intelligence)

Unless, of course, he decides to do some more fantasy play at "research".
Here is a litttle hint chucky. Legitimate research does not include the
voices you hear in your head.

I can't see this post thank goodness, as I have the poster in my
alleged "killfiles"!!

If I could see his post I would likely say in response: Don't call me
Chucky - you know I hate it!! ;o)

Lee Michaels said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!

The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
with the truth.

During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
of "killfiles".

I'm not going to name those two in order to avoid causing further
friction, but the game is quite clearly up for those *alleged*
"killfilers", who should really start being a great deal more honest
if they are to retain any credibility.

Charles, I didn't bother to participate in your earlier discussion, but I
make heavy use of my killfile in this and other newsgroups, and I am a
"regular contributor" here. I use it mostly for spam, typically
killfiling all messages from a sender who simultaneously posts to this and
a lot of other newsgroups, but I have also used it to remove the messages
from several regulars here whose contributions I find contribute nothing I
ever wish to read.

Which is an intelligent way to manage your time.

I find it ironic that some folks feel the need to digest every message on
usenet. Do they watch every commercial on TV? Do they read every ad or
story in a newspaper? We all edit our existence in one way or another. It
is a rational, intelligent way to respond to information glut.

Unless, of course, you are a troll trying to whip up business on a slow day.
And I find it ironic that this so called "survey" took place in places
unknown or unseen by almost everybody on this forum. Indicating clearly that
Chucky is hearing voices again. But how else would he be able to get some
folks together for a "discussion, survey or research"?

And as for a test of authenticity, who cares? Just because I ignore most ads
or writers in a newspaper, I do look at things that interest me or I find to
be particularly topical. Does that make me "unauthentic" in some fashion? I
read what interests me. I never consult with the mentally ill or incompetent
when making important decisions in my life.

Being able to edit your environment is a basic skill of human beings. And a
sign of higher intelligence. Something that Chucky knows nothing about.
(hint, trolling is not a sign of higher intelligence)

Unless, of course, he decides to do some more fantasy play at "research".
Here is a litttle hint chucky. Legitimate research does not include the
voices you hear in your head.

If I were one of those big supp companies that pumps the NO releasers,
or a major manufacturer of cheaply made exercise machines, I think I'd
hire a few people to go out and troll all the places where people can
actually get helpful (and free) information that steers them away from
my inferior and useless products.

-----------
Proton Soup

"And all this peace has been deceiving,
I need some wind to get me sailing"

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:26:21 -0500, Proton Soup <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Lee Michaels said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
> great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
> conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!
>
> The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
> that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
> people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
> with the truth.
>
> During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
> three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
> among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
> of "killfiles".
>
> I'm not going to name those two in order to avoid causing further
> friction, but the game is quite clearly up for those *alleged*
> "killfilers", who should really start being a great deal more honest
> if they are to retain any credibility.

Charles, I didn't bother to participate in your earlier discussion, but I
make heavy use of my killfile in this and other newsgroups, and I am a
"regular contributor" here. I use it mostly for spam, typically
killfiling all messages from a sender who simultaneously posts to this and
a lot of other newsgroups, but I have also used it to remove the messages
from several regulars here whose contributions I find contribute nothing I
ever wish to read.

Which is an intelligent way to manage your time.

I find it ironic that some folks feel the need to digest every message on
usenet. Do they watch every commercial on TV? Do they read every ad or
story in a newspaper? We all edit our existence in one way or another. It
is a rational, intelligent way to respond to information glut.

Unless, of course, you are a troll trying to whip up business on a slow day.
And I find it ironic that this so called "survey" took place in places
unknown or unseen by almost everybody on this forum. Indicating clearly that
Chucky is hearing voices again. But how else would he be able to get some
folks together for a "discussion, survey or research"?

And as for a test of authenticity, who cares? Just because I ignore most ads
or writers in a newspaper, I do look at things that interest me or I find to
be particularly topical. Does that make me "unauthentic" in some fashion? I
read what interests me. I never consult with the mentally ill or incompetent
when making important decisions in my life.

