paul wrote:
> "samovar" <bala@laik.a> wrote in message
> news:1gPoh.47186$9Q1.5040@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>> paul wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ggHoh.12327$X72.12176@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> samovar wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> samovar wrote:
>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <notgenxagain@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:1168314537.842373.119000@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>> paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:eVvoh.7857$pQ3.6538@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>> [re-edited to solve some line break problems]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Set up a program that legalizes it.
>>>>>>>>>>> any of these things can be discussed, but not while the border is
>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>> open.
>>>>>>>>>> Baloney. That's an absurd pre-condition.
>>>>>>>>> then we have nothing to talk about. i've been burned on this issue
>>>>>>>>> before,
>>>>>>>>> and it will not happen again.
>>>>>>>> If you're setting absurd preconditions like that, then you have
>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>> to talk about with anyone - you have thoroughly marginalized
>>>>>>>> yourself
>>>>>>>> right out of the discussion.
>>>>>>> You were so right out of the box, crawl into a corner and DIE you
>>>>>>> motherfucker!
>>>>>> Why don't you try to *make* me die,
>>>>> Oh what a joy that would be too!
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't tempt me....
>>>> I'm telling you right now to put up or shut up, queer.
>>> sammy is an echo from the woods. because of his hate and vitriol, he
>>> really doesn't count.
>>>
>>> paul
>> Oh paul, can't we all just get along?
>
> i really don't think so.

No, there's really no point in trying to get along with
a pure troll like spamovar. I enjoy a bit of usenet
shit-slinging as well as anyone, but that's all
spamovar does. It's all *any* extremist shitbag, but
especially the rightwing extremist shitbags, does.
"Fooled by Folksy Republicans" is an example of the
same thing at the opposite extreme.

A month ago, Earthlink's news servers gave out. No new
posts appeared for over a week, and then only began to
trickle in slowly. I complained about it to Earthlink,
along with some other substantive complaints about
things like overcharging, and a few days back I finally
got a reply. In it, the "executive relations
administrator" informed me that less than 1% of
Earthlink's subscribers use usenet, which explains why
they weren't exactly making the restoration of service
a high priority. But it also helps to explain just how
isolated a hate-spewing, non-contributing jackball like
spamovar is. spamovar already is talking to a tiny
fraction of the population, and within that tiny
fraction he does everything he can to isolate himself
even further. Hilarious!

As viewed from alt.california, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>A month ago, Earthlink's news servers gave out. No new
>posts appeared for over a week, and then only began to
>trickle in slowly. I complained about it to Earthlink,
>along with some other substantive complaints about
>things like overcharging, and a few days back I finally
>got a reply. In it, the "executive relations
>administrator" informed me that less than 1% of
>Earthlink's subscribers use usenet, which explains why
>they weren't exactly making the restoration of service
>a high priority.

I believe it. Most people think that "news" means the
CNN home page. :-O

--
Jafo

paul wrote:
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message

>>> costs of such technologies have been dropping rapidly. technology will
>>> make higher risk immaterial. we also need to put corporate big whigs in
>>> jail for hiring illegal workers. this act alone will dramatically reduce
>>> the huge numbers of border crossers.

>> You keep doing this.
>> You try soooo hard to say you're not just another bigot.
>> But then you slip up like this, and reveal your *true* agenda.

> and you can refer to an accomplished woman as a "house nigger" and think you
> are not a racist.

It's common for garbage like you to justify your bigotry by
anonymously accusing everyone else of being a bigot, too.

 
"Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:4dUoh.32859$Gr2.10365@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> paul wrote:
>> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>
>>>> costs of such technologies have been dropping rapidly. technology will
>>>> make higher risk immaterial. we also need to put corporate big whigs in
>>>> jail for hiring illegal workers. this act alone will dramatically
>>>> reduce the huge numbers of border crossers.
>
>>> You keep doing this.
>>> You try soooo hard to say you're not just another bigot.
>>> But then you slip up like this, and reveal your *true* agenda.
>
>> and you can refer to an accomplished woman as a "house nigger" and think
>> you are not a racist.
>
> It's common for garbage like you to justify your bigotry by anonymously
> accusing everyone else of being a bigot, too.

its not anonymous. i don't hide who i am, and everyone knows who you are.
you are throwing bullshit words like anonymous to try to indict others to
hide your own damn shame. you are one low son of a bitch. stand up and be a
man... for ONCE in your life. admit you fucked up and said a bunch of racist
bullshit and that it was wrong. don't try to put it off on me, you little
piece of racist garbage!

there is NOTHING honorable about you. look up "meally mouthed weasel
bastard" in the encyclopedia. it has your picture there.


sam is a real asshole, and is totally unredeemable. so are you. you could be
sams brother. hell, if anything you are worse than sam. at least sam's not a
racist, and he's nowhere near the coward that you are.

