>>>> ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 29/10/2009 5:17 PM:
>>>>> You would make rich pickings for a shrink. >>>> The shrink that can cope with me is not yet born. >>> Boy, you spilled a bib full there, Noonsie. You are admitting that your >>> case is so bad that orthodox medicine and/or psychotherapy cannot help >>> you.
>>> I'd agree with that, based on your overall pugilistically antagonistic >>> attitude displayed on this group.
>>> What you need is nothing less than an exorcism. Go see a priest >>> forthwith. >> If this is what you consider "taking the high road", then you're a bigger >> jerk than I gave you credit for.
> First, Mr Nebenzahl, You are butting in on a dialogue between Noons and > myself, and I don't recall inviting you to insert your penny's worth. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
> It is NOT a dialogue between Noons and ColinD; it is posted on Usenet, and > shoved down the bandwidth of everyone who subscribes to this newsgroup! If > it were a private conversation you would be using email between the two of > you, and no one else would be subjected to this drivel that belongs in the > schoolyard at recess. > BTW, your response is "Sez you!"
Thank you for your input into this debate. Unfortunately you are wrong in what you say above.
The only bandwidth penalty is that required to bring down the header, well under 100 bytes.
Your bandwidth usage increases only if you open the post and bring down the contents. You will agree that that is entirely a voluntary decision resting on your shoulders, as is the case when you open any post, not just mine.
And compared to some of the threads in here running to more than 200 posts, my input is infinitesimal.
Of course, it's like a fight, two contestants and and a hundred onlookers. Human nature.
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 1/11/2009 1:30 AM:
> Nothing wrong with my memory. Not only have you wished bad health on > me, you've often stated that you're the one who would like to > administer it.
In your case, a good clip around the ears is not a health issue: it's a health improvement.
ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 2/11/2009 9:50 AM:
> The only bandwidth penalty is that required to bring down the header, > well under 100 bytes. > Your bandwidth usage increases only if you open the post and bring down > the contents. You will agree that that is entirely a voluntary decision > resting on your shoulders, as is the case when you open any post, not > just mine.
See, KW? He knows a lot as well about the Usenet and how you use it. In particular, that your bandwidth decreases when you open a message. If only he had taught all network experts that pearl of wisdom! Together with all the other subjects in which he's an expert, of course. One wonders with such a wide range of abilities, what the heck is he doing scamming his second rate digital gear on the Usenet: what a waste of talent!
Ah well, such is this world...
> And compared to some of the threads in here running to more than 200 > posts, my input is infinitesimal.
we could only wish...
> Of course, it's like a fight, two contestants and and a hundred > onlookers. Human nature.
BWAHAHAHA!
> I don't get the 'sez you' remark
together with a lot of other things you don't get...
Noons wrote: > ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 2/11/2009 9:50 AM:
>> The only bandwidth penalty is that required to bring down the header, >> well under 100 bytes. >> Your bandwidth usage increases only if you open the post and bring >> down the contents. You will agree that that is entirely a voluntary >> decision resting on your shoulders, as is the case when you open any >> post, not just mine.
> See, KW? He knows a lot as well about the Usenet and how you use it. > In particular, that your bandwidth decreases when you open a message. > If only he had taught all network experts that pearl of wisdom!
Noons, what don't you understand about "Your bandwidth usage *increases* only if you open the post and bring down the contents."? Read it again, and again, until your mind finally grasps the fact that you misread my statement. Probably bamboozled by proper English without the epithets.
Clearly, you were so hell-bent on finding something to rubbish me with that you made a stupid mistake that a five-year-old wouldn't have done.
A reasonable person would apologise for that error - but in your case I won't hold my breath.
> Together with all the other subjects in which he's an expert, of > course. One wonders with such a wide range of abilities, what the heck > is he doing scamming his second rate digital gear on the Usenet: what a > waste of talent!
A typical belligerent Noons remark, no truth in it and designed to offend. Classic Noons.
> Ah well, such is this world...
unfortunately with you in it, Noonsie, I have to agree.
>> And compared to some of the threads in here running to more than 200 >> posts, my input is infinitesimal.
> we could only wish...
>> Of course, it's like a fight, two contestants and and a hundred >> onlookers. Human nature.
> BWAHAHAHA!
What's to laugh at, Moron? It's a perfectly reasonable statement. Do you usually shriek with laughter at ordinary remarks?
>> I don't get the 'sez you' remark
> together with a lot of other things you don't get...
After your little effort above, you can talk .. NOT.
On Nov 2, 9:12 pm, ColinD <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Noons, what don't you understand about "Your bandwidth usage *increases* > only if you open the post and bring down the contents."? Read it again, > and again, until your mind finally grasps the fact that you misread my > statement. Probably bamboozled by proper English without the epithets.
Bandwidth is a constant of the connection, genius. Usage is what you do with the connection, regardless of bandwidth. Bandwidth only changes if you get shaped or there is a comms hiccup. Your usage changes: the amount of data you are metered for. Bandwidth has nothing to do with that other than time. But don't let a simple fact spoil your hazy dreams. It sounds kewl to use the word "bandwidth" together with usage, doesn't it?
> unfortunately with you in it, Noonsie, I have to agree.
and there is preciously nothing you and your cohort of troll friends can do about it. Ain't it exasperating? Ah yes: the emails. As if...
