Unbelievable, Easy News trashes arbitrary message bodies from Perl groups

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by sln@netherlands.com, May 3, 2009.

  1. Guest

    I forgot to tell you. The message headers are on your server. The body of the message
    is no longer available. Is that something new, sort of latent body distribution in the Usenet
    arena? Maybe comes 30 minutes later?

    You knew the intent of my message. Unless there is some sort of unique "Header Servers" and
    "Body Servers".

    -me
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: me
    To:
    Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 2:20 PM
    Subject: Re: [Ticket #825385] '[Sorry. This message is no longer available.]'


    So let me get this straight.

    I originate a post to/on EasyNews servers, it gets posted to Usenet but doesen't
    hit your YOUR server for 30 minutes?

    Thats not even possible. This is a some other problem.

    I'm very unhappy with your service. I am looking into a different provider.

    -me
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Support via RT
    To: me
    Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 1:57 PM
    Subject: [Ticket #825385] '[Sorry. This message is no longer available.]'


    Hello,

    Posts normally take in the order of 30 minutes to appear on our servers,
    though they do make it out to Usenet sooner than this. We have plans to
    implement a posting-oriented server for people who value speed, but at
    the moment, posts simply take a bit to appear. Please let us know if you
    have any questions or concerns.


    Easynews Support Team
     
    , May 3, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nathan Keel Guest

    wrote:

    > I forgot to tell you. The message headers are on your server. The body
    > of the message is no longer available. Is that something new, sort of
    > latent body distribution in the Usenet arena? Maybe comes 30 minutes
    > later?
    >


    Let me ask you, why in the world do you think all of the views of this
    group care about your whining and complaints about your nntp provider?
    Go away.
     
    Nathan Keel, May 3, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Sun, 03 May 2009 15:04:48 -0700, Nathan Keel <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >> I forgot to tell you. The message headers are on your server. The body
    >> of the message is no longer available. Is that something new, sort of
    >> latent body distribution in the Usenet arena? Maybe comes 30 minutes
    >> later?
    >>

    >
    >Let me ask you, why in the world do you think all of the views of this
    >group care about your whining and complaints about your nntp provider?
    >Go away.


    Hey, **** OFF ASSHOLE. GOT THAT SCUMBAG ??????????????????????????????????????

    -sln
     
    , May 4, 2009
    #3
  4. Nathan Keel Guest

    wrote:

    > On Sun, 03 May 2009 15:04:48 -0700, Nathan Keel <> wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I forgot to tell you. The message headers are on your server. The
    >>> body of the message is no longer available. Is that something new,
    >>> sort of latent body distribution in the Usenet arena? Maybe comes 30
    >>> minutes later?
    >>>

    >>
    >>Let me ask you, why in the world do you think all of the views of this
    >>group care about your whining and complaints about your nntp provider?
    >>Go away.

    >
    > Hey, **** OFF ASSHOLE. GOT THAT SCUMBAG
    > ??????????????????????????????????????
    >
    > -sln


    X-Complaints-To:
     
    Nathan Keel, May 4, 2009
    #4
  5. Guest

    On Sun, 03 May 2009 18:58:00 -0700, Nathan Keel <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 03 May 2009 15:04:48 -0700, Nathan Keel <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I forgot to tell you. The message headers are on your server. The
    >>>> body of the message is no longer available. Is that something new,
    >>>> sort of latent body distribution in the Usenet arena? Maybe comes 30
    >>>> minutes later?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Let me ask you, why in the world do you think all of the views of this
    >>>group care about your whining and complaints about your nntp provider?
    >>>Go away.

    >>
    >> Hey, **** OFF ASSHOLE. GOT THAT SCUMBAG
    >> ??????????????????????????????????????
    >>
    >> -sln

    >
    >X-Complaints-To:


    I am cancelling EasyNews for thier rotten service.