Jafo wrote:
> As viewed from alt.california, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>A month ago, Earthlink's news servers gave out. No new
>>posts appeared for over a week, and then only began to
>>trickle in slowly. I complained about it to Earthlink,
>>along with some other substantive complaints about
>>things like overcharging, and a few days back I finally
>>got a reply. In it, the "executive relations
>>administrator" informed me that less than 1% of
>>Earthlink's subscribers use usenet, which explains why
>>they weren't exactly making the restoration of service
>>a high priority.
>
>
> I believe it. Most people think that "news" means the
> CNN home page. :-O

It's funny, though. UseNet used to scare the crap out of politicians and
especially out of the MSM. Now they're all raving about "the
blogosphere" as if it were something positive. To them, it is; they very
commonly own the servers and can get content deleted which offends them
or which runs contrary to their editorial platform.



--
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
A true Conservative isn't about to let
the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:12:38 -0500, T Jr Hardman
<blockspam_thardman@thomashardman.com> wrote:

>Jafo wrote:
>> As viewed from alt.california, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A month ago, Earthlink's news servers gave out. No new
>>>posts appeared for over a week, and then only began to
>>>trickle in slowly. I complained about it to Earthlink,
>>>along with some other substantive complaints about
>>>things like overcharging, and a few days back I finally
>>>got a reply. In it, the "executive relations
>>>administrator" informed me that less than 1% of
>>>Earthlink's subscribers use usenet, which explains why
>>>they weren't exactly making the restoration of service
>>>a high priority.
>>
>>
>> I believe it. Most people think that "news" means the
>> CNN home page. :-O
>
>It's funny, though. UseNet used to scare the crap out of politicians and
>especially out of the MSM. Now they're all raving about "the
>blogosphere" as if it were something positive. To them, it is; they very
>commonly own the servers and can get content deleted which offends them
>or which runs contrary to their editorial platform.

Like the blog that Tom DeLay started? That was so funny how he took it
down and deleted all of the comments that were against him so fast. It
was great.

paul wrote:
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message

>> It's common for garbage like you to justify your bigotry by anonymously
>> accusing everyone else of being a bigot, too.
>
> its not anonymous. i don't hide who i am, and everyone knows who you are.
> you are throwing bullshit words like anonymous to try to indict others to


Blah, blah, blah.
What does any of that have to do with your hatred and fear of
Mexicans?


--
It's no wonder you post anonymously.
You're a coward and would never say this crap under your own name.

T Jr Hardman wrote:

> It's funny, though. UseNet used to scare the crap out of politicians and
> especially out of the MSM. Now they're all raving about "the
> blogosphere" as if it were something positive. To them, it is; they very
> commonly own the servers and can get content deleted which offends them
> or which runs contrary to their editorial platform.

That's not how usenet works.
It doesn't matter WHO owns the servers.
Once it's published on Usenet, there's no way to unpublish it.

However, it's common for sociopaths such as yourself to imagine
all kinds of conspiracies against you from unnamed threats,
doing impossible things, and for no obvious reason.

Graphic Queen wrote:

> Like the blog that Tom DeLay started? That was so funny how he took it
> down and deleted all of the comments that were against him so fast. It
> was great.

It's funny to see you right-wingers trashing each other -
especially over matters of character.

Waiving the right to remain silent, Sanders Kaufman <bucky@kaufman.net> said:

> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>
>> It's funny, though. UseNet used to scare the crap out of politicians and
>> especially out of the MSM. Now they're all raving about "the
>> blogosphere" as if it were something positive. To them, it is; they very
>> commonly own the servers and can get content deleted which offends them
>> or which runs contrary to their editorial platform.
>
> That's not how usenet works.
> It doesn't matter WHO owns the servers.
> Once it's published on Usenet, there's no way to unpublish it.

But he's referring to "blogs," which are on web servers, which are subject to
the whims of the operators.

HTH...

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"I've come here to enjoy nature. Don't talk to me
about the environment!" - 'Denny Crane'

Larry in AZ wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, Sanders Kaufman <bucky@kaufman.net> said:
>> T Jr Hardman wrote:

>>> It's funny, though. UseNet used to scare the crap out of politicians and
>>> especially out of the MSM. Now they're all raving about "the
>>> blogosphere" as if it were something positive. To them, it is; they very
>>> commonly own the servers and can get content deleted which offends them
>>> or which runs contrary to their editorial platform.

>> That's not how usenet works.
>> It doesn't matter WHO owns the servers.
>> Once it's published on Usenet, there's no way to unpublish it.

> But he's referring to "blogs," which are on web servers, which are subject to
> the whims of the operators.

He incorrectly referred to Usenet as part of the "blogosphere".
It is not.

Very recently, here in "TX.POLITICS", we experienced a flurry of
cancellation messages. There's a spammer trying to figure out
how to spam Usenet - but his messages keep getting cancelled by
his ISP before they get out.

This leads folks like him, predisposed to believe in shadowy
conspiracies, to think there's some evil big brother nefariously
censoring the content.

As viewed from alt.california, Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>Larry in AZ wrote:
>>Sanders Kaufman said:
>>>T Jr Hardman wrote:
>>>>It's funny, though. UseNet used to scare the crap out of
>>>>politicians and especially out of the MSM. Now they're all
>>>>raving about "the blogosphere" as if it were something positive.
>>>>To them, it is; they very commonly own the servers and can get
>>>>content deleted which offends them or which runs contrary to
>>>>their editorial platform.

>>>That's not how usenet works. It doesn't matter WHO owns the
>>>servers. Once it's published on Usenet, there's no way to
>>>unpublish it.

>>But he's referring to "blogs," which are on web servers, which are
>>subject to the whims of the operators.

>He incorrectly referred to Usenet as part of the "blogosphere".

No, he didn't. Once again you interpret what's written in front
of you, and run it through the filter of your own agenda. He was
referring to the perception of the politicians, who, as we all know,
are basically clueless.

--
Jafo

"The Internet is one of the best tools around for getting on the
Net." -Bob Dole

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>
>> It's funny, though. UseNet used to scare the crap out of politicians
>> and especially out of the MSM. Now they're all raving about "the
>> blogosphere" as if it were something positive. To them, it is; they
>> very commonly own the servers and can get content deleted which
>> offends them or which runs contrary to their editorial platform.
>
>
> That's not how usenet works.
> It doesn't matter WHO owns the servers.
> Once it's published on Usenet, there's no way to unpublish it.

I know that. I've run instances of innd, and have overseen global
satellite distribution of UseNet as well as other content when I worked
for Cidera, Inc, which at one time was one of the largest nexi of UseNet
redistribution.


> However, it's common for sociopaths such as yourself to imagine all
> kinds of conspiracies against you from unnamed threats, doing impossible
> things, and for no obvious reason.

It's common for insane people with meningal infections to not read a
post correctly, and think that it says something it doesn't say, and the
scream up a tissy fit over something that was never said.

Saunders, go see your physician. You appear to be having a relapse.

BTW... apparently you weren't paying any attention to the traffic on
news:news.admin.net-abuse.usenet back when the cancelspews were ongoing.
See also from google 'cancelmoose" and "nocem", not to mention HipCrime.

Next time you feel like responding to something, actually know WTF
you're talking about.

And try to understand the difference between "the blogosphere" which is
generally served via HTTP protocol on port 80, and UseNet which operated
on NNTP on port 119. One is a web-based application with generally a
single source, and UseNet is distributed and mostly as part of the
original function of the InterNet, which was to enable assured
communications even after nuclear strikes at multiple points on the
network. Turning off UseNet is awful difficult unless you can convince a
lot of network engineers that it's a good idea to pull the plugs.
Turning off a blog is the work of one power-switch, one delete key, or
one bucket of water. It's one of the reasons I prefer UseNet; anyone who
wants what I have to say will get what I have to say, regardless of what
the mainstream media, or most planetary governments for that matter,
would prefer.



