One good thing about snow...

LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
3131.bay.webtv.net:

> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>
>


That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.

--
TeGGeR®

>The original poster of this thread is
>doing nothing to help the already
>troubled impression of WebTVers.
>Natalie

Isn't this black history month? feel lucky and STFU.

"doubleq" <LQQKR@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18980-421A4504-74@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net...
> >The original poster of this thread is
>>doing nothing to help the already
>>troubled impression of WebTVers.
>>Natalie
>
> Isn't this black history month? feel lucky and STFU.
>

Thanks for proving my point

Natalie

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:

> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.

Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
ditches, or just generally acting like morons.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:00:06 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
> news:Xns9604AC3A33315teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:37v36mF5h0051U1@individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9604AA2F76091teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>
>>>>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day
>>>>> over the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches
>>>> mounted on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and
>>>> interior parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single
>>>> wiper in the middle, that sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *shrug*
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Shrug"? Why?
>>
>> I agree with your statement above.
>>
>>
>> --
>> TeGGeR®
>
> I'm saying I'm not sure that was what that toad was referring to - I took it
> to be a racial slur against Asians. And now, true to form, he/she/it has
> made a racist comment to me. *sigh* There always has to be a turd in the
> punch bowl (every single ISP has them, of course), but WTV seems to have a
> disproportionate pile of particularly nasty trolls. Having said that, most
> WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks, but like middle-east terrorists, you
> only notice the ones who are bad. They spoil the image for their entire
> group.
>
> It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's actions will reflect against
> the majority of nice WTVers.
>
> Natalie

Too bad they can figure out how to get access to the groups... :(

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:50:08 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.02.21.23.49.01.269000@ae86.gts...
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>
>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>
>> Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
>> have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
>> signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
>> ditches, or just generally acting like morons.
>>
>>
>
> Yup - they don't realize that while you can go as fast as you want, you can't
> effing stop
>
> Natalie, 11-year NH resident, now in Florida
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which is the BEST thing a LOT of drivers up here could do! (Present
company excluded, of course! :)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:31:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:

>>The original poster of this thread is
>>doing nothing to help the already
>>troubled impression of WebTVers.
>>Natalie
>
> Isn't this black history month? feel lucky and STFU.

Likewise, I'm sure, Idiot.

"hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:mlxSd.67371$g16.3773@trndny08...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:31:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>
>>>The original poster of this thread is
>>>doing nothing to help the already
>>>troubled impression of WebTVers.
>>>Natalie
>>
>> Isn't this black history month? feel lucky and STFU.
>
> Likewise, I'm sure, Idiot.
>
Oh, the irony of this twerp

Natalie

"hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.21.23.50.41.633000@ae86.gts...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:41:13 +0000, TeGGer® wrote:
>
>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:37uhpuF5f5reiU1@individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9604759505463teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>>> LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
>>>> 3131.bay.webtv.net:
>>>>
>>>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> TeGGeR®
>>>>
>>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day over
>>> the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>>
>>
>>
>> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches
>> mounted
>> on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and interior
>> parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single wiper in the
>> middle, that sort of thing.
>
> Well, yeah, but you didn't relize the OP is just a troll?

And not even a good one

Natalie

"hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.21.23.51.57.372000@ae86.gts...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:00:06 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:
>
>>
>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9604AC3A33315teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:37v36mF5h0051U1@individual.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day
>>>>>> over the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches
>>>>> mounted on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and
>>>>> interior parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single
>>>>> wiper in the middle, that sort of thing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *shrug*
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Shrug"? Why?
>>>
>>> I agree with your statement above.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> TeGGeR®
>>
>> I'm saying I'm not sure that was what that toad was referring to - I took
>> it
>> to be a racial slur against Asians. And now, true to form, he/she/it has
>> made a racist comment to me. *sigh* There always has to be a turd in the
>> punch bowl (every single ISP has them, of course), but WTV seems to have a
>> disproportionate pile of particularly nasty trolls. Having said that,
>> most
>> WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks, but like middle-east terrorists, you
>> only notice the ones who are bad. They spoil the image for their entire
>> group.
>>
>> It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's actions will reflect against
>> the majority of nice WTVers.
>>
>> Natalie
>
> Too bad they can figure out how to get access to the groups... :(

Maybe some feel that we computer-using folks look down on them for not having
a 'real' computer. Hey, if all someone needs is available to them, with no
more bells and whistles, I think that's great! I'm a firm believer in using
only what you need, and for some, MailStation and WTV suits their needs.
Nothing wrong with that at all, IMO. Besides, the least complicated
something is, the fewer things can go wrong.

Natalie

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:ak2l11tq2c1ql9itlram6rsncet2niul2c@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:47:24 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>
>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>
>>Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
>>have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
>>signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
>>ditches, or just generally acting like morons.
>>
>
> If they only kill themselves...that is just fine with me... <g>
>
>
> --
> Scott in Florida

Do penance, young man!

Rent a Ford - that should do it

Natalie

"Another Tom" <sg7188@snet.net> wrote in message
news:ZjxSd.35010$by5.7525@newssvr19.news.prodigy.c om...
> doubleq wrote:
>>>That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
>>
>>
>> *eg*
>>
>> Hope they never come out with awd civics...
>>
>
> they made them years ago.

Wow, how did their parents react?!

Natalie, being too silly even by *her* standards :-)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:36:31 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.02.21.23.51.57.372000@ae86.gts...
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:00:06 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9604AC3A33315teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:37v36mF5h0051U1@individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day
>>>>>>> over the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches
>>>>>> mounted on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and
>>>>>> interior parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single
>>>>>> wiper in the middle, that sort of thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *shrug*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Shrug"? Why?
>>>>
>>>> I agree with your statement above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> TeGGeR®
>>>
>>> I'm saying I'm not sure that was what that toad was referring to - I took
>>> it
>>> to be a racial slur against Asians. And now, true to form, he/she/it has
>>> made a racist comment to me. *sigh* There always has to be a turd in the
>>> punch bowl (every single ISP has them, of course), but WTV seems to have a
>>> disproportionate pile of particularly nasty trolls. Having said that,
>>> most
>>> WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks, but like middle-east terrorists, you
>>> only notice the ones who are bad. They spoil the image for their entire
>>> group.
>>>
>>> It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's actions will reflect against
>>> the majority of nice WTVers.
>>>
>>> Natalie
>>
>> Too bad they can figure out how to get access to the groups... :(
>
> Maybe some feel that we computer-using folks look down on them for not having
> a 'real' computer. Hey, if all someone needs is available to them, with no
> more bells and whistles, I think that's great! I'm a firm believer in using
> only what you need, and for some, MailStation and WTV suits their needs.
> Nothing wrong with that at all, IMO. Besides, the least complicated
> something is, the fewer things can go wrong.
>
> Natalie

Actually, I believe that too. I was the Service Manager at a small
computer company with a lot of accounts. Before I started there a salesman
tried to sell a pentium 90 to a woman who wanted to write letters and
balance her checkbook...for $3200. He left, I started. I sold the same
woman and older IBM 286, preloaded with all the sw she needed. $275. After
she left, the owner told me about the previous salesman (he recognized the
woman as she was paying for the system).

The problem is, we get a lot of people in here with WebTV, and a lot are
decent, but we seem to get many more like our OP here. Just out for an
afternoon s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/ it again...

Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:31:06 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:mlxSd.67371$g16.3773@trndny08...
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:31:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>
>>>>The original poster of this thread is
>>>>doing nothing to help the already
>>>>troubled impression of WebTVers.
>>>>Natalie
>>>
>>> Isn't this black history month? feel lucky and STFU.
>>
>> Likewise, I'm sure, Idiot.
>>
> Oh, the irony of this twerp
>
> Natalie

Really. I knew when I read the inital droppings of his he was here prove
himself a moron. Ya know what? It worked!!!

"hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:tXySd.32570$s16.28247@trndny02...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:36:31 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9604AC3A33315teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>>>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:37v36mF5h0051U1@individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day
>>>>>>>> over the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches
>>>>>>> mounted on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and
>>>>>>> interior parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single
>>>>>>> wiper in the middle, that sort of thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *shrug*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Shrug"? Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with your statement above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> TeGGeR®
>>>>
>>>> I'm saying I'm not sure that was what that toad was referring to - I
>>>> took
>>>> it
>>>> to be a racial slur against Asians. And now, true to form, he/she/it
>>>> has
>>>> made a racist comment to me. *sigh* There always has to be a turd in
>>>> the
>>>> punch bowl (every single ISP has them, of course), but WTV seems to have
>>>> a
>>>> disproportionate pile of particularly nasty trolls. Having said that,
>>>> most
>>>> WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks, but like middle-east terrorists,
>>>> you
>>>> only notice the ones who are bad. They spoil the image for their entire
>>>> group.
>>>>
>>>> It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's actions will reflect
>>>> against
>>>> the majority of nice WTVers.
>>>>
>>>> Natalie
>>>
>>> Too bad they can figure out how to get access to the groups... :(
>>
>> Maybe some feel that we computer-using folks look down on them for not
>> having
>> a 'real' computer. Hey, if all someone needs is available to them, with
>> no
>> more bells and whistles, I think that's great! I'm a firm believer in
>> using
>> only what you need, and for some, MailStation and WTV suits their needs.
>> Nothing wrong with that at all, IMO. Besides, the least complicated
>> something is, the fewer things can go wrong.
>>
>> Natalie
>
> Actually, I believe that too. I was the Service Manager at a small
> computer company with a lot of accounts. Before I started there a salesman
> tried to sell a pentium 90 to a woman who wanted to write letters and
> balance her checkbook...for $3200. He left, I started. I sold the same
> woman and older IBM 286, preloaded with all the sw she needed. $275. After
> she left, the owner told me about the previous salesman (he recognized the
> woman as she was paying for the system).

O_O That's insane!
>
> The problem is, we get a lot of people in here with WebTV, and a lot are
> decent, but we seem to get many more like our OP here. Just out for an
> afternoon s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/ it again...
>
> Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.

Count on it. The good news is that killfiles eliminate the little twits

Natalie

"hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:TYySd.38005$sR5.8575@trndny05...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:31:06 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:31:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>>
>>>>>The original poster of this thread is
>>>>>doing nothing to help the already
>>>>>troubled impression of WebTVers.
>>>>>Natalie
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this black history month? feel lucky and STFU.
>>>
>>> Likewise, I'm sure, Idiot.
>>>
>> Oh, the irony of this twerp
>>
>> Natalie
>
> Really. I knew when I read the inital droppings of his he was here prove
> himself a moron. Ya know what? It worked!!!

Critters like this don't need to be provoked. Their inner troll is always
just bursting to get out

Natalie

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:28:04 GMT, Scott in Florida
<NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:47:24 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>
>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>
>>Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
>>have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
>>signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
>>ditches, or just generally acting like morons.
>>
>
>If they only kill themselves...that is just fine with me... <g>
>
>
> --
> Scott in Florida

I agree with your Darwinian philosophy there, Scott.

Re: One good thing about snow...

--
>>>>>>>>>>>>TeGGeR®
I'm saying I'm not sure that was what that toad was referring to - I
took it
to be a racial slur against Asians.<<<<<<<
I don't condone racist anything


>>>>>> And now, true to form, he/she/it has made a racist comment to me.
*sigh* <<<<<<


Not sure if I saw it that way... But you always seem to have a chip on
your shoulder , don't you Natalie?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There always has to be a turd in the punch bowl (every
single ISP has them, of course), but WTV seems to have a
disproportionate pile of particularly nasty trolls.<<<<<<<<<<<

Back in the early part of the 20 th century smoking was cool too. And
the ones that didn't were made fun of by the ones that did. It was so
popular it was not uncommon to see tv commercials and people on live
shows smoking. But now what do we think of it?. Even back then there
were those who didn't smoke despite its popularity. And comments like
these were probably all to common as well.

But I'm one ( and not the only one) webtv user who HAS to use it
instead of wanting to. And I predict on day the way you use a computer
will be like the way people used to smoke. Actually wetbv is (was in
the case of PLUS units) AHEAD of its time. I actually get headaches from
the electromagnetic field generated by a computer. You say "so what I
don't'. Ever heard the phrase no brain, no pain? Something that happened
to my mom also convinced me I might be better off computerless.

My mother died of brain cancer. She was a seamstress all of her life.
She spent many hours in a sewing factory hunched over a sewing machine.
Of course when she died I questioned why this kind of death chose my
mother. Then I did some research. The incidence of brain cancer in her
occupation was 50 % higher than the general population. The reason? They
spent a large portion of the day with their heads inside an
electromagnetic field.

Ever take notice how close you sit to your monitor and cpu. (have you
also noticed you feel better when you step away from your desk?) Know
how much more powerful they are compared to the sewing machines of my
mothers day? All I can say is make sure your health insurance is paid
up.

Another reason I use webtv is the refresh rate of a crt or a lcd is
slower than that of a television. Make a video of your monitor. What
your video camera sees is what your brain really sees. Most people only
use 30 % of their brain for conscious thought and perception. But I
actually see this flicker (though not quite exactly like the video
camera). And I get severe headaches from very brief use of computer
monitor. Doesn't bother you? Again no brain no pain.? Doesn't mean you
aren't going to pay a price for it one day. Ever heard of the person who
was never sick dying young?

So please stop trying to look down your collective nose at us on Webtv.
Many of us are very happy that IT HAS CHOSEN US. Because as the petite
young lady in 'White Men Can't Jump' said.... "Sometimes when you lose ,
you really win and sometimes when you win you really lose".




>>>>>>>>>>Too bad they can figure out how to get access to the groups...
:( <<<<<<<<


We don't have to figure it out , it is easier to get to here on webtv
than a computer. We often wonder how YOU find these groups.......

>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe some feel that we computer-using folks look down on
them for not having a 'real' computer. <<<<<<<<<

Not MAYBE.....;>)

But I 'have' a computer , a nice shiny new one , I just CAN'T use it.
And belive me I've tried. But then again I've tried smoking and using
cell phones as well...


>>>>>>>>>>>>Hey, if all someone needs is available to them, with no more
bells and whistles, I think that's great! I'm a firm believer in using
only what you need, and for some, MailStation and WTV suits their needs.
Nothing wrong with that at all, IMO. Besides, the least complicated
something is, the fewer things can go wrong.
Natalie<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

More prophetic than you might think..... But don't thank me now....8>)

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>I'm saying I'm not sure that was what
>that toad was referring to - I took it to be
>a racial slur against Asians. And now,
>true to form, he/she/it has made a racist
>comment to me. *sigh* There always
>has to be a turd in the punch bowl
>(every single ISP has them, of course),
>but WTV seems to have a
>disproportionate pile of particularly
>nasty trolls. Having said that, most
>WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks,
>but like middle-east terrorists, you only
>notice the ones who are bad. They spoil
>the image for their entire group.
>It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's
>actions will reflect against the majority
>of nice WTVers.

Wow, I'm not trying to start up with you Nat, but this passage is right
up there with negatives that get thrown at a group of people...the type
of thing that got you started in this thread in the first place!
(I notice a slight pattern with you...This is not the first time you've
'slammed' Webtv. It's getting old, from my standpoint.)

I am not really fond of being compared to Middle East terrorists...even
if you backpeddle while saying it. You diminish your argument when you
use the same logic as the person you're arguing with. Rise above and
find another way to 'get' your target.

BTW, I think, like Tegger, you missed the point of the OP. "Ricer" used
to be a slur, but it's connotation has taken on the image that Tegg
suggested. I equate it to the transformation the word "sucks" has made.
We all know what that used to mean, but now it's a common, everyday word
that doesn't carry the negative it used to.

This response in no way condones the meanspirited post about your race.
That comment disappointed me, too. :(

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

About webtv'ers

>Maybe some feel that we
>computer-using folks look down on them
>for not having a 'real' computer.

Now, where would we get that idea? Perhaps it's from computer-using
folks like you who cloak a diss like you do?

levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:

>The problem is, we get a lot of people in
>here with WebTV, and a lot are decent,
>but we seem to get many more like our
>OP here. Just out for an afternoon
>s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/
>it again...
>Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.

Please. Give it a rest. The original poster, while making a very rude
comment in the coarse of the discussion, is not a troll. I've exchanged
many a nice comment with them here in the past. He's as much a 'troll'
as Art or Scott.

Perhaps the vitriol that's ensued is because he dared to post from
webtv? Is that what this is about? Why is the server being slammed when
it's a human's words that should be taken to task?

pisanochas@webtv.net (Charles*Pisano)
wrote:

snip excellent read...

>So please stop trying to look down your
>collective nose at us on Webtv.

Like you, I'm really tired of it too.

>>Too bad they can figure out how to get
>>access to the groups...

>We don't have to figure it out , it is easier
>to get to here on webtv than a
>computer. We often wonder how YOU
>find these groups.......

LOL! That's the only reason I continue to use webtv-- for my usenet
participation. It's really easy and I'm used to the way it works. One
touch and you're there. No virus worries.
Any other surfing, research or (buying!) is done on the computer.

>>Maybe some feel that we
>>computer-using folks look down on
>>them for not having a 'real' computer.

>Not MAYBE.....;>)

Agreed.
I can't tell you how many times a discussion has disintegrated into the
service I choose to use. I've actually had people refuse to believe my
monetary status because I post from Webtv. I could NEVER own a Lexus
because I use Webtv. Ha!

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12782-421B5BA8-471@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>I'm saying I'm not sure that was what
>that toad was referring to - I took it to be
>a racial slur against Asians. And now,
>true to form, he/she/it has made a racist
>comment to me. *sigh* There always
>has to be a turd in the punch bowl
>(every single ISP has them, of course),
>but WTV seems to have a
>disproportionate pile of particularly
>nasty trolls. Having said that, most
>WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks,
>but like middle-east terrorists, you only
>notice the ones who are bad. They spoil
>the image for their entire group.
>It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's
>actions will reflect against the majority
>of nice WTVers.

Wow, I'm not trying to start up with you Nat, but this passage is right
up there with negatives that get thrown at a group of people...the type
of thing that got you started in this thread in the first place!
(I notice a slight pattern with you...This is not the first time you've
'slammed' Webtv. It's getting old, from my standpoint.)

*whoosh* Dude, I'm saying that all Muslims are viewed as dangerous or
threatening due to the actions of the extremists, not the reverse. I have
plenty of Muslim friends, and it breaks my heart that they're suffering for
the actions of those who claim to be their brothers/sisters.

I am not really fond of being compared to Middle East terrorists...even
if you backpeddle while saying it. You diminish your argument when you
use the same logic as the person you're arguing with. Rise above and
find another way to 'get' your target.

Me: See above. I never sank to any level lower similar or lower than that
original troll

BTW, I think, like Tegger, you missed the point of the OP. "Ricer" used
to be a slur, but it's connotation has taken on the image that Tegg
suggested. I equate it to the transformation the word "sucks" has made.
We all know what that used to mean, but now it's a common, everyday word
that doesn't carry the negative it used to.

Me: Fair enough.

This response in no way condones the meanspirited post about your race.
That comment disappointed me, too. :(

Me: That's what I meant. People will now assume that all (or most) of you
are trolls because that is unfortunately expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
thing or two about being pre-judged :-)

Natalie

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12782-421B5CD7-472@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

About webtv'ers

>Maybe some feel that we
>computer-using folks look down on them
>for not having a 'real' computer.

Now, where would we get that idea? Perhaps it's from computer-using
folks like you who cloak a diss like you do?

Me: You're right - the damned things are hell to maintain, but I endure it
because I have interests that WTV cannot support (multitasking for one), but
I don't automatically assume anyone will be a troll. They are the ones who
do the convincing, and reinforce the stereotype.

I guess a good comparison would be what happens when I watch a show about
violent criminals (Forensic documentaries) on A&E, TLC, CourtTV and such. I
hope and pray that when they show the suspect he or she is not Black. When
they are, I know there are those in the viewing audience who will think "See!
Those people can't be trusted!"

So, on that level, I understand your reaction.

Natalie

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12782-421B5E3C-474@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...
>
> levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>
>>The problem is, we get a lot of people in
> >here with WebTV, and a lot are decent,
> >but we seem to get many more like our
> >OP here. Just out for an afternoon
> >s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/
> >it again...
>>Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.
>
> Please. Give it a rest. The original poster, while making a very rude
> comment in the coarse of the discussion, is not a troll. I've exchanged
> many a nice comment with them here in the past. He's as much a 'troll'
> as Art or Scott.
>
> Perhaps the vitriol that's ensued is because he dared to post from
> webtv? Is that what this is about? Why is the server being slammed when
> it's a human's words that should be taken to task?
>

Nope! As I said in another part of the thread, pre-judging is unfair, but
then when a WTVer trolls, we are not usually surprised. It's too bad, but
that's the way it is.

Natalie

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:32:47 -0500, Viperkiller <nothing@nothing.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:28:04 GMT, Scott in Florida
><NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:47:24 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>>
>>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>>
>>>Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
>>>have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
>>>signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
>>>ditches, or just generally acting like morons.
>>>
>>
>>If they only kill themselves...that is just fine with me... <g>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Scott in Florida
>
>I agree with your Darwinian philosophy there, Scott.

The only problem is they tend to take others out with
themselves...that isn't good...even in my philosophy <g>...


--
Scott in Florida

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:26:07 -0500, Charles Pisano wrote:

>
> Re: One good thing about snow...

Interesting....my newsreader SNIPPED that whole thing by itself!

Charles, it's not that anybody is really DOWN on WebTV users; I thought it
was a pretty cool idea, too, esp for those who don't need a computer but
want to check the 'net out. It is a pretty neat medium.

The problem is, a lot of the WebTV users are Trolls, who come into a
newsgroup, say something dumb like our friend the OP here did, and sit
back and watch the fun. Sort of like your average AOL user. Mostly kids,
besides.

It wasn't that the OP uses WebTV, it's the fact he came into a Toyota
newsgroup, posted a slam against Toyotas, and then a Dumb-Ass remark to
Natalie, who is held in high regard in this NG, and just acted like a
general @SS. Chances are we'll never hear from him again, unless he gets
bored with his X-Box and wants to go phishing again.

Carry on!

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:50:41 -0800, ravelation wrote:

>
> pisanochas@webtv.net (Charles*Pisano)
> wrote:
>
> snip excellent read...
>
>>So please stop trying to look down your
> >collective nose at us on Webtv.
>
> Like you, I'm really tired of it too.
>
>>>Too bad they can figure out how to get
> >>access to the groups...
>
>>We don't have to figure it out , it is easier
> >to get to here on webtv than a
> >computer. We often wonder how YOU
> >find these groups.......
>
> LOL! That's the only reason I continue to use webtv-- for my usenet
> participation. It's really easy and I'm used to the way it works. One
> touch and you're there. No virus worries.
> Any other surfing, research or (buying!) is done on the computer.
>
>>>Maybe some feel that we
> >>computer-using folks look down on
>>>them for not having a 'real' computer.
>
>>Not MAYBE.....;>)
>
> Agreed.
> I can't tell you how many times a discussion has disintegrated into the
> service I choose to use. I've actually had people refuse to believe my
> monetary status because I post from Webtv. I could NEVER own a Lexus
> because I use Webtv. Ha!

Hey Rav, I read your posts. I don't look at headers. Never noticed you use
WebTV. You don't ACT like a WebTV user (not so much in this group, but in
others, where thay have made a 'reputation' for themselves)

I have never seen the system in action. i have been an electronics tech, a
computer network designer and installer, worked for Fortune 50 companies
where Usenet access was aquired through a VAX or other such dinosaur, but
have never seen WebTV. Sorry I misspoke about the ease with which the
newsgroups are accessed.

But, you have piqued my interest. I poke around the Salvation Army stores,
and they had a WebTV setup for $5 but it wasn't complete. I actually toyed
with the idea of buying it because it is one of the few areas of
communications and computing I am unfamiliar with.

As far as monitors, I used to sit right on top of mine, until I read an
article about the radiation 8-9 years ago. Since then I have moved my
monitor more than an arm's lenght away and try to buy low-emission units
(um, also at the Sal Army...where else can you buy a 19" Trinitron for $12?!?)
And I did notice the headaches and most important, memory loss!

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:19:52 -0800, ravelation wrote:

>
> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>
>>I'm saying I'm not sure that was what
> >that toad was referring to - I took it to be
> >a racial slur against Asians. And now,
> >true to form, he/she/it has made a racist
> >comment to me. *sigh* There always
> >has to be a turd in the punch bowl
> >(every single ISP has them, of course),
> >but WTV seems to have a
> >disproportionate pile of particularly
> >nasty trolls. Having said that, most
> >WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks,
> >but like middle-east terrorists, you only
> >notice the ones who are bad. They spoil
> >the image for their entire group.
>>It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's
> >actions will reflect against the majority
> >of nice WTVers.
>
> Wow, I'm not trying to start up with you Nat, but this passage is right
> up there with negatives that get thrown at a group of people...the type
> of thing that got you started in this thread in the first place!
> (I notice a slight pattern with you...This is not the first time you've
> 'slammed' Webtv. It's getting old, from my standpoint.)
>
> I am not really fond of being compared to Middle East terrorists...even
> if you backpeddle while saying it. You diminish your argument when you
> use the same logic as the person you're arguing with. Rise above and
> find another way to 'get' your target.
>
> BTW, I think, like Tegger, you missed the point of the OP. "Ricer" used
> to be a slur, but it's connotation has taken on the image that Tegg
> suggested. I equate it to the transformation the word "sucks" has made.
> We all know what that used to mean, but now it's a common, everyday word
> that doesn't carry the negative it used to.

I disagree with this. Right off the bat, when I read the OP's post, I took
it as the old meaning for ricer, IE anybody who drives a Toyota or Honda.
His remark to Natalie only cnfirmed my feeling he was just in here to stir
up the pot and watch the fun. He was an idiot, and that is why WebTV gets
a bad rep, because it's so often used by Trolls. That remark he made to
Nat REALLY pissed me off. Obviously he watches this group...

>
> This response in no way condones the meanspirited post about your race.
> That comment disappointed me, too. :(

"hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:W8RSd.60930$8a6.39735@trndny09...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:19:52 -0800, ravelation wrote:
>
>>
>> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>>
>>>I'm saying I'm not sure that was what
>> >that toad was referring to - I took it to be
>> >a racial slur against Asians. And now,
>> >true to form, he/she/it has made a racist
>> >comment to me. *sigh* There always
>> >has to be a turd in the punch bowl
>> >(every single ISP has them, of course),
>> >but WTV seems to have a
>> >disproportionate pile of particularly
>> >nasty trolls. Having said that, most
>> >WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks,
>> >but like middle-east terrorists, you only
>> >notice the ones who are bad. They spoil
>> >the image for their entire group.
>>>It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's
>> >actions will reflect against the majority
>> >of nice WTVers.
>>
>> Wow, I'm not trying to start up with you Nat, but this passage is right
>> up there with negatives that get thrown at a group of people...the type
>> of thing that got you started in this thread in the first place!
>> (I notice a slight pattern with you...This is not the first time you've
>> 'slammed' Webtv. It's getting old, from my standpoint.)
>>
>> I am not really fond of being compared to Middle East terrorists...even
>> if you backpeddle while saying it. You diminish your argument when you
>> use the same logic as the person you're arguing with. Rise above and
>> find another way to 'get' your target.
>>
>> BTW, I think, like Tegger, you missed the point of the OP. "Ricer" used
>> to be a slur, but it's connotation has taken on the image that Tegg
>> suggested. I equate it to the transformation the word "sucks" has made.
>> We all know what that used to mean, but now it's a common, everyday word
>> that doesn't carry the negative it used to.
>
> I disagree with this. Right off the bat, when I read the OP's post, I took
> it as the old meaning for ricer, IE anybody who drives a Toyota or Honda.
> His remark to Natalie only confirmed my feeling he was just in here to stir
> up the pot and watch the fun. He was an idiot, and that is why WebTV gets
> a bad rep, because it's so often used by Trolls. That remark he made to
> Nat REALLY pissed me off. Obviously he watches this group...

Absolutely. It's not like I put my race into every post. He would have had
to be here for a while.

I don't notice headers when I read people's posts, until they pull crap like
that critter; but I only look at the headers to place it into my killfile.

Natalie

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:30:52 -0800, ravelation wrote:

>
> levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>
>>The problem is, we get a lot of people in
> >here with WebTV, and a lot are decent,
> >but we seem to get many more like our
> >OP here. Just out for an afternoon
> >s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/
> >it again...
>>Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.
>
> Please. Give it a rest. The original poster, while making a very rude
> comment in the coarse of the discussion, is not a troll. I've exchanged
> many a nice comment with them here in the past. He's as much a 'troll'
> as Art or Scott.
>
> Perhaps the vitriol that's ensued is because he dared to post from
> webtv? Is that what this is about? Why is the server being slammed when
> it's a human's words that should be taken to task?

Not at all. As I said in another post, I never noticed you posted from
WebTV; actually, I don't care HOW anyone posts. You may have had discourse
with him and found him decent; I may have read his post wrong and taken it
as a trolling; his comment to Nat was WAY off base and there is not much
return from that. He needs to apologize NOW, IMO.

And as I stated before, a lot of the crap stirred up in the groups comes
from WebTV, and AOL also. That's why they have bad reps...present company
excluded, of course.

"hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:XYQSd.29326$ya6.7452@trndny01...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:26:07 -0500, Charles Pisano wrote:
>
>>
>> Re: One good thing about snow...
>
> Interesting....my newsreader SNIPPED that whole thing by itself!
>
> Charles, it's not that anybody is really DOWN on WebTV users; I thought it
> was a pretty cool idea, too, esp for those who don't need a computer but
> want to check the 'net out. It is a pretty neat medium.

Absolutely. As I've said, the fewer the bells and whistles, the less that
can go wrong
>
> The problem is, a lot of the WebTV users are Trolls, who come into a
> newsgroup, say something dumb like our friend the OP here did, and sit
> back and watch the fun. Sort of like your average AOL user. Mostly kids,
> besides.

I believe a lot of them are kids as well.
>
> It wasn't that the OP uses WebTV, it's the fact he came into a Toyota
> newsgroup, posted a slam against Toyotas, and then a Dumb-Ass remark to
> Natalie, who is held in high regard in this NG, and just acted like a
> general @SS. Chances are we'll never hear from him again, unless he gets
> bored with his X-Box and wants to go phishing again.
>
> Carry on!
>
LOL

Natalie

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:44:07 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:W8RSd.60930$8a6.39735@trndny09...
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:19:52 -0800, ravelation wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm saying I'm not sure that was what
>>> >that toad was referring to - I took it to be
>>> >a racial slur against Asians. And now,
>>> >true to form, he/she/it has made a racist
>>> >comment to me. *sigh* There always
>>> >has to be a turd in the punch bowl
>>> >(every single ISP has them, of course),
>>> >but WTV seems to have a
>>> >disproportionate pile of particularly
>>> >nasty trolls. Having said that, most
>>> >WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks,
>>> >but like middle-east terrorists, you only
>>> >notice the ones who are bad. They spoil
>>> >the image for their entire group.
>>>>It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's
>>> >actions will reflect against the majority
>>> >of nice WTVers.
>>>
>>> Wow, I'm not trying to start up with you Nat, but this passage is right
>>> up there with negatives that get thrown at a group of people...the type
>>> of thing that got you started in this thread in the first place!
>>> (I notice a slight pattern with you...This is not the first time you've
>>> 'slammed' Webtv. It's getting old, from my standpoint.)
>>>
>>> I am not really fond of being compared to Middle East terrorists...even
>>> if you backpeddle while saying it. You diminish your argument when you
>>> use the same logic as the person you're arguing with. Rise above and
>>> find another way to 'get' your target.
>>>
>>> BTW, I think, like Tegger, you missed the point of the OP. "Ricer" used
>>> to be a slur, but it's connotation has taken on the image that Tegg
>>> suggested. I equate it to the transformation the word "sucks" has made.
>>> We all know what that used to mean, but now it's a common, everyday word
>>> that doesn't carry the negative it used to.
>>
>> I disagree with this. Right off the bat, when I read the OP's post, I took
>> it as the old meaning for ricer, IE anybody who drives a Toyota or Honda.
>> His remark to Natalie only confirmed my feeling he was just in here to stir
>> up the pot and watch the fun. He was an idiot, and that is why WebTV gets
>> a bad rep, because it's so often used by Trolls. That remark he made to
>> Nat REALLY pissed me off. Obviously he watches this group...
>
> Absolutely. It's not like I put my race into every post. He would have had
> to be here for a while.
>
> I don't notice headers when I read people's posts, until they pull crap like
> that critter; but I only look at the headers to place it into my killfile.
>
> Natalie

Or to check out Trolls! ;)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:46:30 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:peRSd.60932$8a6.46759@trndny09...
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:30:52 -0800, ravelation wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>>>
>>>>The problem is, we get a lot of people in
>>> >here with WebTV, and a lot are decent,
>>> >but we seem to get many more like our
>>> >OP here. Just out for an afternoon
>>> >s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/
>>> >it again...
>>>>Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.
>>>
>>> Please. Give it a rest. The original poster, while making a very rude
>>> comment in the coarse of the discussion, is not a troll. I've exchanged
>>> many a nice comment with them here in the past. He's as much a 'troll'
>>> as Art or Scott.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the vitriol that's ensued is because he dared to post from
>>> webtv? Is that what this is about? Why is the server being slammed when
>>> it's a human's words that should be taken to task?
>>
>> Not at all. As I said in another post, I never noticed you posted from
>> WebTV; actually, I don't care HOW anyone posts. You may have had discourse
>> with him and found him decent; I may have read his post wrong and taken it
>> as a trolling; his comment to Nat was WAY off base and there is not much
>> return from that. He needs to apologize NOW, IMO.
>>
>> And as I stated before, a lot of the crap stirred up in the groups comes
>> from WebTV, and AOL also. That's why they have bad reps...present company
>> excluded, of course.
>>
>>
>>
> My point exactly! That's why I made the comment that this critter wasn't
> helping the image of his/her/it's fellow WTVers
>
> Natalie

I've been on UUNET and Usenet since about 1991 or so. There have always
been trolls, but they seem to have dramitaclly increased about the time
AOL went 'net and WebTV came on-line...

In article <Xns9604AA2F76091teggeratistop@207.14.113.17>,
tegger@istop.c0m says...
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:37uhpuF5f5reiU1@individual.net:
>
> >
> > "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9604759505463teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
> >> LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
> >> 3131.bay.webtv.net:
> >>
> >>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
> >>
> >> --
> >> TeGGeR®
> >>
> > Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day over
> > the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
> >
>
>
> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches mounted
> on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and interior
> parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single wiper in the
> middle, that sort of thing.
>
>
>
Likewise.
Not decent proper family transport, or real properly tuned performance
hatches.
He would have gotten a better response in a Honda/Acura NG :)
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>Me: Dude,

Me: Ravelation is a chick. Just like you.

>I have absolutely nothing
>against *any* poster's methods of
>posting. I only take exception to trolls
>who spew from day one, then get pissed
>that we comment on his/her/it being a
>WTVer.

That's a weak argument, especially when you haven't even taken the time
to realize I'm a chick.(We've shared pleasantries before) I'm not sure
the person you went after, doubleq, fits the description you've decided
to give them, a troll who spews from day one. As I said before, I've
shared a nice conversation with them. Perhaps it's because I haven't
'judged' them due to their use of webtv?

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>*whoosh* Dude,

It's chick. And it didn't *whoosh* over my head. I totally understood
the backhanded way in which you chose to make your argument.

>Me: That's what I meant. People will now
>assume that all (or most) of you
>are trolls because that is unfortunately
>expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
>thing or two about being pre-judged :-)

Why are you using what amounts to a pre-K style of posting? Are you
ASSuming because I'm on Webtv, that I won't be able to follow you if you
post like a big computer user, quoting as you go, without denoting it's
you that's speaking?

You mentioned knowing how it feels to be prejudged. My point to you is,
how can you do the same thing that you have had to deal with your whole
life? Just because you say "Most are nice.", doesn't hide the fact you
like to make fun of WTVers. My guess is food chain in the life of
cyberspace. How sad that it comes from someone who should know better...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>About webtv'ers
>Maybe some feel that we
>computer-using folks look down on
>them for not having a 'real' computer.

>>Now, where would we get that idea?
>>Perhaps it's from computer-using folks
>>like you who cloak a diss like you do?

>>Me: You're right - the damned things
>>are hell to maintain,

Do you have any idea how condescending it feels to have you post in the
style you've chosen for our conversation?!? Why are you doing that? I've
not noticed you using the "Me:" prompt before. Are you afraid I might
not be able to follow what you're saying? (another cloaked diss is the
way I read it.)

>but I endure it because I have interests
>that WTV cannot support (multitasking
>for one), but I don't automatically
>assume anyone will be a troll.

But that's exactly what you did in this thread. The use of "Ricer"
wasn't meant to disparage a group of people, but rather a style of car.
Methinks you saw "webtv" and went for the kill, rather than accept the
connotation that was meant.

>I guess a good comparison would be
>what happens when I watch a show
>about violent criminals (Forensic
>documentaries) on A&E, TLC, CourtTV
.and such. I hope and pray that when
>they show the suspect he or she is not
>Black. When they are, I know there are
>those in the viewing audience who will
>think "See! Those people can't be
>trusted!"
>So, on that level, I understand your
>reaction.

Finally! We have comprehension. This reason you give is why I find it
really strange that the same behavior is coming from someone who already
knows what being prejudged feels like!

ravelation wrote:
> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>
>> *whoosh* Dude,
>
> It's chick. And it didn't *whoosh* over my head. I totally understood
> the backhanded way in which you chose to make your argument.
>
>> Me: That's what I meant. People will now
> >assume that all (or most) of you
>> are trolls because that is unfortunately
> >expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
> >thing or two about being pre-judged :-)
>
> Why are you using what amounts to a pre-K style of posting? Are you
> ASSuming because I'm on Webtv, that I won't be able to follow you if
> you post like a big computer user, quoting as you go, without
> denoting it's you that's speaking?
>
> You mentioned knowing how it feels to be prejudged. My point to you
> is, how can you do the same thing that you have had to deal with your
> whole life? Just because you say "Most are nice.", doesn't hide the
> fact you like to make fun of WTVers. My guess is food chain in the
> life of cyberspace. How sad that it comes from someone who should
> know better...

Poking fun at WebTV'rs is usually justified. The next step up is being an
AOL'r. LOL

--

- Philip

levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:

>Hey Rav, I read your posts. I don't look
>at headers. Never noticed you use
>WebTV. You don't ACT like a WebTV
>user (not so much in this group, but in
>others, where thay have made a
>'reputation' for themselves)

Thanks for the compliment. I must admit, I'm in a minority when it comes
to how to use this friggin' thing. I actually "learned" how to cut and
paste!

>I have never seen the system in action.

For ng posting, it's kept me paying $19.95/month. Because it's dial up,
it takes too long to load pages from websites. And some pages & files
are too large to load. (I have the original box so it has limits that
the newer ones have fixed.)

>i have been an electronics tech, a
>computer network designer and
>installer, worked for Fortune 50
>companies where Usenet access was
>aquired through a VAX or other such
>dinosaur, but have never seen WebTV.
>Sorry I misspoke about the ease with
>which the newsgroups are accessed.

Apology accepted. To give you an idea of how easy this thing is to use,
I continue to dodge the slings and arrows of many computer users in
order to keep expressing my thoughts with webtv as my
portal. I could change and have my "image" upgraded, but it's not worth
it to me. 'Sides, I like making people have to stop and think that all
webtvers aren't idiots.

>But, you have piqued my interest. I poke
>around the Salvation Army stores, and
>they had a WebTV setup for $5 but it
>wasn't complete.

Getting the system is cheap. It's the monthly fee that adds up.

>I actually toyed with the idea of buying it
>because it is one of the few areas of
>communications and computing I am
>unfamiliar with.

It's kewl to be able to sit on your couch and type from the wireless
keyboard.

>As far as monitors, I used to sit right on
>top of mine, until I read an article about
>the radiation 8-9 years ago. Since then I
>have moved my monitor more than an
>arm's lenght away and try to buy
>low-emission units (um, also at the Sal
>Army...where else can you buy a 19"
>Trinitron for $12?!?)

Now, that's a deal!

>And I did notice the headaches and most
>important, memory loss!

I know when I sit in front of our computer, I get to feeling it. This
thing, the only feelings I get are the ones when people are looking
Down...

Thanks for the chat.

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>Mostly kids, besides.

>I believe a lot of them are kids as well.

Wrong. Actually, webtv is used by our elderly, if you want to "label"
their users. Do you honestly think that a teenager would want to be
associated with something like webtv, that gets made fun of all the
time?

>>and then a Dumb-Ass remark to
>>Natalie, who is held in high regard in
>>this NG, and just acted like a general
>>@SS.

>Chances are we'll never hear from him
>again, unless he gets bored with his
>X-Box and wants to go phishing again.

Again, I can't tell you how wrong you are about the users of webtv. They
aren't teens, they're your Granny and Gramps!

Why is there a need to label what/who webtvers are, anyway?

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>And as I stated before, a lot of the crap
>>stirred up in the groups comes from
..WebTV, and AOL also. That's why they
>>have bad reps...present company
>>excluded, of course.

>My point exactly! That's why I made the
>comment that this critter wasn't helping
>the image of his/her/it's fellow WTVers

So, it's okay for you to label a group based on something they have in
common, but when someone does that based on race, it's nasty and
unacceptable. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'....

Why should *My* image be based on something someone else has said?