    On top of that, I am going to find you scumbag and knock you down and kick the shit out of you !!
    Look for it

    -sln
     
    , May 4, 2009
    #5
  6. rabbits77 Guest

    Re: Unbelievable, Easy News trashes arbitrary message bodies fromPerl groups

    wrote:
    > On Sun, 03 May 2009 18:58:00 -0700, Nathan Keel <> wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 03 May 2009 15:04:48 -0700, Nathan Keel <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I forgot to tell you. The message headers are on your server. The
    >>>>> body of the message is no longer available. Is that something new,
    >>>>> sort of latent body distribution in the Usenet arena? Maybe comes 30
    >>>>> minutes later?
    >>>>>
    >>>> Let me ask you, why in the world do you think all of the views of this
    >>>> group care about your whining and complaints about your nntp provider?
    >>>> Go away.
    >>> Hey, **** OFF ASSHOLE. GOT THAT SCUMBAG
    >>> ??????????????????????????????????????
    >>>
    >>> -sln

    >> X-Complaints-To:

    >
    > I am cancelling EasyNews for thier rotten service.
    >
    > On top of that, I am going to find you scumbag and knock you down and kick the shit out of you !!
    > Look for it

    This exchange between "sln" and "Nathan Keel" has me laughing very hard
    right
    now! Two perl coders kicking the shit out of each other over some stupid
    usenet bullshit is something I would pay money to see!
     
    rabbits77, May 4, 2009
    #6
  7. Nathan Keel Guest

    rabbits77 wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> On Sun, 03 May 2009 18:58:00 -0700, Nathan Keel <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 03 May 2009 15:04:48 -0700, Nathan Keel <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I forgot to tell you. The message headers are on your server. The
    >>>>>> body of the message is no longer available. Is that something
    >>>>>> new, sort of latent body distribution in the Usenet arena? Maybe
    >>>>>> comes 30 minutes later?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Let me ask you, why in the world do you think all of the views of
    >>>>> this group care about your whining and complaints about your nntp
    >>>>> provider? Go away.
    >>>> Hey, **** OFF ASSHOLE. GOT THAT SCUMBAG
    >>>> ??????????????????????????????????????
    >>>>
    >>>> -sln
    >>> X-Complaints-To:

    >>
    >> I am cancelling EasyNews for thier rotten service.
    >>
    >> On top of that, I am going to find you scumbag and knock you down and
    >> kick the shit out of you !! Look for it

    > This exchange between "sln" and "Nathan Keel" has me laughing very
    > hard right
    > now! Two perl coders kicking the shit out of each other over some
    > stupid usenet bullshit is something I would pay money to see!


    The guy is just an idiot and a low life. He's managed to piss off most
    members on this group and a lot of people have blocked his messages
    from being seen in their news readers. He made the threats, not me.
    He's just an abusive ass clown and you can't take him seriously. And,
    believe me, this guy threatening to "kick the shit out of me" is really
    not a worry. Not that I don't secretly wish for the day that some
    usenet troll actually got enough nerve to track me down and show up at
    my home or work, because that would be something I'd also pay money to
    see. No threats here, just a great outlet for some online frustration,
    so I secretly hope it happens. I'll be sure to video tape it if it
    does, but he's just a trash talking, abusive usenet troll.
     
    Nathan Keel, May 4, 2009
    #7
  8. Nathan Keel Guest

    Sherm Pendley wrote:

    > Nathan Keel <> writes:
    >
    >> The guy is just an idiot and a low life. He's managed to piss off
    >> most members on this group

    >
    > I hate to break it to you Nathan, but you're doing that too. Feeding a
    > troll is no better than being one.
    >
    > sherm--
    >


    I don't agree that there's always two to blame (at least not equally),
    but that's just my view. The guy really stepped up his abuse the last
    day and I've also filtered him out. At this point, I just let the
    other poster know what was going on. Of course, it serves no purpose,
    but just playing the silence game isn't going to make a different with
    this particular troll. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, so I
    have blocked him.
     
    Nathan Keel, May 4, 2009
    #8
  9. Nathan Keel Guest

    Sherm Pendley wrote:

    > Nathan Keel <> writes:
    >
    >> Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >>
    >>> Nathan Keel <> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> The guy is just an idiot and a low life. He's managed to piss off
    >>>> most members on this group
    >>>
    >>> I hate to break it to you Nathan, but you're doing that too. Feeding
    >>> a troll is no better than being one.

