karl-desktop

[Bart Silverstrim]

Res wrote:
> This is addressed to Bart, it is best others ignore it :)
> 
> 
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> 
>> Maybe I'm not communicating clearly.
> 
> you did and I dont give a toss about your higher and mighty opinion of 
> yourself, your no more important around here than anyone else, 

If you did understand it, then where are you interpreting this attitude 
from?  What I said was that if you wanted information from others, you 
play by their rules.  I don't really care what you do one way or the other.

> regardles sof those fake tickets you have stuck to yoursel, your response 
> to me is rude and arrogant so yes you fall into 
> that class very clearly, and IMHO newbies are better off not having to 
> deal with moronic tossers like yourself, there are hundreds more of us out 
> here who dont mind helping them.

How was it rude to you?

> your opinion means little to me, as i'm sure it does to countless others

That just calls into question your reading skills as I didn't contribute 
an opinion to you in this thread.

That was rather a personal insult, I admit, but apparently you're ready 
to start tossing them at me when I didn't insult you.  I made a 
statement about the fact that if you WANT HELP from someone that does 
have an attitude about how things are done, you do it by their rules or 
ignore it and risk not getting answers or contributions you're looking for.

Up until this point I didn't insult you at all.  I made a statement 
related the fact I just pointed out above.

Your fit is far more similar to the fools in grade school that throw 
hissy fits when teacher marks off points because they didn't turn in a 
paper with the format or rubric the teacher originally told them to follow.

> ahh i see your point of view now the "how dare you threaten a process that 
> will take away my right to be an abnoxious chest beating wanker" you
> are he exact sort of person who I am referring to.

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about?  How dare you 
threaten a process that will take away my right to be an obnoxious chest 
beating wanker?

Dude, odd as it may sound, you may have overlooked the fact that said 
several times I don't really give a damn what you decide to do one way 
or the other. I was pointing out a fact in the first half regarding 
abiding by other's rules for help, and then in this half I did give an 
opinion, and you decided somehow that you were going to exercise your 
perceived right to be a chest beating wanker while calling other people 
names, ironically while complaining that no one should be able to do 
this without an official moderator appointed to the task.

Maybe you should try going through different lists on Usenet and mailing 
lists with similar traffic loads to this one and look at
A) how many lists are indeed moderated by official moderators
B) what the trends really are in their usage and the number of "fringe" 
incidents arise by people who are then shouted down by the masses
C) what actually fans the flames when someone acts up in the list and 
how long it lasts when left alone.
D) how often the SAME things are said about said incidents over and over 
again
E) the economics for someone to spend their time moderating a list like 
this, where overall the help response is successful rather than, oh, 
living their life.

> Now my response was not nicely toned, I apologise to all OTHER 
> member sof the list who bothered to read it, I have to date remained very 
> civil tongues on this lsit,

Um, no, you haven't.  You at this point are clearly intentionally 
misinterpreting what I said, since I did NOT personally insult you and 
you then turned around and committed the same offense you claimed you 
didn't want others to do.

> but if tehres one thing get  pisses me opff, 
> is the self appointed netcops, who think they are someobody important,
> had you debated your right to be a self appointed netcop in a more 
> professional and polite manor bart I certainly would never have lowered 
> myself your level of standard, you deserved this tongue lashing and in 
> fact you deserve a lot more, but I dont waste time of losers.

*shrug* I never claimed to be a netcop, I never told you how to format 
your responses.  What part of
IF YOU WANT TO GET ANSWERS FROM THE PEOPLE YOU CLAIM ARE NETCOPS AND 
THEY HAVE THE ANSWER YOU WANT, YOU PLAY BY THEIR RULES, IF YOU DON'T, 
THEN DO WHAT YOU WANT.  I DON'T CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER
did you not understand?  Instead you insulted ME for pointing this out.

> flame away loser, the best have tried it on with me dateing back to the 
> days you were not even conceived...

*shrug* I would only speculate you don't pay much attention to all your 
experience, since it is rather childish to bait me with an insult 
implying you even know my age when I don't recall ever discussing it 
with you.  Or this list for this matter.  I'm not going to "whip my 
manhood" out in a contest against you simply because you're looking to 
be insulted and it was never my intention, nor did I even attempt to, 
insult you or provoke your anger issues.

I summed up what my response in this thread to you was.  It's all in 
caps not far above this paragraph.  Go back and read the summary, and I 
don't care what you end up deciding to do.