TdF aus.bicycle nettiquite

mfhor

Drs wrote:
> I didn't ask anyone to not discuss anything. Have you never heard of
> spoiler space? It works for movie plots and so on so it can work for
> race results. It's not new and it's not rocket science. It only requires
> a modicum of consideration for others, something that seems beyond
> certain morons who unhappily inhabit this precinct.



Sorry, doesn't netiquette include not calling people "fools" and
"morons"?

As I tell my Grade Ones: "Point at someone and call them
something, there's one finger pointing at them, and three pointing
right back at you".

Movie plotlines (at least Hollywood ones) are a fait accompli, known by
some for months in advance. You pay money to watch them and be in
suspense. No-one, apart from team sponsors, asks us to pay money so we
can learn about the thrilling plot twists of a stage race. It's open to
all, as the crowds along the route, holding their transistors to their
ears, will show to even a "fool" or a "moron". Bike racing used to be
called the working man's sport, coz entry fees to races were so low. So
the difference is there. You're not depriving anyone of anything by
talking about the result - I watch Tomalaris and co. hover around the
periphery of the action as much as anyone. Knowing that Stuey won the
sprint on the morning after he did it doesn't deprive me of any
enjoyment at 6pm, or some ungodly hour later if I miss the cut on the
commute home. It's the way it happened, not what happened which is the
thing, as anyone who's done any road racing will tell you. Someone wins.
Someone always wins. 'Why' is more important than 'who' and 'when'.

M "serious roadie days behind him" H



--

DRS

"mfhor" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:R0uHc.95653$HH2.26967@fe09.usenetserver.com
> Drs wrote:
> > I didn't ask anyone to not discuss anything. Have you never heard
> of > spoiler space? It works for movie plots and so on so it can
> work for > race results. It's not new and it's not rocket science.
> It only requires > a modicum of consideration for others, something
> that seems beyond > certain morons who unhappily inhabit this
> precinct.
>
> Sorry, doesn't netiquette include not calling people "fools" and
> "morons"?

Netiquette and etiquette are not identical.

> As I tell my Grade Ones: "Point at someone and call them
> something, there's one finger pointing at them, and three pointing
> right back at you".
>
> Movie plotlines (at least Hollywood ones) are a fait accompli, known
> by some for months in advance. You pay money to watch them and be in
> suspense. No-one, apart from team sponsors, asks us to pay money so we
> can learn about the thrilling plot twists of a stage race. It's open
> to all, as the crowds along the route, holding their transistors to
> their ears, will show to even a "fool" or a "moron". Bike racing used
> to be called the working man's sport, coz entry fees to races were so
> low. So
> the difference is there. You're not depriving anyone of anything by
> talking about the result - I watch Tomalaris and co. hover around the
> periphery of the action as much as anyone. Knowing that Stuey won the
> sprint on the morning after he did it doesn't deprive me of any
> enjoyment at 6pm, or some ungodly hour later if I miss the cut on the
> commute home. It's the way it happened, not what happened which is the
> thing, as anyone who's done any road racing will tell you. Someone
> wins. Someone always wins. 'Why' is more important than 'who' and
> 'when'.

I never cease to be astonished at the lengths some people will go to to
justify their selfishness. Spoiler space costs you nothing but you won't
even do that much.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Marty Wallace

"mfhor" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:R0uHc.95653$HH2.26967@fe09.usenetserver.com...
> Drs wrote:
> > I didn't ask anyone to not discuss anything. Have you never heard of
> > spoiler space? It works for movie plots and so on so it can work for
> > race results. It's not new and it's not rocket science. It only
requires
> > a modicum of consideration for others, something that seems beyond
> > certain morons who unhappily inhabit this precinct.
>
>
>
> Sorry, doesn't netiquette include not calling people "fools" and
> "morons"?
>
> As I tell my Grade Ones: "Point at someone and call them
> something, there's one finger pointing at them, and three pointing
> right back at you".
>
> Movie plotlines (at least Hollywood ones) are a fait accompli, known by
> some for months in advance. You pay money to watch them and be in
> suspense. No-one, apart from team sponsors, asks us to pay money so we
> can learn about the thrilling plot twists of a stage race. It's open to
> all, as the crowds along the route, holding their transistors to their
> ears, will show to even a "fool" or a "moron". Bike racing used to be
> called the working man's sport, coz entry fees to races were so low. So
> the difference is there. You're not depriving anyone of anything by
> talking about the result - I watch Tomalaris and co. hover around the
> periphery of the action as much as anyone. Knowing that Stuey won the
> sprint on the morning after he did it doesn't deprive me of any
> enjoyment at 6pm, or some ungodly hour later if I miss the cut on the
> commute home. It's the way it happened, not what happened which is the
> thing, as anyone who's done any road racing will tell you. Someone wins.
> Someone always wins. 'Why' is more important than 'who' and 'when'.
>
> M "serious roadie days behind him" H
>
>
>
> --
>
>

Well said!

marty

John L

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:08:16 +1000, "DRS" <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au>
wrote:


>> Drs wrote:
If you can count, add up the number who agree with you, then add up
the number that disagree. It's truy sad to watch a loser who believes
he's right & the rest of the world is wrong.

