From: Rick@dot.dot   
      
   In article <41227517$0$207$75868355@news.frii.net>,   
    Elizabot  wrote:   
      
   > Rick wrote:   
   >   
   > > In article <41226f16$0$212$75868355@news.frii.net>,   
   > >  Elizabot  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >>>OK, I assume that this [is|was] 'that sex webpage' that people refer to.   
   > >>>I assumed, from the above description that it was some sort of prank   
   > >>>page that people link to in order to offend somebody else, sort of like   
   > >>>the infamous slashdot goatse guy. By the description it seems to be   
   > >>>relatively harmless, and more or less just plain stupid.   
   > >>   
   > >>Not all people understood that when they read it. It wasn't simply a   
   > >>link posted to the group, it was the whole article.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > Oh, yeah, that is different. I'm not sure why though, possibly because   
   > > the extra work involved in pasting the story was more than strictly   
   > > necessary, kinda shows the whole 'malice aforethought' angle.   
   >   
   > Yep, many people don't bother to click on the link to see exactly where   
   > it leads. It was obscured with a tinyurl.   
   >   
   Oh, so it was both a link and the text. I was wondering how that   
   worked... Posting only the text, then how would anybody know that there   
   was a link there to begin with.   
      
   > >>>I'm relatively lucky here, as I don't have the history. But I do form   
   > >>>impressions of people eventually, and I've not seen anything *currently*   
   > >>>that is particularly heinous, just a lot of snide remarks from all   
   > >>>sides.   
   > >>   
   > >>If you bother to stick around (which I wouldn't be surprised if you   
   > >>didn't), you'll see more.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > Well, I'm mostly here to do research for a UI project I'm working on, so   
   > > I don't know how long I'll put up with all this. One one hand, it would   
   > > do good things for my view of Humanity to have all these disparate   
   > > people able to work together harmoniously, but on the other, well, Star   
   > > Trek's Federation always seemed to wishy-washy to me.   
   >   
   > You won't find much information in this flame newsgroup.   
   >   
   Which one, this mostly quite, though ostensibly for flaming group, or   
   the theoretically for discussion, though seemingly devoted solely to   
   flaming one? ;)   
      
   Also, the information I'm looking for is more in how people, (including   
   myself) use the usenet. I have the RFCs, what I'm working on is the   
   practical application of the usenet. What people want the application to   
   do... so to speak. I have to say that my expectations have changed   
   somewhat, and that it is much more personal than I had expected.   
      
   > >>>On the plus side, each of you seem to be interesting people in your own   
   > >>>rights, just that none of you play well with [others|particulars]... :)   
   > >>   
   > >>I have never claimed to play well with everybody!   
   > >>   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > No, to be honest, you haven't. But, if you don't mind me saying, I've   
   > > found you to be a pleasant conversationalist.   
   >   
   > Thanks. I hope you find the information you're looking for. There are   
   > some knowledgeable people in the mac advocacy group. They don't post   
   > around the clock, though! ;-)   
      
   I hope I was clear above that the information I need is mostly arrived   
   at through observation, noticing when a function that is technically   
   possible isn't implemented, for example, and seeing how people work   
   around it. Essentially, I'm interested in the methods, not the madness.   
      
   --   
   Rick...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)