[OT] Allen Connors - Slackware

This is a discussion on [OT] Allen Connors - Slackware ; There _seems_ to be a whole army of people on the usenet who devote their entire lives to following me around and accusing me of being someone whose real name is Allen Connors. Okay. I confess. I am indeed Allen ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: [OT] Allen Connors

  1. [OT] Allen Connors

    There _seems_ to be a whole army of people on the usenet who
    devote their entire lives to following me around and accusing me
    of being someone whose real name is Allen Connors.

    Okay. I confess. I am indeed Allen Connors.

    Now I have a question for you:

    What are you going to do about it?


    Sid

    --
    contact: http://tinyurl.com/5jxzoj
    googlegroups users see:
    http://tinyurl.com/5mbs7c

  2. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    Sidney Lambe writes:

    > There _seems_ to be a whole army of people on the usenet who
    > devote their entire lives to following me around and accusing me
    > of being someone whose real name is Allen Connors.
    >
    > Okay. I confess. I am indeed Allen Connors.
    >
    > Now I have a question for you:
    >
    > What are you going to do about it?


    *PLONK*

    (And lowering all replies to a post from you. Why do you all feed this
    guy? If his threads would consists only of post from him, it would
    speak its own language to newbies.)

  3. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    Sidney Lambe wrote:


    > Okay. I confess. I am indeed Allen Connors.


    No, I'm Alan Connors...
    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  4. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 2008-10-24, Peter Chant wrote:
    >> Okay. I confess. I am indeed Allen Connors.

    >
    > No, I'm Alan Connors...


    I'm Spartacus!

    - --
    It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
    Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
    Ecclesiastes 7:5
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkkCCboACgkQkT+yo0QBUBvtpwCgmxYgY5l7gF Bm9m9VijtsKGOq
    V4sAoIU5+rXX7p87IEG1Ivyrs4ZR0rwL
    =GapR
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  5. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    +Alan Hicks+ wrote:


    > It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
    > Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
    > Ecclesiastes 7:5


    Not usually one for religious quotes...

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  6. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:52:46 +0100, Peter Chant sprout:

    > +Alan Hicks+ wrote:
    >
    >
    >> It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, Than for a man to hear the
    >> song of fools. Ecclesiastes 7:5

    >
    > Not usually one for religious quotes...


    that's nothing to do with bight stories, this quote in Hicks sig's
    just about a date at the CBGB for a promotion gig of a band named
    Ecclesiastes, timed at ten to eight sharp.

    --
    lost+found: glove with smurry bits and beige spots, check
    box 7:5 at 6; will charge 7 gallons of whatever.

  7. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    Sidney Lambe wrote:
    > There _seems_ to be a whole army of people on the usenet who
    > devote their entire lives to following me around and accusing me
    > of being someone whose real name is Allen Connors.
    >
    > Okay. I confess. I am indeed Allen Connors.
    >
    > Now I have a question for you:
    >
    > What are you going to do about it?


    Well. I'm still waiting.

    If you know who I am you know where I live.

    What's the problem, Dan C?

    Your mother won't let you out of the house for
    fear that you'll hurt yourself?

    Smart woman.

    Sid

    --
    contact: http://tinyurl.com/5jxzoj
    googlegroups users see:
    http://tinyurl.com/5mbs7c

  8. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    On 2008-10-24, Peter Chant wrote:
    > Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Okay. I confess. I am indeed Allen Connors.

    >
    > No, I'm Alan Connors...


    I am Iron Man.

    Andrew

    --
    echo 'hfrarg.naqerj@tznvy.pbz' | \
    tr 'A-M N-Z a-m n-z' 'N-Z A-M n-z a-m'

  9. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    Peter Chant wrote:
    > Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >
    >

    AC
    >
    > No, I'm Alan Connors...