Being able to edit your environment is a basic skill of human beings. And a
sign of higher intelligence. Something that Chucky knows nothing about.
(hint, trolling is not a sign of higher intelligence)

Unless, of course, he decides to do some more fantasy play at "research".
Here is a litttle hint chucky. Legitimate research does not include the
voices you hear in your head.

If I were one of those big supp companies that pumps the NO releasers,
or a major manufacturer of cheaply made exercise machines, I think I'd
hire a few people to go out and troll all the places where people can
actually get helpful (and free) information that steers them away from
my inferior and useless products.

How do you know that isn't my reason for being here PS?!! ;o)

I note that two of the most prolific alleged "killfilers" at MFW are
the first to respond to our survey and its findings!!

I suggest that speaks volumes!!

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

Quoted message said:

Lee Michaels said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
> great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
> conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!
>
> The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
> that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
> people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
> with the truth.
>
> During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
> three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
> among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
> of "killfiles".
>
> I'm not going to name those two in order to avoid causing further
> friction, but the game is quite clearly up for those *alleged*
> "killfilers", who should really start being a great deal more honest
> if they are to retain any credibility.

Charles, I didn't bother to participate in your earlier discussion, but
I
make heavy use of my killfile in this and other newsgroups, and I am a
"regular contributor" here. I use it mostly for spam, typically
killfiling all messages from a sender who simultaneously posts to this
and
a lot of other newsgroups, but I have also used it to remove the
messages
from several regulars here whose contributions I find contribute nothing
I
ever wish to read.

Which is an intelligent way to manage your time.

I find it ironic that some folks feel the need to digest every message on
usenet. Do they watch every commercial on TV? Do they read every ad or
story in a newspaper? We all edit our existence in one way or another. It
is a rational, intelligent way to respond to information glut.

Unless, of course, you are a troll trying to whip up business on a slow
day.
And I find it ironic that this so called "survey" took place in places
unknown or unseen by almost everybody on this forum. Indicating clearly
that
Chucky is hearing voices again. But how else would he be able to get some
folks together for a "discussion, survey or research"?

And as for a test of authenticity, who cares? Just because I ignore most
ads
or writers in a newspaper, I do look at things that interest me or I find
to
be particularly topical. Does that make me "unauthentic" in some fashion?
I
read what interests me. I never consult with the mentally ill or
incompetent
when making important decisions in my life.

Being able to edit your environment is a basic skill of human beings. And
a
sign of higher intelligence. Something that Chucky knows nothing about.
(hint, trolling is not a sign of higher intelligence)

Unless, of course, he decides to do some more fantasy play at "research".
Here is a litttle hint chucky. Legitimate research does not include the
voices you hear in your head.

If I were one of those big supp companies that pumps the NO releasers,
or a major manufacturer of cheaply made exercise machines, I think I'd
hire a few people to go out and troll all the places where people can
actually get helpful (and free) information that steers them away from
my inferior and useless products.

Which raises the question, who has chucky been working for?

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:56:50 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<[email hidden]> raised his scrawny old left
buttock and rasped noisily:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lee Michaels said:

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
>> great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
>> conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!
>>
>> The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
>> that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
>> people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
>> with the truth.
>>
>> During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
>> three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
>> among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
>> of "killfiles".
>>
>> I'm not going to name those two in order to avoid causing further
>> friction, but the game is quite clearly up for those *alleged*
>> "killfilers", who should really start being a great deal more honest
>> if they are to retain any credibility.
>
> Charles, I didn't bother to participate in your earlier discussion, but
> I
> make heavy use of my killfile in this and other newsgroups, and I am a
> "regular contributor" here. I use it mostly for spam, typically
> killfiling all messages from a sender who simultaneously posts to this
> and
> a lot of other newsgroups, but I have also used it to remove the
> messages
> from several regulars here whose contributions I find contribute nothing
> I
> ever wish to read.
>
Which is an intelligent way to manage your time.