--
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
A true Conservative isn't about to let
the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Larry in AZ wrote:
>
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, Sanders Kaufman
>> <bucky@kaufman.net> said:
>>
>>> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>
>
>>>> It's funny, though. UseNet used to scare the crap out of politicians
>>>> and especially out of the MSM. Now they're all raving about "the
>>>> blogosphere" as if it were something positive. To them, it is; they
>>>> very commonly own the servers and can get content deleted which
>>>> offends them or which runs contrary to their editorial platform.
>
>
>>> That's not how usenet works.
>>> It doesn't matter WHO owns the servers.
>>> Once it's published on Usenet, there's no way to unpublish it.
>
>
>> But he's referring to "blogs," which are on web servers, which are
>> subject to the whims of the operators.
>
>
> He incorrectly referred to Usenet as part of the "blogosphere".
> It is not.
>
> Very recently, here in "TX.POLITICS", we experienced a flurry of
> cancellation messages. There's a spammer trying to figure out how to
> spam Usenet - but his messages keep getting cancelled by his ISP before
> they get out.
>
> This leads folks like him, predisposed to believe in shadowy
> conspiracies, to think there's some evil big brother nefariously
> censoring the content.

See also HipCrime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipcrime_%28Usenet%29

<quote in-part>

HipCrime refers both to the screenname of a Usenet vandal and software
distributed by, and presumably written by, this individual. The name
derives from a neologism in the John Brunner SF novel Stand on Zanzibar.

HipCrime's Newsagent[1] software is a free and open source Usenet
control client. The program is written in Java and allows the user to
auto-cancel any messages on Usenet based on author, subject,
organization, message-iD, or path. It also allows the user to replace
the body of any message with text of their choosing. The software also
monitors any posts you choose and reposts them if they are removed[2].
Additionally, it allows regular users to act as Usenet Administrators
and create (or remove) entire newsgroups.

CA Inc. has classified this as denial of service software, as well as
flooder software, a specific type of denial of service attack[3]

Spamfaq: Part 3: Understanding NANAE.

HipCrime is also given credit for creating the earliest web-distributed
spambot by Andrew Leonard in his book Bots: The Origin of New
Species[4]. This bot, known as HipCrime's ActiveAgent[5], was a Java
applet which allowed anybody with a web browser to send mass volumes of
unsolicited e-mail messages. The ActiveAgent has since been expanded
into an open source application and is relied upon heavily by the
largest e-mail spam gangs.

</quote>

Saunders, have I ever mentioned that you quite honestly don't know shit?


--
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
A true Conservative isn't about to let
the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.

Waiving the right to remain silent, Sanders Kaufman <bucky@kaufman.net>
said:

> Larry in AZ wrote:
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, Sanders Kaufman <bucky@kaufman.net>
>> said:
>>> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>
>>>> It's funny, though. UseNet used to scare the crap out of politicians
>>>> and especially out of the MSM. Now they're all raving about "the
>>>> blogosphere" as if it were something positive. To them, it is; they
>>>> very commonly own the servers and can get content deleted which
>>>> offends them or which runs contrary to their editorial platform.
>
>>> That's not how usenet works.
>>> It doesn't matter WHO owns the servers.
>>> Once it's published on Usenet, there's no way to unpublish it.
>
>> But he's referring to "blogs," which are on web servers, which are
>> subject to the whims of the operators.
>
> He incorrectly referred to Usenet as part of the "blogosphere".
> It is not.

No, he didn't. Read and understand what he said...

"It's funny, though. UseNet used to scare the crap out of politicians
and especially out of the MSM. Now they're all raving about "the
blogosphere as if it were something positive."

He treats them as separate entities.

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"I've come here to enjoy nature. Don't talk to me
about the environment!" - 'Denny Crane'

 
"Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:jXUoh.14578$yC5.10356@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Graphic Queen wrote:
>
>> Like the blog that Tom DeLay started? That was so funny how he took it
>> down and deleted all of the comments that were against him so fast. It
>> was great.
>
> It's funny to see you right-wingers trashing each other - especially over
> matters of character.