    What's My Line ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What's_My_Line%3F

    Jack

    --
    To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,
    or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is
    not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
    to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt

  10. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    Loki Harfagr wrote:

    > On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:52:46 +0100, Peter Chant sprout:
    >
    >> +Alan Hicks+ wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, Than for a man to hear the
    >>> song of fools. Ecclesiastes 7:5

    >>
    >> Not usually one for religious quotes...

    >
    > that's nothing to do with bight stories, this quote in Hicks sig's
    > just about a date at the CBGB for a promotion gig of a band named
    > Ecclesiastes, timed at ten to eight sharp.
    >

    Just thought it was pertinant.
    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  11. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    +Alan Hicks+ wrote:
    >
    > On 2008-10-24, Peter Chant wrote:
    >>
    >> No, I'm Alan Connors...

    >
    > I'm Spartacus!


    People mistake me for John Holmes.

    - Kurt

  12. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:45:30 +0000, +Alan Hicks+ spewed forth:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On 2008-10-24, Peter Chant wrote:
    >>> Okay. I confess. I am indeed Allen Connors.

    >>
    >> No, I'm Alan Connors...

    >
    > I'm Spartacus!
    >


    I am the walrus...

    Coo coo ca choo.

  13. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    Jack McCue wrote:

    > Peter Chant wrote:
    >> Sidney Lambe wrote:
    >>
    >>

    > AC
    >>
    >> No, I'm Alan Connors...

    >
    > What's My Line ?


    Tony Newton...

    (I think I'm being a bit optimistic trying to get Mornington Connors going)

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  14. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    Sidney Lambe wrote:
    > There _seems_ to be a whole army of people on the usenet who
    > devote their entire lives to following me around and accusing me
    > of being someone whose real name is Allen Connors.
    >
    > Okay. I confess. I am indeed Allen Connors.
    >
    > Now I have a question for you:
    >
    > What are you going to do about it?
    >
    >
    > Sid


    Haven't read any responses on this thread.

    I know these people: basically, they are
    just schoolyard bullies. And when they meet
    someone like me that they can't push around,
    they get real bitchy.

    I wonder if they'll ever grow up.

    Their problem, not mine. They can't
    harm me in any way. They can't stop me from
    doing my thing in my way.

    They can't even make me read their juvenile
    insults.

    I wonder if they'll ever figure that out.


    Sid

    --
    contact: http://tinyurl.com/5jxzoj
    googlegroups users see:
    http://tinyurl.com/5mbs7c

  15. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    In news.software.readers on Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:16:04 +0200, Eric
    Böse-Wolf wrote:

    > Sidney Lambe writes:
    >
    >> There _seems_ to be a whole army of people on the usenet who
    >> devote their entire lives to following me around and accusing me
    >> of being someone whose real name is Allen Connors.
    >>
    >> Okay. I confess. I am indeed Allen Connors.
    >>
    >> Now I have a question for you:
    >>
    >> What are you going to do about it?

    >
    > *PLONK*
    >
    > (And lowering all replies to a post from you. Why do you all feed this
    > guy? If his threads would consists only of post from him, it would
    > speak its own language to newbies.)


    He provides some entertainment when nothing more interesting is going
    on. He's also good at seeming sane for a few days before reverting to
    type.

    But the main reason why trolls and kooks such as AC/SL get attention
    it that it takes little time and no effort to make fun of them, while
    writing a serious reply to a serious question can sometimes take
    hours.

    If that's not your idea of fun, ignoring replies to AC/SL is certainly
    a good policy. You might also want to ignore "[OT][AC]" in the Subject
    line, which is sometimes used here in NSR as an indication that the
    discussion is of interest only to students of abnormal psychology.


    --
    PJR :-)
    slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
    extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
    newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

  16. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    Peter Chant wrote:

    >> What's My Line ? *

    >
    > Tony Newton...
    >
    > (I think I'm being a bit optimistic trying to get Mornington
    > Connors going)


    Bank
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  17. Re: [OT] Allen Connors

    Peter J Ross wrote:
    > Eric Böse-Wolf wrote:
    >> Sidney Lambe writes:
    >>
    >>> There _seems_ to be a whole army of people on the usenet who
    >>> devote their entire lives to following me around and accusing me
    >>> of being someone whose real name is Allen Connors.
    >>>
    >>> Okay. I confess. I am indeed Allen Connors.
    >>>
    >>> Now I have a question for you:
    >>>
    >>> What are you going to do about it?

