dansolo given up on us? - Sinclair

This is a discussion on dansolo given up on us? - Sinclair ; On May 21, 5:52 pm, Guesser wrote: > DanSolo has joined WoS forums and is conducting his flamewar with NickH > over there. > > Don't you wuv us any more dan? > > maybe it's a sign that usenet ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 52

Thread: dansolo given up on us?

  1. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    On May 21, 5:52 pm, Guesser wrote:
    > DanSolo has joined WoS forums and is conducting his flamewar with NickH
    > over there.
    >
    > Don't you wuv us any more dan?
    >
    > maybe it's a sign that usenet is dying... if people are taking their
    > flamewars elsewhere
    > /me runs away


    Haw haw!
    A mailbomb! I thought they went out with "Wargames".
    Jeez, if you know how to send a mailbomb then you must be so smart you
    don't have to actually win an argument. Should I try and "guess, er",
    the source?
    I'm so sorry now I registered at googlegroups with my mail e-mail
    account. ;-)

  2. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    Chris Young wrote:

    > On Mon, 26 May 2008 14:30:46 +0100 da kidz on comp.sys.sinclair were
    > rappin' to MC Slower Than You:
    >
    > > > I killfiled the WOS thread (ah, the joys of Usenet gateways) when
    > > > it

    > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > >
    > > Ooh! Is this a publicly available service? If so, what are the
    > > details? Sorry if this is common knowledge but I haven't been here
    > > for a few years and must have missed it.

    >
    > See http://matt.west.co.tt/ruby/bbgateway/
    > Point your newsreader to news.zxdemo.org.


    Magic! TYVM.
    --
    Slower Than You

  3. Re: dansolo given up on us?


    "DanSolo" wrote in message
    news:600292a4-e1c1-4ca9-880a-7ae446d00fa4@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
    > On May 26, 5:31 pm, "HeavyDude" wrote:
    >> "DanSolo" wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:69f37a57-93a9-4613-a4d4-11436c1f4ad1@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...>
    >> On May 21, 5:52 pm, Guesser wrote:
    >> > A word of warning. A WOS mod appears to be editing my sig there. I
    >> > don't know if this is an extension of the fabled speccy humour.

    >>
    >> No, he just thinks you're a wanker.

    >
    > You cut me deep man. Real deep.

    The truth'll do that.



  4. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    DanSolo wrote:
    > On May 21, 5:52 pm, Guesser wrote:
    >> DanSolo has joined WoS forums and is conducting his flamewar with NickH
    >> over there.
    >>
    >> Don't you wuv us any more dan?
    >>
    >> maybe it's a sign that usenet is dying... if people are taking their
    >> flamewars elsewhere
    >> /me runs away

    >
    > Haw haw!
    > A mailbomb! I thought they went out with "Wargames".
    > Jeez, if you know how to send a mailbomb then you must be so smart you
    > don't have to actually win an argument. Should I try and "guess, er",
    > the source?
    > I'm so sorry now I registered at googlegroups with my mail e-mail
    > account. ;-)


    wtf are you on about?

  5. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    On May 27, 12:35 pm, "HeavyDude" wrote:
    > "DanSolo" wrote in message
    >
    > news:600292a4-e1c1-4ca9-880a-7ae446d00fa4@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...> On May 26, 5:31 pm, "HeavyDude" wrote:
    > >> "DanSolo" wrote in message

    >
    > >>news:69f37a57-93a9-4613-a4d4-11436c1f4ad1@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...>
    > >> On May 21, 5:52 pm, Guesser wrote:
    > >> > A word of warning. A WOS mod appears to be editing my sig there. I
    > >> > don't know if this is an extension of the fabled speccy humour.

    >
    > >> No, he just thinks you're a wanker.

    >
    > > You cut me deep man. Real deep.

    >
    > The truth'll do that.


    That's almost like some botched attempt at being "sinister". Well
    fatdude, the WoS admin actually agrees with me and has told that mod
    not to do it again. You'd better take this up with him from now on.
    Drop another quarter if you want to try again!