"character" = a subject that you have no clue about. go fight with sam. you
two deserve each other.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Larry in AZ wrote:
>
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, Sanders Kaufman
>> <bucky@kaufman.net> said:
>>
>>> T Jr Hardman wrote:
>
>
>>>> It's funny, though. UseNet used to scare the crap out of politicians
>>>> and especially out of the MSM. Now they're all raving about "the
>>>> blogosphere" as if it were something positive. To them, it is; they
>>>> very commonly own the servers and can get content deleted which
>>>> offends them or which runs contrary to their editorial platform.
>
>
>>> That's not how usenet works.
>>> It doesn't matter WHO owns the servers.
>>> Once it's published on Usenet, there's no way to unpublish it.
>
>
>> But he's referring to "blogs," which are on web servers, which are
>> subject to the whims of the operators.
>
>
> He incorrectly referred to Usenet as part of the "blogosphere".
> It is not.

You are in fact a dundering chowderhead.

Read it again.

1. The MSM used to extremely opposed to the InterNet, especially to
UseNet. It was initially demonized as the lair of militia wackoes, nazi
extremists, pedophiles, and terrorists.

2. The MSM started putting up websites, many of which had cgi-bin
interfaces to allow non-admins to post content. These eventually became
known as "web logs" and eventually as "blogs". Perhaps the majority of
sites which have blogging features are owned fully or partially by the MSM.

3. When the MSM are raving the wonders of "the blogosphere", they are
tooting their own horn.

4. When the MSM are raving of the wonders of "the blogosphere", they are
quite happy to be sending people to site they own and fully control and
from which they may derive considerable advertising revenue as well as
being able to suggest topics and/or delete content along the lines of
their editors political persuasions and/or agendas.

5. You are a fool, technologically ignorant, a hairy savage scratching
his lice in the back of his cave and trying to discuss the finer points
of fire in general with someone who, to continue the allegory, builds
only the most modern and efficient of furnaces. You don't have the
concept, you don't have the words, you do not have the intellect and you
are incapable of having a discussion with people who are vastly your
superior. You should run headlong into the nearest rock wall because at
least we won't have to be annoyed by you for a while after that, but
unfortunately since your head is nearly solid bone, all too soon you'll
be back to waste our goddamn time again.

6. ESAD.





--
http://thomashardman.com/ Centrist, Moderate, Republican in Maryland
A true Conservative isn't about to let
the enemies of America ruin his streams for Trout.

 
"Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:PRUoh.14576$yC5.1882@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> paul wrote:
>> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>
>>> It's common for garbage like you to justify your bigotry by anonymously
>>> accusing everyone else of being a bigot, too.
>>
>> its not anonymous. i don't hide who i am, and everyone knows who you are.
>> you are throwing bullshit words like anonymous to try to indict others to
>
>
> Blah, blah, blah.
> What does any of that have to do with your hatred and fear of Mexicans?
>
>
> --
> It's no wonder you post anonymously.
> You're a coward and would never say this crap under your own name.

you are a spastic wonder too. i have posted my personal website. i have
invited the entire newsgroup out to meet me, and have met with some of the
most liberal members of az.politics. everyone who cares and pays attention
knows who i am and how to reach me. are you planning to travel to arizona
soon? i'm sure we could make an arangement.

like i said before. go fight with sam. you two make a good match. sam the
hater, and sanders the lying racist coward. what a team you make.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:19:27 -0700, "paul" <riever@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>news:jXUoh.14578$yC5.10356@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> Graphic Queen wrote:
>>
>>> Like the blog that Tom DeLay started? That was so funny how he took it
>>> down and deleted all of the comments that were against him so fast. It
>>> was great.
>>
>> It's funny to see you right-wingers trashing each other - especially over
>> matters of character.
>
>"character" = a subject that you have no clue about. go fight with sam. you
>two deserve each other.
>
Sanders is replying to me? How funny since the asswipe is in my kill
file.You are right though. Character is definitely something he would
not understand at all, not to mention the fact that I am not a right
winger but he calls anyone who disagrees with him that. That would be
because he can't and won't think for himself and only knows what to
post by reading or hearing what the liberal leaders tell him to say.

T Jr Hardman wrote:

> And try to understand the difference between "the blogosphere" which is
> generally served via HTTP protocol on port 80, and UseNet which operated
> on NNTP on port 119. One is a web-based application with generally a
> single source, and UseNet is distributed and mostly as part of the

I realized you're pretty impressed with what you know about the
internet. But really dude - most of us here in this newsgroup
are techies - and we know all this basic crap.

You used the terms "Usenet" and "blogosphere" interchangeably.
For this community - that's just dumb.