1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t (Philip)
wrote:

>Poking fun at WebTV'rs is usually
>justified. The next step up is being an
>AOL'r. * LOL

That joke is as old as the hills and twice as muddy! Is your family
surviving the deluge ok?

ravelation wrote:
> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>
>>> And as I stated before, a lot of the crap
> >>stirred up in the groups comes from
> ..WebTV, and AOL also. That's why they
> >>have bad reps...present company
> >>excluded, of course.
>
>> My point exactly! That's why I made the
> >comment that this critter wasn't helping
> >the image of his/her/it's fellow WTVers
>
> So, it's okay for you to label a group based on something they have in
> common, but when someone does that based on race, it's nasty and
> unacceptable. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'....
>
> Why should *My* image be based on something someone else has said?

Sure. The difference is in poking fun at chosen behavior or preference vs.
poking fun at something those persons have no choice in or control over.
--

- Philip

ravelation wrote:
> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>
>>> Mostly kids, besides.
>
>> I believe a lot of them are kids as well.
>
> Wrong. Actually, webtv is used by our elderly, if you want to "label"
> their users. Do you honestly think that a teenager would want to be
> associated with something like webtv, that gets made fun of all the
> time?
>
>>> and then a Dumb-Ass remark to
> >>Natalie, who is held in high regard in
> >>this NG, and just acted like a general
> >>@SS.
>
> >Chances are we'll never hear from him
> >again, unless he gets bored with his
> >X-Box and wants to go phishing again.
>
> Again, I can't tell you how wrong you are about the users of webtv.
> They aren't teens, they're your Granny and Gramps!
>
> Why is there a need to label what/who webtvers are, anyway?

National pass time activity! WebTV is like driving a Yugo on the
Interstate. You could be Mario Andretti but .... in a Yugo? There are web
browsers in nearly all cellphones that will do as much or more than WebTV.
WebTV is like submitting your doctoral thesis in pencil. :^D
--

- Philip

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23486-421CA1BB-63@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>Me: Dude,

Me: Ravelation is a chick. Just like you.

I used 'dude' as slang, and I'm not a chick, I'm a woman. That nick of yours
is unisex, don't you think? How should I know or care what your gender is,
anyway?

>I have absolutely nothing
>against *any* poster's methods of
>posting. I only take exception to trolls
>who spew from day one, then get pissed
>that we comment on his/her/it being a
>WTVer.

That's a weak argument, especially when you haven't even taken the time
to realize I'm a chick.

Me: This isn't about gender, and who cares, really? Even with the nick
"Wickeddoll" I get mistakenly thought to be male. It's really irrelevant in
this particular situation. Besides, if you think one should try to be
certain of the gender, origin, or race of someone, I would find that rather
scary, as it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

We've shared pleasantries before) I'm not sure
the person you went after, doubleq, fits the description you've decided
to give them, a troll who spews from day one. As I said before, I've
shared a nice conversation with them. Perhaps it's because I haven't
'judged' them due to their use of webtv?

Me: WHOOSH! I'll say this once more, then I'm done with this. What I was
trying to say there is that since WTV already has a bad reputation, any
volley thrown by the offender will largely be considered 'typical'. Listen,
as a *southern-born black* woman, I sure as hell know how unfair prejudice
is, but my point is that every time this happens from WTVers, its reputation
suffers again. Fairly or not

Got it?

I hope so, but I won't lose sleep over it if you don't.

Natalie

1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t (Philip)
wrote:

>National pass time activity! WebTV is
>like driving a Yugo on the Interstate.
>You could be Mario Andretti but .... in a
>Yugo? There are web browsers in nearly
>all cellphones that will do as much or
>more than WebTV. WebTV is like
>submitting your doctoral thesis in pencil.
>:^D

In self examination, I surprise myself that I still use this thing (a
testament to its ease of operation!) as I tend to be very, ummmm,
'snooty' when it comes to appearances. I like my nice car and house and
jewelry and and and....After all, I live in SoCal, home of the shallow
and muddy!

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23486-421CAD81-69@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>Mostly kids, besides.

>I believe a lot of them are kids as well.

Wrong. Actually, webtv is used by our elderly, if you want to "label"
their users. Do you honestly think that a teenager would want to be
associated with something like webtv, that gets made fun of all the
time?

Me: I acknowledge that right now I'm violating my comment earlier about
dropping the subject, but I had to comment on this latest misunderstanding on
your part, Revealation. We are referring to the the trolls, not the majority
of WTVer. It's a fact that *all* forms of internet access contain the
element of the annoying hit & run posters, such as that DQ critter. I've
seen them troll many other mediums, such as IRC and message boards.
Honestly, I really doubt an elderly person would troll with the level of
idiocy I've seen on the net. If they do, that is a sad commentary on humans
in general.

>>and then a Dumb-Ass remark to
>>Natalie, who is held in high regard in
>>this NG, and just acted like a general
>>@SS.

Thanks! But I think Revealation has me pegged as a net snob. SHE couldn't
be more wrong.

>Chances are we'll never hear from him
>again, unless he gets bored with his
>X-Box and wants to go phishing again.

Again, I can't tell you how wrong you are about the users of webtv. They
aren't teens, they're your Granny and Gramps!

Me: See above, and please consider not being so hasty to judge us for simply
stating our experiences on the net. And while you're at it, let me just
point out a netiquette thing. It's generally frowned upon to not use reply
lines. (Like this: >) You can set your system to automatically put that in,
so that it's easier to know who's saying what. I've seen flame wars erupt
because of someone thinking a comment was made by a particular person, when
it was actually someone else. Just a suggestion, not a criticism.

Why is there a need to label what/who webtvers are, anyway?

Me: We don't label you. The particularly nasty trolls do

Natalie

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23486-421CA411-64@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>*whoosh* Dude,

It's chick. And it didn't *whoosh* over my head. I totally understood
the backhanded way in which you chose to make your argument.

Me: Good gawd.

>Me: That's what I meant. People will now
>assume that all (or most) of you
>are trolls because that is unfortunately
>expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
>thing or two about being pre-judged :-)

Why are you using what amounts to a pre-K style of posting? Are you
ASSuming because I'm on Webtv, that I won't be able to follow you if you
post like a big computer user, quoting as you go, without denoting it's
you that's speaking?

Me: What the hell are you on about? It's normal to include the replies, My
lord, you are way off on this one. Consider: Someone logs onto the NG for
the first time. The see our back and forth, but don't know what the original
comments were. It's actually good netiquette and nothing more. The fact
that you're getting so upset about this proves YOU have the problem with
being prejudged, despite doing the same thing to us.

You mentioned knowing how it feels to be prejudged. My point to you is,
how can you do the same thing that you have had to deal with your whole
life? Just because you say "Most are nice.", doesn't hide the fact you
like to make fun of WTVers. My guess is food chain in the life of
cyberspace. How sad that it comes from someone who should know better...

Me: Jesus, Mary & Joseph! Sweetie, since it's clear you have me pegged as
some sort of net beast, I throw in the towel. I have way better things to do
than argue with a screen name who refuses to even acknowledge my attempts to
be fair.

I'll concede only that prejudging WTVers is wrong, but I have to tell you - I
will continue to post the way I see fit. If you don't wanna see my posts even
getting loaded, fine. Put me in your killfile. Otherwise please stop
ragging me, since you know I won't be seeing your comments about me.

Natalie

ravelation wrote:
> 1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t (Philip)
> wrote:
>
>> National pass time activity! WebTV is
>> like driving a Yugo on the Interstate.
>> You could be Mario Andretti but .... in a
>> Yugo? There are web browsers in nearly
>> all cellphones that will do as much or
>> more than WebTV. WebTV is like
>> submitting your doctoral thesis in pencil.
>> :^D
>
> In self examination, I surprise myself that I still use this thing (a
> testament to its ease of operation!) as I tend to be very, ummmm,
> 'snooty' when it comes to appearances. I like my nice car and house
> and jewelry and and and....After all, I live in SoCal, home of the
> shallow and muddy!

Not a testament to ease of use as much as it is a statement of your rich
economy. LOL That WebTV thing should be red tagged. ;-)
--

- Philip

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:52:32 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>> Why should *My* image be based on something someone else has said?
>
>Sure. The difference is in poking fun at chosen behavior or preference vs.
>poking fun at something those persons have no choice in or control over.

Which category do stupid right-wingers fall under? 8)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:00:15 -0800, ravelation wrote:

>
> 1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t (Philip)
> wrote:
>
>>National pass time activity! WebTV is
> >like driving a Yugo on the Interstate.
> >You could be Mario Andretti but .... in a
> >Yugo? There are web browsers in nearly
> >all cellphones that will do as much or
> >more than WebTV. WebTV is like
> >submitting your doctoral thesis in pencil.
> >:^D
>
> In self examination, I surprise myself that I still use this thing (a
> testament to its ease of operation!) as I tend to be very, ummmm,
> 'snooty' when it comes to appearances. I like my nice car and house and
> jewelry and and and....After all, I live in SoCal, home of the shallow
> and muddy!


Bottom line, Rav, we don't care how you post (not saying that snottily or
condescendingly). You're a good member of this group. You post by WebTV,
so be it. See my post about the woman and the Pentuim in this thread. If
it works for you, great. But, you know 'netiquette' ,the most important
thing.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:10:07 +0000, Philip wrote:

> ravelation wrote:
>> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>>
>>> *whoosh* Dude,
>>
>> It's chick. And it didn't *whoosh* over my head. I totally understood
>> the backhanded way in which you chose to make your argument.
>>
>>> Me: That's what I meant. People will now
>> >assume that all (or most) of you
>>> are trolls because that is unfortunately
>> >expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
>> >thing or two about being pre-judged :-)
>>
>> Why are you using what amounts to a pre-K style of posting? Are you
>> ASSuming because I'm on Webtv, that I won't be able to follow you if
>> you post like a big computer user, quoting as you go, without
>> denoting it's you that's speaking?
>>
>> You mentioned knowing how it feels to be prejudged. My point to you
>> is, how can you do the same thing that you have had to deal with your
>> whole life? Just because you say "Most are nice.", doesn't hide the
>> fact you like to make fun of WTVers. My guess is food chain in the
>> life of cyberspace. How sad that it comes from someone who should
>> know better...
>
> Poking fun at WebTV'rs is usually justified. The next step up is being an
> AOL'r. LOL

I've already done mentioned that, Philip!

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:50:40 -0800, ravelation wrote:

>
> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>>About webtv'ers
>>Maybe some feel that we
>>computer-using folks look down on
> >them for not having a 'real' computer.
>
>>>Now, where would we get that idea?
>>>Perhaps it's from computer-using folks
> >>like you who cloak a diss like you do?
>
>>>Me: You're right - the damned things
> >>are hell to maintain,
>
> Do you have any idea how condescending it feels to have you post in the
> style you've chosen for our conversation?!? Why are you doing that? I've
> not noticed you using the "Me:" prompt before. Are you afraid I might
> not be able to follow what you're saying? (another cloaked diss is the
> way I read it.)
>
> >but I endure it because I have interests
> >that WTV cannot support (multitasking
> >for one), but I don't automatically
> >assume anyone will be a troll.
>
> But that's exactly what you did in this thread. The use of "Ricer"
> wasn't meant to disparage a group of people, but rather a style of car.
> Methinks you saw "webtv" and went for the kill, rather than accept the
> connotation that was meant.

Actually, I didn't even look to see where the poster was posting from; I
tought his intial post was a slam against ALL Toyota owners, since 'ricer'
has been used to describe US longer than it has for the Fast And The
Furious crowd. And then when he slammed Nat, that confirmed my suspicions.
He was really just here to troll right from the start, and none of us see
him/her denying it now, do we?

>
>>I guess a good comparison would be
> >what happens when I watch a show
> >about violent criminals (Forensic
> >documentaries) on A&E, TLC, CourtTV
> .and such. I hope and pray that when
> >they show the suspect he or she is not
> >Black. When they are, I know there are
> >those in the viewing audience who will
> >think "See! Those people can't be
> >trusted!"
>>So, on that level, I understand your
> >reaction.
>
> Finally! We have comprehension. This reason you give is why I find it
> really strange that the same behavior is coming from someone who already
> knows what being prejudged feels like!

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:57:58 +0000, dizzy wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:52:32 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>>> Why should *My* image be based on something someone else has said?
>>
>>Sure. The difference is in poking fun at chosen behavior or preference vs.
>>poking fun at something those persons have no choice in or control over.
>
> Which category do stupid right-wingers fall under? 8)

Um, that would be me....

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:57:58 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:52:32 GMT, "Philip"
><1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>>> Why should *My* image be based on something someone else has said?
>>
>>Sure. The difference is in poking fun at chosen behavior or preference vs.
>>poking fun at something those persons have no choice in or control over.
>
>Which category do stupid right-wingers fall under? 8)


Bad enough this is dumb, but you had to go political?

bottom of the barrel

later,

tom @ www.CarFleaMarket.com

hachiroku wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:10:07 +0000, Philip wrote:
>
>> ravelation wrote:
>>> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>>>
>>>> *whoosh* Dude,
>>>
>>> It's chick. And it didn't *whoosh* over my head. I totally
>>> understood the backhanded way in which you chose to make your
>>> argument.
>>>
>>>> Me: That's what I meant. People will now
>>> >assume that all (or most) of you
>>>> are trolls because that is unfortunately
>>> >expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
>>> >thing or two about being pre-judged :-)
>>>
>>> Why are you using what amounts to a pre-K style of posting? Are you
>>> ASSuming because I'm on Webtv, that I won't be able to follow you if
>>> you post like a big computer user, quoting as you go, without
>>> denoting it's you that's speaking?
>>>
>>> You mentioned knowing how it feels to be prejudged. My point to you
>>> is, how can you do the same thing that you have had to deal with
>>> your whole life? Just because you say "Most are nice.", doesn't
>>> hide the
>>> fact you like to make fun of WTVers. My guess is food chain in the
>>> life of cyberspace. How sad that it comes from someone who should
>>> know better...
>>
>> Poking fun at WebTV'rs is usually justified. The next step up is
>> being an AOL'r. LOL
>
> I've already done mentioned that, Philip!

So? Did you use better grammar?
--

- Philip

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:31:21 -0500, The Real Tom
<newsgroup01NOSPAM@intertainia.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:57:58 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:52:32 GMT, "Philip"
>><1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why should *My* image be based on something someone else has said?
>>>
>>>Sure. The difference is in poking fun at chosen behavior or preference vs.
>>>poking fun at something those persons have no choice in or control over.
>>
>>Which category do stupid right-wingers fall under? 8)
>
>
>Bad enough this is dumb, but you had to go political?

Idiot. It was a joke. See the smiley?

>bottom of the barrel

Yes, scum like you are bottom of the barrel.

>later,

Hopefully not.

When I first showed my 17 year old son my webtv PLUS several years ago
he thought is was so cool how you can flip the screen and move the pip
around the screen.

I wonder how hard it would be to add a picture from your tv screen to
an email on your pentium? PS I sell wetbv PLUS units on Amazon.com.

Like a good woman , a J vin number camry and cheap real estate here in
Florida , Plus units are hard to find. Even harder with a warranty.

Don't hate us cause we don't have pop up's . And access to email is a
breeze compared to a computer. I love the movie editing program on my
computer. But for the most part the thing is a pain in the arse and
work in progress. And we (myself included) have footed the bill along
the way.

Computers are like cars that never did run very well and they are just
now coming into their own. And how are they evolving? They are becoming
more like webtv Plus by merging tv and the computers with a wireless
mouse and keyboard.

I can program my plus to change to the channel I want and turn on my vcr
to record it as well. I can program all of my shows to come on
automatically all while laying in bed. Did I mention I don't have to
miss a phone call with the built in call waiting feature. Try buying a
computer with one of those allready installed.?? Hello???

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:59:12 +0000, Philip wrote:

> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:10:07 +0000, Philip wrote:
>>
>>> ravelation wrote:
>>>> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *whoosh* Dude,
>>>>
>>>> It's chick. And it didn't *whoosh* over my head. I totally
>>>> understood the backhanded way in which you chose to make your
>>>> argument.
>>>>
>>>>> Me: That's what I meant. People will now
>>>> >assume that all (or most) of you
>>>>> are trolls because that is unfortunately
>>>> >expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
>>>> >thing or two about being pre-judged :-)
>>>>
>>>> Why are you using what amounts to a pre-K style of posting? Are you
>>>> ASSuming because I'm on Webtv, that I won't be able to follow you if
>>>> you post like a big computer user, quoting as you go, without
>>>> denoting it's you that's speaking?
>>>>
>>>> You mentioned knowing how it feels to be prejudged. My point to you
>>>> is, how can you do the same thing that you have had to deal with
>>>> your whole life? Just because you say "Most are nice.", doesn't
>>>> hide the
>>>> fact you like to make fun of WTVers. My guess is food chain in the
>>>> life of cyberspace. How sad that it comes from someone who should
>>>> know better...
>>>
>>> Poking fun at WebTV'rs is usually justified. The next step up is
>>> being an AOL'r. LOL
>>
>> I've already done mentioned that, Philip!
>
> So? Did you use better grammar?

Nah!

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:52:45 -0500, Charles Pisano wrote:

> When I first showed my 17 year old son my webtv PLUS several years ago
> he thought is was so cool how you can flip the screen and move the pip
> around the screen.
>
> I wonder how hard it would be to add a picture from your tv screen to
> an email on your pentium? PS I sell wetbv PLUS units on Amazon.com.
>
> Like a good woman , a J vin number camry and cheap real estate here in
> Florida , Plus units are hard to find. Even harder with a warranty.
>
> Don't hate us cause we don't have pop up's . And access to email is a
> breeze compared to a computer. I love the movie editing program on my
> computer. But for the most part the thing is a pain in the arse and
> work in progress. And we (myself included) have footed the bill along
> the way.
>
> Computers are like cars that never did run very well and they are just
> now coming into their own. And how are they evolving? They are becoming
> more like webtv Plus by merging tv and the computers with a wireless
> mouse and keyboard.
>
> I can program my plus to change to the channel I want and turn on my vcr
> to record it as well. I can program all of my shows to come on
> automatically all while laying in bed. Did I mention I don't have to
> miss a phone call with the built in call waiting feature. Try buying a
> computer with one of those allready installed.?? Hello???

Ya know, I have to agree with him!

I always wanted to try it to see how it operated.
Can you get into the OS at all? Tweak anything? 'Hot Rod' it a little bit?
I think I remember one time seeing a memory upgrade somewhere.

My knowledge of these boxes only comes from TV ads and what I have seen on
the boxes in the stores. Never saw one in action. By the time I was
actually thinking about getting one, I was pretty well hooked up through
work and never had to bother.


>
> <html>
> <b> <font color="plum" size="5">* <marquee behavior="alternate"
> align="top" direction="left" scrollamount=10 width="100%"
> loop=5>Charles</marquee></font> </b>
>
>
>
> <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/US/FL/Jensen_Beach.html"> <img
> src="http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetempbig_both/language/www/US/FL/Jensen_Beach.gif"
> alt="Click for Jensen Beach, Florida Forecast" height=40 width=467></a>
>
>
>
>
> </body></html>

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:52:45 -0500, pisanochas@webtv.net (Charles
Pisano) wrote:

>When I first showed my 17 year old son my webtv PLUS several years ago
>he thought is was so cool how you can flip the screen and move the pip
>around the screen.
>
>I wonder how hard it would be to add a picture from your tv screen to
>an email on your pentium? PS I sell wetbv PLUS units on Amazon.com.
>
>Like a good woman , a J vin number camry and cheap real estate here in
>Florida , Plus units are hard to find. Even harder with a warranty.
>
>Don't hate us cause we don't have pop up's . And access to email is a
>breeze compared to a computer. I love the movie editing program on my
>computer. But for the most part the thing is a pain in the arse and
>work in progress. And we (myself included) have footed the bill along
>the way.
>
>Computers are like cars that never did run very well and they are just
>now coming into their own. And how are they evolving? They are becoming
>more like webtv Plus by merging tv and the computers with a wireless
>mouse and keyboard.
>
>I can program my plus to change to the channel I want and turn on my vcr
>to record it as well. I can program all of my shows to come on
>automatically all while laying in bed. Did I mention I don't have to
>miss a phone call with the built in call waiting feature. Try buying a
>computer with one of those allready installed.?? Hello???

It is so kewl....that you post non txt to a txt forum.

Yup another Web TV Idiot (if I may borrow Dizzy's term).

Are you related to ravalation?

ROFL


--
Scott in Florida

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:11:59 GMT, Scott in Florida
<NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:

>Yup another Web TV Idiot (if I may borrow Dizzy's term).

Someone I know once said, "Web-TV is for people who can't figure
out AOL."

