OT: Is Allan Conner a troll? - Unix

This is a discussion on OT: Is Allan Conner a troll? - Unix ; I notice he likes to attack me. Is he killfilled by most here? Thanks and God bless John -- (2 Tim 4:2-4) Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-with great patience and ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?

  1. OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?

    I notice he likes to attack me. Is he killfilled by most here?


    Thanks and God bless

    John

    --
    (2 Tim 4:2-4) Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season;
    correct, rebuke and encourage-with great patience and careful
    instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound
    doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a
    great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They
    will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
    CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
    http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

  2. Re: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?

    On comp.unix.questions, in <1138847452_15791@sp6iad.superfeed.net>, "John the Baptist Jr." wrote:
    > Subject: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?
    > From: "John the Baptist Jr."
    > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:32:38 -0800
    > Message-ID: <1138847452_15791@sp6iad.superfeed.net>
    > Lines: 18
    > Organization: CERM Ministries
    > Path: newsspool1.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas .earthlink.net!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!nx01.i ad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-out.nntp.be!sp6iad.superfeed.net!sp6iad.superfeed. net!not-for-mail
    > Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.questions
    > Reply-to: "John the Baptist Jr."
    > X-Proxy-User: $$$hg6n0tgj
    > X-Priority: 3
    > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
    > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
    > X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to . Forward a copy of ALL headers INCLUDING the body. (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS)
    > X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeeds.com does not condone,support,nor tolerate spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings.
    > X-Comments: This message was posted through Newsfeeds.com
    > Xref: news.earthlink.net comp.unix.misc:47572 comp.unix.questions:126521
    > X-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:27:31 PST (newsspool1.news.pas.earthlink.net)




    > Subject: Re: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?


    No. I don't change my alias. I always post under "Alan Connor".

    More of a netcop.

    YOU are a troll. You don't even have the balls to stand behind
    what you post, using a single, unique alias.

    And are apparently not bright enough to realize that because
    of this you have no credibility at all.

    Jesus didn't even run and hide when they came to torture Him
    to death.

    Yet you hide from taking the responsibility for simply repeating
    His message (or what you _think_ His message was) while hiding
    behind multiple aliases the additional layers of the Usenet and
    Internet.

    That means that you are obviously a very poor student of His.

    And thus are not qualified to teach Christianity.

    Here's your big clue for the decade: Trolls have ZERO
    credibility with anyone but other trolls.

    Any twisted child with their mommy's computer can post anything
    at all on the Usenet.

    A man with no legs can tell believable stories about running
    marathons. A man who doesn't know Jesus from Mick Jagger can
    pretend to be a devout Christian.

    The Usenet is the land of cheap illusions.

    If someone doesn't have the balls to stand up and take the
    responsibility for what they have to say, what they have to say
    isn't worth sh_t.

    That's how it is in the grown-up world of the Usenet. I don't
    even download 90% of the articles on most groups, because I
    will not be bothered with the digital diarrhea of trolls.

    And I'm not alone. I'm just vociferous. Haven't you noticed that
    almost no one responds to your posts?

    That's because you are obviously a troll and almost everyone
    has killfiled all of your aliases.

    Alan

    --
    http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
    see also: links.html and newsfilter.html
    Other URLs of possible interest in my headers.

  3. Re: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?

    Alan Jesus loves you! He came and died for you, so that you may be freed of
    your sins.


    "Alan Connor" wrote in message
    news:slrndu2tpk.254.i3x9mdw@b29x3m.invalid...
    > On comp.unix.questions, in <1138847452_15791@sp6iad.superfeed.net>, "John
    > the Baptist Jr." wrote:
    >> Subject: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?
    >> From: "John the Baptist Jr."
    >> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:32:38 -0800
    >> Message-ID: <1138847452_15791@sp6iad.superfeed.net>
    >> Lines: 18
    >> Organization: CERM Ministries
    >> Path:
    >> newsspool1.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas .earthlink.net!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!nx01.i ad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-out.nntp.be!sp6iad.superfeed.net!sp6iad.superfeed. net!not-for-mail
    >> Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.questions
    >> Reply-to: "John the Baptist Jr."
    >> X-Proxy-User: $$$hg6n0tgj
    >> X-Priority: 3
    >> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    >> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
    >> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    >> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
    >> X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to
    >> . Forward a copy of ALL headers INCLUDING the body.
    >> (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS)
    >> X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeeds.com does not condone,support,nor
    >> tolerate spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings.
    >> X-Comments: This message was posted through Newsfeeds.com
    >> Xref: news.earthlink.net comp.unix.misc:47572 comp.unix.questions:126521
    >> X-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:27:31 PST
    >> (newsspool1.news.pas.earthlink.net)

    >
    >
    >
    >> Subject: Re: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?

    >
    > No. I don't change my alias. I always post under "Alan Connor".
    >
    > More of a netcop.
    >
    > YOU are a troll. You don't even have the balls to stand behind
    > what you post, using a single, unique alias.
    >
    > And are apparently not bright enough to realize that because
    > of this you have no credibility at all.
    >
    > Jesus didn't even run and hide when they came to torture Him
    > to death.
    >
    > Yet you hide from taking the responsibility for simply repeating
    > His message (or what you _think_ His message was) while hiding
    > behind multiple aliases the additional layers of the Usenet and
    > Internet.
    >
    > That means that you are obviously a very poor student of His.
    >
    > And thus are not qualified to teach Christianity.
    >
    > Here's your big clue for the decade: Trolls have ZERO
    > credibility with anyone but other trolls.
    >
    > Any twisted child with their mommy's computer can post anything
    > at all on the Usenet.
    >
    > A man with no legs can tell believable stories about running
    > marathons. A man who doesn't know Jesus from Mick Jagger can
    > pretend to be a devout Christian.
    >
    > The Usenet is the land of cheap illusions.
    >
    > If someone doesn't have the balls to stand up and take the
    > responsibility for what they have to say, what they have to say
    > isn't worth sh_t.
    >
    > That's how it is in the grown-up world of the Usenet. I don't
    > even download 90% of the articles on most groups, because I
    > will not be bothered with the digital diarrhea of trolls.
    >
    > And I'm not alone. I'm just vociferous. Haven't you noticed that
    > almost no one responds to your posts?
    >
    > That's because you are obviously a troll and almost everyone
    > has killfiled all of your aliases.
    >
    > Alan
    >
    > --
    > http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
    > see also: links.html and newsfilter.html
    > Other URLs of possible interest in my headers.
    >




    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

  4. Re: Is Allan Conner a troll?


    "John the Baptist Jr." wrote in message
    news:1138847452_15791@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
    > Is he killfilled by most here?


    Yes



  5. Re: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?

    In article <1138847452_15791@sp6iad.superfeed.net>,
    John the Baptist Jr. wrote:
    >
    >I notice he [Alan Connor] likes to attack me.


    Yes, so? By the way, at the very least, you might have spelled the name of
    the individual in question correctly. How hard is that?

    >Is he killfilled by most here?


    I have no idea what the contents of others' killfiles may be, but he's not
    in mine.

    >Thanks and God bless


    You're welcome, and...whatever.

    Incidentally, while you're certainly free to append whatever you like in
    your signature file, nonetheless, the convention is that signature lengths
    should not exceed four lines. Please be a good netizen and keep this in
    mind in the future.

    Thanks.

    --
    Conrad J. Sabatier -- "In Unix veritas"

  6. Re: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?

    Strange why Outlook allows much more than 4 lines. Who made up that crazy
    rule anyways?


    "Conrad J. Sabatier" wrote in message
    news:I%xEf.457$NR.437@dukeread12...
    > In article <1138847452_15791@sp6iad.superfeed.net>,
    > John the Baptist Jr. wrote:
    >>
    >>I notice he [Alan Connor] likes to attack me.