I find it ironic that some folks feel the need to digest every message on
usenet. Do they watch every commercial on TV? Do they read every ad or
story in a newspaper? We all edit our existence in one way or another. It
is a rational, intelligent way to respond to information glut.

Unless, of course, you are a troll trying to whip up business on a slow
day.
And I find it ironic that this so called "survey" took place in places
unknown or unseen by almost everybody on this forum. Indicating clearly
that
Chucky is hearing voices again. But how else would he be able to get some
folks together for a "discussion, survey or research"?

And as for a test of authenticity, who cares? Just because I ignore most
ads
or writers in a newspaper, I do look at things that interest me or I find
to
be particularly topical. Does that make me "unauthentic" in some fashion?
I
read what interests me. I never consult with the mentally ill or
incompetent
when making important decisions in my life.

Being able to edit your environment is a basic skill of human beings. And
a
sign of higher intelligence. Something that Chucky knows nothing about.
(hint, trolling is not a sign of higher intelligence)

Unless, of course, he decides to do some more fantasy play at "research".
Here is a litttle hint chucky. Legitimate research does not include the
voices you hear in your head.

If I were one of those big supp companies that pumps the NO releasers,
or a major manufacturer of cheaply made exercise machines, I think I'd
hire a few people to go out and troll all the places where people can
actually get helpful (and free) information that steers them away from
my inferior and useless products.

Which raises the question, who has chucky been working for?

Who said that? <the "voices" again>

[If this poster wasn't in my alleged "killfiles" I would probably say:
Wouldn't you like to know?!! ;o)

And then I might say:

And I told you already, don't call me Chucky - you know I hate it!!
;o)

But then what's the point, as I know he has me in his alleged
"killfiles" and I also know he works very hard at "ignoring" me!! ;o)
<sigh>

Chucky]

In article <[email hidden]>,

Charles said:

In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!

Said "established contributor" perhaps isn't as "technically able" as
that for which you credit them, or they failed to relate to you
certain variations on the theme of "kill-filing," or you didn't
understand it all. Or you're being disingenuous.

Quoted message said:

The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
with the truth.

Not necessarily.

Quoted message said:

During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
of "killfiles".

Let me guess: You "determined" this based on "people who said they
had so-and-so kill-filed" later following-up to so-and-so," right?

Your methodology is flawed.

I have you kill-filed, Charles, yet I saw and am replying-to your
comments. You see, Charles, it turns out that *some* newsreaders,
when an article is kill-filed, simply mark the item as "read." This
may at first impress as "weak" or "lame" kill-filing, but, in fact,
it works very well and offers a great deal of flexibility.

Quoted message said:

I'm not going to name those two in order ...

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Who really gives a damn, Charles? In the over-all scheme of things,
what the hell does it matter? What the hell does any of this whole
kill-file nonsense matter?

This is a perfect example of why I have you kill-filed, Charles. Far
too much utter and complete nonsense, like this thread-starter. Too
much "misc," mostly inflammatory "misc," at that, and too little of
"fitness" or "weights."

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

"Runs With Knives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Charles said:

In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!

Said "established contributor" perhaps isn't as "technically able" as
that for which you credit them, or they failed to relate to you
certain variations on the theme of "kill-filing," or you didn't
understand it all. Or you're being disingenuous.

Quoted message said:

The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
with the truth.

Not necessarily.

Quoted message said:

During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
of "killfiles".

Let me guess: You "determined" this based on "people who said they
had so-and-so kill-filed" later following-up to so-and-so," right?

Your methodology is flawed.

I have you kill-filed, Charles, yet I saw and am replying-to your
comments. You see, Charles, it turns out that *some* newsreaders,
when an article is kill-filed, simply mark the item as "read." This
may at first impress as "weak" or "lame" kill-filing, but, in fact,
it works very well and offers a great deal of flexibility.

Quoted message said:

I'm not going to name those two in order ...

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Who really gives a damn, Charles? In the over-all scheme of things,
what the hell does it matter? What the hell does any of this whole
kill-file nonsense matter?

This is a perfect example of why I have you kill-filed, Charles. Far
too much utter and complete nonsense, like this thread-starter. Too
much "misc," mostly inflammatory "misc," at that, and too little of
"fitness" or "weights."

