On 6/7/2012 12:38 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 23:42:27 -0400, Cheryl wrote:
>
>> On 6/6/2012 10:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> And that is getting more aggressive - like not taking me to my feeds
>>> until I answer their questions or bow to their demands (or I can
>>> temporarily skip them). I mean, who would be stupid enough to give
>>> Facebook access to their external personal email account so they slurp
>>> that up all that juicy stuff from your email accounts?
>>
>> What browser do you use?
>
> Firefox, but that wouldn't affect facebook asking me for my cell phone
> number, my email account names and passwords (Friend Finder), asking
> me to identify my closest friends, etc...
>
> But using Firefox does give me the ability use to use Adblock+ whcih
> helps a lot. Not just on facebook.
>

I use FF too, but I've never seen it ask me for a cell phone number.
Google recently did but I put in my land line because I don't want calls
to my cell phone, and my landline can be validated too. I might be
wrong about google, but something recently asked for my cell phone number.

On 6/7/2012 4:48 PM, Pan Dulce wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:16:08 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 23:45:17 -0400, >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/6/2012 11:14 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> I saw it. Do you really think I wouldn't have an incognito account on
>>>> Facebook? Question is, which one of the other 209 members am I? Even
>>>> you only recognize maybe 40-50 of the names there (which would be just
>>>> slightly less than I recognize).
>>>
>>> So which one did you use to friend me? Oh wait, you haven't.
>
> Are you sure you want to be associated with me? SOME people might
> start blocking you just on "principle" ;-)

You really have to ask that?

On 6/7/2012 7:21 PM, Christine Dabney wrote:

> Most of the moderators on the group check out folks..when they join
> the group...just to see who they are... And so far, at least I
> haven't found a case where he morphed.

That part I'm not a fan of. Why screen? I know you *can* but why?

On 6/7/2012 1:04 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>> My newsreader is set to ignore all threads started by a Google-poster
>> until such time as a non-Googler replies. That gets rid of 98% of the
>> spam-ads and trolls.
>
> You use Xnews, right? Is there one for Windows? I currently read with
> XPN and you just described the one type of filtering I can't do with XPN
> that I want to. I've tried filtering out all Google posters but it's
> too much. Same with webtv. Marking the ones that start new threads
> would work very well.

I used to exclusively use Xnews on Windows. It's a small app and
everything is saved in configuration files that are easy to back up and
move to another computer if you want to. I'm not sure what version
they're up to now but I recall every version update never changed the
look and feel. I'm not sure why I quit using it. Lazy probably.

On 6/7/2012 10:14 PM, Christine Dabney wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:25:26 -0400, >
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/7/2012 7:21 PM, Christine Dabney wrote:
>>
>>> Most of the moderators on the group check out folks..when they join
>>> the group...just to see who they are... And so far, at least I
>>> haven't found a case where he morphed.
>>
>> That part I'm not a fan of. Why screen? I know you *can* but why?
>
> Because some folks, that are very disruptive there and in here (not
> mentioning any names) try to get in under assumed names, and then
> start to cause a lot of disruption. No one enjoys that, except the
> person causing the disruption. Other than that, I don't care and I
> don't think anyone else cares.

I guess if it works for the majority it's a good thing. I'm just not a
fan of moderation in discussion groups. That's just me.

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:21:00 -0600, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:03:13 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >He claims that he has.
>
> As long as he has been in the RFC group there, he is the same name.
> Maybe he is elsewhere in FB..but not in the RFC group. If you can
> find where he has changed his name..I would be interested in knowing.

I'm not interested enough in him to do anything other than repeat what
he claims.

> Most of the moderators on the group check out folks..when they join
> the group...just to see who they are... And so far, at least I
> haven't found a case where he morphed.
>
How would you know? I am confident he won't be welcome anymore if his
alternate personality tries to act the way he does here and that's all
I need to know.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:38:15 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

> I guess if it works for the majority it's a good thing. I'm just not a
> fan of moderation in discussion groups. That's just me.

Which is why you're here and not there. There's something for
everyone. Steve wants to be in both and have it his way.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 00:02:40 -0500, Pan Asian >
wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:26:52 -0700, sf wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:48:55 -0500, Pan Dulce >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> If you don't want to be heard or seen, then don't post.
> >
> > You obviously care that I blocked you or you wouldn't morph in FB
>
> Get over yourself. That isn't why I have several facebook accounts.

Oh, suuuure.

> *You* have more than one Facebook account as well, hypocrite.

Yes, I have another account and it ****es you off big time that you
can't snoop. But I am on the FB rfc group as only ONE personality
(this one), unlike you.
>
> > and
> > you'll be kicked out if you ever try pulling the kind of crap you get
> > away with pulling here. Whine away about censors, but they're keeping
> > you under control - asshole.
>
> I think you have more of a chance of going postal on there than I do.
> Better yourself in check. You're a bitch here, and you're whiney
> bitch there, too.
>
Blah, blah, blah. Say it on Facebook... oh, wait - you can't. Cry me
a river.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:38:15 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

>On 6/7/2012 10:14 PM, Christine Dabney wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:25:26 -0400, >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/7/2012 7:21 PM, Christine Dabney wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most of the moderators on the group check out folks..when they join
>>>> the group...just to see who they are... And so far, at least I
>>>> haven't found a case where he morphed.
>>>
>>> That part I'm not a fan of. Why screen? I know you *can* but why?
>>
>> Because some folks, that are very disruptive there and in here (not
>> mentioning any names) try to get in under assumed names, and then
>> start to cause a lot of disruption. No one enjoys that, except the
>> person causing the disruption. Other than that, I don't care and I
>> don't think anyone else cares.
>
>I guess if it works for the majority it's a good thing. I'm just not a
>fan of moderation in discussion groups. That's just me.

You probably don't like it because it's really not moderating, in
truth it's censorship and dictatorship. Obviously the majority prefer
that because the majority are spineless ass kissing clique builders.
Since early childhood I've always preferred to be my own person, I'm
not interested in having a lot of "friends", I prefer quality, not
quantity.

Christine Dabney wrote:
>
> Most of the moderators on the group check out folks..when they join
> the group... just to see who they are...

I'd make a great moderator... I always check out the gals by asking
them to show me their tits. LOL

Sqwertz wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>>> My newsreader is set to ignore all threads started by a Google-poster
>>> until such time as a non-Googler replies. That gets rid of 98% of the
>>> spam-ads and trolls.
>
>> You use Xnews, right? Is there one for Windows? I currently read with
>> XPN and you just described the one type of filtering I can't do with XPN
>> that I want to. I've tried filtering out all Google posters but it's
>> too much. Same with webtv. Marking the ones that start new threads
>> would work very well.

> I use Dialog which uses Hamster scoring syntax, IIRC.

Interesting. You use different readers according to your posts.

> User-Agent: Xnews/06.12.01 Hamster/2.0.0.0

That's a header from the post I responded to so I asked how you use
Xnews.

> User-Agent: tin/1.9.5-20091224

That's from your next post in the thread.

On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:12:44 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
> >> Sqwertz wrote:
> >
> >>> My newsreader is set to ignore all threads started by a Google-poster
> >>> until such time as a non-Googler replies. That gets rid of 98% of the
> >>> spam-ads and trolls.
> >
> >> You use Xnews, right? Is there one for Windows? I currently read with
> >> XPN and you just described the one type of filtering I can't do with XPN
> >> that I want to. I've tried filtering out all Google posters but it's
> >> too much. Same with webtv. Marking the ones that start new threads
> >> would work very well.
>
> > I use Dialog which uses Hamster scoring syntax, IIRC.
>
> Interesting. You use different readers according to your posts.
>
> > User-Agent: Xnews/06.12.01 Hamster/2.0.0.0
>
> That's a header from the post I responded to so I asked how you use
> Xnews.
>
> > User-Agent: tin/1.9.5-20091224
>
> That's from your next post in the thread.
>
Oh what a tangled web he weaves...

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> Christine Dabney wrote:
> >
> > Most of the moderators on the group check out folks..when they join
> > the group... just to see who they are...
>
> I'd make a great moderator... I always check out the gals by asking
> them to show me their tits. LOL

If you ever get to moderate a binary group, I'm in! ;-D

On 6/8/2012 2:29 AM, sf wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:38:15 -0400, >
> wrote:
>
>> I guess if it works for the majority it's a good thing. I'm just not a
>> fan of moderation in discussion groups. That's just me.
>
> Which is why you're here and not there. There's something for
> everyone. Steve wants to be in both and have it his way.
>
I am subbed there. I just read and not post. There's a lot of activity
and without subject headers it's hard to figure out what I want to read.

"barbie gee" > wrote in message
crg.pbz...
>
>
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> On 06/05/2012 06:26 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 00:40:58 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW there was something on one of our local news sites about FB
>>>> thinking
>>>> about "opening up FB to under thirteen year olds" - Heh. As if millions
>>>> of them haven't already [illegally] got FB accounts...
>>>
>>> I misunderstood your post. This is probably what you saw:
>>>
>>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227719/Facebook_may_be_working_to_bring_in_users_under_13 ?source=rss_keyword_edpicks>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, something along those lines.... said much the same thing.
>>
>
> so where is this FaceBook rec.food.cooking page?

You could try here http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#...s/45106798639/

Mike

On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:51:49 -0500, Spite Lee >
wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 23:29:27 -0700, sf wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:38:15 -0400, Cheryl >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I guess if it works for the majority it's a good thing. I'm just not a
> >> fan of moderation in discussion groups. That's just me.
> >
> > Which is why you're here and not there. There's something for
> > everyone. Steve wants to be in both and have it his way.
>
> I seem to be getting along quite well in RFC Facebook when I choose to
> post there. All those good threads you're missing just out of spite.
>
The egomaniac in *you* thinks I'm missing out and you're "getting
along" in RFC FB because you *have to* or else your ass would be
grass.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:57:51 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

> On 6/8/2012 2:29 AM, sf wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:38:15 -0400, >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I guess if it works for the majority it's a good thing. I'm just not a
> >> fan of moderation in discussion groups. That's just me.
> >
> > Which is why you're here and not there. There's something for
> > everyone. Steve wants to be in both and have it his way.
> >
> I am subbed there. I just read and not post. There's a lot of activity
> and without subject headers it's hard to figure out what I want to read.

It's an easy enough group to scan, not nearly the amount of activity
that's here. FB lets you know when someone has posted after you, so
it's easier to keep track of what you're interested in. Since you
don't post, I guess you'd "follow" a thread to keep track of it. They
are automatically followed when I post, but I usually "unfollow" them
if the next few comments don't interest me enough to post in the
thread again.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 19:52:06 +0800, "Bloke Down The Pub"
> wrote:

>
> "barbie gee" > wrote in message
> crg.pbz...
> >>
> >
> > so where is this FaceBook rec.food.cooking page?
>
> You could try here http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#...s/45106798639/
>
She found it, no thanks to you.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 12:22:24 -0500, War and Peace >
wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 07:48:15 -0700, sf wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:51:49 -0500, Spite Lee >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 23:29:27 -0700, sf wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:38:15 -0400, Cheryl >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I guess if it works for the majority it's a good thing. I'm just not a
> >>>> fan of moderation in discussion groups. That's just me.
> >>>
> >>> Which is why you're here and not there. There's something for
> >>> everyone. Steve wants to be in both and have it his way.
> >>
> >> I seem to be getting along quite well in RFC Facebook when I choose to
> >> post there. All those good threads you're missing just out of spite.
> >>
> > The egomaniac in *you* thinks I'm missing out and you're "getting
> > along" in RFC FB because you *have to* or else your ass would be
> > grass.
>
> I don't have to do shit. I could go ballistic any time I want to.
> But I see no reason to do so on FB.
>
And you also have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 10:52:15 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Sheryl, the class act that she is, used Facebook (not Usenet) to
>>> communicate how she felt about Lou. Coward that she is waited until
>>> he died to tell him how she felt.
>>
>> She's always been a class act. Heh.
>
>I think I lived in South Carolina at the time, so I never had a chance
>to pick on her at her peak of ripeness. But a few people that I trust
>their judgment (other than Morrow and Lou) and are generally respected
>here told me how much of lunatic she became. So I missed out on the
>juicy stuff.
>
>For some reason she lumped me in with Morrow even though I never said
>boo to her. But I suspected she was ~patches~ and if so, then that
>would explain why she hates me even though we never exchanged words -
>or even posted during the same period.

Well, I must have missed her at the peak of her previous ouevre as well.
Maybe I wasn't on RFC a lot. Maybe I just ignored the thread, as I tend
to do when it looks like it's devolved into a slapfight. I always thought
Morrow was an obsesso kook for the way he followed her around and
killfiled him as a result.

Now I think that he was still wrong for the extent to which he did it, but
*damn*, there was some fire causing that smoke.

It could definitely fit with your ~patches~ theory. Patches could be
someone else, of course, but a similar type of full-goose looney.

Sheryl should be able to challenge SdS's current dead-person-hate-on
record quite handily. (I think she holds the record re Susan Hattie. I
would appreciate polite correction by any of my fellow rfc.oldtimers.)


--

On 6/13/2012 11:08 PM, Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:

> Well, I must have missed her at the peak of her previous ouevre as well.
> Maybe I wasn't on RFC a lot. Maybe I just ignored the thread, as I tend
> to do when it looks like it's devolved into a slapfight. I always thought
> Morrow was an obsesso kook for the way he followed her around and
> killfiled him as a result.


What the heck ever happened to Greg? I remember someone said he passed,
then he posted, and it surely was him because his postings were unique.
Then he just went - away.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:02:59 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

> On 6/13/2012 11:08 PM, Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>
> > Well, I must have missed her at the peak of her previous ouevre as well.
> > Maybe I wasn't on RFC a lot. Maybe I just ignored the thread, as I tend
> > to do when it looks like it's devolved into a slapfight. I always thought
> > Morrow was an obsesso kook for the way he followed her around and
> > killfiled him as a result.
>
>
> What the heck ever happened to Greg? I remember someone said he passed,
> then he posted, and it surely was him because his postings were unique.
> Then he just went - away.
>
He probably morphed... like Gar morphed into Lou.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Jun 13, 10:58*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:02:59 -0400, Cheryl wrote:
> > On 6/13/2012 11:08 PM, Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>
> >> Well, I must have missed her at the peak of her previous ouevre as well.
> >> Maybe I wasn't on RFC a lot. *Maybe I just ignored the thread, as I tend
> >> to do when it looks like it's devolved into a slapfight. *I always thought
> >> Morrow was an obsesso kook for the way he followed her around and
> >> killfiled him as a result.
>
> > What the heck ever happened to Greg? *I remember someone said he passed,
> > then he posted, and it surely was him because his postings were unique.
> > * Then he just went - away.
>
> Looks like this was his last thread in RFC or chi.eats. *I don't know
> why he was trying to suck up to me that day as we were weren't
> cordial.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...thread/thread/...
>
> I'm guessing he finally got his full sex change and dumped his
> previous life as a man. *He was a prominent drag queen, and that's no
> joke - it wasn't too well known around here, but once word starting
> getting around I guess he felt he was out of "ammunition" attacking
> others for their oddities.

Wouldn't a draq queen be beyond criticism?

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 19:52:06 +0800, "Bloke Down The Pub"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "barbie gee" > wrote in message
>> crg.pbz...
>> >>
>> >
>> > so where is this FaceBook rec.food.cooking page?
>>
>> You could try here
>> http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#...s/45106798639/
>>
> She found it, no thanks to you.
>
> --
> Food is an important part of a balanced diet.


I would thank you for your comment but as no thanks seems to be your answer
I wont.

Mike

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:15:57 +0800, "Bloke Down The Pub"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 19:52:06 +0800, "Bloke Down The Pub"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "barbie gee" > wrote in message
> >> crg.pbz...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > so where is this FaceBook rec.food.cooking page?
> >>
> >> You could try here
> >> http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#...s/45106798639/
> >>
> > She found it, no thanks to you.
> >
>
>
> I would thank you for your comment but as no thanks seems to be your answer
> I wont.
>

It wasn't asked for or expected.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:15:57 +0800, "Bloke Down The Pub"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 19:52:06 +0800, "Bloke Down The Pub"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "barbie gee" > wrote in message
>> >> crg.pbz...
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > so where is this FaceBook rec.food.cooking page?
>> >>
>> >> You could try here
>> >> http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#...s/45106798639/
>> >>
>> > She found it, no thanks to you.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I would thank you for your comment but as no thanks seems to be your
>> answer
>> I wont.
>>
>
> It wasn't asked for or expected.
>
Then why did you feel the need to make the original comment?

Mike

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:58:47 +0800, "Bloke Down The Pub"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:15:57 +0800, "Bloke Down The Pub"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "sf" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 19:52:06 +0800, "Bloke Down The Pub"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> "barbie gee" > wrote in message
> >> >> crg.pbz...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > so where is this FaceBook rec.food.cooking page?
> >> >>
> >> >> You could try here
> >> >> http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#...s/45106798639/
> >> >>
> >> > She found it, no thanks to you.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I would thank you for your comment but as no thanks seems to be your
> >> answer
> >> I wont.
> >>
> >
> > It wasn't asked for or expected.
> >
> Then why did you feel the need to make the original comment?
>
To let you know that she made it in spite of you.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 26/06/2012 3:47 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:58:47 +0800, "Bloke Down The Pub"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:15:57 +0800, "Bloke Down The Pub"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 19:52:06 +0800, "Bloke Down The Pub"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "barbie gee" > wrote in message
>>>>>> crg.pbz...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so where is this FaceBook rec.food.cooking page?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could try here
>>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#...s/45106798639/
>>>>>>
>>>>> She found it, no thanks to you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would thank you for your comment but as no thanks seems to be your
>>>> answer
>>>> I wont.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It wasn't asked for or expected.
>>>
>> Then why did you feel the need to make the original comment?
>>
> To let you know that she made it in spite of you.
>
Huh?

--

Krypsis

On 7/06/2012 12:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:18:32 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> And that is getting more aggressive - like not taking me to my feeds
> until I answer their questions or bow to their demands (or I can
> temporarily skip them). I mean, who would be stupid enough to give
> Facebook access to their external personal email account so they slurp
> that up all that juicy stuff from your email accounts?
>
> 99% of the people, that's who.
>
> -sw
>
That's something I will NEVER understand as long as my backside points
down! They want access, full access at that, to your email and you're
supposed to trust them? I don't think so!

--

Krypsis

On 7/06/2012 8:17 AM, -- wrote:
> On Jun 6, 12:45 pm, Dog3 > wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 8:33 am, -- > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 3, 9:37 pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 21:50:16 -0400, Jean B. wrote:
>>>>> for the cook-in that was hosted by Gar and Snot, it is
>>
>>>>> http://www.recfoodcooking.org/cookins/show.html?id=5
>>
>>>> So I heard that Sheryl Rosen went ape and made an ass out of herself
>>>> Lou. I didn't get to see the thread and it was deleted by the all
>>>> mighty and powerful censors.
>>
>>>> So WTF was her problem this time?
>>
>>>> And every time hear about a censor kicking in I hate RFC Facebook more
>>>> and more.
>>
>>>> -sw
>>
>>> Nice to know my so-called friends on FB deleted my comments but sent
>>> secret messages out to everyone who didn't see them so they could
>>> discuss it. Hypocrits.
>>
>> I don't know exactly what you are talking about here Sheryl. There
>> was a discussion between the moderators regarding your multiple
>> outbursts and the course of action we wanted to take. We are the only
>> people allowed to delete threads and I doubt any of us are sending
>> "secret" messages out so we can discuss you. As far as I know, other
>> than the original discussion regarding the outbursts, there has been
>> no discussion regarding you between the moderators at all. Hope that
>> clears it up for you in that regard. What other people are doing is
>> unknown to me and quite frankly it is none of my business what
>> messages people send around in their private mail and messaging. And
>> Sheryl, this is precisely the the type of thread that is not tolerated
>> on the FB group.
>
> Well someone told Squertz because he couldn't wait to post about it
> here. And someone lied to him that I mentioned him. And don't say he
> saw it... I have him blocked on FB so he and I do not exist to one
> another on FB. Which is how I like it. So someone is telling tales
> and lying about me.

So? What's the big deal? Your choice, you can stay and put up with it or
you can leave. Given you current ranting I for one would prefer you leave!
>
> Squertz has a lot of nerve insinuating that I lack class when he
> couldn't wait to run off to usenet and blab all about what he heard
> (2nd hand, at least) I said on Facebook. And what's the big deal? I
> simply told the truth about someone who was viscious to me while he
> was alive. I hadn't thought about that POS Curt (Lou, Gar, whatever
> the **** he wanted to call himself) in years. THey brought him up, I
> told the truth.

You could have chosen to ignore the comments. A sensible person would
have done that.
>
> The last time I posted here was when your sainted Lou was making
> horrible comments about a picture that was linked here somehow from
> Facebook of me and my dying cat-- and that was In defense of myself.
> And here I am again, posting only to defend myself against Squertz.
> What is it with you people? Don't you have anything better to do than
> to hunt down shit about me to talk about?? "Lou" and Blake are dead, 2
> of the 3 biggest offenders. And for all I know the third one is dead
> too. So now Squertz has to come out of the woodwork and pick up where
> they left off??

Harden up or leave. You don't have to pay an exit fee to leave RFC you
know. You just simply cease posting and, more importantly, cease
reading. What was that old saying about eavesdroppers again?
>
> I just don't have time or energy to have to deal with two-faced lying
> bitches who are all huggy-huggy/friendly friendly on Facebook and then
> talk about me behind my back. SOMEONE did. I don't know who. I don't
> care. The only way Squertz could know about a thread I started on the
> FB RFC is if someone told him about it.

I hate to tell you but people do talk. It's human nature. Do something a
bit whacky and, yes, you will become the topic for conversation.
>
> I take a lot of adversity in real life--from people I care about, from
> work, life in general. And I handle it with grace and composure. The
> one place I WILL NOT TAKE SHIT FROM PEOPLE is on the internet. Yeah,
> I'll defend myself. But why the hell do you people have to put me in a
> position to have to????

Nobody is making you defend yourself. You are just doing it because YOU
feel the need. Is it guilt on your part?
>
> JUST LEAVE ME ALONE! I don't want your attention, I don't want your
> lying, I don't want your two-faced bitchiness. Please, forget I ever
> posted here.
>
I would, if only YOU would forget to post here!

--

Krypsis

On 10/06/2012 3:22 AM, War and Peace wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 07:48:15 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:51:49 -0500, Spite Lee >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 23:29:27 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:38:15 -0400, Cheryl >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess if it works for the majority it's a good thing. I'm just not a
>>>>> fan of moderation in discussion groups. That's just me.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why you're here and not there. There's something for
>>>> everyone. Steve wants to be in both and have it his way.
>>>
>>> I seem to be getting along quite well in RFC Facebook when I choose to
>>> post there. All those good threads you're missing just out of spite.
>>>
>> The egomaniac in *you* thinks I'm missing out and you're "getting
>> along" in RFC FB because you *have to* or else your ass would be
>> grass.
>
> I don't have to do shit. I could go ballistic any time I want to.
> But I see no reason to do so on FB.
>
> -sw
>
I'd like to see you do just that.... and see how long it takes for you
to get the flick.

--

Krypsis

On 27/06/2012 12:01 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:25:35 +1000, Krypsis wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2012 3:22 AM, War and Peace wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 07:48:15 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:51:49 -0500, Spite Lee >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 23:29:27 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:38:15 -0400, Cheryl >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess if it works for the majority it's a good thing. I'm just not a
>>>>>>> fan of moderation in discussion groups. That's just me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is why you're here and not there. There's something for
>>>>>> everyone. Steve wants to be in both and have it his way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I seem to be getting along quite well in RFC Facebook when I choose to
>>>>> post there. All those good threads you're missing just out of spite.
>>>>>
>>>> The egomaniac in *you* thinks I'm missing out and you're "getting
>>>> along" in RFC FB because you *have to* or else your ass would be
>>>> grass.
>>>
>>> I don't have to do shit. I could go ballistic any time I want to.
>>> But I see no reason to do so on FB.
>>>
>> I'd like to see you do just that.... and see how long it takes for you
>> to get the flick.
>
> Grow up and go away. You're as bad a Peter himself. Go stalk Sheldon
> - you're the one who posted his address, the good little pathetic
> stalker you are. Pat yourself on the head.
>
> -sw
>
Posted his address? You mean his IP address?

--

Krypsis

sqwishy, your brain is springing leaks.

> > I would, if only YOU would forget to post here!
>
> Getting a little desperate for playmates, digging up 2 week old
> threads to troll?

For someone who purports to know everything there is to know about
Usenet, you came up short this time.

Propagation is not universal on all servers throughout the world.
Sometimes a post can take several days to appear on your service, and
occasionally it doesn't appear at all. So don't sneer at somebody else
(especially somebody on the other side of the world) because he's not
on YOUR schedule.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:55:03 +1000, Krypsis >
wrote:

> On 27/06/2012 12:01 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:25:35 +1000, Krypsis wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/06/2012 3:22 AM, War and Peace wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 07:48:15 -0700, sf wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:51:49 -0500, Spite Lee >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 23:29:27 -0700, sf wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:38:15 -0400, Cheryl >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I guess if it works for the majority it's a good thing. I'm just not a
> >>>>>>> fan of moderation in discussion groups. That's just me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which is why you're here and not there. There's something for
> >>>>>> everyone. Steve wants to be in both and have it his way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I seem to be getting along quite well in RFC Facebook when I choose to
> >>>>> post there. All those good threads you're missing just out of spite.
> >>>>>
> >>>> The egomaniac in *you* thinks I'm missing out and you're "getting
> >>>> along" in RFC FB because you *have to* or else your ass would be
> >>>> grass.
> >>>
> >>> I don't have to do shit. I could go ballistic any time I want to.
> >>> But I see no reason to do so on FB.
> >>>
> >> I'd like to see you do just that.... and see how long it takes for you
> >> to get the flick.
> >
> > Grow up and go away. You're as bad a Peter himself. Go stalk Sheldon
> > - you're the one who posted his address, the good little pathetic
> > stalker you are. Pat yourself on the head.
> >
> > -sw
> >
> Posted his address? You mean his IP address?

Posted everything, including his street address. Assholes like he is
do that.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 27/06/2012 3:57 AM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:55:03 +1000, Krypsis >
> wrote:
>
>> On 27/06/2012 12:01 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:25:35 +1000, Krypsis wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/06/2012 3:22 AM, War and Peace wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 07:48:15 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:51:49 -0500, Spite Lee >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 23:29:27 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:38:15 -0400, Cheryl >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I guess if it works for the majority it's a good thing. I'm just not a
>>>>>>>>> fan of moderation in discussion groups. That's just me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is why you're here and not there. There's something for
>>>>>>>> everyone. Steve wants to be in both and have it his way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I seem to be getting along quite well in RFC Facebook when I choose to
>>>>>>> post there. All those good threads you're missing just out of spite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The egomaniac in *you* thinks I'm missing out and you're "getting
>>>>>> along" in RFC FB because you *have to* or else your ass would be
>>>>>> grass.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have to do shit. I could go ballistic any time I want to.
>>>>> But I see no reason to do so on FB.
>>>>>
>>>> I'd like to see you do just that.... and see how long it takes for you
>>>> to get the flick.
>>>
>>> Grow up and go away. You're as bad a Peter himself. Go stalk Sheldon
>>> - you're the one who posted his address, the good little pathetic
>>> stalker you are. Pat yourself on the head.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>>
>> Posted his address? You mean his IP address?
>
> Posted everything, including his street address. Assholes like he is
> do that.
>
Interesting, especially since I don't know, and have never known,
Sheldon's address. Even more interesting given that I live in a
different country across the other side of the world. I take it Sqwertz
has been drinking again? Maybe he's smokin' a bit of the Whoopee Weed?

--

Krypsis

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:14:52 +1000, Krypsis >
wrote:

> On 27/06/2012 3:57 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:55:03 +1000, Krypsis >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 27/06/2012 12:01 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:25:35 +1000, Krypsis wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/06/2012 3:22 AM, War and Peace wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 07:48:15 -0700, sf wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:51:49 -0500, Spite Lee >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 23:29:27 -0700, sf wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:38:15 -0400, Cheryl >
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I guess if it works for the majority it's a good thing. I'm just not a
> >>>>>>>>> fan of moderation in discussion groups. That's just me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Which is why you're here and not there. There's something for
> >>>>>>>> everyone. Steve wants to be in both and have it his way.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I seem to be getting along quite well in RFC Facebook when I choose to
> >>>>>>> post there. All those good threads you're missing just out of spite.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The egomaniac in *you* thinks I'm missing out and you're "getting
> >>>>>> along" in RFC FB because you *have to* or else your ass would be
> >>>>>> grass.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't have to do shit. I could go ballistic any time I want to.
> >>>>> But I see no reason to do so on FB.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I'd like to see you do just that.... and see how long it takes for you
> >>>> to get the flick.
> >>>
> >>> Grow up and go away. You're as bad a Peter himself. Go stalk Sheldon
> >>> - you're the one who posted his address, the good little pathetic
> >>> stalker you are. Pat yourself on the head.
> >>>
> >>> -sw
> >>>
> >> Posted his address? You mean his IP address?
> >
> > Posted everything, including his street address. Assholes like he is
> > do that.
> >
> Interesting, especially since I don't know, and have never known,
> Sheldon's address.

I wasn't talking about you. Posting that stuff is the type of thing
he does.

> Even more interesting given that I live in a
> different country across the other side of the world. I take it Sqwertz
> has been drinking again? Maybe he's smokin' a bit of the Whoopee Weed?

Who cares? He's an a-hole by nature and he proves it at least once a
week, but RFC on FB has him in check.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.