"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348gprF48aar6U1@individual.net...

> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me

But you are trying to reason with a mind that chose to add an additional 204
off topic words to this thread in an effort to defend the notion of staying
on topic :^)

You know...."do as I say, not as I do".

 

"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348gprF48aar6U1@individual.net...

> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me

But you are trying to reason with a mind that chose to add an additional 204
off topic words to this thread in an effort to defend the notion of staying
on topic :^)

You know...."do as I say, not as I do".

 

"Hagrinas O.T. Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> continued spewing OT
diatribe when she/he wrote in message
news:9qWdnVX5U_Bdk0LcRVn-qA@giganews.com...
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:FvqdnemSu6ellkLcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
>> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:348bujF1t8rlgU1@individual.net...
>> > Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without
>> > reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no
>> > matter how inappropriate one feels the topic is, will simply not work.
>> >
>> > For instance, when some moron posts spoilers in their subject line
>> > regarding a movie or show I haven't watched yet, I killfile them
>> > without
>> > making a big fuss. All that happens when you try to 'netcop' is a
>> > flame
>> > war. It's not worth it.
>> >
>> > Natalie
>>
>> Sadly, there is no reasoning with the likes of you and your ilk. If you
>> think your meandering diatribe is good for us, then you impose yourself
> upon
>> us. If you have to label something as "OT", has it ever occurred to you
>> that perhaps you should not post it and impose your compulsive obsessive
>> behaviour upon us? No, of course not. Such are the inane ramblings and
>> and
>> selfish motives of your type. "Why should I stop posting off-topic when I
>> can force all the legitimate users of these automotive NewsGroups, to
> filter
>> the topic and killfile all who respond?" I find your demeanor quite
> selfish
>> and your rationale more than just a bit absurd. ;-) Natalie, if I may
> offer
>> some gentle advice, take a walk outside, take a deep breath of fresh air,
>> give your head a shake and then proceed to get a life and move your
> soapbox
>> down the street! If we feel the need to be saved from ourselves, I'm sure
>> that we will be able to find you or someone just like you. Thanks for
> caring
>> about our well being. Now do us all a favor and find a new pulpit. Your
>> welcome is worn out here.
>>
>
> That does not strike me as gentle advice, any more on topic than the rest
> of
> the thread, or anything but a personal attack, but as long as we are
> giving
> advice, the best way to make a thread go away is to ignore it.
>
Lest there be any doubt whatsoever, that last post was directed at you as
well! ;-) Don't let the screen door hit your butt as you leave the room!

 

"Hagrinas O.T. Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> continued spewing OT
diatribe when she/he wrote in message
news:9qWdnVX5U_Bdk0LcRVn-qA@giganews.com...
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:FvqdnemSu6ellkLcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
>> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:348bujF1t8rlgU1@individual.net...
>> > Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without
>> > reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no
>> > matter how inappropriate one feels the topic is, will simply not work.
>> >
>> > For instance, when some moron posts spoilers in their subject line
>> > regarding a movie or show I haven't watched yet, I killfile them
>> > without
>> > making a big fuss. All that happens when you try to 'netcop' is a
>> > flame
>> > war. It's not worth it.
>> >
>> > Natalie
>>
>> Sadly, there is no reasoning with the likes of you and your ilk. If you
>> think your meandering diatribe is good for us, then you impose yourself
> upon
>> us. If you have to label something as "OT", has it ever occurred to you
>> that perhaps you should not post it and impose your compulsive obsessive
>> behaviour upon us? No, of course not. Such are the inane ramblings and
>> and
>> selfish motives of your type. "Why should I stop posting off-topic when I
>> can force all the legitimate users of these automotive NewsGroups, to
> filter
>> the topic and killfile all who respond?" I find your demeanor quite
> selfish
>> and your rationale more than just a bit absurd. ;-) Natalie, if I may
> offer
>> some gentle advice, take a walk outside, take a deep breath of fresh air,
>> give your head a shake and then proceed to get a life and move your
> soapbox
>> down the street! If we feel the need to be saved from ourselves, I'm sure
>> that we will be able to find you or someone just like you. Thanks for
> caring
>> about our well being. Now do us all a favor and find a new pulpit. Your
>> welcome is worn out here.
>>
>
> That does not strike me as gentle advice, any more on topic than the rest
> of
> the thread, or anything but a personal attack, but as long as we are
> giving
> advice, the best way to make a thread go away is to ignore it.
>
Lest there be any doubt whatsoever, that last post was directed at you as
well! ;-) Don't let the screen door hit your butt as you leave the room!

 

"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9qWdnVX5U_Bdk0LcRVn-qA@giganews.com...
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:FvqdnemSu6ellkLcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
>> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:348bujF1t8rlgU1@individual.net...
>> > Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without
>> > reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no
>> > matter how inappropriate one feels the topic is, will simply not work.
>> >
>> > For instance, when some moron posts spoilers in their subject line
>> > regarding a movie or show I haven't watched yet, I killfile them without
>> > making a big fuss. All that happens when you try to 'netcop' is a flame
>> > war. It's not worth it.
>> >
>> > Natalie
>>
>> Sadly, there is no reasoning with the likes of you and your ilk. If you
>> think your meandering diatribe is good for us, then you impose yourself
> upon
>> us. If you have to label something as "OT", has it ever occurred to you
>> that perhaps you should not post it and impose your compulsive obsessive
>> behaviour upon us? No, of course not. Such are the inane ramblings and and
>> selfish motives of your type. "Why should I stop posting off-topic when I
>> can force all the legitimate users of these automotive NewsGroups, to
> filter
>> the topic and killfile all who respond?" I find your demeanor quite
> selfish
>> and your rationale more than just a bit absurd. ;-) Natalie, if I may
> offer
>> some gentle advice, take a walk outside, take a deep breath of fresh air,
>> give your head a shake and then proceed to get a life and move your
> soapbox
>> down the street! If we feel the need to be saved from ourselves, I'm sure
>> that we will be able to find you or someone just like you. Thanks for
> caring
>> about our well being. Now do us all a favor and find a new pulpit. Your
>> welcome is worn out here.
>>
>
> That does not strike me as gentle advice, any more on topic than the rest
> of
> the thread, or anything but a personal attack, but as long as we are giving
> advice, the best way to make a thread go away is to ignore it.
>
>
Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can help
you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so amazing I
can hardly believe it. Here is yet another wannabe netcop who's going on the
offensive for something that has been around since the inception of Usenet.
OT netkkkops are always so quick to forget that while a forum may be created
for discussion of a particular subject, it's also another mode of
socialization. I have yet to see any forums that do not allow off-topic
discussion (they try, but to no avail). Most insist that the thread is
marked OT, but that's about it. I really was trying to be nice and maybe a
bit helpful, and as usual, there's a turd in the punchbowl who overreacts and
attacks. He/she/it should just frequent moderated NGs and see all the
netkkkopping anyone could want...

and like all netkkkops, he keeps reading the thread. Go figure.

*rolling eyes*

Natalie

 

"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9qWdnVX5U_Bdk0LcRVn-qA@giganews.com...
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:FvqdnemSu6ellkLcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
>> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:348bujF1t8rlgU1@individual.net...
>> > Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without
>> > reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no
>> > matter how inappropriate one feels the topic is, will simply not work.
>> >
>> > For instance, when some moron posts spoilers in their subject line
>> > regarding a movie or show I haven't watched yet, I killfile them without
>> > making a big fuss. All that happens when you try to 'netcop' is a flame
>> > war. It's not worth it.
>> >
>> > Natalie
>>
>> Sadly, there is no reasoning with the likes of you and your ilk. If you
>> think your meandering diatribe is good for us, then you impose yourself
> upon
>> us. If you have to label something as "OT", has it ever occurred to you
>> that perhaps you should not post it and impose your compulsive obsessive
>> behaviour upon us? No, of course not. Such are the inane ramblings and and
>> selfish motives of your type. "Why should I stop posting off-topic when I
>> can force all the legitimate users of these automotive NewsGroups, to
> filter
>> the topic and killfile all who respond?" I find your demeanor quite
> selfish
>> and your rationale more than just a bit absurd. ;-) Natalie, if I may
> offer
>> some gentle advice, take a walk outside, take a deep breath of fresh air,
>> give your head a shake and then proceed to get a life and move your
> soapbox
>> down the street! If we feel the need to be saved from ourselves, I'm sure
>> that we will be able to find you or someone just like you. Thanks for
> caring
>> about our well being. Now do us all a favor and find a new pulpit. Your
>> welcome is worn out here.
>>
>
> That does not strike me as gentle advice, any more on topic than the rest
> of
> the thread, or anything but a personal attack, but as long as we are giving
> advice, the best way to make a thread go away is to ignore it.
>
>
Hey, he knows all about me. You should listen, since he thinks he can help
you all by ridding Usenet of this OT plague! The irony here is so amazing I
can hardly believe it. Here is yet another wannabe netcop who's going on the
offensive for something that has been around since the inception of Usenet.
OT netkkkops are always so quick to forget that while a forum may be created
for discussion of a particular subject, it's also another mode of
socialization. I have yet to see any forums that do not allow off-topic
discussion (they try, but to no avail). Most insist that the thread is
marked OT, but that's about it. I really was trying to be nice and maybe a
bit helpful, and as usual, there's a turd in the punchbowl who overreacts and
attacks. He/she/it should just frequent moderated NGs and see all the
netkkkopping anyone could want...

and like all netkkkops, he keeps reading the thread. Go figure.

*rolling eyes*

Natalie

 

"Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
news:1eEDd.47$Y86.2766@news.uswest.net...
>
> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:348gprF48aar6U1@individual.net...
>
>> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me
>
> But you are trying to reason with a mind that chose to add an additional
> 204
> off topic words to this thread in an effort to defend the notion of staying
> on topic :^)
>
> You know...."do as I say, not as I do".
>
>
LOL yup

Natalie

 

"Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
news:1eEDd.47$Y86.2766@news.uswest.net...
>
> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:348gprF48aar6U1@individual.net...
>
>> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me
>
> But you are trying to reason with a mind that chose to add an additional
> 204
> off topic words to this thread in an effort to defend the notion of staying
> on topic :^)
>
> You know...."do as I say, not as I do".
>
>
LOL yup

Natalie

 

"Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
news5EDd.46$Y86.2565@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:348833F468eg0U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>> > Huw wrote:
>> >> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>> >>
>> >>>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>> >>>
>> >>>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that cigarettes
> have
>> >>>very dire consequences on ones health. Creating yet another study
> proving
>> >>>that won't help. Educating adolescents is the only solution to
>> >>>smoking,
>> >>>because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other
>> >>>influences.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much
>> >> relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight the
>> >> well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated until now
> by
>> >> millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but it highlights the
>> >> absurd negative press about particulates directed by pressure groups
>> >> against diesel engined cars.
>> >> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create as
> much
>> >> particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>> >>
>> >> Huw
>> > But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with highly
>> > carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>
>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>
>> Huw
>
>
> I am interested in your comment that it "takes about 3.5 modern diesel
> cars
> to create as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette". Based on
> what duration of runtime or miles or gallons of fuel or whatever is a
> cigarette worse than 3.5 diesel automobiles? I'm not arguing, just asking
> for clarification on something that sounds quite extraordinary.
>
>

Oh man! What the hell do I know. I am just commenting with tongue in cheek
on the article posted by Philip. I don't really take it at face value. Draw
your own conclusion from the article.

Huw

 

"Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
news5EDd.46$Y86.2565@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:348833F468eg0U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>> > Huw wrote:
>> >> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>> >>
>> >>>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>> >>>
>> >>>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that cigarettes
> have
>> >>>very dire consequences on ones health. Creating yet another study
> proving
>> >>>that won't help. Educating adolescents is the only solution to
>> >>>smoking,
>> >>>because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other
>> >>>influences.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much
>> >> relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight the
>> >> well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated until now
> by
>> >> millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but it highlights the
>> >> absurd negative press about particulates directed by pressure groups
>> >> against diesel engined cars.
>> >> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create as
> much
>> >> particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>> >>
>> >> Huw
>> > But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with highly
>> > carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>
>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>
>> Huw
>
>
> I am interested in your comment that it "takes about 3.5 modern diesel
> cars
> to create as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette". Based on
> what duration of runtime or miles or gallons of fuel or whatever is a
> cigarette worse than 3.5 diesel automobiles? I'm not arguing, just asking
> for clarification on something that sounds quite extraordinary.
>
>

Oh man! What the hell do I know. I am just commenting with tongue in cheek
on the article posted by Philip. I don't really take it at face value. Draw
your own conclusion from the article.

Huw

 

"Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
news:1eEDd.47$Y86.2766@news.uswest.net...
>
> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:348gprF48aar6U1@individual.net...
>
>> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me
>
> But you are trying to reason with a mind that chose to add an additional
> 204
> off topic words to this thread in an effort to defend the notion of
> staying
> on topic :^)
>
> You know...."do as I say, not as I do".
>
Bradburn! When did you learn to count? Shame on you for not telling Mamma!

 

"Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
news:1eEDd.47$Y86.2766@news.uswest.net...
>
> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:348gprF48aar6U1@individual.net...
>
>> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me
>
> But you are trying to reason with a mind that chose to add an additional
> 204
> off topic words to this thread in an effort to defend the notion of
> staying
> on topic :^)
>
> You know...."do as I say, not as I do".
>
Bradburn! When did you learn to count? Shame on you for not telling Mamma!

 

"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348hi4F48fivkU1@individual.net...
>
> "Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
> news:1eEDd.47$Y86.2766@news.uswest.net...
>>
>> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:348gprF48aar6U1@individual.net...
>>
>>> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me
>>
>> But you are trying to reason with a mind that chose to add an additional
>> 204
>> off topic words to this thread in an effort to defend the notion of
>> staying
>> on topic :^)
>>
>> You know...."do as I say, not as I do".
>>
>>
> LOL yup
>
> Natalie

Nat, don't get too excited that Bradburn agreed with you. His meds haven't
kicked in yet!

 

"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348hi4F48fivkU1@individual.net...
>
> "Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
> news:1eEDd.47$Y86.2766@news.uswest.net...
>>
>> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:348gprF48aar6U1@individual.net...
>>
>>> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me
>>
>> But you are trying to reason with a mind that chose to add an additional
>> 204
>> off topic words to this thread in an effort to defend the notion of
>> staying
>> on topic :^)
>>
>> You know...."do as I say, not as I do".
>>
>>
> LOL yup
>
> Natalie

Nat, don't get too excited that Bradburn agreed with you. His meds haven't
kicked in yet!

 

"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:54adnTeqi_vZkkLcRVn-1A@rogers.com...
> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:348gprF48aar6U1@individual.net...
>> Well, I tried to reason, but you'd rather take shots at me
>
> Natalie, you simply cannot rationalize your propagation of such an
> intrusive topic in an automotive NG. Your persecution complex goes
> hand-in-hand with your intrusive behaviour. Trust your instincts
> grasshopper - if you think you've dragged this string on long enough, you
> probably have!

Lie number one - I never said I was going on too long. You pulled that outta
your ***
>
>>
>> By the way, I didn't even start this thread, so how about lambasting the
>> rest of them while you're at it. Hey, it's lonely down here in the
>> dungeon of your displeasure.
>
> Nat, (May I call you Nat?) you may not have started this thread, but you
> have certainly been keeping it going. Isn't it time to give it up? We all
> know your opinions inside out and we are exhausted.
>
No, you may call me Mrs. Larkowski, and just stop reading it! You can
killfile me and then you don't have to worry about seeing *any* of my
comments. For that matter, kill the others that are contributing to the
thread that you now are keeping alive as well! Sheesh - you will see
off-topic stuff in any unmoderated forum. If it really bothers you that
much, you're in for a lot of grief.
>>
>> Natalie, sighing at the human capacity to attack
>
> Funny how you consider yourself as being attacked, when it is you who
> perpetuate an OT post. We were feeling the same. *sigh*
>
I never personally attacked you, but with that condescending you said
earlier, you certainly attacked me.

OT posts will never disappear from the whole of Usenet. Deal with it, as you
seem to be the only one really upset about it.

Natalie