'Nuff said.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

Charles Pisano wrote:

> Attachment decoded: untitled-2.txt
> --WebTV-Mail-29452-1943
> <html>
> <b> <font color="plum" size="5">* <marquee behavior="alternate"
> align="top" direction="left" scrollamount=10 width="100%"
> loop=5>Charles</marquee></font> </b>
>
>
>
> <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/US/FL/Jensen_Beach.html"> <img
> src="http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetempbig_both/langua
> ge/www/US/FL/Jensen_Beach.gif" alt="Click for Jensen Beach, Florida
> Forecast" height=40 width=467></a>
>
>
>
>
> </body></html>
>
>
Please don't post HTML in a text-only newsgroup like this one. That is
another reason why a lot of WebTV users are often criticized.

levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:

>Actually, I didn't even look to see where
>the poster was posting from; I tought his
>intial post was a slam against ALL
>Toyota owners, since 'ricer' has been
>used to describe US longer than it has
>for the Fast And The Furious crowd. And
>then when he slammed Nat, that
>confirmed my suspicions. He was really
>just here to troll right from the start, and
>none of us see him/her denying it now,
>do we?

That's a point I can't dispute. I apologize that my part in this has
seemed to really piss Natalie off, to the point that it sounded like she
may have killfiled me when all I wanted was to point out that a similar
'predjudice' (as I'm sure she's experienced) was seeping through with
regards to webtv users. When she responded with a bizarre way of cut and
paste with the "Me:" stuff, it really sent me into defensive mode.

So again, if she can see this, my intent was not to turn Natalie against
me, (I like the Wikkeddol!) but to defend people's use of webtv. I know
the foo shits on many an occasion with webtv'ers, but it doesn't mean
you have to wear it. :)

newsgroup01NOSPAM@intertainia.com (The*Real*Tom) wrote:

>>Which category do stupid right-wingers
>>fall under? * 8)

>Bad enough this is dumb, but you had to
>go political?

Hey, I thought you guys liked cat fights?!
Me-ow! ;)

NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't (Scott*in*Florida) wrote:

>It is so kewl....that you post non txt to a
>txt forum.

Yeah, that was a mistake.

>Yup another Web TV Idiot (if I may
>borrow Dizzy's term).

>Are you related to ravalation?

You can be an idiot too, Scott. I can't tell you how many posts of yours
I've not read because you're so damn lazy you can't edit out the
cascading that occurs because you choose to post your political troll
posts (even after people have BEGGED you to stop), that go on and on and
on and on, only to find that one line at the end when you give your
response at the bottom of 5,000 lines of text.

Yeah, I'm a real idiot for knowing proper nettiquette, but post from
webtv.

>ROFL

Laugh away, lazy ass! :) <-----Smiley, because even though you piss me
off, I still like your outlook on America. Just learn to edit your posts
better. You *are* a bigshot computer user, after all. The button you're
looking for might be called Delete. You hit it after highlighting old
dialogue that doesn't have anything to do with what you're saying at
that point.

Now, where's that pot and kettle that need cleaning? HA!

ericd@cox.nét (Eric*Dreher) wrote:

>Someone I know once said, "Web-TV is
>for people who can't figure out AOL."
>'Nuff said.

Ha ha ha. At least you know how to edit properly, Eric. Could you teach
your big time computer users how to do it?

Funny, when I forward an email to my computer (from my webtv PLUS) it
looks the same as it does on my webtv. That is the HTML works. Maybe he
doesn't know how to set up his POP3 email thing whatever that is.

Charles Pisano wrote:

> Funny, when I forward an email to my computer (from my webtv PLUS) it
> looks the same as it does on my webtv. That is the HTML works. Maybe he
> doesn't know how to set up his POP3 email thing whatever that is.
>
But this is not email. This is a newsgroup on Usenet, a primarily text-
based medium. So please don't use HTML here.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:47:58 -0800, ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation)
wrote:

>Ha ha ha. At least you know how to edit properly, Eric.

Ya' think? Wow. A dWeEb-TV'er told me I did it right!
I can sleep well tonight.

>Could you teach your big time computer users how to do it?

Sonny, your medium doesn't permit condescension. AOL is surpassed
only by Web-TV as the faux-ISP whose financial grave I would happily
dance upon.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:32:59 -0800, ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation)
wrote:

> newsgroup01NOSPAM@intertainia.com (The*Real*Tom) wrote:
>
>>>Which category do stupid right-wingers
> >>fall under? * 8)
>
>>Bad enough this is dumb, but you had to
> >go political?
>
>Hey, I thought you guys liked cat fights?!
>Me-ow! ;)

We love cat fights....but not if our 'cat' is one of the cats...


--
Scott in Florida

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:31:06 -0800, ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation)
wrote:

>
>levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>
>>Actually, I didn't even look to see where
> >the poster was posting from; I tought his
> >intial post was a slam against ALL
> >Toyota owners, since 'ricer' has been
> >used to describe US longer than it has
> >for the Fast And The Furious crowd. And
> >then when he slammed Nat, that
> >confirmed my suspicions. He was really
> >just here to troll right from the start, and
> >none of us see him/her denying it now,
> >do we?
>
>That's a point I can't dispute. I apologize that my part in this has
>seemed to really piss Natalie off, to the point that it sounded like she
>may have killfiled me when all I wanted was to point out that a similar
>'predjudice' (as I'm sure she's experienced) was seeping through with
>regards to webtv users. When she responded with a bizarre way of cut and
>paste with the "Me:" stuff, it really sent me into defensive mode.
>
>So again, if she can see this, my intent was not to turn Natalie against
>me, (I like the Wikkeddol!) but to defend people's use of webtv. I know
>the foo shits on many an occasion with webtv'ers, but it doesn't mean
>you have to wear it. :)

I think Natalie won't be seeing your message...
--
Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:750t11h09ejret045foat650ni1sn5hpcp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:31:06 -0800, ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, I didn't even look to see where
>> >the poster was posting from; I tought his
>> >intial post was a slam against ALL
>> >Toyota owners, since 'ricer' has been
>> >used to describe US longer than it has
>> >for the Fast And The Furious crowd. And
>> >then when he slammed Nat, that
>> >confirmed my suspicions. He was really
>> >just here to troll right from the start, and
>> >none of us see him/her denying it now,
>> >do we?
>>
>>That's a point I can't dispute. I apologize that my part in this has
>>seemed to really piss Natalie off, to the point that it sounded like she
>>may have killfiled me when all I wanted was to point out that a similar
>>'predjudice' (as I'm sure she's experienced) was seeping through with
>>regards to webtv users. When she responded with a bizarre way of cut and
>>paste with the "Me:" stuff, it really sent me into defensive mode.


It was to avoid confusion, and yes, I did killfile you, because you seemed to
ignore the fact that I said the prejudice against WTVers is only ampliphied
by gits like that DQ twit. I couldn't even understand why you were slamming
me, when I was essentially agreeing with your that one should not assume a
WTVer is a troll, just as non-blacks shouldn't assume I'm a criminal, on
welfare, etc. It's damned frustrating when I see crap like so: I'm former
Air Force active duty. I got out when I had my first child. My husband
stayed in, eventually got commissioned, and is now an AF Lab Officer. When I
walk into a base facility (Say, the housing office), I get the cattle
treatment - they assume that I or my spouse is enlisted, so they have a 'OK,
who's next' frame of mind (Which doesn't bother me, as I know what it's like
dealing with the huge workloads in military life). What irks me is that as
soon as they find out my husband's an officer, they start kissing my ass.
That is wrong on so many levels, but I know it's a fact of military life. As
a nurse, I never did acknowledge rank, other than to say 'sir' or 'ma'am' to
the officer and to their spouses, but I addressed *every patient* that way,
even those who I outranked. Brown-nosers piss me off to no end. *shrug*
>>
>>So again, if she can see this, my intent was not to turn Natalie against
>>me, (I like the Wikkeddol!) but to defend people's use of webtv. I know
>>the foo shits on many an occasion with webtv'ers, but it doesn't mean
>>you have to wear it. :)

True...
>
> I think Natalie won't be seeing your message...
> --
> Scott in Florida

I wouldn't have if you hadn't replied. I think we simply had a
misunderstanding, so I'll take her out of my filters. That might be moot,
though. I just ditched EarthStink, effective March 13th, so there go the
NGs, I think. I may use one of the free ones, but www.individual.net is now
charging for theirs. I think they did that because AOHell is dropping NGs.

Natalie

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:27:19 -0800, Eric Dreher wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:11:59 GMT, Scott in Florida
> <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>
>>Yup another Web TV Idiot (if I may borrow Dizzy's term).
>
> Someone I know once said, "Web-TV is for people who can't figure
> out AOL."
>
> 'Nuff said.

Gee, Eric, that's harsh.....
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:29:32 -0500, Charles Pisano wrote:

> Funny, when I forward an email to my computer (from my webtv PLUS) it
> looks the same as it does on my webtv. That is the HTML works. Maybe he
> doesn't know how to set up his POP3 email thing whatever that is.

Some newsreaders aren't HTML friendly. Mine is not. That spammer that
posted a message last week looked like garbled garbage to me. Not trying
to be condescending or harsh, but I don't use MicroScoff'd, either. I see
raw HTML when someone uses it...

>
> <html>
> <b> <font color="plum" size="5">* <marquee behavior="alternate"
> align="top" direction="left" scrollamount=10 width="100%"
> loop=5>Charles</marquee></font> </b>
>
>
>
> <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/US/FL/Jensen_Beach.html"> <img
> src="http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetempbig_both/language/www/US/FL/Jensen_Beach.gif"
> alt="Click for Jensen Beach, Florida Forecast" height=40 width=467></a>
>
>
>
>
> </body></html>

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:46:36 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
> news:750t11h09ejret045foat650ni1sn5hpcp@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:31:06 -0800, ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Actually, I didn't even look to see where
>>> >the poster was posting from; I tought his
>>> >intial post was a slam against ALL
>>> >Toyota owners, since 'ricer' has been
>>> >used to describe US longer than it has
>>> >for the Fast And The Furious crowd. And
>>> >then when he slammed Nat, that
>>> >confirmed my suspicions. He was really
>>> >just here to troll right from the start, and
>>> >none of us see him/her denying it now,
>>> >do we?
>>>
>>>That's a point I can't dispute. I apologize that my part in this has
>>>seemed to really piss Natalie off, to the point that it sounded like she
>>>may have killfiled me when all I wanted was to point out that a similar
>>>'predjudice' (as I'm sure she's experienced) was seeping through with
>>>regards to webtv users. When she responded with a bizarre way of cut and
>>>paste with the "Me:" stuff, it really sent me into defensive mode.
>
>
> It was to avoid confusion, and yes, I did killfile you, because you seemed to
> ignore the fact that I said the prejudice against WTVers is only ampliphied
> by gits like that DQ twit. I couldn't even understand why you were slamming
> me, when I was essentially agreeing with your that one should not assume a
> WTVer is a troll, just as non-blacks shouldn't assume I'm a criminal, on
> welfare, etc. It's damned frustrating when I see crap like so: I'm former
> Air Force active duty. I got out when I had my first child. My husband
> stayed in, eventually got commissioned, and is now an AF Lab Officer. When I
> walk into a base facility (Say, the housing office), I get the cattle
> treatment - they assume that I or my spouse is enlisted, so they have a 'OK,
> who's next' frame of mind (Which doesn't bother me, as I know what it's like
> dealing with the huge workloads in military life). What irks me is that as
> soon as they find out my husband's an officer, they start kissing my ass.
> That is wrong on so many levels, but I know it's a fact of military life. As
> a nurse, I never did acknowledge rank, other than to say 'sir' or 'ma'am' to
> the officer and to their spouses, but I addressed *every patient* that way,
> even those who I outranked. Brown-nosers piss me off to no end. *shrug*

LOL!!!! Me Too!!!

>>>
>>>So again, if she can see this, my intent was not to turn Natalie against
>>>me, (I like the Wikkeddol!) but to defend people's use of webtv. I know
>>>the foo shits on many an occasion with webtv'ers, but it doesn't mean
>>>you have to wear it. :)
>
> True...
>>
>> I think Natalie won't be seeing your message...
>> --
>> Scott in Florida
>
> I wouldn't have if you hadn't replied. I think we simply had a
> misunderstanding, so I'll take her out of my filters. That might be moot,
> though. I just ditched EarthStink, effective March 13th, so there go the
> NGs, I think. I may use one of the free ones, but www.individual.net is now
> charging for theirs. I think they did that because AOHell is dropping NGs.
>
> Natalie

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:34:42 GMT, hachiroku <levin@ae86.gts> wrote:

>> Someone I know once said, "Web-TV is for people who can't figure
>> out AOL."
>>
>> 'Nuff said.
>
>Gee, Eric, that's harsh.....

Hey, I didn't coin it.

But I sure as heck don't disagree with the premise.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

Maybe some feel that we computer-using folks look down on them for not
having a 'real' computer. Hey, if all someone needs is available to
them, with no more bells and whistles, I think that's great! I'm a firm
believer in using only what you need, and for some, MailStation and WTV
suits their needs. Nothing wrong with that at all, IMO. Besides, the
least complicated something is, the fewer things can go wrong.
Natalie


Some folks don't require computers at home. I'll be working from home
shortly, so my company will provide the hardware. Until then, I'll use
my computer at work, use what I have at home.

If all you "need" is "real" computer hardware...good for you. My
"uncomplicated" stuff at home (which is really fun, and there's so much
you don't have) suits me just fine. Gives me more time for people.
And it's such a pain, sitting on the sofa, keyboard on your lap,
watching telly, and doing this.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:34:23 GMT, Scott in Florida
<NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:32:59 -0800, ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation)
>wrote:
>
>> newsgroup01NOSPAM@intertainia.com (The*Real*Tom) wrote:
>>
>>>>Which category do stupid right-wingers
>> >>fall under? * 8)
>>
>>>Bad enough this is dumb, but you had to
>> >go political?
>>
>>Hey, I thought you guys liked cat fights?!
>>Me-ow! ;)
>
>We love cat fights....but not if our 'cat' is one of the cats...
>

Meow!

>
> --
> Scott in Florida

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>"Scott in Florida"
>><NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't>
>>wrote in message
>>I think Natalie won't be seeing your
>>message...

Thank you for snipping it into your post so she could see it.

>I wouldn't have if you hadn't replied. I
>think we simply had a
>misunderstanding, so I'll take her out of
>my filters.

Yes, it was a misunderstanding. I'm glad we can move on. No .org
attached, please. :)

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16505-421F488D-102@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>"Scott in Florida"
>><NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't>
>>wrote in message
>>I think Natalie won't be seeing your
>>message...

Thank you for snipping it into your post so she could see it.

>I wouldn't have if you hadn't replied. I
>think we simply had a
>misunderstanding, so I'll take her out of
>my filters.

Yes, it was a misunderstanding. I'm glad we can move on. No .org
attached, please. :)

No .org? 'splain, Lucy?

:-)

Natalie

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>Yes, it was a misunderstanding. I'm
>>glad we can move on. No .org
>>attached, please. :)

>No .org? 'splain, Lucy?

I had said we can "move on" and there was that group called Move
On.org.... I wasn't too fond of their ads. When I typed "move on", it
made me think of that. Ugh.

(besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.

LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
3131.bay.webtv.net:

> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>
>


That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.

--
TeGGeR®

"TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns9604759505463teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
> LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
> 3131.bay.webtv.net:
>
>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>
>>
>
>
> That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
>
> --
> TeGGeR®
>
Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day over the
craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal

Natalie

"tom" <newsgroups01NOSPAM@intertainia.com> wrote in message
news:ur3k1199fh9t3aep3kssf01scei3kkh5g8@4ax.com...
> On 21 Feb 2005 16:30:57 GMT, "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote:
>
>>LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
>>3131.bay.webtv.net:
>>
>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
>
>
> Ha, Ha, Ha. <== For having to explain it to us. :-P
>
>
> later,
>
> tom @ www.CarFleaMarket.com
>
The original poster of this thread is doing nothing to help the already
troubled impression of WebTVers.

Natalie

>The original poster of this thread is
>doing nothing to help the already
>troubled impression of WebTVers.
>Natalie

Isn't this black history month? feel lucky and STFU.

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:37uhpuF5f5reiU1@individual.net:

>
> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
> news:Xns9604759505463teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>> LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
>> 3131.bay.webtv.net:
>>
>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
>>
>> --
>> TeGGeR®
>>
> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day over
> the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>


I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches mounted
on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and interior
parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single wiper in the
middle, that sort of thing.


--
TeGGeR®

"doubleq" <LQQKR@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18980-421A4504-74@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net...
> >The original poster of this thread is
>>doing nothing to help the already
>>troubled impression of WebTVers.
>>Natalie
>
> Isn't this black history month? feel lucky and STFU.
>

Thanks for proving my point

Natalie

"TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns9604AA2F76091teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:37uhpuF5f5reiU1@individual.net:
>
>>
>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9604759505463teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>> LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
>>> 3131.bay.webtv.net:
>>>
>>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
>>>
>>> --
>>> TeGGeR®
>>>
>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day over
>> the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>
>
>
> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches mounted
> on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and interior
> parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single wiper in the
> middle, that sort of thing.
>
>
> --
> TeGGeR®
>

*shrug*

Natalie

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:37v36mF5h0051U1@individual.net:

>
>
> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
> news:Xns9604AA2F76091teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .

>>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day
>>> over the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>>
>>
>>
>> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches
>> mounted on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and
>> interior parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single
>> wiper in the middle, that sort of thing.
>>
>
> *shrug*
>


"Shrug"? Why?

I agree with your statement above.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

"TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns9604AC3A33315teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:37v36mF5h0051U1@individual.net:
>
>>
>>
>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9604AA2F76091teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>
>>>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day
>>>> over the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches
>>> mounted on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and
>>> interior parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single
>>> wiper in the middle, that sort of thing.
>>>
>>
>> *shrug*
>>
>
>
> "Shrug"? Why?
>
> I agree with your statement above.
>
>
> --
> TeGGeR®

I'm saying I'm not sure that was what that toad was referring to - I took it
to be a racial slur against Asians. And now, true to form, he/she/it has
made a racist comment to me. *sigh* There always has to be a turd in the
punch bowl (every single ISP has them, of course), but WTV seems to have a
disproportionate pile of particularly nasty trolls. Having said that, most
WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks, but like middle-east terrorists, you
only notice the ones who are bad. They spoil the image for their entire
group.

It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's actions will reflect against
the majority of nice WTVers.

Natalie

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:

> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.

Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
ditches, or just generally acting like morons.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:41:13 +0000, TeGGer® wrote:

> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:37uhpuF5f5reiU1@individual.net:
>
>>
>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9604759505463teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>> LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
>>> 3131.bay.webtv.net:
>>>
>>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
>>>
>>> --
>>> TeGGeR®
>>>
>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day over
>> the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>
>
>
> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches mounted
> on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and interior
> parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single wiper in the
> middle, that sort of thing.

Well, yeah, but you didn't relize the OP is just a troll?

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:00:06 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
> news:Xns9604AC3A33315teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:37v36mF5h0051U1@individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9604AA2F76091teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>
>>>>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day
>>>>> over the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches
>>>> mounted on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and
>>>> interior parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single
>>>> wiper in the middle, that sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *shrug*
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Shrug"? Why?
>>
>> I agree with your statement above.
>>
>>
>> --
>> TeGGeR®
>
> I'm saying I'm not sure that was what that toad was referring to - I took it
> to be a racial slur against Asians. And now, true to form, he/she/it has
> made a racist comment to me. *sigh* There always has to be a turd in the
> punch bowl (every single ISP has them, of course), but WTV seems to have a
> disproportionate pile of particularly nasty trolls. Having said that, most
> WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks, but like middle-east terrorists, you
> only notice the ones who are bad. They spoil the image for their entire
> group.
>
> It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's actions will reflect against
> the majority of nice WTVers.
>
> Natalie

Too bad they can figure out how to get access to the groups... :(

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:47:24 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>
>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>
>Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
>have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
>signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
>ditches, or just generally acting like morons.
>

If they only kill themselves...that is just fine with me... <g>


--
Scott in Florida

"hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.21.23.49.01.269000@ae86.gts...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>
>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>
> Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
> have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
> signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
> ditches, or just generally acting like morons.
>
>

Yup - they don't realize that while you can go as fast as you want, you can't
effing stop

Natalie, 11-year NH resident, now in Florida

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:50:08 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.02.21.23.49.01.269000@ae86.gts...
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>
>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>
>> Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
>> have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
>> signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
>> ditches, or just generally acting like morons.
>>
>>
>
> Yup - they don't realize that while you can go as fast as you want, you can't
> effing stop
>
> Natalie, 11-year NH resident, now in Florida
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which is the BEST thing a LOT of drivers up here could do! (Present
company excluded, of course! :)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:31:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:

>>The original poster of this thread is
>>doing nothing to help the already
>>troubled impression of WebTVers.
>>Natalie
>
> Isn't this black history month? feel lucky and STFU.

Likewise, I'm sure, Idiot.

"hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:mlxSd.67371$g16.3773@trndny08...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:31:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>
>>>The original poster of this thread is
>>>doing nothing to help the already
>>>troubled impression of WebTVers.
>>>Natalie
>>
>> Isn't this black history month? feel lucky and STFU.
>
> Likewise, I'm sure, Idiot.
>
Oh, the irony of this twerp

Natalie

"hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.21.23.50.41.633000@ae86.gts...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:41:13 +0000, TeGGer® wrote:
>
>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:37uhpuF5f5reiU1@individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9604759505463teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>>> LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
>>>> 3131.bay.webtv.net:
>>>>
>>>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> TeGGeR®
>>>>
>>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day over
>>> the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>>
>>
>>
>> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches
>> mounted
>> on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and interior
>> parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single wiper in the
>> middle, that sort of thing.
>
> Well, yeah, but you didn't relize the OP is just a troll?

And not even a good one

Natalie

"hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.21.23.51.57.372000@ae86.gts...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:00:06 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:
>
>>
>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9604AC3A33315teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:37v36mF5h0051U1@individual.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day
>>>>>> over the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches
>>>>> mounted on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and
>>>>> interior parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single
>>>>> wiper in the middle, that sort of thing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *shrug*
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Shrug"? Why?
>>>
>>> I agree with your statement above.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> TeGGeR®
>>
>> I'm saying I'm not sure that was what that toad was referring to - I took
>> it
>> to be a racial slur against Asians. And now, true to form, he/she/it has
>> made a racist comment to me. *sigh* There always has to be a turd in the
>> punch bowl (every single ISP has them, of course), but WTV seems to have a
>> disproportionate pile of particularly nasty trolls. Having said that,
>> most
>> WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks, but like middle-east terrorists, you
>> only notice the ones who are bad. They spoil the image for their entire
>> group.
>>
>> It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's actions will reflect against
>> the majority of nice WTVers.
>>
>> Natalie
>
> Too bad they can figure out how to get access to the groups... :(

Maybe some feel that we computer-using folks look down on them for not having
a 'real' computer. Hey, if all someone needs is available to them, with no
more bells and whistles, I think that's great! I'm a firm believer in using
only what you need, and for some, MailStation and WTV suits their needs.
Nothing wrong with that at all, IMO. Besides, the least complicated
something is, the fewer things can go wrong.

Natalie

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:ak2l11tq2c1ql9itlram6rsncet2niul2c@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:47:24 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>
>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>
>>Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
>>have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
>>signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
>>ditches, or just generally acting like morons.
>>
>
> If they only kill themselves...that is just fine with me... <g>
>
>
> --
> Scott in Florida

Do penance, young man!

Rent a Ford - that should do it

Natalie

"hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:XixSd.67367$g16.39113@trndny08...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:50:08 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:
>
>>
>> "hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.02.21.23.49.01.269000@ae86.gts...
>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>>
>>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
>>> have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
>>> signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
>>> ditches, or just generally acting like morons.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yup - they don't realize that while you can go as fast as you want, you
>> can't
>> effing stop
>>
>> Natalie, 11-year NH resident, now in Florida
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Which is the BEST thing a LOT of drivers up here could do! (Present
> company excluded, of course! :)
>

Of course

:-)

Natalie

"Another Tom" <sg7188@snet.net> wrote in message
news:ZjxSd.35010$by5.7525@newssvr19.news.prodigy.c om...
> doubleq wrote:
>>>That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
>>
>>
>> *eg*
>>
>> Hope they never come out with awd civics...
>>
>
> they made them years ago.

Wow, how did their parents react?!

Natalie, being too silly even by *her* standards :-)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:36:31 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.02.21.23.51.57.372000@ae86.gts...
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:00:06 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9604AC3A33315teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:37v36mF5h0051U1@individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day
>>>>>>> over the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches
>>>>>> mounted on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and
>>>>>> interior parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single
>>>>>> wiper in the middle, that sort of thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *shrug*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Shrug"? Why?
>>>>
>>>> I agree with your statement above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> TeGGeR®
>>>
>>> I'm saying I'm not sure that was what that toad was referring to - I took
>>> it
>>> to be a racial slur against Asians. And now, true to form, he/she/it has
>>> made a racist comment to me. *sigh* There always has to be a turd in the
>>> punch bowl (every single ISP has them, of course), but WTV seems to have a
>>> disproportionate pile of particularly nasty trolls. Having said that,
>>> most
>>> WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks, but like middle-east terrorists, you
>>> only notice the ones who are bad. They spoil the image for their entire
>>> group.
>>>
>>> It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's actions will reflect against
>>> the majority of nice WTVers.
>>>
>>> Natalie
>>
>> Too bad they can figure out how to get access to the groups... :(
>
> Maybe some feel that we computer-using folks look down on them for not having
> a 'real' computer. Hey, if all someone needs is available to them, with no
> more bells and whistles, I think that's great! I'm a firm believer in using
> only what you need, and for some, MailStation and WTV suits their needs.
> Nothing wrong with that at all, IMO. Besides, the least complicated
> something is, the fewer things can go wrong.
>
> Natalie

Actually, I believe that too. I was the Service Manager at a small
computer company with a lot of accounts. Before I started there a salesman
tried to sell a pentium 90 to a woman who wanted to write letters and
balance her checkbook...for $3200. He left, I started. I sold the same
woman and older IBM 286, preloaded with all the sw she needed. $275. After
she left, the owner told me about the previous salesman (he recognized the
woman as she was paying for the system).

The problem is, we get a lot of people in here with WebTV, and a lot are
decent, but we seem to get many more like our OP here. Just out for an
afternoon s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/ it again...

Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:31:06 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:mlxSd.67371$g16.3773@trndny08...
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:31:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>
>>>>The original poster of this thread is
>>>>doing nothing to help the already
>>>>troubled impression of WebTVers.
>>>>Natalie
>>>
>>> Isn't this black history month? feel lucky and STFU.
>>
>> Likewise, I'm sure, Idiot.
>>
> Oh, the irony of this twerp
>
> Natalie

Really. I knew when I read the inital droppings of his he was here prove
himself a moron. Ya know what? It worked!!!

"hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:tXySd.32570$s16.28247@trndny02...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:36:31 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9604AC3A33315teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>>>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:37v36mF5h0051U1@individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day
>>>>>>>> over the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches
>>>>>>> mounted on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and
>>>>>>> interior parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single
>>>>>>> wiper in the middle, that sort of thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *shrug*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Shrug"? Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with your statement above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> TeGGeR®
>>>>
>>>> I'm saying I'm not sure that was what that toad was referring to - I
>>>> took
>>>> it
>>>> to be a racial slur against Asians. And now, true to form, he/she/it
>>>> has
>>>> made a racist comment to me. *sigh* There always has to be a turd in
>>>> the
>>>> punch bowl (every single ISP has them, of course), but WTV seems to have
>>>> a
>>>> disproportionate pile of particularly nasty trolls. Having said that,
>>>> most
>>>> WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks, but like middle-east terrorists,
>>>> you
>>>> only notice the ones who are bad. They spoil the image for their entire
>>>> group.
>>>>
>>>> It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's actions will reflect
>>>> against
>>>> the majority of nice WTVers.
>>>>
>>>> Natalie
>>>
>>> Too bad they can figure out how to get access to the groups... :(
>>
>> Maybe some feel that we computer-using folks look down on them for not
>> having
>> a 'real' computer. Hey, if all someone needs is available to them, with
>> no
>> more bells and whistles, I think that's great! I'm a firm believer in
>> using
>> only what you need, and for some, MailStation and WTV suits their needs.
>> Nothing wrong with that at all, IMO. Besides, the least complicated
>> something is, the fewer things can go wrong.
>>
>> Natalie
>
> Actually, I believe that too. I was the Service Manager at a small
> computer company with a lot of accounts. Before I started there a salesman
> tried to sell a pentium 90 to a woman who wanted to write letters and
> balance her checkbook...for $3200. He left, I started. I sold the same
> woman and older IBM 286, preloaded with all the sw she needed. $275. After
> she left, the owner told me about the previous salesman (he recognized the
> woman as she was paying for the system).

O_O That's insane!
>
> The problem is, we get a lot of people in here with WebTV, and a lot are
> decent, but we seem to get many more like our OP here. Just out for an
> afternoon s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/ it again...
>
> Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.

Count on it. The good news is that killfiles eliminate the little twits

Natalie

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:38:39 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "Another Tom" <sg7188@snet.net> wrote in message
> news:ZjxSd.35010$by5.7525@newssvr19.news.prodigy.c om...
>> doubleq wrote:
>>>>That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
>>>
>>>
>>> *eg*
>>>
>>> Hope they never come out with awd civics...
>>>
>>
>> they made them years ago.
>
> Wow, how did their parents react?!
>
> Natalie, being too silly even by *her* standards :-)

LOL! I thought they were cool! Needing a small wagon w/4WD I tried to buy
one from a customer of our mechanic. 120,000, very minor rust and AWD. She
wouldn't part with it! Now, if only my Terc AWD was not as rusty as it is...

"hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:TYySd.38005$sR5.8575@trndny05...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:31:06 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:31:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>>
>>>>>The original poster of this thread is
>>>>>doing nothing to help the already
>>>>>troubled impression of WebTVers.
>>>>>Natalie
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this black history month? feel lucky and STFU.
>>>
>>> Likewise, I'm sure, Idiot.
>>>
>> Oh, the irony of this twerp
>>
>> Natalie
>
> Really. I knew when I read the inital droppings of his he was here prove
> himself a moron. Ya know what? It worked!!!

Critters like this don't need to be provoked. Their inner troll is always
just bursting to get out

Natalie

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:28:04 GMT, Scott in Florida
<NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:47:24 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>
>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>
>>Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
>>have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
>>signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
>>ditches, or just generally acting like morons.
>>
>
>If they only kill themselves...that is just fine with me... <g>
>
>
> --
> Scott in Florida

I agree with your Darwinian philosophy there, Scott.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:50:12 -0500, "Wickeddoll®"
<wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>news:Xns9604759505463teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>> LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
>> 3131.bay.webtv.net:
>>
>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
>>
>> --
>> TeGGeR®
>>
>Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day over the
>craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>
>Natalie
>

Domestic cars aren't that useless. You can use them as:
1) paper weights
2) demolition derby units
3) jokes
4) examples on how not to build cars
5) heaters for the homeless (if you have Ford trucks)
6) ways to get rid of someone without hiring a professional

Re: One good thing about snow...

--
>>>>>>>>>>>>TeGGeR®
I'm saying I'm not sure that was what that toad was referring to - I
took it
to be a racial slur against Asians.<<<<<<<
I don't condone racist anything


>>>>>> And now, true to form, he/she/it has made a racist comment to me.
*sigh* <<<<<<


Not sure if I saw it that way... But you always seem to have a chip on
your shoulder , don't you Natalie?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There always has to be a turd in the punch bowl (every
single ISP has them, of course), but WTV seems to have a
disproportionate pile of particularly nasty trolls.<<<<<<<<<<<

Back in the early part of the 20 th century smoking was cool too. And
the ones that didn't were made fun of by the ones that did. It was so
popular it was not uncommon to see tv commercials and people on live
shows smoking. But now what do we think of it?. Even back then there
were those who didn't smoke despite its popularity. And comments like
these were probably all to common as well.

But I'm one ( and not the only one) webtv user who HAS to use it
instead of wanting to. And I predict on day the way you use a computer
will be like the way people used to smoke. Actually wetbv is (was in
the case of PLUS units) AHEAD of its time. I actually get headaches from
the electromagnetic field generated by a computer. You say "so what I
don't'. Ever heard the phrase no brain, no pain? Something that happened
to my mom also convinced me I might be better off computerless.

My mother died of brain cancer. She was a seamstress all of her life.
She spent many hours in a sewing factory hunched over a sewing machine.
Of course when she died I questioned why this kind of death chose my
mother. Then I did some research. The incidence of brain cancer in her
occupation was 50 % higher than the general population. The reason? They
spent a large portion of the day with their heads inside an
electromagnetic field.

Ever take notice how close you sit to your monitor and cpu. (have you
also noticed you feel better when you step away from your desk?) Know
how much more powerful they are compared to the sewing machines of my
mothers day? All I can say is make sure your health insurance is paid
up.

Another reason I use webtv is the refresh rate of a crt or a lcd is
slower than that of a television. Make a video of your monitor. What
your video camera sees is what your brain really sees. Most people only
use 30 % of their brain for conscious thought and perception. But I
actually see this flicker (though not quite exactly like the video
camera). And I get severe headaches from very brief use of computer
monitor. Doesn't bother you? Again no brain no pain.? Doesn't mean you
aren't going to pay a price for it one day. Ever heard of the person who
was never sick dying young?

So please stop trying to look down your collective nose at us on Webtv.
Many of us are very happy that IT HAS CHOSEN US. Because as the petite
young lady in 'White Men Can't Jump' said.... "Sometimes when you lose ,
you really win and sometimes when you win you really lose".




>>>>>>>>>>Too bad they can figure out how to get access to the groups...
:( <<<<<<<<


We don't have to figure it out , it is easier to get to here on webtv
than a computer. We often wonder how YOU find these groups.......

>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe some feel that we computer-using folks look down on
them for not having a 'real' computer. <<<<<<<<<

Not MAYBE.....;>)

But I 'have' a computer , a nice shiny new one , I just CAN'T use it.
And belive me I've tried. But then again I've tried smoking and using
cell phones as well...


>>>>>>>>>>>>Hey, if all someone needs is available to them, with no more
bells and whistles, I think that's great! I'm a firm believer in using
only what you need, and for some, MailStation and WTV suits their needs.
Nothing wrong with that at all, IMO. Besides, the least complicated
something is, the fewer things can go wrong.
Natalie<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

More prophetic than you might think..... But don't thank me now....8>)

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>I'm saying I'm not sure that was what
>that toad was referring to - I took it to be
>a racial slur against Asians. And now,
>true to form, he/she/it has made a racist
>comment to me. *sigh* There always
>has to be a turd in the punch bowl
>(every single ISP has them, of course),
>but WTV seems to have a
>disproportionate pile of particularly
>nasty trolls. Having said that, most
>WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks,
>but like middle-east terrorists, you only
>notice the ones who are bad. They spoil
>the image for their entire group.
>It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's
>actions will reflect against the majority
>of nice WTVers.

Wow, I'm not trying to start up with you Nat, but this passage is right
up there with negatives that get thrown at a group of people...the type
of thing that got you started in this thread in the first place!
(I notice a slight pattern with you...This is not the first time you've
'slammed' Webtv. It's getting old, from my standpoint.)

I am not really fond of being compared to Middle East terrorists...even
if you backpeddle while saying it. You diminish your argument when you
use the same logic as the person you're arguing with. Rise above and
find another way to 'get' your target.

BTW, I think, like Tegger, you missed the point of the OP. "Ricer" used
to be a slur, but it's connotation has taken on the image that Tegg
suggested. I equate it to the transformation the word "sucks" has made.
We all know what that used to mean, but now it's a common, everyday word
that doesn't carry the negative it used to.

This response in no way condones the meanspirited post about your race.
That comment disappointed me, too. :(

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

About webtv'ers

>Maybe some feel that we
>computer-using folks look down on them
>for not having a 'real' computer.

Now, where would we get that idea? Perhaps it's from computer-using
folks like you who cloak a diss like you do?

levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:

>The problem is, we get a lot of people in
>here with WebTV, and a lot are decent,
>but we seem to get many more like our
>OP here. Just out for an afternoon
>s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/
>it again...
>Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.

Please. Give it a rest. The original poster, while making a very rude
comment in the coarse of the discussion, is not a troll. I've exchanged
many a nice comment with them here in the past. He's as much a 'troll'
as Art or Scott.

Perhaps the vitriol that's ensued is because he dared to post from
webtv? Is that what this is about? Why is the server being slammed when
it's a human's words that should be taken to task?

pisanochas@webtv.net (Charles*Pisano)
wrote:

snip excellent read...

>So please stop trying to look down your
>collective nose at us on Webtv.

Like you, I'm really tired of it too.

>>Too bad they can figure out how to get
>>access to the groups...

>We don't have to figure it out , it is easier
>to get to here on webtv than a
>computer. We often wonder how YOU
>find these groups.......

LOL! That's the only reason I continue to use webtv-- for my usenet
participation. It's really easy and I'm used to the way it works. One
touch and you're there. No virus worries.
Any other surfing, research or (buying!) is done on the computer.

>>Maybe some feel that we
>>computer-using folks look down on
>>them for not having a 'real' computer.

>Not MAYBE.....;>)

Agreed.
I can't tell you how many times a discussion has disintegrated into the
service I choose to use. I've actually had people refuse to believe my
monetary status because I post from Webtv. I could NEVER own a Lexus
because I use Webtv. Ha!

"Viperkiller" <nothing@nothing.net> wrote in message
news:3mrl11prs5qnqn7ktnvcaidk9e6pjpbk40@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:50:12 -0500, "Wickeddoll®"
> <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9604759505463teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
>>> LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
>>> 3131.bay.webtv.net:
>>>
>>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
>>>
>>> --
>>> TeGGeR®
>>>
>>Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day over the
>>craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
>>
>>Natalie
>>
>
> Domestic cars aren't that useless. You can use them as:
> 1) paper weights
> 2) demolition derby units
> 3) jokes
> 4) examples on how not to build cars
> 5) heaters for the homeless (if you have Ford trucks)
> 6) ways to get rid of someone without hiring a professional
>
>
LOL I do like large domestic vehicles, though. If I were in the market for
luxury or larger, I'd go domestic.

Natalie

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12782-421B5BA8-471@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>I'm saying I'm not sure that was what
>that toad was referring to - I took it to be
>a racial slur against Asians. And now,
>true to form, he/she/it has made a racist
>comment to me. *sigh* There always
>has to be a turd in the punch bowl
>(every single ISP has them, of course),
>but WTV seems to have a
>disproportionate pile of particularly
>nasty trolls. Having said that, most
>WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks,
>but like middle-east terrorists, you only
>notice the ones who are bad. They spoil
>the image for their entire group.
>It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's
>actions will reflect against the majority
>of nice WTVers.

Wow, I'm not trying to start up with you Nat, but this passage is right
up there with negatives that get thrown at a group of people...the type
of thing that got you started in this thread in the first place!
(I notice a slight pattern with you...This is not the first time you've
'slammed' Webtv. It's getting old, from my standpoint.)

*whoosh* Dude, I'm saying that all Muslims are viewed as dangerous or
threatening due to the actions of the extremists, not the reverse. I have
plenty of Muslim friends, and it breaks my heart that they're suffering for
the actions of those who claim to be their brothers/sisters.

I am not really fond of being compared to Middle East terrorists...even
if you backpeddle while saying it. You diminish your argument when you
use the same logic as the person you're arguing with. Rise above and
find another way to 'get' your target.

Me: See above. I never sank to any level lower similar or lower than that
original troll

BTW, I think, like Tegger, you missed the point of the OP. "Ricer" used
to be a slur, but it's connotation has taken on the image that Tegg
suggested. I equate it to the transformation the word "sucks" has made.
We all know what that used to mean, but now it's a common, everyday word
that doesn't carry the negative it used to.

Me: Fair enough.

This response in no way condones the meanspirited post about your race.
That comment disappointed me, too. :(

Me: That's what I meant. People will now assume that all (or most) of you
are trolls because that is unfortunately expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
thing or two about being pre-judged :-)

Natalie

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12783-421B62E1-129@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...

pisanochas@webtv.net (Charles Pisano)
wrote:

snip excellent read...

>So please stop trying to look down your
>collective nose at us on Webtv.

Like you, I'm really tired of it too.

Me: In one of the threads, I said WTVers get a bum rap because of the actions
of a few.

>>Too bad they can figure out how to get
>>access to the groups...

>We don't have to figure it out , it is easier
>to get to here on webtv than a
>computer. We often wonder how YOU
>find these groups.......

LOL! That's the only reason I continue to use webtv-- for my usenet
participation. It's really easy and I'm used to the way it works. One
touch and you're there. No virus worries.
Any other surfing, research or (buying!) is done on the computer.

Me: Yes, it is easier to use WTV for NGs, but some other services we enjoy
are not available with WTV. I also said in another thread that *most* WTVers
are nice folks, but I haven't seen any positive reply to that comment, only
the negative stuff

>>Maybe some feel that we
>>computer-using folks look down on
>>them for not having a 'real' computer.

>Not MAYBE.....;>)

Agreed.
I can't tell you how many times a discussion has disintegrated into the
service I choose to use. I've actually had people refuse to believe my
monetary status because I post from Webtv. I could NEVER own a Lexus
because I use Webtv. Ha!

Me: Dude, I have absolutely nothing against *any* poster's methods of
posting. I only take exception to trolls who spew from day one, then get
pissed that we comment on his/her/it being a WTVer.

Natalie

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12782-421B5CD7-472@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

About webtv'ers

>Maybe some feel that we
>computer-using folks look down on them
>for not having a 'real' computer.

Now, where would we get that idea? Perhaps it's from computer-using
folks like you who cloak a diss like you do?