    >>
    >> I don't agree that there's always two to blame

    >
    > Okay, you can join sln in my killfile then. Been nice knowing you.
    >
    > *plonk*
    >
    > sherm--
    >


    And there is the perfect example of what I mean. People bitch about you
    replying to other people, adding to the problem, and are just as
    guilty, but feel the need to "killfile" you because you actually say
    that thought outloud about not thinking the two are exactly equal.
    Thus, you've called me a troll and killed filed me, for calling sln a
    troll and killfiling him. Somehow, you doing exactly what I did makes
    you the better person? Give me a break. The same rules apply to you,
    and you needn't lose your head about it and act like you "need" to
    killfile me as if I'm some problem, unless that's your way of saying
    you have a problem. Guess what, I don't put up with your arrogant crap
    anymore than I do his. If people replying to you is such a big threat
    or problem, maybe you should find some other place to go besides
    usenet.
     
    Nathan Keel, May 4, 2009
    #9
  10. Henry Law Guest

    Re: Unbelievable, Easy News trashes arbitrary message bodies fromPerl groups

    Nathan Keel wrote:
    > you have a problem. Guess what, I don't put up with your arrogant crap
    > anymore


    Guess what, Mr Keel: Sherm didn't read what you wrote (that's what he
    meant by "plonk", by the way) but the rest of us did. And I doubt we're
    much better off from the experience.

    --

    Henry Law Manchester, England
     
    Henry Law, May 4, 2009
    #10
  11. Nathan Keel <> wrote:

    > killfile me as if I'm some problem,



    You _are_ a problem.

    Doesn't earning multiple plonks make you wonder if that might
    actually be true?

    Nah. It's probably a well coordinated conspiracy.

    You are fine. It is everybody else that has a problem.


    --
    Tad McClellan
    email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"
     
    Tad J McClellan, May 4, 2009
    #11
  12. Nathan Keel Guest

    Henry Law wrote:

    > Nathan Keel wrote:
    >> you have a problem. Guess what, I don't put up with your arrogant
    >> crap anymore

    >
    > Guess what, Mr Keel: Sherm didn't read what you wrote (that's what he
    > meant by "plonk", by the way) but the rest of us did. And I doubt
    > we're much better off from the experience.
    >


    I know what he meant, and I know he was acting like a child trying to
    get the "last word". The point of the reply was to speak my thoughts
    as well, just like he did. Just like I'm doing now. It's sort of
    sadly ironic that this is what some people would use for a reason to
    block another person. "Let's discuss it and ridicule you and insult
    you, but when you reply to my sarcastic post to say you've blocked
    someone, too and it's not a bad deal, so we can say "you suck, I'm
    blocking you, now *plonk*"". Why even use usenet if it's just about
    sarcasm and blocking because people are doing what it's designed for
    (being communication with each other). And, no, I'm not going to say
    "Now I'm blocking you" because I don't actually feel those people are a
    threat, and I can just not read their posts. No reason to go to the
    extreme and act like someone's being harassing and they need to block
    them because they are so freaking filter-happy and want to get their
    last sarcastic comment and tell me how they've "blocked me" (else
    they'd not bother). It's just childish.
     
    Nathan Keel, May 5, 2009
    #12
  13. Nathan Keel Guest

    Tad J McClellan wrote:

    > Nathan Keel <> wrote:
    >
    >> killfile me as if I'm some problem,

    >
    >
    > You _are_ a problem.


    Grow up.

    > Doesn't earning multiple plonks make you wonder if that might
    > actually be true?


    No, because these people have "plonked" me and made a sarcastic or
    insulting remark for no reason, yet they think they look wise for
    saying such things. Just freaking block someone if you want to block
    them, don't get in your little last attempt to "out do" them. The only
    thing that earned me a "plonk" was that I replied to someone they
    blocked before, and I replied saying it's not a big deal, I've since
    blocked the person myself, so they won't *gasp* risk seeing my reply to
    that person either. That in itself has "earned me a plonk". That's
    pretty stupid.

    > Nah. It's probably a well coordinated conspiracy.


    Oh, and now this reply to your childish and sarcastic comment will have
    someone else "plonk" me. So what? I never suggested any "conspiracy",
    I know why people are irrationally blocking me. It's funny, because I'm
    being blocked for replying to comments like yours. This is a big
    threat to people's activity on this group?

    > You are fine. It is everybody else that has a problem.


    I never suggested any such thing. You're just being a jackass because
    you think you're more important than other people. I'm the guy that
    invited anyone that's so flipped out about me replying to someone that
    posted to me, to block me. Does that sound like I really give a rats
    ass if you or anyone else blocks my posts or that I care, or that I
    think it's some conspiracy? Honestly, you're failed in your attempts
    to make a witty sarcastic remark.
     
    Nathan Keel, May 5, 2009
    #13
  14. Nathan Keel <> wrote:
    > Tad J McClellan wrote:
    >
    >> Nathan Keel <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> killfile me as if I'm some problem,

    >>
    >>
    >> You _are_ a problem.

    >
    > Grow up.



    Stop being a problem.


    >> Doesn't earning multiple plonks make you wonder if that might
    >> actually be true?

    >
    > No, because these people have "plonked" me and made a sarcastic or
    > insulting remark for no reason,



    Each plonker most certainly had a reason.

    Just because you don't know the reason, or don't agree with the
    reason does not mean the a reason does not exist.


    --
    Tad McClellan
    email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"
     
    Tad J McClellan, May 5, 2009
    #14
  15. Nathan Keel Guest

    Tad J McClellan wrote:

    > Nathan Keel <> wrote:
    >> Tad J McClellan wrote:
    >>
    >>> Nathan Keel <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> killfile me as if I'm some problem,
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You _are_ a problem.

    >>
    >> Grow up.

    >
    >
    > Stop being a problem.


    If people aren't arrogant jerks and just sarcastic and rude, I will
    happily be civil in response. I'm not a problem because I reply to
    someone that posted to/about me, else you're more of a problem for
    doing it yourself (logically speaking).

    >
    >>> Doesn't earning multiple plonks make you wonder if that might
    >>> actually be true?

    >>
    >> No, because these people have "plonked" me and made a sarcastic or
    >> insulting remark for no reason,

    >
    >
    > Each plonker most certainly had a reason.


    That's not always true. At least not a good reason. Speaking of,
    didn't you say you also filtered me?

    > Just because you don't know the reason, or don't agree with the
    > reason does not mean the a reason does not exist.


    Okay, I see where you're going with it. Good or bad reason, in their
    mind, they had a reason (even no reason at all, is still a reason). I
    never denied the block didn't exist, or they didn't think they had a
    reason. Speaking of reasons, there's really no reason to debate about
    reasons. I simply made the point that people were blocking me claiming
    I was upsetting their filters because they saw other posters that were
    blocked when I quoted their message in reply. Even though I had
    blocked that person myself, so they'd not see my quoting them again,
    just saying so was the reason why someone said they blocked me.
    Someone else then said they blocked me for replying to them and saying
    that.

    I find that silly, but I never suggested they weren't right for it in
    their own mind. I'm certain people have been tempted to block me just
    for what you and I are replying to each other about discussing it, so
    what can you do. I just think it's odd, because I'm certainly no
    threat. I "get" that people sometimes prefer to block people that
    don't just block known trolls in the group, and I did block him (though
    he'll surely be back with his new news server soon enough). Usenet is
    a place where if you explain things, that alone might set people off.
    I'm sure we can agree to just end this between us now, right?
     
    Nathan Keel, May 6, 2009
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tom Wells
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    481
  2. Ian Murphy

    Missing message bodies in newsgroup

    Ian Murphy, Mar 2, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    341
    Ian Murphy
    Mar 2, 2004
  3. Mickey Segal

    Firefox 2.0.0.1 trashes Java Console

    Mickey Segal, Dec 20, 2006, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    811
    Mickey Segal
    Dec 23, 2006
  4. Arthur Divot
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    339
    Arthur Divot
    Oct 27, 2010
  5. Julie Siebel
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    147
    Dr John Stockton
    Feb 25, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page