From: toolittletoolate@poo.com   
      
   Rick wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I lurk in several forums - one is for entertainment, and the others are   
   for information. Times like now I watch the mac forums because there's   
   been a recent update and I'm curious about others experiences/problems I   
   might run into when i get around to updating.   
      
   Another forum deals with a hobby I wish to pick up and want some   
   pointers before I jump in.   
      
   I like the mac advocacy forum because of all the weirdos that find their   
   way there. I like to study people too.   
      
   >>>>>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.   
      
   Good luck! There's quit a bit of madness out there, as you have seen.   
   There are very few "sane" newsgroups. Some of the health related   
   newsgroups are supportive, but they get trolls too. They can also be   
   terribly depressing.   
      
   --   
   "You see, my invisible green dragon tells me that God is real, and is   
   even a pretty nice guy, but can not hold his liquor well."   
   - Snit (aka §¼¡Ý) on 4/27/04   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)