Me: You're right - the damned things are hell to maintain, but I endure it
because I have interests that WTV cannot support (multitasking for one), but
I don't automatically assume anyone will be a troll. They are the ones who
do the convincing, and reinforce the stereotype.

I guess a good comparison would be what happens when I watch a show about
violent criminals (Forensic documentaries) on A&E, TLC, CourtTV and such. I
hope and pray that when they show the suspect he or she is not Black. When
they are, I know there are those in the viewing audience who will think "See!
Those people can't be trusted!"

So, on that level, I understand your reaction.

Natalie

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12782-421B5E3C-474@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...
>
> levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>
>>The problem is, we get a lot of people in
> >here with WebTV, and a lot are decent,
> >but we seem to get many more like our
> >OP here. Just out for an afternoon
> >s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/
> >it again...
>>Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.
>
> Please. Give it a rest. The original poster, while making a very rude
> comment in the coarse of the discussion, is not a troll. I've exchanged
> many a nice comment with them here in the past. He's as much a 'troll'
> as Art or Scott.
>
> Perhaps the vitriol that's ensued is because he dared to post from
> webtv? Is that what this is about? Why is the server being slammed when
> it's a human's words that should be taken to task?
>

Nope! As I said in another part of the thread, pre-judging is unfair, but
then when a WTVer trolls, we are not usually surprised. It's too bad, but
that's the way it is.

Natalie

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:32:47 -0500, Viperkiller <nothing@nothing.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:28:04 GMT, Scott in Florida
><NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:47:24 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:00 -0500, doubleq wrote:
>>>
>>>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
>>>
>>>Yeah, but what you do get is idiots in SUVs that think just because they
>>>have 4WD they can drive like its summer, and wind up sliding through stop
>>>signs, passing on the highway and losing control, sliding off into
>>>ditches, or just generally acting like morons.
>>>
>>
>>If they only kill themselves...that is just fine with me... <g>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Scott in Florida
>
>I agree with your Darwinian philosophy there, Scott.

The only problem is they tend to take others out with
themselves...that isn't good...even in my philosophy <g>...


--
Scott in Florida

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:26:07 -0500, Charles Pisano wrote:

>
> Re: One good thing about snow...

Interesting....my newsreader SNIPPED that whole thing by itself!

Charles, it's not that anybody is really DOWN on WebTV users; I thought it
was a pretty cool idea, too, esp for those who don't need a computer but
want to check the 'net out. It is a pretty neat medium.

The problem is, a lot of the WebTV users are Trolls, who come into a
newsgroup, say something dumb like our friend the OP here did, and sit
back and watch the fun. Sort of like your average AOL user. Mostly kids,
besides.

It wasn't that the OP uses WebTV, it's the fact he came into a Toyota
newsgroup, posted a slam against Toyotas, and then a Dumb-Ass remark to
Natalie, who is held in high regard in this NG, and just acted like a
general @SS. Chances are we'll never hear from him again, unless he gets
bored with his X-Box and wants to go phishing again.

Carry on!

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:50:41 -0800, ravelation wrote:

>
> pisanochas@webtv.net (Charles*Pisano)
> wrote:
>
> snip excellent read...
>
>>So please stop trying to look down your
> >collective nose at us on Webtv.
>
> Like you, I'm really tired of it too.
>
>>>Too bad they can figure out how to get
> >>access to the groups...
>
>>We don't have to figure it out , it is easier
> >to get to here on webtv than a
> >computer. We often wonder how YOU
> >find these groups.......
>
> LOL! That's the only reason I continue to use webtv-- for my usenet
> participation. It's really easy and I'm used to the way it works. One
> touch and you're there. No virus worries.
> Any other surfing, research or (buying!) is done on the computer.
>
>>>Maybe some feel that we
> >>computer-using folks look down on
>>>them for not having a 'real' computer.
>
>>Not MAYBE.....;>)
>
> Agreed.
> I can't tell you how many times a discussion has disintegrated into the
> service I choose to use. I've actually had people refuse to believe my
> monetary status because I post from Webtv. I could NEVER own a Lexus
> because I use Webtv. Ha!

Hey Rav, I read your posts. I don't look at headers. Never noticed you use
WebTV. You don't ACT like a WebTV user (not so much in this group, but in
others, where thay have made a 'reputation' for themselves)

I have never seen the system in action. i have been an electronics tech, a
computer network designer and installer, worked for Fortune 50 companies
where Usenet access was aquired through a VAX or other such dinosaur, but
have never seen WebTV. Sorry I misspoke about the ease with which the
newsgroups are accessed.

But, you have piqued my interest. I poke around the Salvation Army stores,
and they had a WebTV setup for $5 but it wasn't complete. I actually toyed
with the idea of buying it because it is one of the few areas of
communications and computing I am unfamiliar with.

As far as monitors, I used to sit right on top of mine, until I read an
article about the radiation 8-9 years ago. Since then I have moved my
monitor more than an arm's lenght away and try to buy low-emission units
(um, also at the Sal Army...where else can you buy a 19" Trinitron for $12?!?)
And I did notice the headaches and most important, memory loss!

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:19:52 -0800, ravelation wrote:

>
> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>
>>I'm saying I'm not sure that was what
> >that toad was referring to - I took it to be
> >a racial slur against Asians. And now,
> >true to form, he/she/it has made a racist
> >comment to me. *sigh* There always
> >has to be a turd in the punch bowl
> >(every single ISP has them, of course),
> >but WTV seems to have a
> >disproportionate pile of particularly
> >nasty trolls. Having said that, most
> >WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks,
> >but like middle-east terrorists, you only
> >notice the ones who are bad. They spoil
> >the image for their entire group.
>>It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's
> >actions will reflect against the majority
> >of nice WTVers.
>
> Wow, I'm not trying to start up with you Nat, but this passage is right
> up there with negatives that get thrown at a group of people...the type
> of thing that got you started in this thread in the first place!
> (I notice a slight pattern with you...This is not the first time you've
> 'slammed' Webtv. It's getting old, from my standpoint.)
>
> I am not really fond of being compared to Middle East terrorists...even
> if you backpeddle while saying it. You diminish your argument when you
> use the same logic as the person you're arguing with. Rise above and
> find another way to 'get' your target.
>
> BTW, I think, like Tegger, you missed the point of the OP. "Ricer" used
> to be a slur, but it's connotation has taken on the image that Tegg
> suggested. I equate it to the transformation the word "sucks" has made.
> We all know what that used to mean, but now it's a common, everyday word
> that doesn't carry the negative it used to.

I disagree with this. Right off the bat, when I read the OP's post, I took
it as the old meaning for ricer, IE anybody who drives a Toyota or Honda.
His remark to Natalie only cnfirmed my feeling he was just in here to stir
up the pot and watch the fun. He was an idiot, and that is why WebTV gets
a bad rep, because it's so often used by Trolls. That remark he made to
Nat REALLY pissed me off. Obviously he watches this group...

>
> This response in no way condones the meanspirited post about your race.
> That comment disappointed me, too. :(

"hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:W8RSd.60930$8a6.39735@trndny09...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:19:52 -0800, ravelation wrote:
>
>>
>> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>>
>>>I'm saying I'm not sure that was what
>> >that toad was referring to - I took it to be
>> >a racial slur against Asians. And now,
>> >true to form, he/she/it has made a racist
>> >comment to me. *sigh* There always
>> >has to be a turd in the punch bowl
>> >(every single ISP has them, of course),
>> >but WTV seems to have a
>> >disproportionate pile of particularly
>> >nasty trolls. Having said that, most
>> >WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks,
>> >but like middle-east terrorists, you only
>> >notice the ones who are bad. They spoil
>> >the image for their entire group.
>>>It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's
>> >actions will reflect against the majority
>> >of nice WTVers.
>>
>> Wow, I'm not trying to start up with you Nat, but this passage is right
>> up there with negatives that get thrown at a group of people...the type
>> of thing that got you started in this thread in the first place!
>> (I notice a slight pattern with you...This is not the first time you've
>> 'slammed' Webtv. It's getting old, from my standpoint.)
>>
>> I am not really fond of being compared to Middle East terrorists...even
>> if you backpeddle while saying it. You diminish your argument when you
>> use the same logic as the person you're arguing with. Rise above and
>> find another way to 'get' your target.
>>
>> BTW, I think, like Tegger, you missed the point of the OP. "Ricer" used
>> to be a slur, but it's connotation has taken on the image that Tegg
>> suggested. I equate it to the transformation the word "sucks" has made.
>> We all know what that used to mean, but now it's a common, everyday word
>> that doesn't carry the negative it used to.
>
> I disagree with this. Right off the bat, when I read the OP's post, I took
> it as the old meaning for ricer, IE anybody who drives a Toyota or Honda.
> His remark to Natalie only confirmed my feeling he was just in here to stir
> up the pot and watch the fun. He was an idiot, and that is why WebTV gets
> a bad rep, because it's so often used by Trolls. That remark he made to
> Nat REALLY pissed me off. Obviously he watches this group...

Absolutely. It's not like I put my race into every post. He would have had
to be here for a while.

I don't notice headers when I read people's posts, until they pull crap like
that critter; but I only look at the headers to place it into my killfile.

Natalie

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:30:52 -0800, ravelation wrote:

>
> levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>
>>The problem is, we get a lot of people in
> >here with WebTV, and a lot are decent,
> >but we seem to get many more like our
> >OP here. Just out for an afternoon
> >s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/
> >it again...
>>Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.
>
> Please. Give it a rest. The original poster, while making a very rude
> comment in the coarse of the discussion, is not a troll. I've exchanged
> many a nice comment with them here in the past. He's as much a 'troll'
> as Art or Scott.
>
> Perhaps the vitriol that's ensued is because he dared to post from
> webtv? Is that what this is about? Why is the server being slammed when
> it's a human's words that should be taken to task?

Not at all. As I said in another post, I never noticed you posted from
WebTV; actually, I don't care HOW anyone posts. You may have had discourse
with him and found him decent; I may have read his post wrong and taken it
as a trolling; his comment to Nat was WAY off base and there is not much
return from that. He needs to apologize NOW, IMO.

And as I stated before, a lot of the crap stirred up in the groups comes
from WebTV, and AOL also. That's why they have bad reps...present company
excluded, of course.

"hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:XYQSd.29326$ya6.7452@trndny01...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:26:07 -0500, Charles Pisano wrote:
>
>>
>> Re: One good thing about snow...
>
> Interesting....my newsreader SNIPPED that whole thing by itself!
>
> Charles, it's not that anybody is really DOWN on WebTV users; I thought it
> was a pretty cool idea, too, esp for those who don't need a computer but
> want to check the 'net out. It is a pretty neat medium.

Absolutely. As I've said, the fewer the bells and whistles, the less that
can go wrong
>
> The problem is, a lot of the WebTV users are Trolls, who come into a
> newsgroup, say something dumb like our friend the OP here did, and sit
> back and watch the fun. Sort of like your average AOL user. Mostly kids,
> besides.

I believe a lot of them are kids as well.
>
> It wasn't that the OP uses WebTV, it's the fact he came into a Toyota
> newsgroup, posted a slam against Toyotas, and then a Dumb-Ass remark to
> Natalie, who is held in high regard in this NG, and just acted like a
> general @SS. Chances are we'll never hear from him again, unless he gets
> bored with his X-Box and wants to go phishing again.
>
> Carry on!
>
LOL

Natalie

"hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:peRSd.60932$8a6.46759@trndny09...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:30:52 -0800, ravelation wrote:
>
>>
>> levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>>
>>>The problem is, we get a lot of people in
>> >here with WebTV, and a lot are decent,
>> >but we seem to get many more like our
>> >OP here. Just out for an afternoon
>> >s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/
>> >it again...
>>>Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.
>>
>> Please. Give it a rest. The original poster, while making a very rude
>> comment in the coarse of the discussion, is not a troll. I've exchanged
>> many a nice comment with them here in the past. He's as much a 'troll'
>> as Art or Scott.
>>
>> Perhaps the vitriol that's ensued is because he dared to post from
>> webtv? Is that what this is about? Why is the server being slammed when
>> it's a human's words that should be taken to task?
>
> Not at all. As I said in another post, I never noticed you posted from
> WebTV; actually, I don't care HOW anyone posts. You may have had discourse
> with him and found him decent; I may have read his post wrong and taken it
> as a trolling; his comment to Nat was WAY off base and there is not much
> return from that. He needs to apologize NOW, IMO.
>
> And as I stated before, a lot of the crap stirred up in the groups comes
> from WebTV, and AOL also. That's why they have bad reps...present company
> excluded, of course.
>
>
>
My point exactly! That's why I made the comment that this critter wasn't
helping the image of his/her/it's fellow WTVers

Natalie

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:44:07 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:W8RSd.60930$8a6.39735@trndny09...
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:19:52 -0800, ravelation wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm saying I'm not sure that was what
>>> >that toad was referring to - I took it to be
>>> >a racial slur against Asians. And now,
>>> >true to form, he/she/it has made a racist
>>> >comment to me. *sigh* There always
>>> >has to be a turd in the punch bowl
>>> >(every single ISP has them, of course),
>>> >but WTV seems to have a
>>> >disproportionate pile of particularly
>>> >nasty trolls. Having said that, most
>>> >WTVers are nice, well-mannered folks,
>>> >but like middle-east terrorists, you only
>>> >notice the ones who are bad. They spoil
>>> >the image for their entire group.
>>>>It's not fair; but unfortunately, this toad's
>>> >actions will reflect against the majority
>>> >of nice WTVers.
>>>
>>> Wow, I'm not trying to start up with you Nat, but this passage is right
>>> up there with negatives that get thrown at a group of people...the type
>>> of thing that got you started in this thread in the first place!
>>> (I notice a slight pattern with you...This is not the first time you've
>>> 'slammed' Webtv. It's getting old, from my standpoint.)
>>>
>>> I am not really fond of being compared to Middle East terrorists...even
>>> if you backpeddle while saying it. You diminish your argument when you
>>> use the same logic as the person you're arguing with. Rise above and
>>> find another way to 'get' your target.
>>>
>>> BTW, I think, like Tegger, you missed the point of the OP. "Ricer" used
>>> to be a slur, but it's connotation has taken on the image that Tegg
>>> suggested. I equate it to the transformation the word "sucks" has made.
>>> We all know what that used to mean, but now it's a common, everyday word
>>> that doesn't carry the negative it used to.
>>
>> I disagree with this. Right off the bat, when I read the OP's post, I took
>> it as the old meaning for ricer, IE anybody who drives a Toyota or Honda.
>> His remark to Natalie only confirmed my feeling he was just in here to stir
>> up the pot and watch the fun. He was an idiot, and that is why WebTV gets
>> a bad rep, because it's so often used by Trolls. That remark he made to
>> Nat REALLY pissed me off. Obviously he watches this group...
>
> Absolutely. It's not like I put my race into every post. He would have had
> to be here for a while.
>
> I don't notice headers when I read people's posts, until they pull crap like
> that critter; but I only look at the headers to place it into my killfile.
>
> Natalie

Or to check out Trolls! ;)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:46:30 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "hachiroku" <levin@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:peRSd.60932$8a6.46759@trndny09...
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:30:52 -0800, ravelation wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>>>
>>>>The problem is, we get a lot of people in
>>> >here with WebTV, and a lot are decent,
>>> >but we seem to get many more like our
>>> >OP here. Just out for an afternoon
>>> >s'troll'. Bet we never hear from him /her/
>>> >it again...
>>>>Or if we do, it'll just be more spew.
>>>
>>> Please. Give it a rest. The original poster, while making a very rude
>>> comment in the coarse of the discussion, is not a troll. I've exchanged
>>> many a nice comment with them here in the past. He's as much a 'troll'
>>> as Art or Scott.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the vitriol that's ensued is because he dared to post from
>>> webtv? Is that what this is about? Why is the server being slammed when
>>> it's a human's words that should be taken to task?
>>
>> Not at all. As I said in another post, I never noticed you posted from
>> WebTV; actually, I don't care HOW anyone posts. You may have had discourse
>> with him and found him decent; I may have read his post wrong and taken it
>> as a trolling; his comment to Nat was WAY off base and there is not much
>> return from that. He needs to apologize NOW, IMO.
>>
>> And as I stated before, a lot of the crap stirred up in the groups comes
>> from WebTV, and AOL also. That's why they have bad reps...present company
>> excluded, of course.
>>
>>
>>
> My point exactly! That's why I made the comment that this critter wasn't
> helping the image of his/her/it's fellow WTVers
>
> Natalie

I've been on UUNET and Usenet since about 1991 or so. There have always
been trolls, but they seem to have dramitaclly increased about the time
AOL went 'net and WebTV came on-line...

In article <Xns9604AA2F76091teggeratistop@207.14.113.17>,
tegger@istop.c0m says...
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:37uhpuF5f5reiU1@individual.net:
>
> >
> > "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9604759505463teggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .
> >> LQQKR@webtv.net (doubleq) wrote in news:26994-4219FD88-522@storefull-
> >> 3131.bay.webtv.net:
> >>
> >>> (besides skiing) Fewer ricers on the roads.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> That's because they're all in the ditch or stuck in a snowbank.
> >>
> >> --
> >> TeGGeR®
> >>
> > Gotta agree with that, but I'll still take my rice-burner any day over
> > the craptacular domestic "economy" hunks of useless metal
> >
>
>
> I interpreted "ricer" to be the sort of cars that have park benches mounted
> on the trunk, hand-painted yellow accents on various body and interior
> parts, chicken wire stuffed in the grille opening, a single wiper in the
> middle, that sort of thing.
>
>
>
Likewise.
Not decent proper family transport, or real properly tuned performance
hatches.
He would have gotten a better response in a Honda/Acura NG :)
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>Me: Dude,

Me: Ravelation is a chick. Just like you.

>I have absolutely nothing
>against *any* poster's methods of
>posting. I only take exception to trolls
>who spew from day one, then get pissed
>that we comment on his/her/it being a
>WTVer.

That's a weak argument, especially when you haven't even taken the time
to realize I'm a chick.(We've shared pleasantries before) I'm not sure
the person you went after, doubleq, fits the description you've decided
to give them, a troll who spews from day one. As I said before, I've
shared a nice conversation with them. Perhaps it's because I haven't
'judged' them due to their use of webtv?

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>*whoosh* Dude,

It's chick. And it didn't *whoosh* over my head. I totally understood
the backhanded way in which you chose to make your argument.

>Me: That's what I meant. People will now
>assume that all (or most) of you
>are trolls because that is unfortunately
>expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
>thing or two about being pre-judged :-)

Why are you using what amounts to a pre-K style of posting? Are you
ASSuming because I'm on Webtv, that I won't be able to follow you if you
post like a big computer user, quoting as you go, without denoting it's
you that's speaking?

You mentioned knowing how it feels to be prejudged. My point to you is,
how can you do the same thing that you have had to deal with your whole
life? Just because you say "Most are nice.", doesn't hide the fact you
like to make fun of WTVers. My guess is food chain in the life of
cyberspace. How sad that it comes from someone who should know better...

ravelation wrote:
> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>
>> *whoosh* Dude,
>
> It's chick. And it didn't *whoosh* over my head. I totally understood
> the backhanded way in which you chose to make your argument.
>
>> Me: That's what I meant. People will now
> >assume that all (or most) of you
>> are trolls because that is unfortunately
> >expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
> >thing or two about being pre-judged :-)
>
> Why are you using what amounts to a pre-K style of posting? Are you
> ASSuming because I'm on Webtv, that I won't be able to follow you if
> you post like a big computer user, quoting as you go, without
> denoting it's you that's speaking?
>
> You mentioned knowing how it feels to be prejudged. My point to you
> is, how can you do the same thing that you have had to deal with your
> whole life? Just because you say "Most are nice.", doesn't hide the
> fact you like to make fun of WTVers. My guess is food chain in the
> life of cyberspace. How sad that it comes from someone who should
> know better...

Poking fun at WebTV'rs is usually justified. The next step up is being an
AOL'r. LOL

--

- Philip

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>About webtv'ers
>Maybe some feel that we
>computer-using folks look down on
>them for not having a 'real' computer.

>>Now, where would we get that idea?
>>Perhaps it's from computer-using folks
>>like you who cloak a diss like you do?

>>Me: You're right - the damned things
>>are hell to maintain,

Do you have any idea how condescending it feels to have you post in the
style you've chosen for our conversation?!? Why are you doing that? I've
not noticed you using the "Me:" prompt before. Are you afraid I might
not be able to follow what you're saying? (another cloaked diss is the
way I read it.)

>but I endure it because I have interests
>that WTV cannot support (multitasking
>for one), but I don't automatically
>assume anyone will be a troll.

But that's exactly what you did in this thread. The use of "Ricer"
wasn't meant to disparage a group of people, but rather a style of car.
Methinks you saw "webtv" and went for the kill, rather than accept the
connotation that was meant.

