[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
... Amazing how much tape is on a 10" reel when it's not.

Especially quarter-mil tape. (Anyone remember quarter-mil tape?)

Never saw 10" spools of 1/4mil tape. Did they make any? Usually 3" and 5"
reels that I saw. Certainly none of my 10" reels were that thin!
No reason you couldn't spool some on and splice I guess.

I've seen it for logging applications. It's absolute hell to work with.

One of my old employers had a "wire" recorder with 2ft spools (actually flat
steel ribbon, still have a picture of it somewhere) Not tensilised, but
didn't stretch too easily :-)

Blattnerphone?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" writes:

... Amazing how much tape is on a 10" reel when it's not.

Especially quarter-mil tape. (Anyone remember quarter-mil tape?)

Are you thinking perhaps of 1/2 mil? 1/2 mil was pretty delicate; I can't
imagine running 1/4 mil through anything and having it survive -- at
all...

I was making a hah-hah.

Quarter-mil tape was sold only in small reels, for use on portable
reel-to-reel machines where really long recording time was needed. It was
pretty thin stuff (translucent, if I recall). The higher tension of a
large-reel recorder would have torn it to shreds.

I don't remember if any Compact Cassettes used quarter-mil tape.

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

Are you thinking perhaps of 1/2 mil? 1/2 mil was pretty delicate; I can't imagine
running 1/4 mil through anything and having it survive -- at all...

Audiotape made a 1/4" mil tape for cart machines, and it was awful and
had a lot of print through, but if you cared about quality you shouldn't
be using a cart machine anyway. Folks also used it in logging recorders
and for other applications.

Likewise you could get 1/4 mil 1/2" videotape intended for loading into
VHS cassettes, and folks used that in logging recorders as well.

The fidelity of logging recordings was not good, but it was usually enough
to tell if a DJ really said a profanity or not.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mxsmanic]

Ty Ford writes:

On the other hand, childish talks like this dilute the power of the entire
forum.

I agree, but once one party begins to concentrate on personal attacks and the
like, the other cannot unilaterally sustain the conversation on topic.

Say, for example, someone stumbles in here who has a grain of sense
and maybe something to add. They take a quick look around, presume it's a
room inhabited by 10-year olds and split.

Yes, but that is true for just about every online discussion forum I've ever
seen, or at least every one that admits males.

This is not your personal ****ing chat room and sand box.

I already agree with you; you don't have to provide illustrations.

So quit screwing around and screwing it up for other people who are
here for the reasons in the charter. Get you head out of your ass,
realize this newsgroup is not YOUR PERSONAL internet and get back on
course or don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

See above. Are you interested in talking about high-end audio, or do you
prefer to talk only about me?

[Mxsmanic]

Ty Ford writes:

Stop ****ting where you eat.

Are you interested in high-end audio?

[Mxsmanic]

William Sommerwerck writes:

I'm talking about /understanding/ things -- not simply convincing yourself
that a particular point of view is right or wrong.

Most people adopt their opinions from others, rather than form the opinions
themselves. That's why they become upset if the opinions are questioned--they
know that they cannot defend them, because they just copied them from someone
else and don't really know if there is any valid defense for them. If they've
held the opinions for a long time and these opinions support their worldview
in a significant way, any questioning of the opinions is extremely
disconcerting to them, which explains their emotional and irrational behavior
once anyone suggests that their opinions might be objectively incorrect.

The solution to this is to think things through and form one's own opinions,
instead of relying upon someone else to provide them ready-made.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ty Ford writes:

Stop ****ting where you eat.

Are you interested in high-end audio?

Nobody here is, really. If they were, they would go to rec.audio.high-end.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I think that's where I am on most things: The established authorities
provide me a good starting point from which to ask questions. The
questions and research for answers to said questions is where the
learning truly occurs.

Agreed. That's how to play the knowledge gain [sic] -- along with
hands-on experience.

You say that... but you don't believe it. You don't know how to ask good
questions.