Well, chucky really doesn't care much for on topic discussions.

It interferes with his trolling.

Quoted message said:

I never consult with the mentally ill or incompetent

when making important decisions in my life.>

So you leave ALL of your immediate family out of important decisions?

Quoted message said:

And a sign of higher intelligence.>

Again, where's the relevance to your gene pool?

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:47:19 -0000, [email hidden] (Runs With Knives)

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Charles said:

In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!

Said "established contributor" perhaps isn't as "technically able" as
that for which you credit them, or they failed to relate to you
certain variations on the theme of "kill-filing," or you didn't
understand it all. Or you're being disingenuous.

Quoted message said:

The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
with the truth.

Not necessarily.

Quoted message said:

During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
of "killfiles".

Let me guess: You "determined" this based on "people who said they
had so-and-so kill-filed" later following-up to so-and-so," right?

Your methodology is flawed.

The intricacies of the technology employed were left to my very
well-informed collaborator, but I do know that what he did was a great
deal more scientific than the method you describe.

The method you describe is what tipped me off absolutely ages ago, and
caused me to start my 'crusade' against the alleged "killfilers", but
then I am a self-confessed novice when it comes to all things
'cyberly' and 'nerdily' 'technical'!!

Quoted message said:

I have you kill-filed, Charles, yet I saw and am replying-to your
comments. You see, Charles, it turns out that *some* newsreaders,
when an article is kill-filed, simply mark the item as "read." This
may at first impress as "weak" or "lame" kill-filing, but, in fact,
it works very well and offers a great deal of flexibility.

It is not the sort of "killfiling" to which the masters of deceit here
claim to subscribe, but it's an interesting concept Jim, and the topic
was obviously interesting enough for you to respond - for whatever
reason!! ;o)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not going to name those two in order ...

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Who really gives a damn, Charles? In the over-all scheme of things,
what the hell does it matter? What the hell does any of this whole
kill-file nonsense matter?

Well as someone who according to the claims made must be the most
alleged "killfiled" person here, yet who also happens to be one of the
most involved in all that goes on here, it certainly matters to me. My
collaborator however, is also very interested although to our
knowledge he has only ever been allegedly "killfiled" once!!

You have to understand that the people that overtly talk "killfiles",
are those who are heavily involved in the politics of the Group. This
is the group of people that would like to hold sway here and decide
who can and who can't be involved.

They announce publicly that they are "killfiling" someone and they
invite or cajole others to do the same. This is normally because they
have met opposition to some of their more objectionable mores - like
for example bullying.

However, this is simply one of their hackneyed responses to someone
with whom they can't master, and is just one of their tactics to
exclude and to try to get their own way. Other methods include
attacking repeatedly in numbers, attempting to ignore (of which they
are quite incapable) and intimidating anyone who is having any sort of
reasonable discourse with the object of their spite.

Quoted message said:

This is a perfect example of why I have you kill-filed, Charles. Far
too much utter and complete nonsense, like this thread-starter. Too
much "misc," mostly inflammatory "misc," at that, and too little of
"fitness" or "weights."

Then you are enjoying what you do Jim and hopefully making your own
decisions. However, like a number of people that have been duped by
the 'powers of darkness', you appear to overlook the poor behaviour of
the 'opposition', for it is to their repetitive "trolling" that I am
mostly responding.

I don't know how long you have been here but having said all that, my
tactics have paid off and the "trolling" and "bullying" has been
reduced to a virtual trickle from what it was two and three years ago.
But that is only because I am predictable and persistent in my
opposition.

Our research has proved that the alleged "killfilers" are a bunch of
liars and cheats, and if they lie about something so relatively
unimportant, how can anyone believe anything else they say?!!

Lee Michaels said:

"Runs With Knives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Charles said:

In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!

Said "established contributor" perhaps isn't as "technically able" as
that for which you credit them, or they failed to relate to you
certain variations on the theme of "kill-filing," or you didn't
understand it all. Or you're being disingenuous.