>I guess a good comparison would be
>what happens when I watch a show
>about violent criminals (Forensic
>documentaries) on A&E, TLC, CourtTV
.and such. I hope and pray that when
>they show the suspect he or she is not
>Black. When they are, I know there are
>those in the viewing audience who will
>think "See! Those people can't be
>trusted!"
>So, on that level, I understand your
>reaction.

Finally! We have comprehension. This reason you give is why I find it
really strange that the same behavior is coming from someone who already
knows what being prejudged feels like!

levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:

>Hey Rav, I read your posts. I don't look
>at headers. Never noticed you use
>WebTV. You don't ACT like a WebTV
>user (not so much in this group, but in
>others, where thay have made a
>'reputation' for themselves)

Thanks for the compliment. I must admit, I'm in a minority when it comes
to how to use this friggin' thing. I actually "learned" how to cut and
paste!

>I have never seen the system in action.

For ng posting, it's kept me paying $19.95/month. Because it's dial up,
it takes too long to load pages from websites. And some pages & files
are too large to load. (I have the original box so it has limits that
the newer ones have fixed.)

>i have been an electronics tech, a
>computer network designer and
>installer, worked for Fortune 50
>companies where Usenet access was
>aquired through a VAX or other such
>dinosaur, but have never seen WebTV.
>Sorry I misspoke about the ease with
>which the newsgroups are accessed.

Apology accepted. To give you an idea of how easy this thing is to use,
I continue to dodge the slings and arrows of many computer users in
order to keep expressing my thoughts with webtv as my
portal. I could change and have my "image" upgraded, but it's not worth
it to me. 'Sides, I like making people have to stop and think that all
webtvers aren't idiots.

>But, you have piqued my interest. I poke
>around the Salvation Army stores, and
>they had a WebTV setup for $5 but it
>wasn't complete.

Getting the system is cheap. It's the monthly fee that adds up.

>I actually toyed with the idea of buying it
>because it is one of the few areas of
>communications and computing I am
>unfamiliar with.

It's kewl to be able to sit on your couch and type from the wireless
keyboard.

>As far as monitors, I used to sit right on
>top of mine, until I read an article about
>the radiation 8-9 years ago. Since then I
>have moved my monitor more than an
>arm's lenght away and try to buy
>low-emission units (um, also at the Sal
>Army...where else can you buy a 19"
>Trinitron for $12?!?)

Now, that's a deal!

>And I did notice the headaches and most
>important, memory loss!

I know when I sit in front of our computer, I get to feeling it. This
thing, the only feelings I get are the ones when people are looking
Down...

Thanks for the chat.

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>And as I stated before, a lot of the crap
>>stirred up in the groups comes from
..WebTV, and AOL also. That's why they
>>have bad reps...present company
>>excluded, of course.

>My point exactly! That's why I made the
>comment that this critter wasn't helping
>the image of his/her/it's fellow WTVers

So, it's okay for you to label a group based on something they have in
common, but when someone does that based on race, it's nasty and
unacceptable. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'....

Why should *My* image be based on something someone else has said?

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>Mostly kids, besides.

>I believe a lot of them are kids as well.

Wrong. Actually, webtv is used by our elderly, if you want to "label"
their users. Do you honestly think that a teenager would want to be
associated with something like webtv, that gets made fun of all the
time?

>>and then a Dumb-Ass remark to
>>Natalie, who is held in high regard in
>>this NG, and just acted like a general
>>@SS.

>Chances are we'll never hear from him
>again, unless he gets bored with his
>X-Box and wants to go phishing again.

Again, I can't tell you how wrong you are about the users of webtv. They
aren't teens, they're your Granny and Gramps!

Why is there a need to label what/who webtvers are, anyway?

1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t (Philip)
wrote:

>Poking fun at WebTV'rs is usually
>justified. The next step up is being an
>AOL'r. * LOL

That joke is as old as the hills and twice as muddy! Is your family
surviving the deluge ok?

ravelation wrote:
> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>
>>> Mostly kids, besides.
>
>> I believe a lot of them are kids as well.
>
> Wrong. Actually, webtv is used by our elderly, if you want to "label"
> their users. Do you honestly think that a teenager would want to be
> associated with something like webtv, that gets made fun of all the
> time?
>
>>> and then a Dumb-Ass remark to
> >>Natalie, who is held in high regard in
> >>this NG, and just acted like a general
> >>@SS.
>
> >Chances are we'll never hear from him
> >again, unless he gets bored with his
> >X-Box and wants to go phishing again.
>
> Again, I can't tell you how wrong you are about the users of webtv.
> They aren't teens, they're your Granny and Gramps!
>
> Why is there a need to label what/who webtvers are, anyway?

National pass time activity! WebTV is like driving a Yugo on the
Interstate. You could be Mario Andretti but .... in a Yugo? There are web
browsers in nearly all cellphones that will do as much or more than WebTV.
WebTV is like submitting your doctoral thesis in pencil. :^D
--

- Philip

ravelation wrote:
> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>
>>> And as I stated before, a lot of the crap
> >>stirred up in the groups comes from
> ..WebTV, and AOL also. That's why they
> >>have bad reps...present company
> >>excluded, of course.
>
>> My point exactly! That's why I made the
> >comment that this critter wasn't helping
> >the image of his/her/it's fellow WTVers
>
> So, it's okay for you to label a group based on something they have in
> common, but when someone does that based on race, it's nasty and
> unacceptable. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'....
>
> Why should *My* image be based on something someone else has said?

Sure. The difference is in poking fun at chosen behavior or preference vs.
poking fun at something those persons have no choice in or control over.
--

- Philip

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23486-421CA1BB-63@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>Me: Dude,

Me: Ravelation is a chick. Just like you.

I used 'dude' as slang, and I'm not a chick, I'm a woman. That nick of yours
is unisex, don't you think? How should I know or care what your gender is,
anyway?

>I have absolutely nothing
>against *any* poster's methods of
>posting. I only take exception to trolls
>who spew from day one, then get pissed
>that we comment on his/her/it being a
>WTVer.

That's a weak argument, especially when you haven't even taken the time
to realize I'm a chick.

Me: This isn't about gender, and who cares, really? Even with the nick
"Wickeddoll" I get mistakenly thought to be male. It's really irrelevant in
this particular situation. Besides, if you think one should try to be
certain of the gender, origin, or race of someone, I would find that rather
scary, as it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

We've shared pleasantries before) I'm not sure
the person you went after, doubleq, fits the description you've decided
to give them, a troll who spews from day one. As I said before, I've
shared a nice conversation with them. Perhaps it's because I haven't
'judged' them due to their use of webtv?

Me: WHOOSH! I'll say this once more, then I'm done with this. What I was
trying to say there is that since WTV already has a bad reputation, any
volley thrown by the offender will largely be considered 'typical'. Listen,
as a *southern-born black* woman, I sure as hell know how unfair prejudice
is, but my point is that every time this happens from WTVers, its reputation
suffers again. Fairly or not

Got it?

I hope so, but I won't lose sleep over it if you don't.

Natalie

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23486-421CAD81-69@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>Mostly kids, besides.

>I believe a lot of them are kids as well.

Wrong. Actually, webtv is used by our elderly, if you want to "label"
their users. Do you honestly think that a teenager would want to be
associated with something like webtv, that gets made fun of all the
time?

Me: I acknowledge that right now I'm violating my comment earlier about
dropping the subject, but I had to comment on this latest misunderstanding on
your part, Revealation. We are referring to the the trolls, not the majority
of WTVer. It's a fact that *all* forms of internet access contain the
element of the annoying hit & run posters, such as that DQ critter. I've
seen them troll many other mediums, such as IRC and message boards.
Honestly, I really doubt an elderly person would troll with the level of
idiocy I've seen on the net. If they do, that is a sad commentary on humans
in general.

>>and then a Dumb-Ass remark to
>>Natalie, who is held in high regard in
>>this NG, and just acted like a general
>>@SS.

Thanks! But I think Revealation has me pegged as a net snob. SHE couldn't
be more wrong.

>Chances are we'll never hear from him
>again, unless he gets bored with his
>X-Box and wants to go phishing again.

Again, I can't tell you how wrong you are about the users of webtv. They
aren't teens, they're your Granny and Gramps!

Me: See above, and please consider not being so hasty to judge us for simply
stating our experiences on the net. And while you're at it, let me just
point out a netiquette thing. It's generally frowned upon to not use reply
lines. (Like this: >) You can set your system to automatically put that in,
so that it's easier to know who's saying what. I've seen flame wars erupt
because of someone thinking a comment was made by a particular person, when
it was actually someone else. Just a suggestion, not a criticism.

Why is there a need to label what/who webtvers are, anyway?

Me: We don't label you. The particularly nasty trolls do

Natalie

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23486-421CA411-64@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>*whoosh* Dude,

It's chick. And it didn't *whoosh* over my head. I totally understood
the backhanded way in which you chose to make your argument.

Me: Good gawd.

>Me: That's what I meant. People will now
>assume that all (or most) of you
>are trolls because that is unfortunately
>expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
>thing or two about being pre-judged :-)

Why are you using what amounts to a pre-K style of posting? Are you
ASSuming because I'm on Webtv, that I won't be able to follow you if you
post like a big computer user, quoting as you go, without denoting it's
you that's speaking?

Me: What the hell are you on about? It's normal to include the replies, My
lord, you are way off on this one. Consider: Someone logs onto the NG for
the first time. The see our back and forth, but don't know what the original
comments were. It's actually good netiquette and nothing more. The fact
that you're getting so upset about this proves YOU have the problem with
being prejudged, despite doing the same thing to us.

You mentioned knowing how it feels to be prejudged. My point to you is,
how can you do the same thing that you have had to deal with your whole
life? Just because you say "Most are nice.", doesn't hide the fact you
like to make fun of WTVers. My guess is food chain in the life of
cyberspace. How sad that it comes from someone who should know better...

Me: Jesus, Mary & Joseph! Sweetie, since it's clear you have me pegged as
some sort of net beast, I throw in the towel. I have way better things to do
than argue with a screen name who refuses to even acknowledge my attempts to
be fair.

I'll concede only that prejudging WTVers is wrong, but I have to tell you - I
will continue to post the way I see fit. If you don't wanna see my posts even
getting loaded, fine. Put me in your killfile. Otherwise please stop
ragging me, since you know I won't be seeing your comments about me.

Natalie

1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t (Philip)
wrote:

>National pass time activity! WebTV is
>like driving a Yugo on the Interstate.
>You could be Mario Andretti but .... in a
>Yugo? There are web browsers in nearly
>all cellphones that will do as much or
>more than WebTV. WebTV is like
>submitting your doctoral thesis in pencil.
>:^D

In self examination, I surprise myself that I still use this thing (a
testament to its ease of operation!) as I tend to be very, ummmm,
'snooty' when it comes to appearances. I like my nice car and house and
jewelry and and and....After all, I live in SoCal, home of the shallow
and muddy!

ravelation wrote:
> 1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t (Philip)
> wrote:
>
>> National pass time activity! WebTV is
>> like driving a Yugo on the Interstate.
>> You could be Mario Andretti but .... in a
>> Yugo? There are web browsers in nearly
>> all cellphones that will do as much or
>> more than WebTV. WebTV is like
>> submitting your doctoral thesis in pencil.
>> :^D
>
> In self examination, I surprise myself that I still use this thing (a
> testament to its ease of operation!) as I tend to be very, ummmm,
> 'snooty' when it comes to appearances. I like my nice car and house
> and jewelry and and and....After all, I live in SoCal, home of the
> shallow and muddy!

Not a testament to ease of use as much as it is a statement of your rich
economy. LOL That WebTV thing should be red tagged. ;-)
--

- Philip

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:52:32 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>> Why should *My* image be based on something someone else has said?
>
>Sure. The difference is in poking fun at chosen behavior or preference vs.
>poking fun at something those persons have no choice in or control over.

Which category do stupid right-wingers fall under? 8)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:00:15 -0800, ravelation wrote:

>
> 1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t (Philip)
> wrote:
>
>>National pass time activity! WebTV is
> >like driving a Yugo on the Interstate.
> >You could be Mario Andretti but .... in a
> >Yugo? There are web browsers in nearly
> >all cellphones that will do as much or
> >more than WebTV. WebTV is like
> >submitting your doctoral thesis in pencil.
> >:^D
>
> In self examination, I surprise myself that I still use this thing (a
> testament to its ease of operation!) as I tend to be very, ummmm,
> 'snooty' when it comes to appearances. I like my nice car and house and
> jewelry and and and....After all, I live in SoCal, home of the shallow
> and muddy!


Bottom line, Rav, we don't care how you post (not saying that snottily or
condescendingly). You're a good member of this group. You post by WebTV,
so be it. See my post about the woman and the Pentuim in this thread. If
it works for you, great. But, you know 'netiquette' ,the most important
thing.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:10:07 +0000, Philip wrote:

> ravelation wrote:
>> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>>
>>> *whoosh* Dude,
>>
>> It's chick. And it didn't *whoosh* over my head. I totally understood
>> the backhanded way in which you chose to make your argument.
>>
>>> Me: That's what I meant. People will now
>> >assume that all (or most) of you
>>> are trolls because that is unfortunately
>> >expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
>> >thing or two about being pre-judged :-)
>>
>> Why are you using what amounts to a pre-K style of posting? Are you
>> ASSuming because I'm on Webtv, that I won't be able to follow you if
>> you post like a big computer user, quoting as you go, without
>> denoting it's you that's speaking?
>>
>> You mentioned knowing how it feels to be prejudged. My point to you
>> is, how can you do the same thing that you have had to deal with your
>> whole life? Just because you say "Most are nice.", doesn't hide the
>> fact you like to make fun of WTVers. My guess is food chain in the
>> life of cyberspace. How sad that it comes from someone who should
>> know better...
>
> Poking fun at WebTV'rs is usually justified. The next step up is being an
> AOL'r. LOL

I've already done mentioned that, Philip!

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:50:40 -0800, ravelation wrote:

>
> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>>About webtv'ers
>>Maybe some feel that we
>>computer-using folks look down on
> >them for not having a 'real' computer.
>
>>>Now, where would we get that idea?
>>>Perhaps it's from computer-using folks
> >>like you who cloak a diss like you do?
>
>>>Me: You're right - the damned things
> >>are hell to maintain,
>
> Do you have any idea how condescending it feels to have you post in the
> style you've chosen for our conversation?!? Why are you doing that? I've
> not noticed you using the "Me:" prompt before. Are you afraid I might
> not be able to follow what you're saying? (another cloaked diss is the
> way I read it.)
>
> >but I endure it because I have interests
> >that WTV cannot support (multitasking
> >for one), but I don't automatically
> >assume anyone will be a troll.
>
> But that's exactly what you did in this thread. The use of "Ricer"
> wasn't meant to disparage a group of people, but rather a style of car.
> Methinks you saw "webtv" and went for the kill, rather than accept the
> connotation that was meant.

Actually, I didn't even look to see where the poster was posting from; I
tought his intial post was a slam against ALL Toyota owners, since 'ricer'
has been used to describe US longer than it has for the Fast And The
Furious crowd. And then when he slammed Nat, that confirmed my suspicions.
He was really just here to troll right from the start, and none of us see
him/her denying it now, do we?

>
>>I guess a good comparison would be
> >what happens when I watch a show
> >about violent criminals (Forensic
> >documentaries) on A&E, TLC, CourtTV
> .and such. I hope and pray that when
> >they show the suspect he or she is not
> >Black. When they are, I know there are
> >those in the viewing audience who will
> >think "See! Those people can't be
> >trusted!"
>>So, on that level, I understand your
> >reaction.
>
> Finally! We have comprehension. This reason you give is why I find it
> really strange that the same behavior is coming from someone who already
> knows what being prejudged feels like!

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:57:58 +0000, dizzy wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:52:32 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>>> Why should *My* image be based on something someone else has said?
>>
>>Sure. The difference is in poking fun at chosen behavior or preference vs.
>>poking fun at something those persons have no choice in or control over.
>
> Which category do stupid right-wingers fall under? 8)

Um, that would be me....

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:57:58 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:52:32 GMT, "Philip"
><1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>>> Why should *My* image be based on something someone else has said?
>>
>>Sure. The difference is in poking fun at chosen behavior or preference vs.
>>poking fun at something those persons have no choice in or control over.
>
>Which category do stupid right-wingers fall under? 8)


Bad enough this is dumb, but you had to go political?

bottom of the barrel

later,

tom @ www.CarFleaMarket.com

hachiroku wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:10:07 +0000, Philip wrote:
>
>> ravelation wrote:
>>> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>>>
>>>> *whoosh* Dude,
>>>
>>> It's chick. And it didn't *whoosh* over my head. I totally
>>> understood the backhanded way in which you chose to make your
>>> argument.
>>>
>>>> Me: That's what I meant. People will now
>>> >assume that all (or most) of you
>>>> are trolls because that is unfortunately
>>> >expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
>>> >thing or two about being pre-judged :-)
>>>
>>> Why are you using what amounts to a pre-K style of posting? Are you
>>> ASSuming because I'm on Webtv, that I won't be able to follow you if
>>> you post like a big computer user, quoting as you go, without
>>> denoting it's you that's speaking?
>>>
>>> You mentioned knowing how it feels to be prejudged. My point to you
>>> is, how can you do the same thing that you have had to deal with
>>> your whole life? Just because you say "Most are nice.", doesn't
>>> hide the
>>> fact you like to make fun of WTVers. My guess is food chain in the
>>> life of cyberspace. How sad that it comes from someone who should
>>> know better...
>>
>> Poking fun at WebTV'rs is usually justified. The next step up is
>> being an AOL'r. LOL
>
> I've already done mentioned that, Philip!

So? Did you use better grammar?
--

- Philip

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:31:21 -0500, The Real Tom
<newsgroup01NOSPAM@intertainia.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:57:58 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:52:32 GMT, "Philip"
>><1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why should *My* image be based on something someone else has said?
>>>
>>>Sure. The difference is in poking fun at chosen behavior or preference vs.
>>>poking fun at something those persons have no choice in or control over.
>>
>>Which category do stupid right-wingers fall under? 8)
>
>
>Bad enough this is dumb, but you had to go political?

Idiot. It was a joke. See the smiley?

>bottom of the barrel

Yes, scum like you are bottom of the barrel.

>later,

Hopefully not.

When I first showed my 17 year old son my webtv PLUS several years ago
he thought is was so cool how you can flip the screen and move the pip
around the screen.

I wonder how hard it would be to add a picture from your tv screen to
an email on your pentium? PS I sell wetbv PLUS units on Amazon.com.

Like a good woman , a J vin number camry and cheap real estate here in
Florida , Plus units are hard to find. Even harder with a warranty.

Don't hate us cause we don't have pop up's . And access to email is a
breeze compared to a computer. I love the movie editing program on my
computer. But for the most part the thing is a pain in the arse and
work in progress. And we (myself included) have footed the bill along
the way.

Computers are like cars that never did run very well and they are just
now coming into their own. And how are they evolving? They are becoming
more like webtv Plus by merging tv and the computers with a wireless
mouse and keyboard.

I can program my plus to change to the channel I want and turn on my vcr
to record it as well. I can program all of my shows to come on
automatically all while laying in bed. Did I mention I don't have to
miss a phone call with the built in call waiting feature. Try buying a
computer with one of those allready installed.?? Hello???

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:59:12 +0000, Philip wrote:

> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:10:07 +0000, Philip wrote:
>>
>>> ravelation wrote:
>>>> wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *whoosh* Dude,
>>>>
>>>> It's chick. And it didn't *whoosh* over my head. I totally
>>>> understood the backhanded way in which you chose to make your
>>>> argument.
>>>>
>>>>> Me: That's what I meant. People will now
>>>> >assume that all (or most) of you
>>>>> are trolls because that is unfortunately
>>>> >expected in WTVers. Hey, I know a
>>>> >thing or two about being pre-judged :-)
>>>>
>>>> Why are you using what amounts to a pre-K style of posting? Are you
>>>> ASSuming because I'm on Webtv, that I won't be able to follow you if
>>>> you post like a big computer user, quoting as you go, without
>>>> denoting it's you that's speaking?
>>>>
>>>> You mentioned knowing how it feels to be prejudged. My point to you
>>>> is, how can you do the same thing that you have had to deal with
>>>> your whole life? Just because you say "Most are nice.", doesn't
>>>> hide the
>>>> fact you like to make fun of WTVers. My guess is food chain in the
>>>> life of cyberspace. How sad that it comes from someone who should
>>>> know better...
>>>
>>> Poking fun at WebTV'rs is usually justified. The next step up is
>>> being an AOL'r. LOL
>>
>> I've already done mentioned that, Philip!
>
> So? Did you use better grammar?

Nah!

