"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:37:27 -0400, "No Spam Here - Joe Schmo"
wrote:

KISS MY ASS..... How do you get YOU are using a REAL address, with
DESPAMMED
.COM???????????? HUH?????
What an ass.............

Foul mouthed drivel? Maybe foul mouthed mixed in, but the truth. It was
NOT
intended TO you before, BUT NOW IT IS.

You are such a dick. You call me a yellow belly, you CSer. Good thing you
live in BLOODY ENGLAND. ASS WIPE.

ROTFLMAO!!!
:-)))

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

You need to laugh, if you were here, I would show you who is a yellow belly,
you ass..Maybe the G isn't for England as in Ham Call Sign, maybe it is for
your G STRING that you wear. Come here, I'll give you a bloody lip for
calling me a yellow belly.

In case you haven't noticed you idiot, MANY do NOT use their rightful name
or e-mail address. I'm not the only one. SO GET USED TO IT. You have no idea
how much I'd love to kick your ass right now for calling me a yellow belly
JUST because I chose not to list my address. GET A LIFE.

Don't bother replying ass wipe, I'm deleting your messages. I don't have
time to waste with you. SCUM BAG.

No Spam Here - Joe Schmo wrote:

You need to laugh, if you were here, I would show you who is a yellow belly,
you ass..Maybe the G isn't for England as in Ham Call Sign, maybe it is for
your G STRING that you wear. Come here, I'll give you a bloody lip for
calling me a yellow belly.

In case you haven't noticed you idiot, MANY do NOT use their rightful name
or e-mail address. I'm not the only one. SO GET USED TO IT. You have no idea
how much I'd love to kick your ass right now for calling me a yellow belly
JUST because I chose not to list my address. GET A LIFE.

Don't bother replying ass wipe, I'm deleting your messages. I don't have
time to waste with you. SCUM BAG.


Jesus Christ, man... you need to get laid.


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

No Spam Here - Joe Schmo wrote:

You need to laugh, if you were here, I would show you who is a yellow belly,
you ass..Maybe the G isn't for England as in Ham Call Sign, maybe it is for
your G STRING that you wear. Come here, I'll give you a bloody lip for
calling me a yellow belly.

In case you haven't noticed you idiot, MANY do NOT use their rightful name
or e-mail address. I'm not the only one. SO GET USED TO IT. You have no idea
how much I'd love to kick your ass right now for calling me a yellow belly
JUST because I chose not to list my address. GET A LIFE.

Don't bother replying ass wipe, I'm deleting your messages. I don't have
time to waste with you. SCUM BAG.


Jesus Christ, man... you need to get laid.


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

HEY, "I" am not the one who started the ATTACK. WE were downplaying the
bull**** posts, and then HE attacked ME. READ THE THREAD and you will see.
IF ANYONE NEEDS LAID, IT IS HIM, ON HIS ASS.


"Zoran Brlecic" wrote in message
...
No Spam Here - Joe Schmo wrote:

You need to laugh, if you were here, I would show you who is a yellow
belly,
you ass..Maybe the G isn't for England as in Ham Call Sign, maybe it is
for
your G STRING that you wear. Come here, I'll give you a bloody lip for
calling me a yellow belly.

In case you haven't noticed you idiot, MANY do NOT use their rightful
name
or e-mail address. I'm not the only one. SO GET USED TO IT. You have no
idea
how much I'd love to kick your ass right now for calling me a yellow
belly
JUST because I chose not to list my address. GET A LIFE.

Don't bother replying ass wipe, I'm deleting your messages. I don't have
time to waste with you. SCUM BAG.


Jesus Christ, man... you need to get laid.


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

HEY, "I" am not the one who started the ATTACK. WE were downplaying the
bull**** posts, and then HE attacked ME. READ THE THREAD and you will see.
IF ANYONE NEEDS LAID, IT IS HIM, ON HIS ASS.


"Zoran Brlecic" wrote in message
...
No Spam Here - Joe Schmo wrote:

You need to laugh, if you were here, I would show you who is a yellow
belly,
you ass..Maybe the G isn't for England as in Ham Call Sign, maybe it is
for
your G STRING that you wear. Come here, I'll give you a bloody lip for
calling me a yellow belly.

In case you haven't noticed you idiot, MANY do NOT use their rightful
name
or e-mail address. I'm not the only one. SO GET USED TO IT. You have no
idea
how much I'd love to kick your ass right now for calling me a yellow
belly
JUST because I chose not to list my address. GET A LIFE.

Don't bother replying ass wipe, I'm deleting your messages. I don't have
time to waste with you. SCUM BAG.


Jesus Christ, man... you need to get laid.


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:08:18 +0100, Walt Davidson
wrote:

[snip]

Anonymous postings are like poison pen letters. Their authors are too
yellow-bellied to identify themselves.

With respect, I disagree.

Anonymity can benefit a debate more than it detracts: it relieves a poster
of the externalities that blunt honesty and originality so badly wanting
in many discussions on Usenet, and being recognized seduces some to sink
to mean-spirited sarcasm when they're afraid to make a controversial point
or defend an unpopular opinion.

With the entire world able to read my words, and with a mind to the
ever-increasing power of corporations to dictate their employees' actions
outside the workplace, I choose to be "anonymous" for purposes of Usenet
posting.

That doesn't mean I'm not responsible for what I write: my ISP and any
policeman can find my "true" identity quickly and easily. That doesn't
mean I don't stand behind my words: I defend my opinions with the same
vigor I apply to arguments using my "real" name.

What it means is that the reader must consider what I write without
knowing who I 'really' am: in other words, (s)he must evaluate my postings
and decide if they are worthwhile solely on the merit of what I write,
without reference to the boatload of baggage I bring to any contest where
my pedigree is advertised in advance.

That's not a bad thing. It means that the debate is focused on the issue
at hand, and much less likely to be sidetracked or sabotaged by persons it
makes uncomfortable. Especially in this political season, we've all seen
what happens when some "heavyweight" arrogates acceptance of an opionion
or 'fact' that doesn't deserve consideration or which begs for disproval,
often with a hidden agenda having little or nothing to do with the
argument's basis.

Moreover, the reputation I build on Usenet, even using a different name
than the one inscribed on my mailbox, is still a reputation, and still
carries with it the accumulated weight of my past writings. Eric Blair,
David Cornwell, and Samual Langhorne Clemens all made indelible
impressions on the litterary world using assumed names: in these and many
other cases, their 'real' identities became a minor footnote to their
accomplishments under their 'false' names. I do not, sad to say, expect to
be in their company anytime soon, but one can always dream, and my dream
is that I can assend over the limitations often associated with persons of
my upbringing and education, to make a meaningful difference in others'
lives, if only via encouraging them to think for themselves.

FWIW. YMMV.

William

--
(Filter noise from my address for direct replies.)

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:08:18 +0100, Walt Davidson
wrote:

[snip]

Anonymous postings are like poison pen letters. Their authors are too
yellow-bellied to identify themselves.

With respect, I disagree.

Anonymity can benefit a debate more than it detracts: it relieves a poster
of the externalities that blunt honesty and originality so badly wanting
in many discussions on Usenet, and being recognized seduces some to sink
to mean-spirited sarcasm when they're afraid to make a controversial point
or defend an unpopular opinion.

With the entire world able to read my words, and with a mind to the
ever-increasing power of corporations to dictate their employees' actions
outside the workplace, I choose to be "anonymous" for purposes of Usenet
posting.

That doesn't mean I'm not responsible for what I write: my ISP and any
policeman can find my "true" identity quickly and easily. That doesn't
mean I don't stand behind my words: I defend my opinions with the same
vigor I apply to arguments using my "real" name.

What it means is that the reader must consider what I write without
knowing who I 'really' am: in other words, (s)he must evaluate my postings
and decide if they are worthwhile solely on the merit of what I write,
without reference to the boatload of baggage I bring to any contest where
my pedigree is advertised in advance.

That's not a bad thing. It means that the debate is focused on the issue
at hand, and much less likely to be sidetracked or sabotaged by persons it
makes uncomfortable. Especially in this political season, we've all seen
what happens when some "heavyweight" arrogates acceptance of an opionion
or 'fact' that doesn't deserve consideration or which begs for disproval,
often with a hidden agenda having little or nothing to do with the
argument's basis.

Moreover, the reputation I build on Usenet, even using a different name
than the one inscribed on my mailbox, is still a reputation, and still
carries with it the accumulated weight of my past writings. Eric Blair,
David Cornwell, and Samual Langhorne Clemens all made indelible
impressions on the litterary world using assumed names: in these and many
other cases, their 'real' identities became a minor footnote to their
accomplishments under their 'false' names. I do not, sad to say, expect to
be in their company anytime soon, but one can always dream, and my dream
is that I can assend over the limitations often associated with persons of
my upbringing and education, to make a meaningful difference in others'
lives, if only via encouraging them to think for themselves.

FWIW. YMMV.

William

--
(Filter noise from my address for direct replies.)

It is better - far better -- to remain anon and be thought a fool, than to
reveal your identity and remove all doubt

--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.



"William Warren" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:08:18 +0100, Walt Davidson
wrote:

[snip]

Anonymous postings are like poison pen letters. Their authors are too
yellow-bellied to identify themselves.

With respect, I disagree.

Anonymity can benefit a debate more than it detracts: it relieves a poster
of the externalities that blunt honesty and originality so badly wanting
in many discussions on Usenet, and being recognized seduces some to sink
to mean-spirited sarcasm when they're afraid to make a controversial point
or defend an unpopular opinion.

With the entire world able to read my words, and with a mind to the
ever-increasing power of corporations to dictate their employees' actions
outside the workplace, I choose to be "anonymous" for purposes of Usenet
posting.

That doesn't mean I'm not responsible for what I write: my ISP and any
policeman can find my "true" identity quickly and easily. That doesn't
mean I don't stand behind my words: I defend my opinions with the same
vigor I apply to arguments using my "real" name.

What it means is that the reader must consider what I write without
knowing who I 'really' am: in other words, (s)he must evaluate my postings
and decide if they are worthwhile solely on the merit of what I write,
without reference to the boatload of baggage I bring to any contest where
my pedigree is advertised in advance.

That's not a bad thing. It means that the debate is focused on the issue
at hand, and much less likely to be sidetracked or sabotaged by persons it
makes uncomfortable. Especially in this political season, we've all seen
what happens when some "heavyweight" arrogates acceptance of an opionion
or 'fact' that doesn't deserve consideration or which begs for disproval,
often with a hidden agenda having little or nothing to do with the
argument's basis.

Moreover, the reputation I build on Usenet, even using a different name
than the one inscribed on my mailbox, is still a reputation, and still
carries with it the accumulated weight of my past writings. Eric Blair,
David Cornwell, and Samual Langhorne Clemens all made indelible
impressions on the litterary world using assumed names: in these and many
other cases, their 'real' identities became a minor footnote to their
accomplishments under their 'false' names. I do not, sad to say, expect to
be in their company anytime soon, but one can always dream, and my dream
is that I can assend over the limitations often associated with persons of
my upbringing and education, to make a meaningful difference in others'
lives, if only via encouraging them to think for themselves.

FWIW. YMMV.

William

--
(Filter noise from my address for direct replies.)

It is better - far better -- to remain anon and be thought a fool, than to
reveal your identity and remove all doubt

--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.



"William Warren" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:08:18 +0100, Walt Davidson
wrote:

[snip]

Anonymous postings are like poison pen letters. Their authors are too
yellow-bellied to identify themselves.

With respect, I disagree.

Anonymity can benefit a debate more than it detracts: it relieves a poster
of the externalities that blunt honesty and originality so badly wanting
in many discussions on Usenet, and being recognized seduces some to sink
to mean-spirited sarcasm when they're afraid to make a controversial point
or defend an unpopular opinion.

With the entire world able to read my words, and with a mind to the
ever-increasing power of corporations to dictate their employees' actions
outside the workplace, I choose to be "anonymous" for purposes of Usenet
posting.

That doesn't mean I'm not responsible for what I write: my ISP and any
policeman can find my "true" identity quickly and easily. That doesn't
mean I don't stand behind my words: I defend my opinions with the same
vigor I apply to arguments using my "real" name.

What it means is that the reader must consider what I write without
knowing who I 'really' am: in other words, (s)he must evaluate my postings
and decide if they are worthwhile solely on the merit of what I write,
without reference to the boatload of baggage I bring to any contest where
my pedigree is advertised in advance.

That's not a bad thing. It means that the debate is focused on the issue
at hand, and much less likely to be sidetracked or sabotaged by persons it
makes uncomfortable. Especially in this political season, we've all seen
what happens when some "heavyweight" arrogates acceptance of an opionion
or 'fact' that doesn't deserve consideration or which begs for disproval,
often with a hidden agenda having little or nothing to do with the
argument's basis.

Moreover, the reputation I build on Usenet, even using a different name
than the one inscribed on my mailbox, is still a reputation, and still
carries with it the accumulated weight of my past writings. Eric Blair,
David Cornwell, and Samual Langhorne Clemens all made indelible
impressions on the litterary world using assumed names: in these and many
other cases, their 'real' identities became a minor footnote to their
accomplishments under their 'false' names. I do not, sad to say, expect to
be in their company anytime soon, but one can always dream, and my dream
is that I can assend over the limitations often associated with persons of
my upbringing and education, to make a meaningful difference in others'
lives, if only via encouraging them to think for themselves.

FWIW. YMMV.

William

--
(Filter noise from my address for direct replies.)