Re: Category 4 Charley Strikes Fla. Mainland

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/16/04 

Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 05:21:13 -0400

Psalm 110 wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 08:03:16 GMT, "Bob Harrington"
> <rch.NOS-PAM@blarg.net> wrote:
>
>>> I post on a permanent archives which is jointly my property.
>>
>> Fortunately, all the responses to your loonery get permanently
>> archived right along with them.
>
> But only I use the archives. Crap on usenet is gone in two weeks on
> most servers, but I can use the archives hardrives forever. You can't
> recall a useful fact from Ian posted two weeks ago. (Well, ever,
> frankly.)

Replicating the google archives ( used to be dejaview ) is a project of
little consequence. Expecially since you demonstrate that you don't
understand any of it.

>
> But a series of unfolding data currently be recorded will be referred
> to as time proceeds to rebut those talking out their asses. Thanks to
> modern search engines tracking 4 terabytes of data I can find it
> faster online than looking in directories on my own hard drive.

Oohhh.. Goody. Just what we need. More spammers with cut and paste drivel.
This explains why most of your messages are meaningless and duplicated ten
times or more.

>
> They offer the service. I use it, say thank you very much, and don't
> care if it breaks Ian's heart that I ignore his rules. (or yours.)

Just trying to educate you. I guess we know how impossible that is.
>
> The only rules I need to obey are computer science rules of archival
> and retrieval. For the most part the egotists here do not collect,
> collate, analyze and draw meaning out of data. They mostly subscribe
> to magazines and get it second hand They regurgitate bits of it for
> brownie points in 'science trivia pursuit', never extending the field
> with any original thinking. In other words, this newsgroup is vacant,
> except for the trivia pursuit spammers and paid science-hoax
> accomplices.

You make for a one man nation of morons. Have fun setting your own standards
in your delusional paradise.

> Rather than waste a vacant resource I use a small corner
> of it to do SCIENCE.

You don't seem to have any understanding of science. Witness this latest
laundry list. What next? A count of the number of flakes in a box of raisin
bran?

>
> You are working under the delusion that I owe your opinion any
> alliegence.

No. You are entirley and independent entity who owns to no standards. We can
count on you for an endless stream of garbage, the content of which seems to
be a function of your intestinal parasites.

>>
>>> *** off if you don't like me using my property as I choose. You
>>> are not my intended audience.

One shudders to think who your intended audience is.

Quantcast