Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (
More info?)
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1120437442.882586.220040@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Preston, the ignorant, selfish fool, <prestonpoulter@hotmail.com> mashed
> on his keyboard with his fists and produced the following dirge of
> nonsense:
> >I am replying to your post without a single quotation. This scandalous
> >and supercilious use of the news reader is truly unconscionable, By all
> >means report me to the internet police at once.
>
> *sigh*
>
> The point, for most people, of posting to Usenet is to have some sort of
> dialogue with other people.
>
> In order to do that, most people put in the minimal effort to make their
> posts easier to read and the thread of dialogue easier to follow. This
> means that their posts will be read and understood by more people.
>
Hmmm. Let me see if I get this. You are saying that I should include
relevant text so people will understand what I'm saying. So... you mean
you probably shouldn't have started criticizing my BWP: Malkavian deck
in the middle of a thread on Tremere Trophy decks without any relevant
text. And, let me think, oh yea, by me moving your criticisms to the
actual thread they belonged in I was actually making your
self-indulgent diatribes a bit more relevant. Oh, well good for me.
>
> You have decided that following established Usenet convention is beneath
> you. This makes your posts harder to read. This is because you are a
> selfish, ignorant idiot. The point is that *you* put in the entirely
> minimal effort of using the quotation function of your newsreader (which
> is easily available, even on Google), so that everyone else can follow
> exactly what you are saying and why.
>
> Instead, you post randomly beneath different posts, with no indication
> of what you are responding to. As you will note, this means that your
> posts are hard to follow and that you repeatedly miss the point by not
> actually responding to what is written but what you THINK is written.
>
> This is because you are selfish, self-serving and ignorant.
If you do say so yourself. Actually, you are the only person who has
complain to this date that my posts are hard to understand. You do so
in a rather bizarre fashion. In one thread that contained all of 4
posts total you jumped in and criticized me for not citing relevant
text when it was pretty clear I was referring to the poster right above
mine whom I addressed by name.
>
>
> This is nothing to do with the Internet police, and all to do with you
> being a cretinous idiot who refuses to actually follow the conventions
> of the medium he is in. You want people to help you with your Barbed
> Wire project and then, when they do, refuse to actually do anything
> helpful to deal with it. Stamp stamp stamp, quoting relevant portions
> of posts is too hard for you so you won't bother. Stamp stamp stamp.
>
> These are FREE CLUES you are being given. You are ignoring them.
> Because you are both selfish and a fool. It is nothing to do with it
> being a scandal.
>
That's right James. It has nothing to do with being a scandal. It does
have to do with you disingenuously hiding under the banner of useful
internet etiquette to engage in a rather unwarranted personal attack on
me for whatever reason.
> You want people to respond to your posts? Post in a helpful fashion.
>
> You actually want people to provide you with useful insights?
> Apparently not, otherwise you'd post in a helpful fashion after this has
> been pointed out to you repeatedly.
>
Pointed out by you in the form of personal attack. No one else has yet
to complain and many people have responded to the salient points of my
posts. THis suggests that they were able to follow them just fine.
>
> Consider *why* everyone else does the same thing (to make the thread of
> conversation significantly easier for everyone to follow in long and
> complex threads - which any thread can become without warning), and why
> you do not do so (because you are lazy and selfish).
>
>
> Note also that, because of the vagueness of post propagation on Usenet,
> it is quite, quite possible for people to receive some of the replies to
> a post but not the original post - or to have it delayed by some
> minutes, hours, days. This is significantly less common than in days of
> yore, but it still happens. This is not a web-forum with a centralized
> database.
>
> Further, for people using Google (such as yourself), the X-No-Archive
> function means that all people will see in response to X-No-Archive-d
> posts when they look back is a series of responses, with ABSOLUTELY ZERO
> content from the non-archived posts. This completely destroys the
> ability to follow a thread.
>
>
> But yeah. You just continue making noise because you don't need to
> behave in a helpful fashion for the rest of us.
>
You know James, I'm not sure how you conduct your personal life, but,
if not one has yet told you, trying to lord your knowledge of a topic
over someone by way of personal attacks and mischaracterizations are
really not the best way to win friends and influence people.
> Why should the rest of us have to pick out the badly quoted sections in
> your posts, because you can't be bothered to hit the quote function of
> your newsreader? There is absolutely no way that when you quote badly
> that it looks like anything other than stream of consciousness arguing,
> because you do not credit the other person in any way, shape or form -
> remember, your newsreader can do that for you in a second, if you bother
> to put in two minutes learning how to drive it.
>
> But yeah, you know about Magic Pro Tours so I guess that the idea of
> actually being helpful when discussing V:TES is beneath you.
>
>
You're just taking that and running with it. I'm not ashamed of what I
accomplished by any means, but I also never brought it up here in this
forum. It was brought up in the text of an email exchange between
myself and Derek in order to respond to his question of my relevant CCG
experience. This has been twisted by you in a post you made as,
"Stamp Stamp Stamp. I'm a Mtg Pro Tour Player, therefore I know
everything about VTES."
That you made this gross mischaracterization in the middle of a
personal attack on me under the pretext of clarity was ironic, if
nothing else.
> Why not actually grow up and participate in a helpful fashion, rather
> than foot-stamping about the Internet police? Or is that too much like
> being both helpful, useful and sensible for you to cope with?
>
Hmm participate instead of foot stamping. You mean, like posting a
newsletter. Or perhaps a series of decks designed for new players? Or
perhaps posting my feedback on various deck designs where I feel I have
something to contribute? Or perhaps conducting VTES demos once a week
for a couple of hours and posting my suggestions in case anyone else
wants to follow suit? Of yeah, I do all those things. So your
mischaracterizations and attacks on me as a do nothing whiner are
misplaced.
iablerie is probably better, but it does depend on what
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram