"soapless" > wrote in message
om...

> When your email address is masked it speaks the obvious - you've been
> flamed before for your juvenile ways.
Not really, when I started using ng's several years ago, I was ignorant
of the existence of spambots that roam the ng's harvesting e-mails for the
spam *******s. And, I was flooded with rising tides of spam as a result.
Anyone with a minimal understanding of computer security would mung return
e-mail addresses in ng postings.
Perhaps you are thinking of deliberately munging the msg HEADER to
prevent decent folks from reporting the continual and intentional violations
of ISP ToS's, a common evasive tactic of trolls, like noBalls, dh, Dutch,
and other psychopaths?

> Also, it shows how desperately you need the last word in thread, as
> responding to a masked email address is extra work in this "forum".
There is no "extra work", just hit "Reply to Group". Nobody wants/needs
personal, singular replies. The idea of ng's is group, not one-on-one,
discussion.

> And when you spend all your time snipping posts into your own jumbled
> mishmash, it means you have nothing constructive [or nice] to say.
Snipping text irrelevant to one's reply is simply courteous, conserves
system resources, and facilitates meaningful discussion. The clowns who
quote all the previous text and add only one grunt or two are wasting
resources and clearly are not sincere about communicating.

> -that's all google increased by buying the usenet.
Google BOUGHT "the usenet"?? Could you supply a credible reference,
please?

Laurie