T
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
runsrealfast said:
*PLONK*
*PLONK*
G
Gregor Kofler
John Hosking meinte:
Mine (TB) does. Do you need a screenshot as proof? Have you tried, or
are you just joining the Pointed-Ears-bashing group?
Gregor
Mine (TB) does. Do you need a screenshot as proof? Have you tried, or
are you just joining the Pointed-Ears-bashing group?
Gregor
R
Rik
Your newsreader is broken, mine can perfectly well recognize the
signature, and furthermore I can see the space in the source of the
message. He could however set his name below the separator too, big deal..
Oh, and if my sig seems broken: there's (was?) a known bug in the
Thunderbird/Seamonkey engine, unable to cope with a combination of:
format=flowed & delsp=yes & Quoted-Printable
R
runsrealfast
And don't send me anymore personal emails
R
runsrealfast
he started it...
R
Rik
Damn, he really followed the Netiquette, and instead of most
'semi-followers', informing people of mistakes by private email instead of
clogging a thread
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule10.html
G
Gregor Kofler
Joe Attardi meinte:
How interesting. In my perception, the only two a**holes in this thread
are runsrealfast and Joe Attardi. Why don't you move somewhere else,
where you can enjoy yourself, with exchanging private mails and saying
reeeealy nasty things about others?
Just for some dim bulbs like you: That's a NG about *Javascript*.
No, I am saying that PointedEars is an asshole, not you
How interesting. In my perception, the only two a**holes in this thread
are runsrealfast and Joe Attardi. Why don't you move somewhere else,
where you can enjoy yourself, with exchanging private mails and saying
reeeealy nasty things about others?
Just for some dim bulbs like you: That's a NG about *Javascript*.
R
runsrealfast
No, I am saying that PointedEars is an asshole, not you
Ahhh, so much back and forth and not being a regular to this NG i am
still trying to figure out who are the bad guys.
R
runsrealfast
What the hell did I do? I just asked a question and then a follow up
question and I get my head bit off. Some people need to get over
themselves.
G
Gregor Kofler
runsrealfast meinte:
Discussing OT matters in PM is a Netiquette compliant procedure. Thomas
got that right. However, posting private mails (particularly ones with
your intention) is generally disapproved (for good reasons).
Just because Thomas has this ...er... special style in his posts, it
doesn't justify your reaction. Getting support from a troll like Attardi
makes it even worse.
Rik already gave you the link:
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette (with issues)
EOD, Gregor
Discussing OT matters in PM is a Netiquette compliant procedure. Thomas
got that right. However, posting private mails (particularly ones with
your intention) is generally disapproved (for good reasons).
Just because Thomas has this ...er... special style in his posts, it
doesn't justify your reaction. Getting support from a troll like Attardi
makes it even worse.
Rik already gave you the link:
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette (with issues)
EOD, Gregor
R
runsrealfast
"compliant procedure"? This is usenet man, anything goes. Good grief.
D
Dr J R Stockton
In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
glegroups.com>, Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:53:32, runsrealfast
PE is no MR, though he might be a Herr.
It is both a breach of copyright and exceedingly bad manners to publish
personal mail without permission; particularly so when it comes from
someone with a manifest personality problem.
glegroups.com>, Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:53:32, runsrealfast
PE is no MR, though he might be a Herr.
It is both a breach of copyright and exceedingly bad manners to publish
personal mail without permission; particularly so when it comes from
someone with a manifest personality problem.
G
Gregor Kofler
Joe Attardi meinte:
Well, your flame posts outnumber your question posts which in turn
outnumber your answer posts. I suppose that makes you a troll.
Whereas Thomas "offensive" posts are likely not everybodies cup of tea,
but one gets information or can learn from them.
What beats me: He didn't even criticize *you*. Looks more like you come
to the rescue of a whiner. Or are you just fond of bashing posters?
Gregor
BTW: you didn't call him a "jerk"
BTW: you are plenking
Well, your flame posts outnumber your question posts which in turn
outnumber your answer posts. I suppose that makes you a troll.
Whereas Thomas "offensive" posts are likely not everybodies cup of tea,
but one gets information or can learn from them.
What beats me: He didn't even criticize *you*. Looks more like you come
to the rescue of a whiner. Or are you just fond of bashing posters?
Gregor
BTW: you didn't call him a "jerk"
BTW: you are plenking
G
Gregor Kofler
runsrealfast meinte:
No.
But if you insist: plonk.
No.
But if you insist: plonk.
R
runsrealfast
Umm I see. The people in the group hear something they don't link then
plonk (I didn't even offend anyone). Some people need to realize that
the internet is bigger than they are (and that includes Usenet NG's).
When someone asks a question and then asks a followup you don't just
plonk them. Pathetic.
John
R
runsrealfast
Breach of copyright? I didn't know that email are copyrighted.
Strange, strange strange.
E
Evertjan.
Dr J R Stockton wrote on 17 aug 2007 in comp.lang.javascript:
No, John, I agree it is exceedingly bad manners, but it is not a breach of
copyright to publish an email that-is-sent-to-you!!!, even if it contained
an admonishment not to.
An email is not a work of art, and even if it were, if you sent one to me
and don't want it publicized, you better have a written agreement with me
before you send it.
No, John, I agree it is exceedingly bad manners, but it is not a breach of
copyright to publish an email that-is-sent-to-you!!!, even if it contained
an admonishment not to.
An email is not a work of art, and even if it were, if you sent one to me
and don't want it publicized, you better have a written agreement with me
before you send it.
R
Richard Cornford
<snip>
You are mistaken.
Richard.
D
Dr J R Stockton
In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>,
To be covered by copyright - which is automatic, and does not require a
positive assertion - it is not necessary for the item to be a work of
art, only that the item be substantially the creation of its author and
not merely derivative.
For example, if one publishes, in a fashion elegantly designed by
oneself, a list of the prime numbers between 654854 and 3357478, then
the prime numbers themselves can be freely copied, but one could have
copyright on the choice of end-points and one would have copyright on
one's elegant design.
To be covered by copyright - which is automatic, and does not require a
positive assertion - it is not necessary for the item to be a work of
art, only that the item be substantially the creation of its author and
not merely derivative.
For example, if one publishes, in a fashion elegantly designed by
oneself, a list of the prime numbers between 654854 and 3357478, then
the prime numbers themselves can be freely copied, but one could have
copyright on the choice of end-points and one would have copyright on
one's elegant design.
E
Evertjan.
Dr J R Stockton wrote on 19 aug 2007 in comp.lang.javascript:
This all may be so, but if one sends a letter or email, that is not a
publication, but just a written way of talking to someone, and the content
of that talking is not a copyrightable matter per se.
I see no substantial difference between "substantially the creation of its
author" and "work of art".
If someone sends me an email I feel legally free to publicize it,
with or without consent, unless otherwise bound by contract, written or
oral.
This all may be so, but if one sends a letter or email, that is not a
publication, but just a written way of talking to someone, and the content
of that talking is not a copyrightable matter per se.
I see no substantial difference between "substantially the creation of its
author" and "work of art".
If someone sends me an email I feel legally free to publicize it,
with or without consent, unless otherwise bound by contract, written or
oral.