OT,OT,OT.-BYE.

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

Quoted message said:

Why some f-in' screwballs cannot realize the words Bicycles and Recumbents is the desired subject
is beyond me; so I am outta here. Leave OT discussions to nonsensical radio and television talk
shows which have an on/off switch. Broken records, over and over- disgusting.

Chris, you have a right to be disgusted, I guess; but I think you're overreacting.

Doesn't your news reader allow you to ignore threads? Mine does. Just ignore the OT postings. That's
what the "OT" is for - to alert you to Off Topic threads, so you can avoid them as you like. We're
playing by the rules. Cut us a little slack, will ya?

Cheers,

-=B=-

I've responded to a few OT posts and started at least one myself. If _I_ am responsible for you
leaving, please reconsider.

Just 'kill file' the OT posts and reconsider staying. My two cents. DH

"DH" <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I've responded to a few OT posts and started at least one myself. If _I_ am responsible for you
leaving, please reconsider.> Just 'kill file' the OT posts and reconsider staying. My two
cents. DH

I don't blame you one bit Chris. Of course, we can still coresspond via e- mail, yes?

happy trails, rorschandt
--
May all beings be happy. May they be joyous and live in safety. All living beings, whether weak or
strong, in high or middle or low realms of existence, small or great, visible or invisible, near or
far, born or to be born, Let no one deceive another, nor despise any being in any state; Let none by
anger or hatred wish harm to another. Even as a mother at the risk of her life watches over and
protects her only child, so with a boundless mind should one cherish all living things,

Nope. CJ is right. If y'all want to play in your little world of ,deleted. the do so where it is on
topic. Until then a.r.b.r is too offensively stupid to do more than look at the subject lines
occasionally.

"Rocketman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fWPvb.276276$HS4.2443459@attbi_s01...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Why some f-in' screwballs cannot realize the words Bicycles and Recumbents is the desired
subject is beyond me; so I am outta here. Leave OT discussions to nonsensical radio and
television talk shows which have an on/off switch. Broken records, over and over- disgusting.

Chris, you have a right to be disgusted, I guess; but I think you're overreacting.

Doesn't your news reader allow you to ignore threads? Mine does. Just ignore the OT postings.
That's what the "OT" is for - to alert you to Off Topic threads, so you can avoid them as you
like. We're playing by the rules. Cut us a little slack, will ya?

Cheers,

-=B=-

"DH" <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I've responded to a few OT posts and started at least one myself. If _I_ am responsible for you
leaving, please reconsider.

Just 'kill file' the OT posts and reconsider staying. My two cents. DH

True enough. Doesn't work if you access the NG via google. Also, it's still really rude to force
everyone to download the thread, then decide to throw it away when a simple RFC might lead to the
creation of a newsgroup specifically for the two most offensive individuals. Say something like
alt.blithering.rant [1]

[1] you know who you are - both of you - now cut it out or I'm tellin' your ISPs.

And, the individuals involved don't have the courtesy to mark their political screeds as OT. For
example, the topic "Re: BiGHA Comments" has been nothing but political drivel for several days now.
As long as these jerks hijack legitimate topics for their own purposes, we get stuck reading them.

My $0.02 worth

<Chas

Quoted message said:

And, the individuals involved don't have the courtesy to mark their political screeds as OT. For
example, the topic "Re: BiGHA Comments" has been nothing but political drivel for several days
now. As long as these jerks hijack legitimate topics for their own purposes, we get stuck
reading them.

My $0.02 worth

<Chas>

And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it! An easy rule
(which may occasionally backfire) is to look at a string of posts, and if one of two or three
posters seems to be contributing the majority of posts, it's going to be the same, tired old
political rants interspersed with childish vulgarities.

--
Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY home.fuse.netlarryvarneyOpen ↗

footnote this <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"DH" <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I've responded to a few OT posts and started at least one myself. If _I_ am responsible for you
leaving, please reconsider.

Just 'kill file' the OT posts and reconsider staying. My two cents. DH

True enough. Doesn't work if you access the NG via google. Also, it's still really rude to force
everyone to download the thread, then decide to throw it away when a simple RFC might lead to the
creation of a newsgroup specifically for the two most offensive individuals. Say something like
alt.blithering.rant [1]

[1] you know who you are - both of you - now cut it out or I'm tellin' your ISPs.