Quoted message said:

The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
with the truth.

Not necessarily.

Quoted message said:

During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
of "killfiles".

Let me guess: You "determined" this based on "people who said they
had so-and-so kill-filed" later following-up to so-and-so," right?

Your methodology is flawed.

I have you kill-filed, Charles, yet I saw and am replying-to your
comments. You see, Charles, it turns out that *some* newsreaders,
when an article is kill-filed, simply mark the item as "read." This
may at first impress as "weak" or "lame" kill-filing, but, in fact,
it works very well and offers a great deal of flexibility.

Quoted message said:

I'm not going to name those two in order ...

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Who really gives a damn, Charles? In the over-all scheme of things,
what the hell does it matter? What the hell does any of this whole
kill-file nonsense matter?

This is a perfect example of why I have you kill-filed, Charles. Far
too much utter and complete nonsense, like this thread-starter. Too
much "misc," mostly inflammatory "misc," at that, and too little of
"fitness" or "weights."

Well, chucky really doesn't care much for on topic discussions.

It interferes with his trolling.

If you weren't in my alleged "killfiles" I would probably respond:

But it's given you a way to get back into what's happening here, as
you have been bereft of input since you drove out poor David the Oz
with your boring "trolling"!!

And I've told you before, don't call me Chuck - you know I hate it!!

Chucky

(Runs With Knives) said:

Charles said:

In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!

Said "established contributor" perhaps isn't as "technically able" as
that for which you credit them, or they failed to relate to you
certain variations on the theme of "kill-filing," or you didn't
understand it all. Or you're being disingenuous.

John "Charles" Hudson disingenuous?!?! Perish the thought!

Quoted message said:

I have you kill-filed, Charles, yet I saw and am replying-to your
comments. You see, Charles, it turns out that *some* newsreaders,
when an article is kill-filed, simply mark the item as "read." This
may at first impress as "weak" or "lame" kill-filing, but, in fact,
it works very well and offers a great deal of flexibility.

Quoted message said:

I'm not going to name those two in order ...

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Who really gives a damn, Charles? In the over-all scheme of things,
what the hell does it matter? What the hell does any of this whole
kill-file nonsense matter?

This is a perfect example of why I have you kill-filed, Charles. Far
too much utter and complete nonsense, like this thread-starter.

Then why, pray tell, are you feeding the troll?
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

In article <[email hidden]>,
Charles <[email hidden]> writes:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

... the topic
was obviously interesting enough for you to respond - for whatever
reason!! ;o)

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Once again you have employed that fool's gold of deductive reasoning
known as "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." Quite simply: Confusing cause
and effect. For example: "Each morning, the [censored] crows and,
subsequently, the sun rises. Therefor, cocks crowing cause the sun
to rise."

No, Charles, I followed up to you, this one time, because I believe
everybody deserves at least *one* chance. I believe that many
people, if given that one chance, and despite all evidence to the
contrary, can be helped to see the light and repent of their wasteful
and (self-)destructive ways, becoming valued, contributing members of
the community.

For others, there is no hope. By your previous response, and what
I've seen of your history here, you would appear to be in this latter,
unfortunate, benighted group 🙁.

Goodbye, Charles.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

In article <[email hidden]>,

JMW said:

[email hidden] (Runs With Knives) wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is a perfect example of why I have you kill-filed, Charles. Far
too much utter and complete nonsense, like this thread-starter.

Then why, pray tell, are you feeding the troll?

I would've thought the follow-up to which you responded would've made
that self-evident. Since that's apparently not the case, please see
my other follow-up to "Charles" for a clarification.

