1  |   Order by index

Jul 22, 2002, 7:07am

Well, now you're just being lame. First of all, the subject I changed, "caring (was Re: newsreader woes)", is actually shorter than the previous one, "newsreader woes (was Re: URL breakup)", which was changed a few posts ago, by the way. You must be getting desperate for rebuttals. ;) Try not to de-evolve too much in your desperation. Just let it go and you'll be fine. You seem to understand my point so just accept it and move on.

[View Quote] > piddly 2 seconds to delete unnecessary quoting and sigs. Learn how to use
> newsgroups correctly, man. Your quoting REALLY looks like crap when it
> breaks up like it does. Take some pride in your computer usage and learn how
> to use it more efficiently. It benefits everyone in the long run, including
> you.
>
> But, didn't you make the subject line longer and then in fact cause it to
> take up more memory? Where's that efficiency?? Everything is relative:
> time, money, awarness, life in general. Only 2 seconds? Not if I want to
> make it perfect for you. Everyone is too picky, which is why I gave up. So
> why'd you requote your old quote that I quoted? I thought you only quote
> what you're replying too?
>
> I'm using a non-usenet newsgroup, there's no rules that say I have to clean
> up my messages. Dear god I'm not the only one doing this, like I said 99%
> of other users don't care and don't do it. Why single me out? Pride in my
> computer usage? Computers are tools. If I want to be the uber efficient
> master, I'd do it. I simply use it to get what I need to get done, and then
> have some fun. Who's going to benefit from a 1 kb shorter message? Jeez,
> it takes a 14.4 modem 1 second supposedly to download 1 kb file. Did you
> notice I cleaned up all the stuff too? No.. probably not until I pointed
> that out.
>
> Tampering with the original message has dire consequences later on too.
> Say.. someone wants proof but the original message is gone now? They won't
> believe you until they see the signature, what then? It's all relative like
> you said. Computers are relative too, they're just pieces of
> metal/silicon/whathaveyou with electricity flowing through them and some
> moving parts here and there with magnets, nothing more. Measuring the data
> is relative too. You can't measure anything exactly, because there's always
> something smaller. Maybe my 3 kb post was really 2.98 kb's or really
> 2.9999999999999998. We're just wasting even more bandwidth and storage
> space fighting an extremely stupid battle that can't be won. Neither of us
> will budge. I'm too lazy, you're too stubborn. That's life. Wait, isn't
> that relative too? :D
>
> Dedicated to make make long posts for eep in this thread, to waste some more
> bandwidth and storage space.

1  |   Order by index