    >
    > Yes, so? By the way, at the very least, you might have spelled the name
    > of
    > the individual in question correctly. How hard is that?
    >
    >>Is he killfilled by most here?

    >
    > I have no idea what the contents of others' killfiles may be, but he's not
    > in mine.
    >
    >>Thanks and God bless

    >
    > You're welcome, and...whatever.
    >
    > Incidentally, while you're certainly free to append whatever you like in
    > your signature file, nonetheless, the convention is that signature lengths
    > should not exceed four lines. Please be a good netizen and keep this in
    > mind in the future.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > --
    > Conrad J. Sabatier -- "In Unix veritas"




    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

  7. Re: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?

    In article <1138935183_18351@sp6iad.superfeed.net>,
    John the Baptist Jr. wrote:
    >
    >Strange why Outlook allows much more than 4 lines. Who made up that crazy
    >rule anyways?


    Please don't top-post. And don't quote signatures from articles you're
    replying to. A little thoughtful editing goes a long way. For example, you
    should only quote the relevant material that you're actually responding to,
    and your comments should be placed *after* the material you're referring to,
    to preserve the logical flow of the discussion. You may "snip" unwanted or
    irrelevant material as you see fit.

    Re: your questions: Microsoft is notorious for creating their own
    "standards", or simply ignoring existing standards, in blatant disregard for
    commonly accepted practice. This is just one example of such.

    That "crazy rule" wasn't simply "made up", but evolved into a *de facto*
    standard over time, and for a very good reason: excessively long signatures
    waste both bandwidth and storage. In some cases, a signature may actually
    outweigh the actual content of a message, which is just plain ridiculous.

    Please, it's really no great hardship to conform to this very simple
    policy. Not conforming only makes you look clueless and/or wantonly
    defiant.

    >"Conrad J. Sabatier" wrote in message
    >news:I%xEf.457$NR.437@dukeread12...

    [snip]
    >> Incidentally, while you're certainly free to append whatever you like in
    >> your signature file, nonetheless, the convention is that signature lengths
    >> should not exceed four lines. Please be a good netizen and keep this in
    >> mind in the future.
    >>
    >> Thanks.


    --
    Conrad J. Sabatier -- "In Unix veritas"

  8. Re: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?

    > > Subject: Re: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?

    > No. I don't change my alias. I always post under "Alan Connor".
    > More of a netcop.


    *choke!* snarf....

    > YOU are a troll. You don't even have the balls to stand behind
    > what you post, using a single, unique alias.
    > And are apparently not bright enough to realize that because
    > of this you have no credibility at all.


    the first question would be : does changing your alias
    automatically make you a troll?
    second question : does it really matter who the message
    come from, shoudln't the message be scrutinized by
    its own merit, and not discredited simply because it
    came form source x?

    i say that of course because that's what people like
    alan say when they want to defend their pet theories
    like ID. (" listen to the message, not the messenger...." )

    > Jesus didn't even run and hide when they came to torture
    > Him to death.


    he was allegedly god and as an omnipotent being neither
    died nor necessarily felt pain. he also allegedly foresaw the
    necessity of being captured and "dying". apples and
    oranges.

    > Yet you hide from taking the responsibility for simply
    > repeating His message (or what you _think_ His message
    > was) while hiding behind multiple aliases the additional
    > layers of the Usenet and Internet.


    excellent grammar, btw.

    > That means that you are obviously a very poor student of His.
    > And thus are not qualified to teach Christianity.


    so anyone who uses a fictional name can't be a good christian?
    what qualifications should one need to teach christianity?

    > The Usenet is the land of cheap illusions.


    exactly why it is such a poor place to judge someone based
    solely on their choices of nicknames or the frequency of which
    they change them.


    > Any twisted child with their mommy's computer can post
    > anything at all on the Usenet.


    "yes, they can", he says, sarcastically.


    > A man with no legs can tell believable stories about
    > running marathons. A man who doesn't know Jesus from
    > Mick Jagger can pretend to be a devout Christian.


    what's funny about this statement is that using the word
    *devout* is absolutely meaningless in this context. the
    term "christian" is pretty meaningless, too, for better or
    worse.

    > The Usenet is the land of cheap illusions.


    "The" usenet? *sigh*...

    > If someone doesn't have the balls to stand up and take
    > the responsibility for what they have to say, what they have
    > to say isn't worth sh_t.


    what's funny about _this_ statement is that you go on and
    on about how you won't read *this* article or *that* article
    because you ...

    > will not be bothered with the digital diarrhea of trolls.


    .... but since you call them trolls before you even read their
    article, aren't you simply condemning people without
    just cause? that's not a very christian thing to do, alan!
    (or is it?)

    > And I'm not alone. I'm just vociferous. Haven't you noticed
    > that almost no one responds to your posts?


    talk about the pot calling the kettle...


    (to anyone on comp.unix.misc ... i'm sorry you have to put up
    with this guy. if you haven't killfiled him already, have you seen
    how he gloats about how he assumes people are trolls, then
    boasts about how he didn't read their message, simply said
    "you must be a troll" and "i haven't downloaded the body of
    your email" but he still bothers to reply? i hate hypocrites.... )


    Saul


  9. Re: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?

    saul_sabia@yahoo.com writes:

    > (to anyone on comp.unix.misc ... i'm sorry you have to put up
    > with this guy. if you haven't killfiled him already, have you seen
    > how he gloats about how he assumes people are trolls, then
    > boasts about how he didn't read their message, simply said
    > "you must be a troll" and "i haven't downloaded the body of
    > your email" but he still bothers to reply? i hate hypocrites.... )


    Hi Saul,

    I imagine most have him safely tucked away in their killfiles. For the
    low-down on Alan in his own words you can do worse than consult this page

    http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml

    and these are interesting too:-

    http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/.../msg01548.html

    http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fsckhead.html


    atbn


    Glyn

  10. Re: OT: Is Allan Conner a troll?

    On 2006-02-03, Glyn Millington wrote:
    > saul_sabia@yahoo.com writes:
    >
    >> (to anyone on comp.unix.misc ... i'm sorry you have to put up
    >> with this guy. if you haven't killfiled him already, have you seen
    >> how he gloats about how he assumes people are trolls, then
    >> boasts about how he didn't read their message, simply said
    >> "you must be a troll" and "i haven't downloaded the body of
    >> your email" but he still bothers to reply? i hate hypocrites.... )

    >
    > Hi Saul,
    >
    > I imagine most have him safely tucked away in their killfiles. For the
    > low-down on Alan in his own words you can do worse than consult this page
    >
    > http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml


    Which he has of course wasted more of his bandwidth linking to in every
    one of his own messages' headers than he claims to have saved by never
    having read it - how does he even know it's critical of him if he didn't
    read it [of course, every single one of my posts other than direct
    replies to him have been in support of the same point of view that he
    himself was supporting and that hasn't stopped him from condemning me,
    so i don't doubt that he doesn't read the things he says he doesn't
    read]

    > http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fsckhead.html


    Careful. Some of that list are the things he's used against his
    opponents in the past

    : For example, a ****head will claim to be an attorney, even though
    : there are several on-line directories of attorneys which do not
    : include the ****head.

    Because _everyone_ is in the online directories.

    : A ****head will claim to be in a certain geographic location but not
    : be able to provide details such as the street on which he/she is
    : located, yet the Internet provides many detailed maps and guidebooks
    : and even services which tell you how to drive from your location to
    : any address.

    Because there's no other reason not to want to post your address online.
    I can just imagine trying to defend myself from someone using this
    "list" to profile me at age 10. I'd probably report them to the FBI if I
    were feeling particularly spiteful that day. It's not even clear what
    the ****head has to gain from not giving out his address.

+ Reply to Thread