  6. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    DanSolo wrote:

    >>>> On May 21, 5:52 pm, Guesser wrote:
    >>>>> A word of warning. A WOS mod appears to be editing my sig there. I
    >>>>> don't know if this is an extension of the fabled speccy humour.


    um, no I didn't...

  7. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    Guesser wrote:
    > DanSolo wrote:
    >
    >>>>> On May 21, 5:52 pm, Guesser wrote:
    >>>>>> A word of warning. A WOS mod appears to be editing my sig there. I
    >>>>>> don't know if this is an extension of the fabled speccy humour.

    >
    > um, no I didn't...


    and the same goes for all the other posts that have attributed that to
    me, cause of one person's botched snipping

  8. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    (re: WOS mod inserting an insult into DanSolo's sig)

    DanSolo wrote:
    > the WoS admin actually agrees with me and has told that mod
    > not to do it again. You'd better take this up with him from now on.


    That's good to know. I was seriously reconsidering whether a community
    that abuses moderator powers to push an agenda was one that I wanted to
    be part of.

    Yay for web forums being the solution to the stone-age unmoderated
    anarchy of Usenet, eh?

  9. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    On 2008-05-27, Matthew Westcott wrote:

    > Yay for web forums being the solution to the stone-age unmoderated
    > anarchy of Usenet, eh?


    I can't stand bloody moderated forums either, last one I was on the
    mod put up with someone flagrantly abusing copyright by selling my
    pictures and those of others on the board, threatening me with
    violence at the next group meeting and generally acting like a kid,
    but when I told said group member to **** off the mod cracked down on
    me for "obscene language", threatened to boot me off, deleted my posts
    and ranted on about a "boring" thread I'd started that was at the time
    the most active thread on the board.

    On another one, a friend set me up on the board and gave me the
    nickname that my workmates used to call me (Unabomber for some
    reason), and the admin deleted my account on my first post because he
    didn't like my account name.. This despite his own account name being
    rather sexually explicit.

    --
    Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
    http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

  10. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    It just comes down to the fact that some people are simply not good
    forum admins.

    I run several, and I've never had ban anyone. I've never had any
    complaints either. Problems that some would solve by banning on mine
    have always been solved with a straight forward (online) chat, and the
    problems cleared up.

    Forum moderation is not easy - especially with emotive subjects and
    strong opinions (which did include one of mine, though it's simmered
    down now!).

    Bottom line is, you either have a tolerant, sensible, context aware, yet
    strict mod, or you don't. The worst crime (IMHO) for a forum mod is "do
    as I say not as I do". Of course, sometimes, it's handy to use common
    sense instead of just the forum rules.

    Why did I even write this? Oh yeah - I'm an idiot!



    Ian Rawlings wrote:
    > On 2008-05-27, Matthew Westcott wrote:
    >
    >> Yay for web forums being the solution to the stone-age unmoderated
    >> anarchy of Usenet, eh?

    >
    > I can't stand bloody moderated forums either, last one I was on the
    > mod put up with someone flagrantly abusing copyright by selling my
    > pictures and those of others on the board, threatening me with
    > violence at the next group meeting and generally acting like a kid,
    > but when I told said group member to **** off the mod cracked down on
    > me for "obscene language", threatened to boot me off, deleted my posts
    > and ranted on about a "boring" thread I'd started that was at the time
    > the most active thread on the board.
    >
    > On another one, a friend set me up on the board and gave me the
    > nickname that my workmates used to call me (Unabomber for some
    > reason), and the admin deleted my account on my first post because he
    > didn't like my account name.. This despite his own account name being
    > rather sexually explicit.
    >


  11. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    "dr.sputnik" wrote:

    > It just comes down to the fact that some people are simply not good forum
    > admins. I run several, and I've never had ban anyone.


    Usenet has never had to ban anyone. Moderation is unnecessary and just opens
    the gates for abuse and nepotism.

    Eq.



  12. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    dr.sputnik wrote:
    > It just comes down to the fact that some people are simply not good
    > forum admins.
    >
    >
    > Forum moderation is not easy - especially with emotive subjects and
    > strong opinions


    indeed.

    I personally think the WoS forums are well moderated, the mods rarely
    have to step in.
    Having said that they let a lot slip that other forum mods would be
    slamming the shiny thread lock button all the time.
    Like foggy says every time this happens, you're damned either way cause
    one party will always not like the moderating decision

  13. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    Paul E Collins wrote:
    > "dr.sputnik" wrote:
    >
    >> It just comes down to the fact that some people are simply not good forum
    >> admins. I run several, and I've never had ban anyone.

    >
    > Usenet has never had to ban anyone. Moderation is unnecessary and just opens
    > the gates for abuse and nepotism.
    >
    > Eq.
    >
    >


    well my server doesn't send me posts from that mi5 prick... so his posts
    have been blocked... so erm, it is moderated to some degree!

  14. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    dr.sputnik wrote:

    > It just comes down to the fact that some people are simply not good
    > forum admins.


    This sort of thing is one of several reasons why web forums are
    inherently worse than usenet -- being a "moderator" is essentially a
    method of ego-wanking. Just like with channel ops in IRC, it has a
    tendency to bring out the worst in anyone, even those who are probably
    relatively balanced and placid in real life.

    In usenet, everyone can be their own admin. Web forums are a retrograde
    step, as they manage to be both less functional and less bandwidth
    efficient than NNTP.

    Big thanks to Matt for his WoS forums NNTP gateway. It works really
    well and I would never have bothered to read the WoS forums without it.
    --
    Slower Than You

  15. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    Guesser wrote:
    > Paul E Collins wrote:
    >> "dr.sputnik" wrote:
    >>
    >>> It just comes down to the fact that some people are simply not good
    >>> forum admins. I run several, and I've never had ban anyone.

    >>
    >> Usenet has never had to ban anyone. Moderation is unnecessary and just
    >> opens the gates for abuse and nepotism.
    >>
    >> Eq.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > well my server doesn't send me posts from that mi5 prick... so his posts
    > have been blocked... so erm, it is moderated to some degree!


    No, that's because MI5 finally got him - nothing to do with moderation!

  16. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    On May 27, 11:15 pm, Guesser wrote:
    > dr.sputnik wrote:
    > > It just comes down to the fact that some people are simply not good
    > > forum admins.

    >
    > > Forum moderation is not easy - especially with emotive subjects and
    > > strong opinions

    >
    > indeed.
    >
    > I personally think the WoS forums are well moderated, the mods rarely
    > have to step in.
    > Having said that they let a lot slip that other forum mods would be
    > slamming the shiny thread lock button all the time.
    > Like foggy says every time this happens, you're damned either way cause
    > one party will always not like the moderating decision


    Locking seems to have done the trick. No harm done.
    Although I'm keeping my mod edited sig as a reminder.

  17. Re: dansolo given up on us?


    "DanSolo" wrote in message
    news:e5d4becf-8572-4759-ad87-8e5483bfcf73@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
    > On May 27, 12:35 pm, "HeavyDude" wrote:
    >> "DanSolo" wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:600292a4-e1c1-4ca9-880a-7ae446d00fa4@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...>
    >> On May 26, 5:31 pm, "HeavyDude" wrote:
    >> >> "DanSolo" wrote in message

    >>
    >> >>news:69f37a57-93a9-4613-a4d4-11436c1f4ad1@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...>
    >> >> On May 21, 5:52 pm, Guesser wrote:
    >> >> > A word of warning. A WOS mod appears to be editing my sig there. I
    >> >> > don't know if this is an extension of the fabled speccy humour.

    >>
    >> >> No, he just thinks you're a wanker.

    >>
    >> > You cut me deep man. Real deep.