> What's to laugh at, Moron? It's a perfectly reasonable statement. Do > you usually shriek with laughter at ordinary remarks?
No, only at deranged and demented comments.
> After your little effort above, you can talk .. NOT.
I can always talk, Colon. Always. Get that through your thick mind.
Noons wrote: > On Nov 2, 9:12 pm, ColinD <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Noons, what don't you understand about "Your bandwidth usage *increases* >> only if you open the post and bring down the contents."? Read it again, >> and again, until your mind finally grasps the fact that you misread my >> statement. Probably bamboozled by proper English without the epithets.
> Bandwidth is a constant of the connection, genius.
Of course, Noonsie. I said nothing about bandwidth per se (that means 'by itself')
> Usage is what you do with the connection, regardless of bandwidth.
Of course, again. Didn't I say 'bandwidth usage'? ??
> Bandwidth only changes if you get shaped or there is a comms hiccup. > Your usage changes: the amount of data you are metered for.
Exactly. and *usage* is what KW was complaining about.
> Bandwidth has nothing to do with that other than time.
Of course, for the third time. Most people's connections are fast enough that time ceases to be a factor when they download data from the net. USAGE is what counts, because you pay for that, and that is what KW was meaning. Get it now, Noonshit?? (probably not, I imagine)
> But don't let a simple fact spoil your hazy dreams.
The only simple fact here is your mind, Noonso.
> It sounds kewl to use the word "bandwidth" together with usage, > doesn't it?
Maybe to your laboured mind, weary from putting two words together. To anyone else, it's just a phrase. Get over it, take an aspirin or something.
You removed a relevant sentence of yours here. Are you wriggling again, Noonswot? Here, I'll put it in again for you. Noonslop wrote:
>>> "Ah well, such is this world..."
>> unfortunately with you in it, Noonsie, I have to agree.
>>> and there is preciously nothing you and your cohort of troll friends >>> can do about it. Ain't it exasperating?
There is nothing to be done, or can be done. It was an observation, Noons, nothing more. Boy, you sure are hell-bent on making arguments, aren't you. Better see that shrink I mentioned earlier.
> Ah yes: the emails. As if... ?
That email remark was made by KW, not me. Why bring it up here, other than to reinforce your abysmal lack of comprehension skills?
Oops, Noonsie, another slip; you left out this relevant piece as well:
>>> "Of course, it's like a fight, two contestants and and a hundred >>> onlookers. Human nature. >>> BWAHAHAHA!"
>> What's to laugh at, Moron? It's a perfectly reasonable statement. Do >> you usually shriek with laughter at ordinary remarks?
> No, only at deranged and demented comments.
You can't tell the difference between reasonable and deranged?
>> After your little effort above, you can talk .. NOT.
> I can always talk, Colon. Always. Get that through your thick mind.
Sure. Talk is cheap, Noonswallop, and your talk is even cheaper. When (if ever) your mouthings contain useful information, I'll congratulate you.
ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 3/11/2009 11:16 AM:
> Of course, again. Didn't I say 'bandwidth usage'? > ??
Yes, you did. And wrongly. But don't let that stop you further down from denying you said it.
> Exactly. and *usage* is what KW was complaining about.
Make up your mind, Colon: is it "bandwidth usage" or "usage" now?
KW complained about usage of his total capacity. After which he gets shaped.
Nothing to do with your "bandwidth". Capice, or is it all too hard?
Stay with me here: no "bandwidth". It's "usage". Got it?
> USAGE is what counts, because you pay for that, and that is what KW was > meaning. Get it now, Noonshit?? (probably not, I imagine)
You on the other hand, said "bandwidth usage". Which makes no sense. Check it out at the top, the first quote from you. Your words, Colon. Not mine.
> The only simple fact here is your mind, Noonso.
Exactly. That is why it doesn't fail. KISS. You on the other hand, are so over the capacity of your single neuron, it's frightening...
> Maybe to your laboured mind, weary from putting two words together.
It sounds kewl to you to use the word "bandwidth" together with "usage" as if it meant something, doesn't it?
> To
> anyone else, it's just a phrase.
Yes, and a nonsense one. That's why you are the *only* one still using it.
> Get over it, take an aspirin or > something.
I'm well over it. You on the other hand, have kept digging your grave. Be my guest.
> There is nothing to be done, or can be done. It was an observation, > Noons, nothing more. Boy, you sure are hell-bent on making arguments, > aren't you. Better see that shrink I mentioned earlier.
For someone who has done nothing but argue nonsense, you have a lot of nerve calling others. But then again, that is the hallmark of the low-life troll and you are certainly in that class.
> That email remark was made by KW, not me. Why bring it up here, other > than to reinforce your abysmal lack of comprehension skills?
To hammer your thick head with it. Why, isn't it clear?
> You can't tell the difference between reasonable and deranged?
Why should I? All I have to do is point out nonsense, uninformed, deranged remarks such as yours.
> Sure. Talk is cheap, Noonswallop, and your talk is even cheaper. When > (if ever) your mouthings contain useful information, I'll congratulate you.
I'd consider a personal failure any reason for a "congratulation" from a low-life uninformed troll such as you, Colon.
|