It's a badge of honour to be called a moron by someone as anal as
yourself.

Still top posting, still laughing & still getting RIGHT UP YOUR NOSE
:-)

John L.

>> > I didn't ask anyone to not discuss anything. Have you never heard
>> of > spoiler space? It works for movie plots and so on so it can
>> work for > race results. It's not new and it's not rocket science.
>> It only requires > a modicum of consideration for others, something
>> that seems beyond > certain morons who unhappily inhabit this
>> precinct.
>>
>> Sorry, doesn't netiquette include not calling people "fools" and
>> "morons"?
>
>Netiquette and etiquette are not identical.
>

>
>I never cease to be astonished at the lengths some people will go to to
>justify their selfishness. Spoiler space costs you nothing but you won't
>even do that much.

DRS

"John L" <johnlawrence.spammerssoff@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3r0te0d7scjm33ji47uba89gk3eksa3vef@4ax.com

[...]

> Still top posting, still laughing & still getting RIGHT UP YOUR NOSE

You wish. You're only proving what a patheitic loser you are.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

mfhor

Drs wrote:
> "John L" <johnlawrence.spammerssoff@westnet.com.au> wrote in message ne-
> ws:3r0te0d7scjm33ji47uba89gk3eksa3vef@4ax.comnews:3r0te0d7scjm33ji47ub a-
> 89gk3eksa3vef@4ax.com
> [...]
> > Still top posting, still laughing & still getting RIGHT UP YOUR NOSE
> You wish. You're only proving what a patheitic loser you are.



--

No, I get you. You're either a troll, who delights in creating
dissention, or someone who can't get their head around the fact that a
forum is where people with equally valid opinions meet to debate. You
lose the right to the respect of the validity of your POV, and get
laughed out when you turn to abuse, calling people fools, morons,
losers et c.

Why do you do this? Because they are distant from you, and can never
actually hurt you? You'll find yourself short of debating partners
soon, when we get sick of your hamfisted sledgehammer wit. I hope this
habit doesn't translate into everyday life, you might find yourself
short of friends.

Is this how road ragers behave, cocooned in their technological owner-
driver headspace, oblivious to the damage they wreak on peoples sense of
well-being?

You want to comment on that? Without epithets, so we can take you
seriously?

MH



--

DRS

"mfhor" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:JNEHc.422$4C4.236@fe20.usenetserver.com
> Drs wrote:
> > "John L" <johnlawrence.spammerssoff@westnet.com.au> wrote in
> message
news:3r0te0d7scjm33ji47uba89gk3eksa3vef@4ax.comnews:3r0te0d7scjm33ji47 uba89gk3eksa3vef@4ax.com
> > >
> > > Still top posting, still laughing & still getting RIGHT UP YOUR NOSE
> >
> > You wish. You're only proving what a patheitic loser you are.
>
> No, I get you.

No, you clearly don't.

> You're either a troll, who delights in creating
> dissention, or someone who can't get their head around the fact that a
> forum is where people with equally valid opinions meet to debate. You

It would be helpful if you understood the nature of the issue. This is not
about some abstract opinion that has no impact on anything. There is no
"happy medium" here. Top-posting is wrong. It violates Usenet etiquette.
This is not disputable.

> lose the right to the respect of the validity of your POV, and get
> laughed out when you turn to abuse, calling people fools, morons,
> losers et c.

Calling a fool a fool is simply being accurate.

> Why do you do this?

Because silence gives consent and I don't consent to the selfish, lazy and
inconsiderate shitheads like John L who delight in treating the rest of us
with contempt.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

John L

You don't really believe you speak for all the people in this
newsgroup do you? You self deluded anal twerp.

John L.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 08:23:52 +1000, "DRS"
<drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote:

>Because silence gives consent and I don't consent to the selfish, lazy and
>inconsiderate shitheads like John L who delight in treating the rest of us
>with contempt.

DRS

"John L" <johnlawrence.spammerssoff@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1vnue0p9kb7s668dr45fhf81h73gvef494@4ax.com
> You don't really believe you speak for all the people in this
> newsgroup do you? You self deluded anal twerp.

No, I don't, fuckwit. Never have, never will. As usual you're contributing
nothing but your stupidity to this group.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

blah

mfhor <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message news:<R0uHc.95653$HH2.26967@fe09.usenetserver.com>...

You're not depriving anyone of anything by
> talking about the result - I watch Tomalaris and co. hover around the
> periphery of the action as much as anyone. Knowing that Stuey won the
> sprint on the morning after he did it doesn't deprive me of any
> enjoyment at 6pm, or some ungodly hour later if I miss the cut on the
> commute home. It's the way it happened, not what happened which is the
> thing, as anyone who's done any road racing will tell you. Someone wins.
> Someone always wins. 'Why' is more important than 'who' and 'when'.
>
> M "serious roadie days behind him" H
>
>
>
> --

Um... I've had a run in or two with DRS in the past (haven't we all),
but I have to agree with him on this one (the original point of the
thread, anyway). I've waited since 1998 to stand in the living room at
6.19pm shouting "GO STUART, GO! YES!" (team time trial a couple of
years ago doesn't really count in the excitement stakes; it wasn't a
sprint). The adrenaline rush was fantastic. I was still trembling
fifteen minutes later. Knowing he was going to win stage 5 would have
screwed my day (and probably week) up a fair bit, as it did when my
oafish workmate told me about Robbie's win earlier in the week. I
don't understand the "someone wins" point - I think it does matter who
wins.

I wait all year to get some kind of semi-current cycling vision that I
can see and hear, rather than read live updates to as I do throughout
the year. I'd like to see some kind of consideration shown by those
that know some people don't want to find out.

Of course, I'm not so stupid as to check on the newsgroup before 6.30,
of course. It'd be nice if I could - but it's interesting that people
are only arguing about their "right" to spoil people's enjoyment;
they're not actually doing it. Strange...

That's my two cents, read you after 6.30 tomorrow. Cheers.

? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}

mfhor <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> writes:

> Drs wrote:
> > I didn't ask anyone to not discuss anything. Have you never heard of
> > spoiler space? It works for movie plots and so on so it can work for
> > race results. It's not new and it's not rocket science. It only requires
> > a modicum of consideration for others, something that seems beyond
> > certain morons who unhappily inhabit this precinct.
>
>
>
> Sorry, doesn't netiquette include not calling people "fools" and
> "morons"?

Its not normally considered part of netiquette, though I do aggry Drs
would be more effective if he was a little less abrasive.

[...]

> Movie plotlines (at least Hollywood ones) are a fait accompli, known by
> some for months in advance. You pay money to watch them and be in
> suspense. [...] You're not depriving anyone of anything by
> talking about the result

I know that my footy watching relitivies who would watch delayed
telcasts of football games hate to have them spolt. And I recall TV
news people when announcing sports events would often say "If you plan
to watch SPORTS EVENT X look away now if you don't wish to see the
scores". Avoiding spolers makes it easer on other people. There is
little loss to you and a great advantage to other people.

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.

? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}

John L <johnlawrence.spammerssoff@westnet.com.au> writes:

[...]

> If you can count, add up the number who agree with you, then add up
> the number that disagree.

I happen to aggry with DRS on both the mattor of spolers and the
mattor of top posting.

> It's truy sad to watch a loser who believes
> he's right & the rest of the world is wrong.

However some times the one person is right and the rest of the world
is wrong.

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.

? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}

"Marty Wallace" <mart@geo.net.au> writes:

> "mfhor" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
> news:R0uHc.95653$HH2.26967@fe09.usenetserver.com...
[...] Someone wins.
> > Someone always wins. 'Why' is more important than 'who' and 'when'.
> >
> > M "serious roadie days behind him" H
[...]
> Well said!

I don't wish to sound rude but could you please trim down your replies?

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.

Marty Wallace

"? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" <dformosa@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:m3k6xc3t9p.fsf@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> "Marty Wallace" <mart@geo.net.au> writes:
>
> > "mfhor" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
> > news:R0uHc.95653$HH2.26967@fe09.usenetserver.com...
> [...] Someone wins.
> > > Someone always wins. 'Why' is more important than 'who' and 'when'.
> > >
> > > M "serious roadie days behind him" H
> [...]
> > Well said!
>
> I don't wish to sound rude but could you please trim down your replies?
>
> --
> Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
> http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
> Free the Memes.

You do sound rude.
My reply consisted of only two words.

Marty