So says you. Your problem is that you don't know very much that I don't
already know better.

Why do you think my e-mail signature is the following quote?

"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land

Because you are better at trusims than truth? ;-)

Arny, you stopped asking good questions many years ago.

Asked and answered. Like I said William you never recovered from your brush
with high end audio, while I stuck a dagger in its chest and moved on,
circling back occasionally just for fun.

[William Sommerwerck]

Arny, you stopped asking good questions many years ago.

Asked and answered. Like I said William you never recovered
from your brush with high end audio, while I stuck a dagger in
its chest and moved on, circling back occasionally just for fun.

He finally admits that he's Julian Hirsch's ******* child.

Arny, what have you contributed to our /understanding/ of the subjective
listening process? Nothing, of course, because you don't consider it worth
investigating. Unfortunately, ABX testing provides answers that are relevant
only to the process of ABX testing.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Arny, you stopped asking good questions many years ago.

Asked and answered. Like I said William you never recovered
from your brush with high end audio, while I stuck a dagger in
its chest and moved on, circling back occasionally just for fun.

He finally admits that he's Julian Hirsch's ******* child.

Interesting. There is actually a connection.

Arny, what have you contributed to our /understanding/ of the subjective
listening process?

ABX and a ton of practical application information that comes from it, and
goes with it.

Nothing, of course, because you don't consider it worth
investigating.

William, you have to be really out of touch to say such a thing.

Unfortunately, ABX testing provides answers that are relevant
only to the process of ABX testing.

Spoken as those who have never recovered from drinking the High End Audio
Kool Aid can somehow do.

William, you may think that ABX is only relevant to itself, and so does
John Atkinson. However a ton of people who are in audio's mainstream
disagree.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

He finally admits that he's Julian Hirsch's ******* child.

Interesting. There is actually a connection.

Can you talk about it publically? grin JH really sucked up to the
manufacturers, something no one could accuse you of.


Unfortunately, ABX testing provides answers that are relevant
only to the process of ABX testing.

Spoken as those who have never recovered from drinking the
High End Audio Kool Aid can somehow do.

Actually, I recovered ca 1993, when I finally learned the hard, bitter truth
of the unreliability of subjective testing. That, however, did not convert
me to ABX, nor did it quench the desire to /understand/ what's going on when
we simply sit down to listen. ABX testing does not provide much assistance
here, because it's only weakly related to real-world listening. Assuming
that ABX reveals "the truth" does not make it so.


William, you may think that ABX is only relevant to itself,
and so does John Atkinson.

All experiments are relevant only to the conditions under which they are
performed. Of course, in most cases those conditions are identical (or close
to) real-world conditions. ABX is not.


However, a ton of people who are in audio's mainstream disagree.

So what? Why should I care what the mainstream thinks? No one ever
progressed by holding to mainstream beliefs.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

He finally admits that he's Julian Hirsch's ******* child.

Interesting. There is actually a connection.

Can you talk about it publically? grin JH really sucked up to the
manufacturers, something no one could accuse you of.

I had met Julian and found him to be a reasonble chap.

I currently have some of the test equipment that he used at Stereo Review -
2 AudioPrecision test sets.

Unfortunately, ABX testing provides answers that are relevant
only to the process of ABX testing.

Spoken as those who have never recovered from drinking the
High End Audio Kool Aid can somehow do.

Actually, I recovered ca 1993, when I finally learned the hard, bitter
truth
of the unreliability of subjective testing. That, however, did not convert
me to ABX, nor did it quench the desire to /understand/ what's going on
when
we simply sit down to listen.

I dispute that conversion to ABX is necessary or even helpful. It is just a
tool, a very good tool for certain things.

ABX testing does not provide much assistance here, because it's only
weakly related to real-world listening.

That my friend is self-serving Golden Ear dogma.

The biggest problem with ABX is that it does not reinforce audio mythology.

Assuming that ABX reveals "the truth" does not make it so.