Holy Cow, footnote! Google posting works even better than any newsreader, provided that Google is up
and working like it should be. I have got a couple of newsreaders now but I never use them much as I
prefer to access ARBR via the Google website. This way I can see at a glance without any searching
what it is I want to read and what it is I want to respond to. The subject threads don't even have
to be labeled OT. I know what they are all about based on previous reading of them (and so do you
and everyone else who is a regular on this newsgroup I suspect). Nothing could be simpler. All you
guys with newsreaders ought to lose them and get with Google.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Larry Varney" skrev...

Quoted message said:

And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it!

Well, if you've killfiled an obnoxious thread and think you're rid of it and some dork then changes
the name a few times its easy to be miffed.

Mikael

Larry Varney <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And, the individuals involved don't have the courtesy to mark their political screeds as OT. For
example, the topic "Re: BiGHA Comments" has been nothing but political drivel for several days
now. As long as these jerks hijack legitimate topics for their own purposes, we get stuck
reading them.

My $0.02 worth

<Chas>

Quoted message said:

And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it! An easy
rule (which may occasionally backfire) is to look at a string of posts, and if one of two or
three posters seems to be contributing the majority of posts, it's going to be the same, tired
old political rants interspersed with childish vulgarities.

The post referred to above was ruined the minute someone posted to it with a political comment.
Please note that Mr. Sherman and I are never the ones to do this sort of thing. We are both nothing
but "responders". But once a thread has been infected by someone posting a political comment to it,
then you are right. Nothing can save it from that point onwards. It should be changed to OT of
course, but I am very reluctant to do that as I believe it just creates more confusion. And it means
that I now have to check several message threads searching for the OT political comments (in order
to refute them of course since they are invariably asinine liberal comments). I suggest to one and
all that when you have determined that a thread is ruined that you abandon it and let us OT'ers take
possession of it once and for all.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Mikael Seierup said:

"Larry Varney" skrev...

Quoted message said:

And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it!

Well, if you've killfiled an obnoxious thread and think you're rid of it and some dork then
changes the name a few times its easy to be miffed.

Mikael

Gee, so now if the subject line no longer reflects the subject, it should remain the same?
Otherwise, changing it means that person who changed it is a "dork"? Well, 'scuse me, but it
would seem more beneficial to the readers to know that a string of posts no longer has any
reference to the subject header, that something that by subject line would refer to the BiGHA has
now become some mudfest regarding the tired old [censored] about liberals and conservatives, instead of
just leaving it alone - and incorrect. But you may have a point. It's much better to ignore what
the hell the subject line says at all, on any string, and just ignore any string in which a
certain few people have posted. Right?

--
Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY home.fuse.netlarryvarneyOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

"Larry Varney" skrev...

Quoted message said:

And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it!

Well, if you've killfiled an obnoxious thread and think you're rid of it and some dork then
changes the name a few times its easy to be miffed.

Mikael

I think you are right Mikael. There are presently several threads running which are a mess (Can We
Surrender sometimes alone and sometimes with RE and sometimes with OT RE). That is why I think it is
never correct to change a subject heading once it is there. Barry does this at the drop of a hat and
then are a few other offenders who do this sort of thing. Those who have been following the thread
will know what it is about and those who haven't been following it can began at the beginning and
then leave it when they have determined that it has been ruined. Almost all subject threads if they
go on too long get sidetracked and get ruined. I say let them die a natural death and not be trying
to resurrect them by changing the subject heading.

I may initiate a new policy of never responding to any subject thread which has been changed
[censored]-nilly by someone because he thinks it is a good idea to have the topic header match the
subject. That is actually a bad idea. It creates confusion for the reader and keeps the thread under
another name going longer than it should.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Larry Varney <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mikael Seierup said:

"Larry Varney" skrev...

Quoted message said:

And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it!

Well, if you've killfiled an obnoxious thread and think you're rid of it and some dork then
changes the name a few times its easy to be miffed.

Mikael

Gee, so now if the subject line no longer reflects the subject, it should remain the same?
Otherwise, changing it means that person who changed it is a "dork"? Well, 'scuse me, but it
would seem more beneficial to the readers to know that a string of posts no longer has any
reference to the subject header, that something that by subject line would refer to the BiGHA
has now become some mudfest regarding the tired old [censored] about liberals and conservatives,
instead of just leaving it alone - and incorrect. But you may have a point. It's much better to
ignore what the hell the subject line says at all, on any string, and just ignore any string in
which a certain few people have posted. Right?

Wrong, unless you are a sissy boy and do not like to read anything with which you disagree. When the
liberals totally dominated this newsgroup and were posting their asinine comments will-nilly all
over the place, we did not hear you complaining about it then. Any moron can quickly get the drift
of a thread and if it has wandered off topic then so be it.

