Re:

On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, Reeza! wrote:

>
> At 12:14 AM 9/27/98 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
> >CSapronett@aol.com (note: AOL.COM -- LOL!) wrote:
> >>My only regret is that I wont get to watch you all burn in hell !!!
> >
> >I see.  Would you mind elaborating?  We are going to burn in hell
> >because...? We don't use AOL? We like our privacy? We use cryptosystems
> >that you'll never understand in your life time?  Because we know how
> >to use (and create) remailers?
>
> Don't bother, it is a troll.
>
> Not a very original, or even interesting one either.

Whenever these people troll for flames here they get them one way or
another. Then it seems Merrill always tries to take the moral high ground 
and show us all his bleeding heart and tell us how we should embrace the 
AOL idiots and cherish them. The AOLers get triple effect that way. I don't 
think Merrill ever misses a chance to defend AOL and attack anybody who 
attacks them. About a week ago somebody posted a copy or parts of most AOL 
postings which were sent here in the last months. Merrill ignores the part 
about how the posts were classified and sends back some vague flame accusing 
the author of classing posts he disagreed with as "clueless" then he quotes 
the entire thing back to the list.

I don't know which is worse. At least the people flaming the AOL wimps are
funny.

<<Heavily snipped to allow for those who don't like it otherwise.>>
> 
> Whenever these people troll for flames here they get them one way or
> another. Then it seems Merrill always tries to take the moral high ground
> and show us all his bleeding heart and tell us how we should embrace the
> AOL idiots and cherish them. 

1.  As a matter of fact, I do try to take the moral high ground -- in
all things.  Sorry, it was how I was raised and I do not intend to swith
to seeking the immoral low ground.
2.  I have Never said to embrace and cherish the idiots from AOL.  Just
that some of the actions I have seen are much closer to the immoral low
ground.

> I don't think Merrill ever misses a chance to defend AOL and attack anybody who
> attacks them. 

I do not mean to Defend AOL except from misinformation -- BTW some of
the characteristics attributed to AOL and its software show a great deal
of clueneediness on the part of the "authors" or a need for
reaquaintance with the truth if the folk actually have a clue and
deciuded to spread "other stuff" instead.  OTOH I do try to defend the
innocents be they from AOL or elsewhere from the repercussions of the
spamming scum that (among other things) started the whole sixdegres
episode.

> About a week ago somebody posted a copy or parts of most AOL
> postings which were sent here in the last months. Merrill ignores the part
> about how the posts were classified

I read his classification criteria closely, and read the results of the
classification process.
> and sends back some vague flame accusing
> the author of classing posts he disagreed with as "clueless" then he quotes
> the entire thing back to the list.
> 
Then commented that he had not followed his own criteria.  

> I don't know which is worse. At least the people flaming the AOL wimps are
> funny.

If funny is all you want, may I recommend rec.humor.funny and, in case
you are up on no current events but Clinton, rec.humor.funny.reruns.

And to the brilliant person seeking muff diving pics, gee send a real
address and we'll see what we can do.  (At least he didn't want it for
pre-muff variety.)

PHM