Ironic how both he and you seem to have misinterpreted the nature of
my participation in this thread. Gives one cause to wonder... Oh
well, it doesn't really matter.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

Lee Michaels said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lee Michaels said:

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
>> great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
>> conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!
>>
>> The results have been very illuminating and prove beyond any doubt,
>> that which I have maintained for a very long time, that most of the
>> people who claim to use the dreaded "killfiles" are being economical
>> with the truth.
>>
>> During a survey carried out on contributions posted over the past
>> three months, it has been proved conclusively that only two people
>> among the regular contributors here, are actually making genuine use
>> of "killfiles".
>>
>> I'm not going to name those two in order to avoid causing further
>> friction, but the game is quite clearly up for those *alleged*
>> "killfilers", who should really start being a great deal more honest
>> if they are to retain any credibility.
>
> Charles, I didn't bother to participate in your earlier discussion, but
> I
> make heavy use of my killfile in this and other newsgroups, and I am a
> "regular contributor" here. I use it mostly for spam, typically
> killfiling all messages from a sender who simultaneously posts to this
> and
> a lot of other newsgroups, but I have also used it to remove the
> messages
> from several regulars here whose contributions I find contribute nothing
> I
> ever wish to read.
>
Which is an intelligent way to manage your time.

I find it ironic that some folks feel the need to digest every message on
usenet. Do they watch every commercial on TV? Do they read every ad or
story in a newspaper? We all edit our existence in one way or another. It
is a rational, intelligent way to respond to information glut.

Unless, of course, you are a troll trying to whip up business on a slow
day.
And I find it ironic that this so called "survey" took place in places
unknown or unseen by almost everybody on this forum. Indicating clearly
that
Chucky is hearing voices again. But how else would he be able to get some
folks together for a "discussion, survey or research"?

And as for a test of authenticity, who cares? Just because I ignore most
ads
or writers in a newspaper, I do look at things that interest me or I find
to
be particularly topical. Does that make me "unauthentic" in some fashion?
I
read what interests me. I never consult with the mentally ill or
incompetent
when making important decisions in my life.

Being able to edit your environment is a basic skill of human beings. And
a
sign of higher intelligence. Something that Chucky knows nothing about.
(hint, trolling is not a sign of higher intelligence)

Unless, of course, he decides to do some more fantasy play at "research".
Here is a litttle hint chucky. Legitimate research does not include the
voices you hear in your head.

If I were one of those big supp companies that pumps the NO releasers,
or a major manufacturer of cheaply made exercise machines, I think I'd
hire a few people to go out and troll all the places where people can
actually get helpful (and free) information that steers them away from
my inferior and useless products.

Which raises the question, who has chucky been working for?

Life Extension Foundation? 😉

-----------
Proton Soup

"And all this peace has been deceiving,
I need some wind to get me sailing"

JMW said:

(Runs With Knives) said:

Charles said:

In conjunction with another established contributor here, who is a
great deal more technically able than I could ever hope to be, we have
conducted a thorough survey into the use of "killfiles"!!

Said "established contributor" perhaps isn't as "technically able" as
that for which you credit them, or they failed to relate to you
certain variations on the theme of "kill-filing," or you didn't
understand it all. Or you're being disingenuous.

John "Charles" Hudson disingenuous?!?! Perish the thought!

My thanks to John "Enforcer" Williams for valiantly leaping to my
defence at this scurrilous accusation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have you kill-filed, Charles, yet I saw and am replying-to your
comments. You see, Charles, it turns out that *some* newsreaders,
when an article is kill-filed, simply mark the item as "read." This
may at first impress as "weak" or "lame" kill-filing, but, in fact,
it works very well and offers a great deal of flexibility.

Quoted message said:

I'm not going to name those two in order ...

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Who really gives a damn, Charles? In the over-all scheme of things,
what the hell does it matter? What the hell does any of this whole
kill-file nonsense matter?

This is a perfect example of why I have you kill-filed, Charles. Far
too much utter and complete nonsense, like this thread-starter.

Then why, pray tell, are you feeding the troll?

This is one of the tactics I mentioned earlier Jim ((Runs With
Knives), the "Enforcer" (John Williams) is attempting yet again to
discourage others from discourse with his hated opponent, because he
is quite clearly unable to cope on his own!!

However, he is also employing his current cowardly tactic of claiming
to "ignore" me, while responding via the back door third party
'piggy-back' method.

John Williams is a "troll" and has been a subversive influence in this
Group for all the years I have been here.