What are you anyway - some kind of a confounded controller? If you had half a brain in your head
you would know that any thread that is going on for more than 20 messages is probably going to be
off topic and have lots of [censored] like yours in it to boot. I figure the only way to look at it is
if I can stand your [censored] than you can stand my [censored]. So far I have not discovered any geniuses
here on ARBR.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Larry Varney" skrev...

Quoted message said:

Gee, so now if the subject line no longer reflects the subject, it should remain the same?
Otherwise, changing it means that person who changed it is a "dork"?

Yes, if they do like they usually do. "Re: Bigha comments" goes way off topic. (Not that listening
to LL was any fun) Some wellmeaning soul sticks an OT in front. Now its called "OT Re: Bigha
comments" Unfortunately when the next person replies it will be "Re: OT Re:Bigha comments". Thats
three threads to killfile instead of one unless you got it set up to ignore anything that has an
"OT" in it. Then theres people who take it to the logical limit and change the name every time
they reply.

Anyway since people think its their godgiven right to toppost, not trim off stuff they are replying
to etc. why should they have to stick OT on threads. ;-) We also need more crossposting.

Mikael

Edward Dolan said:

Larry Varney <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mikael Seierup said:

"Larry Varney" skrev...

> And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
> suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it!

Well, if you've killfiled an obnoxious thread and think you're rid of it and some dork then
changes the name a few times its easy to be miffed.

Mikael

Gee, so now if the subject line no longer reflects the subject, it should remain the same?
Otherwise, changing it means that person who changed it is a "dork"? Well, 'scuse me, but it
would seem more beneficial to the readers to know that a string of posts no longer has any
reference to the subject header, that something that by subject line would refer to the BiGHA
has now become some mudfest regarding the tired old [censored] about liberals and conservatives,
instead of just leaving it alone - and incorrect. But you may have a point. It's much better to
ignore what the hell the subject line says at all, on any string, and just ignore any string in
which a certain few people have posted. Right?

Wrong, unless you are a sissy boy and do not like to read anything with which you disagree. When
the liberals totally dominated this newsgroup and were posting their asinine comments will-nilly
all over the place, we did not hear you complaining about it then. Any moron can quickly get the
drift of a thread and if it has wandered off topic then so be it.

What are you anyway - some kind of a confounded controller? If you had half a brain in your head
you would know that any thread that is going on for more than 20 messages is probably going to be
off topic and have lots of [censored] like yours in it to boot. I figure the only way to look at it is
if I can stand your [censored] than you can stand my [censored]. So far I have not discovered any geniuses
here on ARBR.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

whether or not I agree with what the post contains. Listen closely: if the topic has long since
changed from what the subject line indicates, then what is the point of having a subject line at
all, if not to indicate what the post is about? And off you go with your childish insults, your
nonsense about liberals, when it comes down to nothing of the sort. "The liberals" are only a
figment of your tired, limited imagination. And what "[censored]" of mine have you had to put up with?
"Any moron" should not have to put up with endless threads that have nothing to do with the subject
line. There is nothing more off-putting for a reader to keep finding out that what appears to be the
topic for discussion after discussion is quite the opposite - especially when the fix is so simple.

--
Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY home.fuse.netlarryvarneyOpen ↗

"Mikael Seierup" skrev...

Quoted message said:

Yes, if they do like they usually do. "Re: Bigha comments" goes way off topic. (Not that listening
to LL was any fun) Some wellmeaning soul sticks an OT in front. Now its called "OT Re: Bigha
comments" Unfortunately when the next person replies it will be "Re: OT Re:Bigha comments". Thats
three threads to killfile instead of one unless you got it set up to ignore anything that has an
"OT" in it. Then theres people who take it to the logical limit and change the name every time
they reply.

Anyway since people think its their godgiven right to toppost, not trim off stuff they are
replying to etc. why should they have to stick OT on threads. ;-) We also need more crossposting.

Actually I take it all back. Sticking OT in a thread is a good idea if its done as soon as it goes
off topic. For threads that have developed umpteen subthreads it gets a bit tricky.

Regards Mikael

Hmmm. Not possible to make a filter on 'OT'. It removes all threads with 'ot' in them. Like "Not
needed tools" which was just an excuse to test that.

So 'OT' is useless. Can we get people to write O.T. or [OT]?

M.

Larry Varney <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

Larry Varney <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mikael Seierup wrote:

>"Larry Varney" skrev...
>
>
>> And what's hysterical is when one of them flies off the handle if anyone has the temerity to
>> suggest changing the topic header to match the subject, much less actually doing it!
>
>
>Well, if you've killfiled an obnoxious thread and think you're rid of it and some dork then
>changes the name a few times its easy to be miffed.
>
>Mikael

Gee, so now if the subject line no longer reflects the subject, it should remain the same?
Otherwise, changing it means that person who changed it is a "dork"? Well, 'scuse me, but it
would seem more beneficial to the readers to know that a string of posts no longer has any
reference to the subject header, that something that by subject line would refer to the BiGHA
has now become some mudfest regarding the tired old [censored] about liberals and conservatives,
instead of just leaving it alone - and incorrect. But you may have a point. It's much better
to ignore what the hell the subject line says at all, on any string, and just ignore any
string in which a certain few people have posted. Right?

Wrong, unless you are a sissy boy and do not like to read anything with which you disagree. When
the liberals totally dominated this newsgroup and were posting their asinine comments will-nilly
all over the place, we did not hear you complaining about it then. Any moron can quickly get the
drift of a thread and if it has wandered off topic then so be it.

What are you anyway - some kind of a confounded controller? If you had half a brain in your head
you would know that any thread that is going on for more than 20 messages is probably going to
be off topic and have lots of [censored] like yours in it to boot. I figure the only way to look at it
is if I can stand your [censored] than you can stand my [censored]. So far I have not discovered any
geniuses here on ARBR.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Quoted message said:

whether or not I agree with what the post contains.

say any damn fool thing that pops into their empty heads, but the minute a conservative does the
same thing, lo and behold, there is Mr. Varney of Kentucky complaining about all the OT's.

Main Entry: sis·sy Pronunciation: 'si-sE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural sissies Etymology:
sis Date: 1891
: an effeminate man or boy; also : a timid or cowardly person
- sissy adjective

Merriam-Webster

I am thinking you are a timid person if you can't stand some balance in the OT's.

Quoted message said:

Listen closely: if the topic has long since changed from what the subject line indicates, then
what is the point of having a subject line at all, if not to indicate what the post is about?

Look at what has happened to "Can We Surrender". It has split into 3 or 4 different threads because
of posters playing around with the subject heading. One of them has disappeared entirely from Google
as far as I can tell. Even Google can't keep up with all the foolishness that goes on here. I say
leave the subject headings alone. When you change them you create nothing but confusion. Most
subject threads that stay on topic don't last more than a few days anyway. You are always creating a
tempest in a teapot.

Quoted message said:

And off you go with your childish insults, your nonsense about liberals, when it comes down to
nothing of the sort. "The liberals" are only a figment of your tired, limited imagination. And
what "[censored]" of mine have you had to put up with?

The [censored] I am talking about is what you have so far contributed to this thread. There is nothing
constructive - just whine, whine, whine!

Quoted message said:

"Any moron" should not have to put up with endless threads that have nothing to do with the
subject line. There is nothing more off-putting for a reader to keep finding out that what
appears to be the topic for discussion after discussion is quite the opposite - especially when
the fix is so simple.

If a thread is very long chances are that it is off topic even if recumbents are still being
discussed. It is inevitable. Threads get off topic for reasons other than political rants. I have
seen it over and over. It is impossible to stay on topic very long unless you have a moderator (in
essence an editor) to see to it.

You say the fix is simple, but it is not. To have more than one thread going with the same subject
heading, although slightly varied, is confusing - not to me, but to many others. But even I do not
like to hunt around to find the proper thread because of minor variations in the wording of the
subject heading.

Nonetheless, I do know what you are talking about and I can appreciate what you are saying, but it
won't work on this newsgroup. It won't work because we are all mature intelligent folks here and
when something gets said that is off the mark, someone else is going to have something to say about
it. It is inevitable. What you want will only work with an editor (moderator).

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Mikael Seierup said:

Hmmm. Not possible to make a filter on 'OT'. It removes all threads with 'ot' in them. Like "Not
needed tools" which was just an excuse to test that.

So 'OT' is useless. Can we get people to write O.T. or [OT]?

M.

Mikael, If they are inconsiderate enough to start or continue OT threads you don't really think they
will go to the trouble of a filterable title do you? Then folks could skip 'em and the OT posters
wouldn't get their desired audience. What amazes me are the folks who continue to argue the OT posts
trying to get in the last word when none of the parties are likely to suddenly say, "Gee you are
correct. Thanks for setting me straight." bill g

--
"There are three truths: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." John Allen Muhammad