Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown posters?
And why?

If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just as if
you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you shouldn't complain
if it's a telemarketer.

I don't even open posts, let alone links, from people I don't recognize. I
wait for someone else to do the honors and then check out the reply. (It
worked this time; I never saw the original message but I've enjoyed all the
brouhaha it's caused!)

Felice

"Felice" > wrote

> I don't even open posts, let alone links, from people I don't recognize. I
> wait for someone else to do the honors and then check out the reply.

I hardly open links even by people I recognize. That's partly a
hangover from my dialup days where a link could well cause my pc
to freeze. If a lot of people comment on a link and it sounds like it's
safe, I might take a look. Some unknown person talking about her
husband's meatloaf? Not a chance I'd go there, and to each their
own, of course, but I'll never understand those who just open every
link posted. I *assume* it's some kind of scam/whatever.

No offense meant to the openers in the group.

nancy the paranoid

"Felice" > wrote in message
. ..
> Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
> posters? And why?
>
> If you open such a link, you shouldn't complain if it's obscene. Just as
> if you answer a phone call with an "unknown caller" ID, you shouldn't
> complain if it's a telemarketer.
>
> I don't even open posts, let alone links, from people I don't recognize. I
> wait for someone else to do the honors and then check out the reply. (It
> worked this time; I never saw the original message but I've enjoyed all
> the brouhaha it's caused!)
>
> Felice
>
>


Tsk! Tsk!
Dee Dee

In article >,
"Felice" > wrote:

> Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown posters?

That's not the issue. Sheldon is a known poster.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

"Miche" > wrote

> "Felice" > wrote:
>
>> Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
>> posters?
>
> That's not the issue. Sheldon is a known poster.

The post in question didn't say it was from Sheldon.

nancy

"Miche" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Felice" > wrote:
>
>> Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
>> posters?
>
> That's not the issue. Sheldon is a known poster.
>
> Miche

But the post in question wasn't sent under his name! The "issue" is whether
or not Sheldon sent it under an alias, as someone has said.

Felice

"Felice" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Miche" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Felice" > wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
>>> posters?
>>
>> That's not the issue. Sheldon is a known poster.
>>
>> Miche
>
> But the post in question wasn't sent under his name! The "issue" is
> whether or not Sheldon sent it under an alias, as someone has said.
>
> Felice

Who cares? Might as well move on. I'm sure the sender is thrilled with
controversy he's stirred up.

Dave

Oh pshaw, on Sun 09 Dec 2007 09:31:09p, Hairy meant to say...

>
> "Felice" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Miche" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Felice" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
>>>> posters?
>>>
>>> That's not the issue. Sheldon is a known poster.
>>>
>>> Miche
>>
>> But the post in question wasn't sent under his name! The "issue" is
>> whether or not Sheldon sent it under an alias, as someone has said.
>>
>> Felice
>
> Who cares? Might as well move on. I'm sure the sender is thrilled with
> controversy he's stirred up.
>
> Dave
>
>
>

Yes, it would have been better to have ignored the entire thing.

--
Wayne Boatwright

Date: Sun, 12(XII)/9(IX)/2007(MMVII)

*******************************************
Today is: Second Sunday of Advent
Countdown 'til Christmas
2wks 2hrs 30mins
*******************************************
Reality is a place where bad things
could happen.

In article >,
"Felice" > wrote:

> "Miche" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Felice" > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
> >> posters?
> >
> > That's not the issue. Sheldon is a known poster.
>
> But the post in question wasn't sent under his name! The "issue" is whether
> or not Sheldon sent it under an alias, as someone has said.

It should be possible to trace the actual author through headers.

IIRC someone did that for at least one of the previous posts and
established that they were sent by Sheldon.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

One time on Usenet, Sheldon > said:
> On Dec 9, 6:48=EF=BF=BDpm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 15:00:54 -0800 (PST), Sheldon wrote:
> > > How patronizing of yoose at distancing yourselves from me yet yoose
> > > make sure put my name in the Subj. and then mention my name as often
> > > as possible... how about all yoose pinheaded dumb ****s go ****
> > > yourselves. =EF=BF=BDAnd I'm surprised at you Nancy, in all these many y=
> ears
> > > I've never knowingly said anything to harm you... I guess deep down
> > > under that goody-good veneer you're the same as the rest of the
> > > hateful ****s.
> >
> > Stop your crying, you little baby.
> >
> > It seems you have a hard time swallowing the same sort of "abuse"
> > you dish out daily. =EF=BF=BDAre we supposed to feel sorry for you?
>
> You can't think for yourself... you never have... but now even you
> have lowered yourself (didn't think that was possible), you're
> slithering in the **** slime trail, you've the same mentality as
> cyber****.

You must have hit a nerve, Steve...

--
Jani in WA

Oh pshaw, on Sun 09 Dec 2007 10:40:23p, Miche meant to say...

> In article >,
> "Felice" > wrote:
>
>> "Miche" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Felice" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
>> >> posters?
>> >
>> > That's not the issue. Sheldon is a known poster.
>>
>> But the post in question wasn't sent under his name! The "issue" is
>> whether or not Sheldon sent it under an alias, as someone has said.
>
> It should be possible to trace the actual author through headers.
>
> IIRC someone did that for at least one of the previous posts and
> established that they were sent by Sheldon.
>
> Miche
>

Whenever the content is vile, I am *never* surprised if it's source is
Sheldon. There's a very old song (late 1800s/early 1900s) entitled, "(S)he
is to be Pitied more than Censured." I have been convinced from when I
first began posting on rfc, that Sheldon has serious mental issues.

--
Wayne Boatwright

Date: Sunday, Dec 9th,2007

*******************************************
Today is: Second Sunday of Advent
Countdown 'til Christmas
2wks 1hrs 15mins
*******************************************
No job around the house is done until
you bleed on it.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:55:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>He used to have many more defenders than he does now.

That's because he's turned on his so called friends too often. It was
interesting to see how he whimpered when Nancy said something
negative. I used to tolerate him, but he's been in my kill file more
than once since I acquired one and this time it's permanent.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

sf wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:55:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>> He used to have many more defenders than he does now.
>
> That's because he's turned on his so called friends too often. It was
> interesting to see how he whimpered when Nancy said something
> negative. I used to tolerate him, but he's been in my kill file more
> than once since I acquired one and this time it's permanent.

The point is -- Nancy didn't say anything negative about him - he just
took it that way.

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:31:17 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>Miche wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> "Felice" > wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown posters?
>>
>> That's not the issue. Sheldon is a known poster.
>
>Holy cow!!! Sheldon's a poster? To RFC, no less?
>I never woulda guessed. :-)

i believe the proper term is '******.'

your pal,
blake

Oh pshaw, on Mon 10 Dec 2007 08:14:14a, meant to say...

> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:55:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>He used to have many more defenders than he does now.
>
> That's because he's turned on his so called friends too often. It was
> interesting to see how he whimpered when Nancy said something
> negative. I used to tolerate him, but he's been in my kill file more
> than once since I acquired one and this time it's permanent.
>

At one time I thought you were pals, seriously. I could never understand
it. I had him pegged from the first insult he slung my way.

--
Wayne Boatwright

Date: Mon, 12/10/2007

*******************************************
Countdown 'til Christmas
2wks 18hrs 15mins 55secs
*******************************************
If it weren't for lawyers, I think we
could have invented a universal
symbolic representation of reality.

Oh pshaw, on Mon 10 Dec 2007 08:57:13a, Dora Crawford meant to say...

> sf wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:55:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> He used to have many more defenders than he does now.
>>
>> That's because he's turned on his so called friends too often. It was
>> interesting to see how he whimpered when Nancy said something
>> negative. I used to tolerate him, but he's been in my kill file more
>> than once since I acquired one and this time it's permanent.
>
> The point is -- Nancy didn't say anything negative about him - he just
> took it that way.
>

He never tolerates criticism of himself, but he sure as hell can dish it
out.

--
Wayne Boatwright

Date: Mon, 12/10/2007

*******************************************
Countdown 'til Christmas
2wks 18hrs 15mins 55secs
*******************************************
If it weren't for lawyers, I think we
could have invented a universal
symbolic representation of reality.

Janet Baraclough wrote:

> The message >
> from Miche > contains these words:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Felice" > wrote:
> > > "Miche" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Felice" > wrote:
>
> > > >> Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
> > > >> posters?
>
> > > > That's not the issue. Sheldon is a known poster.
>
> > > But the post in question wasn't sent under his name! The "issue" is
> > > whether
> > > or not Sheldon sent it under an alias, as someone has said.
> > It should be possible to trace the actual author through headers.
> > IIRC someone did that for at least one of the previous posts and
> > established that they were sent by Sheldon.
>
> Duh, wake up. The question was, who opens links from unknown posters,
> meaning, unrecognised author names.
>
> The authorname on the post under discussion, was female and new to this group.
>


Thank you, I see that someone is actually paying attention and not
"piling on" when they see another poster's name in the subject header.

:-)

As for the question at hand, I often open posted links, especially if
they are the poster's food - or cat - pix...I trust the regular
posters here - and that includes Sheldon. I *am* however, a bit leery
of those "fishy" links that Sqwertz and cybercat are wont to post,
though...


--
Best
Greg

"Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
...
> The message >
> from Miche > contains these words:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Felice" > wrote:
>
>> > "Miche" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > In article >,
>> > > "Felice" > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
>> > >> posters?
>> > >
>> > > That's not the issue. Sheldon is a known poster.
>> >
>> > But the post in question wasn't sent under his name! The "issue" is
>> > whether
>> > or not Sheldon sent it under an alias, as someone has said.
>
>> It should be possible to trace the actual author through headers.
>
>> IIRC someone did that for at least one of the previous posts and
>> established that they were sent by Sheldon.
>
> Duh, wake up. The question was, who opens links from unknown posters,
> meaning, unrecognised author names.
>
> The authorname on the post under discussion, was female and new to this
> group.

You can't go by the author name. You have to check the headers.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:23:38 GMT, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message >
>from Miche > contains these words:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Felice" > wrote:
>
>> > "Miche" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > In article >,
>> > > "Felice" > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Maybe this is a question for a survey: Who opens links from unknown
>> > >> posters?
>> > >
>> > > That's not the issue. Sheldon is a known poster.
>> >
>> > But the post in question wasn't sent under his name! The "issue" is
>> > whether
>> > or not Sheldon sent it under an alias, as someone has said.
>
>> It should be possible to trace the actual author through headers.
>
>> IIRC someone did that for at least one of the previous posts and
>> established that they were sent by Sheldon.
>
> Duh, wake up. The question was, who opens links from unknown posters,
>meaning, unrecognised author names.
>
>The authorname on the post under discussion, was female and new to this group.
>
Which accounts for thread drift and a connection to what sw posted in
another after comparing headers. He didn't take into account that
there are people who spoof headers to appear as others, they would
even take on Sheldon's persona. Why? I have no clue.... He's the
last person most *sane* people would want to spoof.


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:01:56 GMT, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:53:30 -0800, sf wrote:
>
>> He didn't take into account that
>> there are people who spoof headers to appear as others, they would
>> even take on Sheldon's persona.
>
>I'm well beyond deciphering simple spoofs such as those. What I
>didn't take into to account is something unique to AOL that
>doesn't take place when using any other ISP on the face of the
>planet. Which is the fact that AOL uses centralized proxies to
>spy on (and censor) everything their users do.
>
If I remember correctly, your conclusion was "maybe". Is that
correct?


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:01:56 GMT, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:53:30 -0800, sf wrote:
> >
> >> He didn't take into account that
> >> there are people who spoof headers to appear as others, they would
> >> even take on Sheldon's persona.
> >
> >I'm well beyond deciphering simple spoofs such as those. What I
> >didn't take into to account is something unique to AOL that
> >doesn't take place when using any other ISP on the face of the
> >planet. Which is the fact that AOL uses centralized proxies to
> >spy on (and censor) everything their users do.
> >
> If I remember correctly, your conclusion was "maybe". Is that
> correct?

Yes, but that Sheldon was guilty of other stuff
equally reprehensible, hence the original punishment
is perfectly justified without regard to the
factual nature of any claims used in the original
indictment. Just like the case of Saddam Hussein.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:07:03 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:01:56 GMT, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:53:30 -0800, sf wrote:
>> >
>> >> He didn't take into account that
>> >> there are people who spoof headers to appear as others, they would
>> >> even take on Sheldon's persona.
>> >
>> >I'm well beyond deciphering simple spoofs such as those. What I
>> >didn't take into to account is something unique to AOL that
>> >doesn't take place when using any other ISP on the face of the
>> >planet. Which is the fact that AOL uses centralized proxies to
>> >spy on (and censor) everything their users do.
>> >
>> If I remember correctly, your conclusion was "maybe". Is that
>> correct?
>
>Yes, but that Sheldon was guilty of other stuff
>equally reprehensible, hence the original punishment
>is perfectly justified without regard to the
>factual nature of any claims used in the original
>indictment. Just like the case of Saddam Hussein.

Circumstantial evidence isn't the best argument.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:53:30 -0800, sf wrote:
>
>> He didn't take into account that
>> there are people who spoof headers to appear as others, they would
>> even take on Sheldon's persona.
>
> I'm well beyond deciphering simple spoofs such as those. What I
> didn't take into to account is something unique to AOL that
> doesn't take place when using any other ISP on the face of the
> planet. Which is the fact that AOL uses centralized proxies to
> spy on (and censor) everything their users do.
>

I have never been able to see an IP for an AOL user in a
Usenet post. If you answered this the first time I asked it,
I missed it.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:25:08 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>Oh pshaw, on Mon 10 Dec 2007 08:14:14a, meant to say...
>
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:55:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>He used to have many more defenders than he does now.
>>
>> That's because he's turned on his so called friends too often. It was
>> interesting to see how he whimpered when Nancy said something
>> negative. I used to tolerate him, but he's been in my kill file more
>> than once since I acquired one and this time it's permanent.
>>
>
>At one time I thought you were pals, seriously. I could never understand
>it. I had him pegged from the first insult he slung my way.

it's not necessary for him to insult one personally to find him
offensive. he's a dick.

your pal,
blake

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:44:54 +0700, wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:59:08 -0000, "Takin & Kanoknuan"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>**With Steve being what he is, is there anything else but garbage to
>>>spread
>>>about him??? :-)
>>
>> Hey Dora, as they say in New York, "What goes round, comes round", or
>> in Asia "Karma". Your paramour Steve has spent most of his time on the
>> net disparaging others and mocking them. Now it is his turn.
>
> This outpouring of insight from google-posters and free anonymous
> news servers is really touching, folks.


**Well it seems to have touched you. :-)

>
> Mass hysteria in action? Or just a pathetic, lone stalker?


**Mass hysteria in action? Or just a pathetic, lone stalker? :-)


>
> -sw

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:29:53 -0000, Takin & Kanoknuan wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:44:54 +0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:59:08 -0000, "Takin & Kanoknuan"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>**With Steve being what he is, is there anything else but garbage to
>>>>>spread
>>>>>about him??? :-)
>>>>
>>>> Hey Dora, as they say in New York, "What goes round, comes round", or
>>>> in Asia "Karma". Your paramour Steve has spent most of his time on the
>>>> net disparaging others and mocking them. Now it is his turn.
>>>
>>> This outpouring of insight from google-posters and free anonymous
>>> news servers is really touching, folks.
>>
>> **Well it seems to have touched you. :-)
>>
>>>
>>> Mass hysteria in action? Or just a pathetic, lone stalker?
>>
>> **Mass hysteria in action? Or just a pathetic, lone stalker? :-)
>
> Wow. How can you argue with such witty retort.


**You can't son, so don't even bother wasting your time trying.


>
> Sorry, you can count me out.


**No need to apologise.


> God bless.

**Keep your blessings.


> You need it.


**Not as much as you evidently and obviously do. :-)




>
> -sw