Assuming that it is so flawed as to be useless or even just weakly related
does not make it so.

William, you may think that ABX is only relevant to itself,
and so does John Atkinson.

All experiments are relevant only to the conditions under which they are
performed.

A truism that many Golden Ears such as yourself William use to create
excluded middle arguments.

Of course, in most cases those conditions are identical (or close
to) real-world conditions. ABX is not.

Fear and ignorance speaks!

However, a ton of people who are in audio's mainstream disagree.

So what?

The mainstream actually gets many things right.

Why should I care what the mainstream thinks?

If you are ignorant of it, then you are condemned to re-invent from scratch
what they do right, and re-invent what they do wrong. Since they do many
things, that is a ton of excess work.

No one ever progressed by holding to mainstream beliefs.

That might be true if they did everything or the majority of things wrong.

But even if someone makes nothing but mistakes they are worth watching a
little to avoid making the same mistakes.

[Gary Eickmeier]

What we need in this unmoderated group is a post limit per thread. This is
getting ridiculous.

Gary Eickmeier

[Luxey]

On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:10:17 UTC+2, Mxsmanic wrote:

See above. Are you interested in talking about high-end audio, or do you
prefer to talk only about me?

Hey, you're finaly to the point. Read carefully (I'll say it loud):

1. THIS GROUP IS NOT ABOUT HIGH END AUDIO.
2. HIGH END AUDIO IS OFFTOPIC HERE.
3. PEOPLE STARTING SUCH THREADS ARE CONSIDERED TROLLS.
4. TAKE HIGH END AUDIO DISCUSSION TO APROPRIATE GROUP.

[Mxsmanic]

Luxey writes:

On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:10:17 UTC+2, Mxsmanic wrote:

See above. Are you interested in talking about high-end audio, or do you
prefer to talk only about me?

Hey, you're finaly to the point. Read carefully (I'll say it loud):

1. THIS GROUP IS NOT ABOUT HIGH END AUDIO.
2. HIGH END AUDIO IS OFFTOPIC HERE.
3. PEOPLE STARTING SUCH THREADS ARE CONSIDERED TROLLS.
4. TAKE HIGH END AUDIO DISCUSSION TO APROPRIATE GROUP.

You are free to ignore any thread that you find uninteresting or otherwise
objectionable.

[Anahata]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:01:47 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

Don't feed the troll.

After some deliberation, I've FK'd Myxomatosis for a month. I'll still
see replies from those who think fit to respond, but maybe things will
get quieter...

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[Anahata]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:00:30 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

What we need in this unmoderated group is a post limit per thread. This
is getting ridiculous.

There is no mechanism for doing that. Your best defence is your
newsreader's killfile. It does wonders for the S/N ratio.

If you can't do that because you're using Google groups, stop using
Google groups...

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[Gary Eickmeier]

"anahata" wrote in message
o.uk...
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:00:30 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

What we need in this unmoderated group is a post limit per thread. This
is getting ridiculous.

There is no mechanism for doing that. Your best defence is your
newsreader's killfile. It does wonders for the S/N ratio.

If you can't do that because you're using Google groups, stop using
Google groups...


Not using Google, but I noticed that the forum in dpreview.com has
discussion threads that have a 150 post limit. This is programmed in by
their website, so it might not be possible here in Usenet. I don't
understand all about that.

Gary Eickmeier

[Nil]

On 11 Apr 2012, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Not using Google, but I noticed that the forum in dpreview.com has
discussion threads that have a 150 post limit. This is programmed
in by their website, so it might not be possible here in Usenet. I
don't understand all about that.

What you suggest is impossible. Usenet doesn't work that way. It's a
distributed messaging network, shared between hundreds or thousands of
servers worldwide. There is no central place where such administration
could take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Nil" wrote in message
...
On 11 Apr 2012, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Not using Google, but I noticed that the forum in dpreview.com has
discussion threads that have a 150 post limit. This is programmed
in by their website, so it might not be possible here in Usenet. I
don't understand all about that.

What you suggest is impossible. Usenet doesn't work that way. It's a
distributed messaging network, shared between hundreds or thousands of
servers worldwide. There is no central place where such administration
could take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

Then how do groups get established, and become either moderated or
unmoderated?

Gary Eickmeier

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 4/11/2012 1:11 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 11 Apr 2012, "Gary wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Not using Google, but I noticed that the forum in dpreview.com has
discussion threads that have a 150 post limit. This is programmed
in by their website, so it might not be possible here in Usenet. I
don't understand all about that.

What you suggest is impossible. Usenet doesn't work that way. It's a
distributed messaging network, shared between hundreds or thousands of
servers worldwide. There is no central place where such administration
could take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

Then how do groups get established, and become either moderated or
unmoderated?

Gary Eickmeier


Here's a link with pointers to a lot more information:
http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Main_Page
==

Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Luxey]

�реда, 11. април 2012. 14..42.05 UTC+2, Mxsmanic је напи�ао/ла:

You are free to ignore any thread that you find uninteresting or otherwise
objectionable.

You are plain rude. Hope you'll make this kind of noise somewhere in real life and learn an lesson, one too easy to understand.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Then how do groups get established, and become either moderated or
unmoderated?

On the Big Eight heirarchy, it involves an elaborate call for votes and
a voting and comment procedure which can go on for years.

On the .alt heirarchy, which is not really part of Usenet per se, any idiot
can forge a newgroup creation message. Basically a message goes out in the
control newsgroup, and any server which sees it will create the new group
(unless it is being attended by an admin who creates them by hand and goes
out of his way to avoid the stupid ones).

There is a nice set of postings in news.announce.newusers which describes
what Usenet is and how it works. Not everything there applies to the alt.
groups.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 4/11/2012 2:41 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gary wrote:
Then how do groups get established, and become either moderated or
unmoderated?

On the Big Eight heirarchy, it involves an elaborate call for votes and
a voting and comment procedure which can go on for years.

On the .alt heirarchy, which is not really part of Usenet per se, any idiot
can forge a newgroup creation message. Basically a message goes out in the
control newsgroup, and any server which sees it will create the new group
(unless it is being attended by an admin who creates them by hand and goes
out of his way to avoid the stupid ones).

There is a nice set of postings in news.announce.newusers which describes
what Usenet is and how it works. Not everything there applies to the alt.
groups.
--scott


Seems things move faster these days. I recently saw two new
Big Eight groups formed in less than 4 months start to finish.
==

Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Ron Capik wrote:
On 4/11/2012 2:41 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
On the Big Eight heirarchy, it involves an elaborate call for votes and
a voting and comment procedure which can go on for years.

Seems things move faster these days. I recently saw two new
Big Eight groups formed in less than 4 months start to finish.

That might be just because Richard Sexton has found more constructive things
to do....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mxsmanic]

Luxey writes:

?????, 11. ????? 2012. 14.42.05 UTC+2, Mxsmanic ?? ???????/??:

You are free to ignore any thread that you find uninteresting or otherwise
objectionable.

You are plain rude.

What part of my statement did you find rude?

[Mxsmanic]

Gary Eickmeier writes:

Not using Google, but I noticed that the forum in dpreview.com has
discussion threads that have a 150 post limit. This is programmed in by
their website, so it might not be possible here in Usenet.

It is not possible on Usenet.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Wed 2012-Apr-11 13:25, Luxey writes:
You are free to ignore any thread that you find uninteresting or otherwise
objectionable.

You are plain rude. Hope you'll make this kind of noise somewhere in
real l= ife and learn an lesson, one too easy to understand.

OF course he is.
but then, he has not real interest in audio production
obviously. hE's just a coward troll of course. IF he were
There is, were he truly interested a real fount of knowledge to drink from, including Scott, Paul, Mike Rivers and
others. But, he chooses to gargle.
Just killfile him and be done with it. IF he weren't a
coward he'll use his name.
Probably was an aol user before he discovered gmail.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[John Williamson]

Ty Ford wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:10:49 -0400, Mxsmanic wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford writes:

Stop ****ting where you eat.
Are you interested in high-end audio?

childish talks like this dilute the power of the entire forum. Say, for
example, someone stumbles in here who has a grain of sense and maybe
something to add. They take a quick look around, presume it's a room
inhabited by 10-year olds and split.

This is not your personal ****ing chat room and sand box. So quit screwing
around and screwing it up for other people who are here for the reasons in
the charter. Get you head out of your ass, realize this newsgroup is not YOUR
PERSONAL internet and get back on course or don't let the door hit your ass
on the way out.

The alternative is, of course, for everybody to just ignore it. My
newsreader marks all its messages as read on arrival just in case an
interesting point comes up, although it can be set to ignore any thread
it posts in. It only took a few seconds to set up the filter.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

Ty Ford wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:51:28 -0400, John Williamson wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:10:49 -0400, Mxsmanic wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford writes:

Stop ****ting where you eat.
Are you interested in high-end audio?
childish talks like this dilute the power of the entire forum. Say, for
example, someone stumbles in here who has a grain of sense and maybe
something to add. They take a quick look around, presume it's a room
inhabited by 10-year olds and split.

This is not your personal ****ing chat room and sand box. So quit screwing
around and screwing it up for other people who are here for the reasons in
the charter. Get you head out of your ass, realize this newsgroup is not
YOUR
PERSONAL internet and get back on course or don't let the door hit your ass
on the way out.

The alternative is, of course, for everybody to just ignore it. My
newsreader marks all its messages as read on arrival just in case an
interesting point comes up, although it can be set to ignore any thread
it posts in. It only took a few seconds to set up the filter.

No, John, that's decidedly NOT the point. When prospective members happen on
this newsgroup and see people acting like 10 year olds and BSing about
everything but the topic, they shrug and leave.

It damages the group.

The point I was trying to make is that if everybody ignored this
mxsmanic character, which, for all the use its posts are, might as well
just be a chatbot, it would disappear quite quickly. I am possibly as
exasperated and annoyed as you that so many posters have spent so much
time and effort on a number of threads which have now degenerated into
personal abuse on all sides, when it could all have been avoided by a
bit of common sense all round. For what it's worth, mxsmanic seems to
have now found out which buttons to push to get people wound up, which,
given its use of a pseudonym and its childish reaction to criticism, may
well have been its intention all along.

Still, that's usenet for you. Sometimes the lack of moderation and
censorship means that things get out of hand. Sometimes, the same lacks
mean that a thread goes in an unexpectedly useful direction.

That's just my two penn'orth, though.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Luxey]

�реда, 11. април 2012. 23.23.55 UTC+2, Mxsmanic је напи�ао/ла:



What part of my statement did you find rude?


Context. And attitude.


From now on, you'll be ignored.

[Mxsmanic]

Luxey writes:

Context. And attitude.

Quote the text that you find rude and explain why you find it so.

I'm not sure how a context can be rude.

From now on, you'll be ignored.

Promises, promises.

[Mxsmanic]

Ty Ford writes:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:10:49 -0400, Mxsmanic wrote
(in article ):

Are you interested in high-end audio?

childish talks like this dilute the power of the entire forum.

If you find my simple question childish, what sort of impression do you think
that your statement maeks below:

This is not your personal ****ing chat room and sand box. So quit screwing
around and screwing it up for other people who are here for the reasons in
the charter. Get you head out of your ass, realize this newsgroup is not YOUR
PERSONAL internet and get back on course or don't let the door hit your ass
on the way out.

Say, for example, someone stumbles in here who has a grain of sense and maybe
something to add. They take a quick look around, presume it's a room
inhabited by 10-year olds and split.

There are times when I wonder about the ages of some potty-mouthed
participants on Usenet myself.

[Mxsmanic]

John Williamson writes:

The alternative is, of course, for everybody to just ignore it.

The ones who are the quickest to engage in personal attacks can never just
ignore it. They are too worried about what someone might say about them, and
they are afraid that someone will toss some perceived invective their way
without them having an opportunity to "fight back," in battles that exist only
in their imaginations.

[Mxsmanic]

Ty Ford writes:

No, John, that's decidedly NOT the point. When prospective members happen on
this newsgroup and see people acting like 10 year olds and BSing about
everything but the topic, they shrug and leave.

I've read your posts, but I haven't left. There are other people here who can
sustain a useful conversation.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Williamson writes:

The alternative is, of course, for everybody to just ignore it.

The ones who are the quickest to engage in personal attacks can never just
ignore it. They are too worried about what someone might say about them, and
they are afraid that someone will toss some perceived invective their way
without them having an opportunity to "fight back," in battles that exist only
in their imaginations.

Perhaps you should just go away and leave this a quieter newsgroup. I
think you would be happier, and so would others.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 4/12/2012 6:39 PM, Richard Webb wrote:
On Thu 2012-Apr-12 13:29, John Williamson writes:
No, John, that's decidedly NOT the point. When prospective members happen on
this newsgroup and see people acting like 10 year olds and BSing about
everything but the topic, they shrug and leave.

It damages the group.

The point I was trying to make is that if everybody ignored this
mxsmanic character, which, for all the use its posts are, might as
well just be a chatbot, it would disappear quite quickly. I am
possibly as exasperated and annoyed as you that so many posters
have spent so much time and effort on a number of threads which
have now degenerated into personal abuse on all sides, when it
could all have been avoided by a bit of common sense all round. For
what it's worth, mxsmanic seems to have now found out which buttons
to push to get people wound up, which, given its use of a pseudonym
and its childish reaction to criticism, may well have been its
intention all along.

Agreed, at first i was thinking the character was just a bit misinformed or misguided. Trying to help inform and educate got hostility and more ignorance however, which is why a
couple weeks ago it entered my killfile.

I'm proud to have run Bill graham off, but think this
creature is a bit more persistent than Graham was.
Killfiles are the only answer.

Speaking of Usenet etiquette, Richard, is there some reason why you refuse to
set your computer clock to the correct time? Posts having incorrect times cause
sorting problems in many news reader.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

mcp6453 wrote:

Speaking of Usenet etiquette, Richard, is there some reason why you
refuse to set your computer clock to the correct time? Posts having
incorrect times cause sorting problems in many news reader.

Dunno about Richard, but I refuse to set my computers to daylight saving
time.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2012-Apr-12 13:29, John Williamson writes:
No, John, that's decidedly NOT the point. When prospective members happen on
this newsgroup and see people acting like 10 year olds and BSing about
everything but the topic, they shrug and leave.

It damages the group.

The point I was trying to make is that if everybody ignored this
mxsmanic character, which, for all the use its posts are, might as
well just be a chatbot, it would disappear quite quickly. I am
possibly as exasperated and annoyed as you that so many posters
have spent so much time and effort on a number of threads which
have now degenerated into personal abuse on all sides, when it
could all have been avoided by a bit of common sense all round. For
what it's worth, mxsmanic seems to have now found out which buttons
to push to get people wound up, which, given its use of a pseudonym
and its childish reaction to criticism, may well have been its
intention all along.

Agreed, at first i was thinking the character was just a bit misinformed or misguided. Trying to help inform and educate got hostility and more ignorance however, which is why a
couple weeks ago it entered my killfile.

I'm proud to have run Bill graham off, but think this
creature is a bit more persistent than Graham was.
Killfiles are the only answer.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

Perhaps you should just go away and leave this a quieter newsgroup. I
think you would be happier, and so would others.

I see a number of such battles taking place in this newsgroup without my
participation, and they predate my first post as well. So it's not me.