    >>
    >> The truth'll do that.

    >
    > That's almost like some botched attempt at being "sinister". Well
    > fatdude, the WoS admin actually agrees with me and has told that mod
    > not to do it again. You'd better take this up with him from now on.
    > Drop another quarter if you want to try again!


    150 posts on WOS and you learnt nothing.
    First you get your butt kicked in 20 different directions by Beanz, karingal
    and Starglider and then you accept that Lee got a ticking off by Martijn.
    LOL thats not Lees' version. I know.

    You're as green as they come.



  18. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    On May 29, 9:22 pm, "HeavyDude" wrote:
    > 150 posts on WOS and you learnt nothing.
    > First you get your butt kicked in 20 different directions by Beanz, karingal
    > and Starglider and then you accept that Lee got a ticking off by Martijn.
    > LOL thats not Lees' version. I know.
    >
    > You're as green as they come.


    Fatdude, since none of the above WoS users actually wanted to debate
    the topic of the thread, and some of them actually admitted so, there
    wasn't a lot to learn. It got to the stage where a bunch of their own
    mods were trolling by every known definition of the term. karingal was
    the only one willing to offer evidence that the ZX retroscene is
    bigger than the C64's. That list of websites got utterly blasted out
    of the water by aachi's list of C64 sites (although I admit aachi had
    a rather "idiosyncratic" posting style), but then they all decided
    they'd rather discuss me than the topic. Shoot the messenger guys.
    Sorry, but when a mod feels he has to edit my account in an attempt to
    win an argument I don't feel particularly "butt kicked".
    "then you accept that Lee got a ticking off by Martijn" WTF is that
    supposed to mean? Why shouldn't I accept that a mod gets chewed by the
    admin for editing my user profile?

  19. Re: dansolo given up on us?


    "DanSolo" wrote in message
    news:26715bcd-9c7b-454c-a21d-b7a2cc037e6b@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

    > Fatdude, since none of the above WoS users actually wanted to debate
    > the topic of the thread, and some of them actually admitted so, there
    > wasn't a lot to learn. It got to the stage where a bunch of their own
    > mods were trolling by every known definition of the term. karingal was
    > the only one willing to offer evidence that the ZX retroscene is
    > bigger than the C64's. That list of websites got utterly blasted out
    > of the water by aachi's list of C64 sites (although I admit aachi had
    > a rather "idiosyncratic" posting style), but then they all decided
    > they'd rather discuss me than the topic. Shoot the messenger guys.
    > Sorry, but when a mod feels he has to edit my account in an attempt to
    > win an argument I don't feel particularly "butt kicked".
    > "then you accept that Lee got a ticking off by Martijn" WTF is that
    > supposed to mean? Why shouldn't I accept that a mod gets chewed by the
    > admin for editing my user profile?


    You were ONLY told that Lee got has ass chewed. He didn't.
    aachi's list was a huge pile of ****. Some of those links were to
    multiformat sites (including Spectrum) and one of them was to a Spectrum
    site!!!
    At least the the list karingal pointed out to you was bonafide (which
    incidently you conviently missed in the midst of your lame tirades).

    Even some of the guys at Lemon64 are embarrassed by you now. Conversations
    have being taking place in private.

    Just accept you got butt****ed and humilated and we'll say no more about it.



  20. Re: dansolo given up on us?

    HeavyDude wrote:
    > "DanSolo" wrote in message
    > news:26715bcd-9c7b-454c-a21d-b7a2cc037e6b@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...


    >> "then you accept that Lee got a ticking off by Martijn" WTF is that
    >> supposed to mean? Why shouldn't I accept that a mod gets chewed by the
    >> admin for editing my user profile?

    >
    > You were ONLY told that Lee got has ass chewed. He didn't.


    So you want us to believe that Martijn has so little integrity that he's
    willing to not only stand by a stupid error of judgement but lie about
    his own response to it as well? Riiiight.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast