Garage_Woodworks .@. wrote:
"Twayne" wrote in message
news:Coykj.1396$Wr4.578@trnddc04...

PLONK! See ya dude. You are the second person I have plonked in
almost 5-years.

Good. But it doesn't work and does prove that you read spams.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article Coykj.1396$Wr4.578@trnddc04, "Twayne"
wrote:

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. So
far you've only been a wart on the ass of progress and have nothing
to do with any solution for anything.

PLONK

Good. The spammers are learning; not much, but learning.

Doug Miller wrote:

PLONK

Ah another public plonking.
That works so well to demonstrate the
tolerance level of the plonker.


Lumpy

You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.

www.LumpyGuitar.net

In article , "Lumpy" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

PLONK

Ah another public plonking.
That works so well to demonstrate the
tolerance level of the plonker.

I presume you'll be making the same criticism of 'GarageWoodworks', who also
publicly plonked Twerp at the same time for the same reason...


Lumpy

Your sig is malformed. It should be preceded by two hyphens, a blank, and a
newline so that conforming newsreaders automatically recognize it as a sig and
do not quote it on followup.

You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.

www.LumpyGuitar.net



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Twayne" wrote in message
news:vWwkj.1048$pC5.959@trnddc05...
You missed on this one.

I'll bet I've been here longer than you have. You don't ID a spammer by
knowing who he is, you ID him by what he does. spam is spam.


What ever you think and works for you. We really do not need your help, you
are not showing us any thing that we do not already know. For most of us,
spammers are usually a short term and or one time nuisance. Then there is
the troll that is far worse, like a disruptive kindergartner that society
eventually shuns. You seem to be filling that position.

May I suggest that you either contribute or do us all a favor and go away.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt a little bit longer and then for me
you will disappear if you are of no value to the group.

If you are indeed sincere, use a new post and apologize to the group and try
to fit in.

Lumpy:
Ah another public plonking.
That works so well to demonstrate the
tolerance level of the plonker.

Doug Miller:
I presume you'll be making the same criticism
of 'GarageWoodworks', who also publicly plonked
Twerp at the same time for the same reason...

Pretty much of anyone who is afraid to read something
they don't agree with, and feels the need to demonstrate
the histrionics of the public plonk. It's the NG equiv
of taking your toys and going home.

Your sig is malformed. It should be preceded by two hyphens,
a blank, and a newline so that conforming newsreaders
automatically recognize it as a sig and
do not quote it on followup.

Plonk me and you won't be bothered any longer?


Lumpy

You were the Ken-L-Ration St Bernard?
Yes. My dog's bigger.
www.LumpyVoice.com

Lumpy wrote:
Lumpy:
Ah another public plonking.
That works so well to demonstrate the
tolerance level of the plonker.

Doug Miller:
I presume you'll be making the same criticism
of 'GarageWoodworks', who also publicly plonked
Twerp at the same time for the same reason...

Pretty much of anyone who is afraid to read something
they don't agree with, and feels the need to demonstrate
the histrionics of the public plonk. It's the NG equiv
of taking your toys and going home.

It's not a matter of being "afraid", it's a matter of deciding not to
associated with a particular individual.

Your sig is malformed. It should be preceded by two hyphens,
a blank, and a newline so that conforming newsreaders
automatically recognize it as a sig and
do not quote it on followup.

Plonk me and you won't be bothered any longer?

If you're going to be confrontational about a suggestion that you
bring your sig into compliance with accepted practice then it's not
lookin' too good.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , Tanus wrote:

is that boy actually new? I thought
Twayne was 'Pop, repackaged.

Yes, it is. TrollFilters have been updated accordingly, and can be obtained by
the usual means (see sig below).

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe

Twayne wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
.... snip
... and you have contributed, what, exactly?

None of which has anything to do with the spam under discussion.

Just the kind of answer I expected. No substance, single-minded
[mis]-focus.

Well, as others have said:

plonk

Once in a while, public plonking is well-deserved; it serves as a notice
to the plonkee that maybe he/she/it is not playing well with others and may
someday come to the realization that there are better ways to communicate.
Kind of the Usenet equivalent of shaking the dust from one's sandals and
moving on.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Jan 20, 3:37*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Kind of the Usenet equivalent of shaking the dust from one's sandals and
moving on.


Consider that line stolen. I love the visual.

Leon wrote:
"Twayne" wrote in message
news:vWwkj.1048$pC5.959@trnddc05...
You missed on this one.

I'll bet I've been here longer than you have. You don't ID a
spammer by knowing who he is, you ID him by what he does. spam is
spam.

What ever you think and works for you. We really do not need your
help, you are not showing us any thing that we do not already know.
For most of us, spammers are usually a short term and or one time
nuisance. Then there is the troll that is far worse, like a
disruptive kindergartner that society eventually shuns. You seem to
be filling that position.

One thing it has shown is the number of people who read spams. It's
high in this group. That's a bad sign. There is absolutely nothing in
any spam that bears reading unless the reader is planning to use
information it may contain based on the source code of the spam. Only
suckers and desparate people read spam seriously and they are the ones
who provide the spammer wtih his paycheck. Just reading spam for the
sake of reading it is just plain stupid. But it seems to be done very
often in this group.


May I suggest that you either contribute or do us all a favor and go
away. I will give you the benefit of the doubt a little bit longer
and then for me you will disappear if you are of no value to the
group.

If you think "plonk" is a threat, you're as wrong as you are stupid for
using it. I could not care less whether you read my posts of not - you
are irrelevant. If you're not smart enough to look at a post and decide
it's not worth reading for you, then you probably also read spams
regularly. You will be one of the reasons servers decide to drop the
group because of the excess traffic spams and readers such as yourself
create by reading them.

If you are indeed sincere, use a new post and apologize to the group
and try to fit in.

No, I won't use a new post as my current first two posts were on target
and meaningful. Since then I have entertained myself by simply
responding in kind to those who bothered to read spam and were upset to
see someone has the guts to do something about it. You're the kind who
will sit around and wait for things like the Can-Spam Act to fix
everything for you; 'snot gonna happen. Had you not read the spams, you
would have had no hint of anything that was in the thread. But you did
click, didn't you? That was not only senseless to do, but stupid also.

It's been in interesting social sciences demo here watching the opinions
of those who read spam and the silence from those who know better and at
least don't admit it, or actually never bothered to click on anything
that looks like spam.

I probably should apologize for "using" the group as I did/am, but from
the lack of displayed intelligence I see, it's not worth the effort and
would be on no value. Not being a follower, I will post anywhere I
please and here at least the knowledge that some of the group of
spammers and mongers won't be assessing respnses with the stupid
misinformation they've presented over the last about 5 months here.
Newsgroups get a reputation for accepting spam without consequence, and
this group now has that reputation. It's precisely why I chose this
group to post some of my reports in.

Twayn e

On Jan 19, 9:32 pm, "Twayne" wrote:
LRod wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:51:39 GMT, "Twayne"
wrote:

Leon wrote:

I don't think you have been here long enough to know who the real
spammers are and which ones are not.
You missed on this one.

I'll bet I've been here longer than you have. You don't ID a
spammer by knowing who he is, you ID him by what he does. spam is
spam.

I'll take a piece of that. 103 posts since the 23 December 2007
incarnation of the name makes you one of the newest of the new.

Now, there's some really relevant info; something any idiot could (and
one did) count up. So I guess you've only been here this month then,
eh? That's interesting; so has your spam.



Now if you are someone else who really has been around longer than
Leon (which I doubt), pony up your longtime nom de wreck and let's
just see.

There you go; attempting to sidetrack things. What's wrong, can't
defend yourself so you want to put it off onto someone else? Typical
troll-speak, that's for sure.



By the way, the dozen posts you've made today either alerting we poor,
ignorant, veteran wreckers as to what spam is (I think we've had a
pretty good handle on that for a long time) or laming back at people
pointing out your deficiencies (which are legion), is frankly, worse
than the spam. They certainly waste just as much bandwidth.

You should count up the BW you and your other spammer friends have
wasted.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. So far
you've only been a wart on the ass of progress and have nothing to do
with any solution for anything.

You sure as hell aren't providing anything but sturm und drang. You
might announce who you REALLY are, if you're such an all-fired
expert...and then show some proof of your expertise, something Tom
Watson has done time and again for years. So far, from you, all we've
read is drivel.

On Jan 20, 11:57 am, "Lumpy" wrote:
Lumpy:

Ah another public plonking.
That works so well to demonstrate the
tolerance level of the plonker.

Doug Miller:

I presume you'll be making the same criticism
of 'GarageWoodworks', who also publicly plonked
Twerp at the same time for the same reason...

Pretty much of anyone who is afraid to read something
they don't agree with, and feels the need to demonstrate
the histrionics of the public plonk. It's the NG equiv
of taking your toys and going home.

Your sig is malformed. It should be preceded by two hyphens,
a blank, and a newline so that conforming newsreaders
automatically recognize it as a sig and
do not quote it on followup.

Plonk me and you won't be bothered any longer?


Google doesn't ahve a plonker, but being afraid to read somethign I
disagree with has never been one of my faults. I love a good
disagreement. But there is an old New York saying, "Money talks,
bull**** walks." Neither you nor your pal are saying anything, and
you're both hoofing it.

"Twayne" wrote in message
news:NcQkj.21519$8A4.11570@trnddc02...


One thing it has shown is the number of people who read spams. It's high
in this group. That's a bad sign. There is absolutely nothing in any
spam that bears reading unless the reader is planning to use information
it may contain based on the source code of the spam. Only suckers and
desparate people read spam seriously and they are the ones who provide the
spammer wtih his paycheck. Just reading spam for the sake of reading it
is just plain stupid. But it seems to be done very often in this group.

Just as you do personally, you don't really know if people in this group are
reading the spam or clicking on as you are doing.



May I suggest that you either contribute or do us all a favor and go
away. I will give you the benefit of the doubt a little bit longer
and then for me you will disappear if you are of no value to the
group.

If you think "plonk" is a threat, you're as wrong as you are stupid for
using it. I could not care less whether you read my posts of not - you
are irrelevant. If you're not smart enough to look at a post and decide
it's not worth reading for you, then you probably also read spams
regularly. You will be one of the reasons servers decide to drop the
group because of the excess traffic spams and readers such as yourself
create by reading them.

Plonk is not a threat by any means. Simply a warning that if you ever want
to get an answer to a question that you may post, you need to be seen.

The rest of what you have to say is a load.



If you are indeed sincere, use a new post and apologize to the group
and try to fit in.

No, I won't use a new post as my current first two posts were on target
and meaningful. Since then I have entertained myself by simply responding
in kind to those who bothered to read spam and were upset to see someone
has the guts to do something about it. You're the kind who will sit
around and wait for things like the Can-Spam Act to fix everything for
you; 'snot gonna happen. Had you not read the spams, you would have had
no hint of anything that was in the thread. But you did click, didn't
you? That was not only senseless to do, but stupid also.

So I take it that Spam is a large source of your entertainment. With out
Spam you would have little to say or do.


It's been in interesting social sciences demo here watching the opinions
of those who read spam and the silence from those who know better and at
least don't admit it, or actually never bothered to click on anything that
looks like spam.

I probably should apologize for "using" the group as I did/am, but from
the lack of displayed intelligence I see, it's not worth the effort and
would be on no value. Not being a follower, I will post anywhere I please
and here at least the knowledge that some of the group of spammers and
mongers won't be assessing respnses with the stupid misinformation they've
presented over the last about 5 months here. Newsgroups get a reputation
for accepting spam without consequence, and this group now has that
reputation. It's precisely why I chose this group to post some of my
reports in.

Please spare us all and post your "reports" else where.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:33:35 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
wrote:


Google doesn't ahve a plonker, but being afraid to read somethign I
disagree with has never been one of my faults. I love a good
disagreement.

I couldn't agree more.

Seriously thinking about an opposing viewpoint is good for the soul.

We "got's" to look at both sides...

Leon wrote:
"Twayne" wrote in message

If you think "plonk" is a threat, you're as wrong as you are stupid for
using it. I could not care less whether you read my posts of not - you
are irrelevant. If you're not smart enough to look at a post and decide
it's not worth reading for you, then you probably also read spams
regularly. You will be one of the reasons servers decide to drop the
group because of the excess traffic spams and readers such as yourself
create by reading them.


Plonk is not a threat by any means. Simply a warning that if you ever want
to get an answer to a question that you may post, you need to be seen.


I'd hope the "plonk" would act as a reminder to stop feeding the trolls
so that those that have kill-filed the twerps do have to see their
quoted message in replies from valued users of the group.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"Nova" wrote in message
news:5ORkj.7479$4b6.3054@trndny08...
Leon wrote:
"Twayne" wrote in message
If you think "plonk" is a threat, you're as wrong as you are stupid for
using it. I could not care less whether you read my posts of not - you
are irrelevant. If you're not smart enough to look at a post and decide
it's not worth reading for you, then you probably also read spams
regularly. You will be one of the reasons servers decide to drop the
group because of the excess traffic spams and readers such as yourself
create by reading them.


Plonk is not a threat by any means. Simply a warning that if you ever
want to get an answer to a question that you may post, you need to be
seen.


I'd hope the "plonk" would act as a reminder to stop feeding the trolls so
that those that have kill-filed the twerps do have to see their quoted
message in replies from valued users of the group.


I know, I know.....

Robatoy wrote:

On Jan 20, 3:37Â*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Kind of the Usenet equivalent of shaking the dust from one's sandals and
moving on.


Consider that line stolen. I love the visual.

Not a problem, after all, I borrowed it from the Book of Acts.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Jan 20, 5:33*pm, Charlie Self wrote:

Google doesn't ahve a plonker, but being afraid to read somethign I
disagree with has never been one of my faults. I love a good
disagreement.

Just a minot quibble, Charlie. (Hey... you said you love them !)

Google has the oldest *plonk* software around. You. If it looks like
****, it reads like ****, the actual post is ****, and you know where
it came from...

Ta da!

It's a good post to skip. No configs for me. Most of us here have
been around this as well as countless other newsgroups, forums, etc.
It's just plain easier to me (YMMV) to flat ignore the idiots
altogether. I ofter scan long threads to see who is participating
before I even read them.

Long tangle threads on the poster opinion of the minutae contained in
their interpretation of the constitution leave me along about reaponse
#50.

I go to the next subject.

Robert

J. Clarke wrote:
[public plonking]
It's not a matter of being "afraid",
it's a matter of deciding not to
associated with a particular individual.

And the plonk-ER just HAS to make a big,
histrionic, public display about who they
personally think is "not worthy". Obviously
seeking the approval of others. Obviously
not enough of a man to stand on his own
two feet and simply plonk the guy. He wants
everybody to know that he's not afraid to be afraid.

Hilarious.


Lumpy

You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.

www.LumpyGuitar.net

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Once in a while, public plonking is
well-deserved; it serves as a
notice to the plonkee that maybe
he/she/it is not playing well with
others...

It may serve as notice that ONE particular
reader is threatened by the plonkee. But the
plonk-er hardly speaks for the hundreds or
thousands of other readers. They're simply
trying to make their dick just a mm longer.


Lumpy

You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.

www.LumpyGuitar.net

Leon wrote:
The rest of what you have to say is a load.

A load that you read, apparently.


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.LumpyMusic.com

Charlie Self wrote:
... Neither you nor your pal are saying anything, and
you're both hoofing it.

Not my pal. As I've said many times.
I speak for myself. I don't have the need to
enlist others' support by way of the plonk de public.


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.LumpyMusic.com

Lumpy wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
... Neither you nor your pal are saying anything, and
you're both hoofing it.

Not my pal. As I've said many times.
I speak for myself. I don't have the need to
enlist others' support by way of the plonk de public.


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.LumpyMusic.com

More than half of your nine posts to this newsgroup have been
complaints about the posting habits of others. Nobody likes a whiner.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Lumpy wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
... Neither you nor your pal are saying anything, and
you're both hoofing it.

Not my pal. As I've said many times.
I speak for myself. I don't have the need to
enlist others' support by way of the plonk de public.


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.LumpyMusic.com

More than half of your nine posts to this newsgroup have been
complaints about the posting habits of others. Nobody likes a whiner.

--

lol, from the mouths of babes! Pot, kettle, black, etc. I'd say poet &
don't know it but it's just plain bad rhyming. It's interesting you
have nothing better to do than count people's post quantities. Perhaps
you should consider getting a job instead.

J. Clarke wrote:
Lumpy wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
... Neither you nor your pal are saying anything, and
you're both hoofing it.
Not my pal. As I've said many times.
I speak for myself. I don't have the need to
enlist others' support by way of the plonk de public.


Lumpy

In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.LumpyMusic.com

More than half of your nine posts to this newsgroup have been
complaints about the posting habits of others. Nobody likes a whiner.


Amen to that, John. Essentially what
you're doing, Lumpy is the same as what
Twayne/Pop was doing. Generating noise.

--
Tanus

This is not really a sig.

http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/

Garage_Woodworks .@. wrote:
"Lumpy" wrote in message
..

PLONK

plink plink, ploonnkk, plink p-p-plink-link, plonka, plonka, plonka,
PiiiiinnnnnnGGGG!

5/4 time would be better than 4/4 but it's so hard to write!

"Lumpy"

Garage_Woodworks wrote:
PLONK

Oh no! Something that I don't agree with.
Plonk, plonk, plonk.

I FORBID you to ever read any of my posts again.


Lumpy

You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.

www.LumpyGuitar.net

J. Clarke wrote:

More than half of your nine posts
to this newsgroup have been
complaints about the posting
habits of others. Nobody likes a whiner.

That corrected last sentence should read
"I don't like a whiner".
^^^

Or is there a list of people that you represent
when you use the collective "nobody"?

Now what was your answer to my woodworking question?


Lumpy

You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.

www.LumpyGuitar.net

Tanus wrote:
... Lumpy is the same as what
Twayne/Pop was doing. Generating noise.

So it's not generating noise if I posted
the same noise that you just did? Or was
there some kind of woodworking content
in your post?


Lumpy

Were you the voice of Casper?
No. Popeye, Snagglepuss and Wells Fargo Bank.
www.LumpyVoice.net

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:52:46 -0700, "Lumpy"
wrote:

Charlie Self wrote:
... Neither you nor your pal are saying anything, and
you're both hoofing it.

Not my pal. As I've said many times.
I speak for myself. I don't have the need to
enlist others' support by way of the plonk de public.


Lumpy


You know, your mom was right about hanging around with that Haskell
boy. Now look at you.

Ah well, say hi to Wally and the Beave for me.



Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Jan 21, 8:38*pm, Tom Watson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:52:46 -0700, "Lumpy"

wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
... Neither you nor your pal are saying anything, and
you're both hoofing it.

Not my pal. As I've said many times.
I speak for myself. I don't have the need to
enlist others' support by way of the plonk de public.

Lumpy

You know, your mom was right about hanging around with that Haskell
boy. *Now look at you.

Ah well, say hi to Wally and the Beave for me.


Do Wally and Beave run a bait shop? G

Robatoy wrote:

On Jan 21, 8:38Â*pm, Tom Watson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:52:46 -0700, "Lumpy"

wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
... Neither you nor your pal are saying anything, and
you're both hoofing it.

Not my pal. As I've said many times.
I speak for myself. I don't have the need to
enlist others' support by way of the plonk de public.

Lumpy

You know, your mom was right about hanging around with that Haskell
boy. Â*Now look at you.

Ah well, say hi to Wally and the Beave for me.


Do Wally and Beave run a bait shop? G

Nah, I think Lumpy wound up doing that after hanging around with Eddie
Haskell; he wound up not amounting to much. Eddie of course did well
because he was a trust-fund kid (Lumpy wasn't). Wally and the Beave see
Lumpy on weekends that they go fishing; Ward and June made sure they were
successful, stayed in school and got good jobs.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Lumpy wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

More than half of your nine posts
to this newsgroup have been
complaints about the posting
habits of others. Nobody likes a whiner.

That corrected last sentence should read
"I don't like a whiner".
^^^

Or is there a list of people that you represent
when you use the collective "nobody"?

Now what was your answer to my woodworking question?

plonk

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Jan 22, 1:35*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Lumpy wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

More than half of your nine posts
to this newsgroup have been
complaints about the posting
habits of others. *Nobody likes a whiner.

That corrected last sentence should read
"I *don't like a whiner".
^^^

Or is there a list of people that you represent
when you use the collective "nobody"?

Now what was your answer to my woodworking question?

plonk

The Lump was only partially plonked till this plonk by the Master
Plonker hisself.

Robatoy wrote:

The Lump was only partially plonked
till this plonk by the Master
Plonker hisself.

I'm honored! The public plonkers continue to
support my claim that it's not the plonk, it's
the posture that counts.


Lumpy

You were the Ken-L-Ration St Bernard?
Yes. My dog's bigger.
www.LumpyVoice.com

On Jan 22, 3:15*pm, "Lumpy" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
The Lump was only partially plonked
till this plonk by the Master
Plonker hisself.

I'm honored! The public plonkers continue to
support my claim that it's not the plonk, it's
the posture that counts.

Lumpy

You were the Ken-L-Ration St Bernard?
Yes. My dog's bigger.www.LumpyVoice.com

I visualize a proper plonk to include fanned-out fingers a la MAD
magazine's Don Martin.
Perhaps a bit of a hip thrust.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:46:42 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:


Do Wally and Beave run a bait shop? G


You don't need no steenkin' bait.

You don't even need no steenin' hook!


Maybe the next header should be:

"Hillary - The Blond Leading The Blond?".


Like starving dogs onna meat truck, my brudda.




Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

"Tom Watson" wrote

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

Judging by recent attempts, I'm not so sure it's working?


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)