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:52:45 -0500, Charles Pisano wrote:

> When I first showed my 17 year old son my webtv PLUS several years ago
> he thought is was so cool how you can flip the screen and move the pip
> around the screen.
>
> I wonder how hard it would be to add a picture from your tv screen to
> an email on your pentium? PS I sell wetbv PLUS units on Amazon.com.
>
> Like a good woman , a J vin number camry and cheap real estate here in
> Florida , Plus units are hard to find. Even harder with a warranty.
>
> Don't hate us cause we don't have pop up's . And access to email is a
> breeze compared to a computer. I love the movie editing program on my
> computer. But for the most part the thing is a pain in the arse and
> work in progress. And we (myself included) have footed the bill along
> the way.
>
> Computers are like cars that never did run very well and they are just
> now coming into their own. And how are they evolving? They are becoming
> more like webtv Plus by merging tv and the computers with a wireless
> mouse and keyboard.
>
> I can program my plus to change to the channel I want and turn on my vcr
> to record it as well. I can program all of my shows to come on
> automatically all while laying in bed. Did I mention I don't have to
> miss a phone call with the built in call waiting feature. Try buying a
> computer with one of those allready installed.?? Hello???

Ya know, I have to agree with him!

I always wanted to try it to see how it operated.
Can you get into the OS at all? Tweak anything? 'Hot Rod' it a little bit?
I think I remember one time seeing a memory upgrade somewhere.

My knowledge of these boxes only comes from TV ads and what I have seen on
the boxes in the stores. Never saw one in action. By the time I was
actually thinking about getting one, I was pretty well hooked up through
work and never had to bother.


>
> <html>
> <b> <font color="plum" size="5">* <marquee behavior="alternate"
> align="top" direction="left" scrollamount=10 width="100%"
> loop=5>Charles</marquee></font> </b>
>
>
>
> <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/US/FL/Jensen_Beach.html"> <img
> src="http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetempbig_both/language/www/US/FL/Jensen_Beach.gif"
> alt="Click for Jensen Beach, Florida Forecast" height=40 width=467></a>
>
>
>
>
> </body></html>

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:52:45 -0500, pisanochas@webtv.net (Charles
Pisano) wrote:

>When I first showed my 17 year old son my webtv PLUS several years ago
>he thought is was so cool how you can flip the screen and move the pip
>around the screen.
>
>I wonder how hard it would be to add a picture from your tv screen to
>an email on your pentium? PS I sell wetbv PLUS units on Amazon.com.
>
>Like a good woman , a J vin number camry and cheap real estate here in
>Florida , Plus units are hard to find. Even harder with a warranty.
>
>Don't hate us cause we don't have pop up's . And access to email is a
>breeze compared to a computer. I love the movie editing program on my
>computer. But for the most part the thing is a pain in the arse and
>work in progress. And we (myself included) have footed the bill along
>the way.
>
>Computers are like cars that never did run very well and they are just
>now coming into their own. And how are they evolving? They are becoming
>more like webtv Plus by merging tv and the computers with a wireless
>mouse and keyboard.
>
>I can program my plus to change to the channel I want and turn on my vcr
>to record it as well. I can program all of my shows to come on
>automatically all while laying in bed. Did I mention I don't have to
>miss a phone call with the built in call waiting feature. Try buying a
>computer with one of those allready installed.?? Hello???

It is so kewl....that you post non txt to a txt forum.

Yup another Web TV Idiot (if I may borrow Dizzy's term).

Are you related to ravalation?

ROFL


--
Scott in Florida

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:11:59 GMT, Scott in Florida
<NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:

>Yup another Web TV Idiot (if I may borrow Dizzy's term).

Someone I know once said, "Web-TV is for people who can't figure
out AOL."

'Nuff said.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

Charles Pisano wrote:

> Attachment decoded: untitled-2.txt
> --WebTV-Mail-29452-1943
> <html>
> <b> <font color="plum" size="5">* <marquee behavior="alternate"
> align="top" direction="left" scrollamount=10 width="100%"
> loop=5>Charles</marquee></font> </b>
>
>
>
> <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/US/FL/Jensen_Beach.html"> <img
> src="http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetempbig_both/langua
> ge/www/US/FL/Jensen_Beach.gif" alt="Click for Jensen Beach, Florida
> Forecast" height=40 width=467></a>
>
>
>
>
> </body></html>
>
>
Please don't post HTML in a text-only newsgroup like this one. That is
another reason why a lot of WebTV users are often criticized.

levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:

>Actually, I didn't even look to see where
>the poster was posting from; I tought his
>intial post was a slam against ALL
>Toyota owners, since 'ricer' has been
>used to describe US longer than it has
>for the Fast And The Furious crowd. And
>then when he slammed Nat, that
>confirmed my suspicions. He was really
>just here to troll right from the start, and
>none of us see him/her denying it now,
>do we?

That's a point I can't dispute. I apologize that my part in this has
seemed to really piss Natalie off, to the point that it sounded like she
may have killfiled me when all I wanted was to point out that a similar
'predjudice' (as I'm sure she's experienced) was seeping through with
regards to webtv users. When she responded with a bizarre way of cut and
paste with the "Me:" stuff, it really sent me into defensive mode.

So again, if she can see this, my intent was not to turn Natalie against
me, (I like the Wikkeddol!) but to defend people's use of webtv. I know
the foo shits on many an occasion with webtv'ers, but it doesn't mean
you have to wear it. :)

newsgroup01NOSPAM@intertainia.com (The*Real*Tom) wrote:

>>Which category do stupid right-wingers
>>fall under? * 8)

>Bad enough this is dumb, but you had to
>go political?

Hey, I thought you guys liked cat fights?!
Me-ow! ;)

NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't (Scott*in*Florida) wrote:

>It is so kewl....that you post non txt to a
>txt forum.

Yeah, that was a mistake.

>Yup another Web TV Idiot (if I may
>borrow Dizzy's term).

>Are you related to ravalation?

You can be an idiot too, Scott. I can't tell you how many posts of yours
I've not read because you're so damn lazy you can't edit out the
cascading that occurs because you choose to post your political troll
posts (even after people have BEGGED you to stop), that go on and on and
on and on, only to find that one line at the end when you give your
response at the bottom of 5,000 lines of text.

Yeah, I'm a real idiot for knowing proper nettiquette, but post from
webtv.

>ROFL

Laugh away, lazy ass! :) <-----Smiley, because even though you piss me
off, I still like your outlook on America. Just learn to edit your posts
better. You *are* a bigshot computer user, after all. The button you're
looking for might be called Delete. You hit it after highlighting old
dialogue that doesn't have anything to do with what you're saying at
that point.

Now, where's that pot and kettle that need cleaning? HA!

ericd@cox.nét (Eric*Dreher) wrote:

>Someone I know once said, "Web-TV is
>for people who can't figure out AOL."
>'Nuff said.

Ha ha ha. At least you know how to edit properly, Eric. Could you teach
your big time computer users how to do it?

Funny, when I forward an email to my computer (from my webtv PLUS) it
looks the same as it does on my webtv. That is the HTML works. Maybe he
doesn't know how to set up his POP3 email thing whatever that is.

Charles Pisano wrote:

> Funny, when I forward an email to my computer (from my webtv PLUS) it
> looks the same as it does on my webtv. That is the HTML works. Maybe he
> doesn't know how to set up his POP3 email thing whatever that is.
>
But this is not email. This is a newsgroup on Usenet, a primarily text-
based medium. So please don't use HTML here.

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:beoq11542bj0bn6lijaoqpn3mmho3fe268@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:52:45 -0500, pisanochas@webtv.net (Charles
> Pisano) wrote:
>
>>When I first showed my 17 year old son my webtv PLUS several years ago
>>he thought is was so cool how you can flip the screen and move the pip
>>around the screen.
>>
>>I wonder how hard it would be to add a picture from your tv screen to
>>an email on your pentium? PS I sell wetbv PLUS units on Amazon.com.
>>
>>Like a good woman , a J vin number camry and cheap real estate here in
>>Florida , Plus units are hard to find. Even harder with a warranty.
>>
>>Don't hate us cause we don't have pop up's . And access to email is a
>>breeze compared to a computer. I love the movie editing program on my
>>computer. But for the most part the thing is a pain in the arse and
>>work in progress. And we (myself included) have footed the bill along
>>the way.
>>
>>Computers are like cars that never did run very well and they are just
>>now coming into their own. And how are they evolving? They are becoming
>>more like webtv Plus by merging tv and the computers with a wireless
>>mouse and keyboard.
>>
>>I can program my plus to change to the channel I want and turn on my vcr
>>to record it as well. I can program all of my shows to come on
>>automatically all while laying in bed. Did I mention I don't have to
>>miss a phone call with the built in call waiting feature. Try buying a
>>computer with one of those allready installed.?? Hello???
>
> It is so kewl....that you post non txt to a txt forum.
>
> Yup another Web TV Idiot (if I may borrow Dizzy's term).
>
> Are you related to ravalation?
>
> ROFL
>
>
> --
> Scott in Florida

Now, now...I was trying my best to dispel the hostility from Ravelation
toward me, but I don't see all WTVers as trolls. Not even most, but after
going around in circles with Ravelation, I figured she'd already judged me as
a net snob. To her credit, it doesn't appear that she has continued to
attack me from behind my killfile, so hopefully she now realizes that not all
computer users are anti-WTV

Oh, the irony.

Natalie

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:47:58 -0800, ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation)
wrote:

>Ha ha ha. At least you know how to edit properly, Eric.

Ya' think? Wow. A dWeEb-TV'er told me I did it right!
I can sleep well tonight.

>Could you teach your big time computer users how to do it?

Sonny, your medium doesn't permit condescension. AOL is surpassed
only by Web-TV as the faux-ISP whose financial grave I would happily
dance upon.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:32:59 -0800, ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation)
wrote:

> newsgroup01NOSPAM@intertainia.com (The*Real*Tom) wrote:
>
>>>Which category do stupid right-wingers
> >>fall under? * 8)
>
>>Bad enough this is dumb, but you had to
> >go political?
>
>Hey, I thought you guys liked cat fights?!
>Me-ow! ;)

We love cat fights....but not if our 'cat' is one of the cats...


--
Scott in Florida

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:31:06 -0800, ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation)
wrote:

>
>levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>
>>Actually, I didn't even look to see where
> >the poster was posting from; I tought his
> >intial post was a slam against ALL
> >Toyota owners, since 'ricer' has been
> >used to describe US longer than it has
> >for the Fast And The Furious crowd. And
> >then when he slammed Nat, that
> >confirmed my suspicions. He was really
> >just here to troll right from the start, and
> >none of us see him/her denying it now,
> >do we?
>
>That's a point I can't dispute. I apologize that my part in this has
>seemed to really piss Natalie off, to the point that it sounded like she
>may have killfiled me when all I wanted was to point out that a similar
>'predjudice' (as I'm sure she's experienced) was seeping through with
>regards to webtv users. When she responded with a bizarre way of cut and
>paste with the "Me:" stuff, it really sent me into defensive mode.
>
>So again, if she can see this, my intent was not to turn Natalie against
>me, (I like the Wikkeddol!) but to defend people's use of webtv. I know
>the foo shits on many an occasion with webtv'ers, but it doesn't mean
>you have to wear it. :)

I think Natalie won't be seeing your message...
--
Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:750t11h09ejret045foat650ni1sn5hpcp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:31:06 -0800, ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, I didn't even look to see where
>> >the poster was posting from; I tought his
>> >intial post was a slam against ALL
>> >Toyota owners, since 'ricer' has been
>> >used to describe US longer than it has
>> >for the Fast And The Furious crowd. And
>> >then when he slammed Nat, that
>> >confirmed my suspicions. He was really
>> >just here to troll right from the start, and
>> >none of us see him/her denying it now,
>> >do we?
>>
>>That's a point I can't dispute. I apologize that my part in this has
>>seemed to really piss Natalie off, to the point that it sounded like she
>>may have killfiled me when all I wanted was to point out that a similar
>>'predjudice' (as I'm sure she's experienced) was seeping through with
>>regards to webtv users. When she responded with a bizarre way of cut and
>>paste with the "Me:" stuff, it really sent me into defensive mode.


It was to avoid confusion, and yes, I did killfile you, because you seemed to
ignore the fact that I said the prejudice against WTVers is only ampliphied
by gits like that DQ twit. I couldn't even understand why you were slamming
me, when I was essentially agreeing with your that one should not assume a
WTVer is a troll, just as non-blacks shouldn't assume I'm a criminal, on
welfare, etc. It's damned frustrating when I see crap like so: I'm former
Air Force active duty. I got out when I had my first child. My husband
stayed in, eventually got commissioned, and is now an AF Lab Officer. When I
walk into a base facility (Say, the housing office), I get the cattle
treatment - they assume that I or my spouse is enlisted, so they have a 'OK,
who's next' frame of mind (Which doesn't bother me, as I know what it's like
dealing with the huge workloads in military life). What irks me is that as
soon as they find out my husband's an officer, they start kissing my ass.
That is wrong on so many levels, but I know it's a fact of military life. As
a nurse, I never did acknowledge rank, other than to say 'sir' or 'ma'am' to
the officer and to their spouses, but I addressed *every patient* that way,
even those who I outranked. Brown-nosers piss me off to no end. *shrug*
>>
>>So again, if she can see this, my intent was not to turn Natalie against
>>me, (I like the Wikkeddol!) but to defend people's use of webtv. I know
>>the foo shits on many an occasion with webtv'ers, but it doesn't mean
>>you have to wear it. :)

True...
>
> I think Natalie won't be seeing your message...
> --
> Scott in Florida

I wouldn't have if you hadn't replied. I think we simply had a
misunderstanding, so I'll take her out of my filters. That might be moot,
though. I just ditched EarthStink, effective March 13th, so there go the
NGs, I think. I may use one of the free ones, but www.individual.net is now
charging for theirs. I think they did that because AOHell is dropping NGs.

Natalie

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:27:19 -0800, Eric Dreher wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:11:59 GMT, Scott in Florida
> <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>
>>Yup another Web TV Idiot (if I may borrow Dizzy's term).
>
> Someone I know once said, "Web-TV is for people who can't figure
> out AOL."
>
> 'Nuff said.

Gee, Eric, that's harsh.....
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:29:32 -0500, Charles Pisano wrote:

> Funny, when I forward an email to my computer (from my webtv PLUS) it
> looks the same as it does on my webtv. That is the HTML works. Maybe he
> doesn't know how to set up his POP3 email thing whatever that is.

Some newsreaders aren't HTML friendly. Mine is not. That spammer that
posted a message last week looked like garbled garbage to me. Not trying
to be condescending or harsh, but I don't use MicroScoff'd, either. I see
raw HTML when someone uses it...

>
> <html>
> <b> <font color="plum" size="5">* <marquee behavior="alternate"
> align="top" direction="left" scrollamount=10 width="100%"
> loop=5>Charles</marquee></font> </b>
>
>
>
> <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/US/FL/Jensen_Beach.html"> <img
> src="http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetempbig_both/language/www/US/FL/Jensen_Beach.gif"
> alt="Click for Jensen Beach, Florida Forecast" height=40 width=467></a>
>
>
>
>
> </body></html>

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:46:36 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

>
> "Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
> news:750t11h09ejret045foat650ni1sn5hpcp@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:31:06 -0800, ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>levin@ae86.gts (hachiroku) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Actually, I didn't even look to see where
>>> >the poster was posting from; I tought his
>>> >intial post was a slam against ALL
>>> >Toyota owners, since 'ricer' has been
>>> >used to describe US longer than it has
>>> >for the Fast And The Furious crowd. And
>>> >then when he slammed Nat, that
>>> >confirmed my suspicions. He was really
>>> >just here to troll right from the start, and
>>> >none of us see him/her denying it now,
>>> >do we?
>>>
>>>That's a point I can't dispute. I apologize that my part in this has
>>>seemed to really piss Natalie off, to the point that it sounded like she
>>>may have killfiled me when all I wanted was to point out that a similar
>>>'predjudice' (as I'm sure she's experienced) was seeping through with
>>>regards to webtv users. When she responded with a bizarre way of cut and
>>>paste with the "Me:" stuff, it really sent me into defensive mode.
>
>
> It was to avoid confusion, and yes, I did killfile you, because you seemed to
> ignore the fact that I said the prejudice against WTVers is only ampliphied
> by gits like that DQ twit. I couldn't even understand why you were slamming
> me, when I was essentially agreeing with your that one should not assume a
> WTVer is a troll, just as non-blacks shouldn't assume I'm a criminal, on
> welfare, etc. It's damned frustrating when I see crap like so: I'm former
> Air Force active duty. I got out when I had my first child. My husband
> stayed in, eventually got commissioned, and is now an AF Lab Officer. When I
> walk into a base facility (Say, the housing office), I get the cattle
> treatment - they assume that I or my spouse is enlisted, so they have a 'OK,
> who's next' frame of mind (Which doesn't bother me, as I know what it's like
> dealing with the huge workloads in military life). What irks me is that as
> soon as they find out my husband's an officer, they start kissing my ass.
> That is wrong on so many levels, but I know it's a fact of military life. As
> a nurse, I never did acknowledge rank, other than to say 'sir' or 'ma'am' to
> the officer and to their spouses, but I addressed *every patient* that way,
> even those who I outranked. Brown-nosers piss me off to no end. *shrug*

LOL!!!! Me Too!!!

>>>
>>>So again, if she can see this, my intent was not to turn Natalie against
>>>me, (I like the Wikkeddol!) but to defend people's use of webtv. I know
>>>the foo shits on many an occasion with webtv'ers, but it doesn't mean
>>>you have to wear it. :)
>
> True...
>>
>> I think Natalie won't be seeing your message...
>> --
>> Scott in Florida
>
> I wouldn't have if you hadn't replied. I think we simply had a
> misunderstanding, so I'll take her out of my filters. That might be moot,
> though. I just ditched EarthStink, effective March 13th, so there go the
> NGs, I think. I may use one of the free ones, but www.individual.net is now
> charging for theirs. I think they did that because AOHell is dropping NGs.
>
> Natalie

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:34:42 GMT, hachiroku <levin@ae86.gts> wrote:

>> Someone I know once said, "Web-TV is for people who can't figure
>> out AOL."
>>
>> 'Nuff said.
>
>Gee, Eric, that's harsh.....

Hey, I didn't coin it.

But I sure as heck don't disagree with the premise.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

Maybe some feel that we computer-using folks look down on them for not
having a 'real' computer. Hey, if all someone needs is available to
them, with no more bells and whistles, I think that's great! I'm a firm
believer in using only what you need, and for some, MailStation and WTV
suits their needs. Nothing wrong with that at all, IMO. Besides, the
least complicated something is, the fewer things can go wrong.
Natalie


Some folks don't require computers at home. I'll be working from home
shortly, so my company will provide the hardware. Until then, I'll use
my computer at work, use what I have at home.

If all you "need" is "real" computer hardware...good for you. My
"uncomplicated" stuff at home (which is really fun, and there's so much
you don't have) suits me just fine. Gives me more time for people.
And it's such a pain, sitting on the sofa, keyboard on your lap,
watching telly, and doing this.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:34:23 GMT, Scott in Florida
<NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:32:59 -0800, ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation)
>wrote:
>
>> newsgroup01NOSPAM@intertainia.com (The*Real*Tom) wrote:
>>
>>>>Which category do stupid right-wingers
>> >>fall under? * 8)
>>
>>>Bad enough this is dumb, but you had to
>> >go political?
>>
>>Hey, I thought you guys liked cat fights?!
>>Me-ow! ;)
>
>We love cat fights....but not if our 'cat' is one of the cats...
>

Meow!

>
> --
> Scott in Florida

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>"Scott in Florida"
>><NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't>
>>wrote in message
>>I think Natalie won't be seeing your
>>message...

Thank you for snipping it into your post so she could see it.

>I wouldn't have if you hadn't replied. I
>think we simply had a
>misunderstanding, so I'll take her out of
>my filters.

Yes, it was a misunderstanding. I'm glad we can move on. No .org
attached, please. :)

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16505-421F488D-102@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>"Scott in Florida"
>><NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't>
>>wrote in message
>>I think Natalie won't be seeing your
>>message...

Thank you for snipping it into your post so she could see it.

>I wouldn't have if you hadn't replied. I
>think we simply had a
>misunderstanding, so I'll take her out of
>my filters.

Yes, it was a misunderstanding. I'm glad we can move on. No .org
attached, please. :)

No .org? 'splain, Lucy?

:-)

Natalie

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>Yes, it was a misunderstanding. I'm
>>glad we can move on. No .org
>>attached, please. :)

>No .org? 'splain, Lucy?

I had said we can "move on" and there was that group called Move
On.org.... I wasn't too fond of their ads. When I typed "move on", it
made me think of that. Ugh.

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17088-4220A9B0-559@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...

wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com (Wickeddoll®) wrote:

>>Yes, it was a misunderstanding. I'm
>>glad we can move on. No .org
>>attached, please. :)

>No .org? 'splain, Lucy?

I had said we can "move on" and there was that group called Move
On.org.... I wasn't too fond of their ads. When I typed "move on", it
made me think of that. Ugh.


OK

Gotcha

Natalie