You just go to show how even techie bigots, are still idiots.

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:49:02 -0800, Jafo <a@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>As viewed from alt.california, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>
>>Larry in AZ wrote:
>>>Sanders Kaufman said:
>>>>T Jr Hardman wrote:
>>>>>It's funny, though. UseNet used to scare the crap out of
>>>>>politicians and especially out of the MSM. Now they're all
>>>>>raving about "the blogosphere" as if it were something positive.
>>>>>To them, it is; they very commonly own the servers and can get
>>>>>content deleted which offends them or which runs contrary to
>>>>>their editorial platform.
>
>>>>That's not how usenet works. It doesn't matter WHO owns the
>>>>servers. Once it's published on Usenet, there's no way to
>>>>unpublish it.
>
>>>But he's referring to "blogs," which are on web servers, which are
>>>subject to the whims of the operators.
>
>>He incorrectly referred to Usenet as part of the "blogosphere".
>
>No, he didn't. Once again you interpret what's written in front
>of you, and run it through the filter of your own agenda. He was
>referring to the perception of the politicians, who, as we all know,
>are basically clueless.

You can't expect Sanders to post anything that is intelligent do you?
He is clueless himself and is so ignorant and uneducated and this post
damn well proves it. He has definite reading comprehension problems,
via the lack of education he has.

T Jr Hardman wrote:

> HipCrime's Newsagent[1] software is a free and open source Usenet
> control client. The program is written in Java and allows the user to
> auto-cancel any messages on Usenet based on author, subject,
> organization, message-iD, or path. It also allows the user to replace
> the body of any message with text of their choosing. The software also
> monitors any posts you choose and reposts them if they are removed[2].
> Additionally, it allows regular users to act as Usenet Administrators
> and create (or remove) entire newsgroups.

Actually, it only *claims* to do that. One of your fellow White
Supremists tried to use it against my posts and, as you can
plainly see, it didn't work. Instead of canceling my posts, his
ISP canceled his account.

You really need to stop buying into marketing slogans.
Especially the ones from Open Sores developers. It's just puffery.

paul wrote:
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message

>> It's no wonder you post anonymously.
>> You're a coward and would never say this crap under your own name.
>
> you are a spastic wonder too. i have posted my personal website. i have
> invited the entire newsgroup out to meet me, and have met with some of the

It doesn't count when you do it anonymously.

 
"Graphic Queen" <pagan@pagan.com> wrote in message
news:kvc8q29u0sjfpube58k9bjbuki5ab9nnbi@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:19:27 -0700, "paul" <riever@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>>news:jXUoh.14578$yC5.10356@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Graphic Queen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Like the blog that Tom DeLay started? That was so funny how he took it
>>>> down and deleted all of the comments that were against him so fast. It
>>>> was great.
>>>
>>> It's funny to see you right-wingers trashing each other - especially
>>> over
>>> matters of character.
>>
>>"character" = a subject that you have no clue about. go fight with sam.
>>you
>>two deserve each other.
>>
> Sanders is replying to me? How funny since the asswipe is in my kill
> file.You are right though. Character is definitely something he would
> not understand at all, not to mention the fact that I am not a right
> winger but he calls anyone who disagrees with him that. That would be
> because he can't and won't think for himself and only knows what to
> post by reading or hearing what the liberal leaders tell him to say.

i can attest that you are not a right winger. i have disagreed with you on
things in the past. it has always had a degree of civility and dignity. you
have a good read on bucky though. he's a racist little pig who defends
himself by accusing those who caught him with his racist rant of being
racists themselves. in my mind that is the definition of cowardice.

paul

As viewed from alt.california, Sanders Kaufman made a fool of himself
by writing:

>T Jr Hardman wrote:
>>And try to understand the difference between "the blogosphere"
>>which is generally served via HTTP protocol on port 80, and
>>UseNet which operated on NNTP on port 119. One is a web-based
>>application with generally a single source, and UseNet is
>>distributed and mostly as part of the

>I realized you're pretty impressed with what you know about the
>internet. But really dude - most of us here in this newsgroup
>are techies - and we know all this basic crap.
>
>You used the terms "Usenet" and "blogosphere" interchangeably.

ROTFLMAO! Once again: No, he didn't.

*Read* his fuckin' words, asshole.

--
Jafo