    >>
    >> *PLONK*
    >>
    >> (And lowering all replies to a post from you. Why do you all feed
    >> this guy? If his threads would consists only of post from him, it
    >> would speak its own language to newbies.)

    >
    > He provides some entertainment when nothing more interesting is going
    > on. He's also good at seeming sane for a few days before reverting to
    > type.
    >
    > But the main reason why trolls and kooks such as AC/SL get attention
    > it that it takes little time and no effort to make fun of them, while
    > writing a serious reply to a serious question can sometimes take
    > hours.
    >
    > If that's not your idea of fun, ignoring replies to AC/SL is certainly
    > a good policy. You might also want to ignore "[OT][AC]" in the Subject
    > line, which is sometimes used here in NSR as an indication that the
    > discussion is of interest only to students of abnormal psychology.


    The same policy applies to Greg Hall.

    --
    Martin S.

  18. [OT] Tagging troll fights in the subject

    Peter J Ross wrote:
    >If that's not your idea of fun, ignoring replies to AC/SL is certainly
    >a good policy. You might also want to ignore "[OT][AC]" in the Subject
    >line, which is sometimes used here in NSR as an indication that the
    >discussion is of interest only to students of abnormal psychology.


    How about a general tag for trollfights? Then it can be specifically
    killed. If a troll persists in posting without the tag, then that
    address can be specifically killed. (I've no objection to tags specific
    to an individual, as well, but it's a little harder to maintain.)

    comp.os.os2 apparently has already gone through all this:

    http://68.228.183.78:8080/TMFaq/#FUD4

    They use (used?) a tag [FUD4] in the subject line when the sender knew
    he was responding to a trolling question.

    The meaning of the tag should be nothing more than, "People who don't
    like to read responses to trolls should automatically delete this
    message." It shouldn't be thought of as a particular indictment of the
    parent poster.

    What say you guys?

    -Beej


  19. Re: [OT] Tagging troll fights in the subject

    Beej Jorgensen writes:

    > How about a general tag for trollfights? Then it can be specifically
    > killed. If a troll persists in posting without the tag, then that
    > address can be specifically killed. (I've no objection to tags specific
    > to an individual, as well, but it's a little harder to maintain.)
    >
    > comp.os.os2 apparently has already gone through all this:
    >
    > http://68.228.183.78:8080/TMFaq/#FUD4
    >
    > They use (used?) a tag [FUD4] in the subject line when the sender knew
    > he was responding to a trolling question.
    >
    > The meaning of the tag should be nothing more than, "People who don't
    > like to read responses to trolls should automatically delete this
    > message." It shouldn't be thought of as a particular indictment of the
    > parent poster.
    >
    > What say you guys?


    What would be the advantage over just using your own kill-file (or
    scoring file in Gnus) to weed out posters or threads you find
    insufferable? And will we find those naughty trolls deliberately tagging
    innocent threads themselves, simply for the sake of causing more mayhem?
    Or have I got the wrong end of the stick ? (Quite possibly!)


    Hard to initiate co-ordinated action on an un-moderated list.

    atb

    Glyn
    --
    RTFM http://www.tldp.org/index.html
    GAFC http://slackbook.org/ The Official Source :-)
    STFW http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...inux.slackware
    JFGI http://jfgi.us/

  20. Re: [OT] Tagging troll fights in the subject

    Beej Jorgensen wrote:


    > They use (used?) a tag [FUD4] in the subject line when the sender knew
    > he was responding to a trolling question.


    The trouble is getting the troll to play along with this system. Sometime
    when they morph or launch a new sock puppet it takes a few posts to notice.

    Pete

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast