Whitey

Hey, just a quick post to let you know about a new australian satire website
It's called Meat Pie and Sauce and you can see it @
http://www.meatpieandsauce.com
Cheers guys, hope you like the site.

Janev

No such site apparently. I couldn't get on to it.

Richard

[email protected] (Janev) wrote in news:401ec370.2022828
@news.comcen.com.au:

    > No such site apparently. I couldn't get on to it.

I did, but didn't think it was *that* funny. (Don't have the url, the
original poster - above - should have included it in her reply.)

Frank Slootweg

Richard <[email protected]> wrote:
    > [email protected] (Janev) wrote in news:401ec370.2022828
    > @news.comcen.com.au:
    >
    >> No such site apparently. I couldn't get on to it.
    >
    > I did, but didn't think it was *that* funny. (Don't have the url, the
    > original poster - above - should have included it in her reply.)

Well, Janev probably has a real newsreader and hence did not feel the
need to repeat the URL. :-) Hir only infringement was posting a quoted
blank line. Hir sentence is a mandatory read of TUNG [1].

[1] The Ultimate Netiquette Guide

[Sorry Richard. Needed a bit of poking fun. You happen to be the
'victim' of it.]

Richard

Frank Slootweg <[email protected]> wrote in news:40224ada$0$62675
[email protected]:

    > Richard <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> [email protected] (Janev) wrote in news:401ec370.2022828
    >> @news.comcen.com.au:
    >>
    >>> No such site apparently. I couldn't get on to it.
    >>
    >> I did, but didn't think it was *that* funny. (Don't have the url, the
    >> original poster - above - should have included it in her reply.)
    >
    > Well, Janev probably has a real newsreader and hence did not feel the
    > need to repeat the URL. :-) Hir only infringement was posting a quoted
    > blank line. Hir sentence is a mandatory read of TUNG [1].
    >
    > [1] The Ultimate Netiquette Guide
    >
    > [Sorry Richard. Needed a bit of poking fun. You happen to be the
    > 'victim' of it.]

Funny, I don't feel 'victimised'. Just confused. While you explain the
meaning of TUNG, I wish you'd tell us what "Hir" means. Is that the new
alternate to His/Her, perhaps?

Whatever your basis for feeling superior concerning 'netiquette', you
happen to be dead wrong about urls. One *always* should repeat a url if
referring to it.

Anyway, I'm curiously uninterested in this whole business, so suggest
that you go 'victimise' someone else :-)

Frank Slootweg

Richard <[email protected]> wrote:
[deleted]
    > Funny, I don't feel 'victimised'. Just confused. While you explain the
    > meaning of TUNG, I wish you'd tell us what "Hir" means. Is that the new
    > alternate to His/Her, perhaps?

It is by no means news, but yep. I couldn't tell what Janev's gender
is. You said "she", but I couldn't tell how you came to that conclusion.
Hence "hir".

    > Whatever your basis for feeling superior concerning 'netiquette', you
    > happen to be dead wrong about urls. One *always* should repeat a url if
    > referring to it.

Well, one can not be dead wrong where netiquette is concerned :-), but
I see and share your point. As I said, I was only poking fun. If it is
unclear *what* I was poking fun at: Any decent newsreader can easily
show the parent article which *does* contain the URL. I.e. a simple News
thread *can* be comment, response, response, etc. without any quoting.
That was basically my point/'joke'.

    > Anyway, I'm curiously uninterested in this whole business, so suggest
    > that you go 'victimise' someone else :-)

But Richard, don't you realize that the fact that you are uninterested
makes you the *ideal* victim! :-)

Richard

Frank Slootweg <[email protected]> wrote in news:40226fa5$0$38549
[email protected]:

    > Richard <[email protected]> wrote:
    > [deleted]
    >> Funny, I don't feel 'victimised'. Just confused. While you explain the
    >> meaning of TUNG, I wish you'd tell us what "Hir" means. Is that the
new
    >> alternate to His/Her, perhaps?
    >
    > It is by no means news, but yep. I couldn't tell what Janev's gender
    > is. You said "she", but I couldn't tell how you came to that
conclusion.
    > Hence "hir".
    >
    >> Whatever your basis for feeling superior concerning 'netiquette', you
    >> happen to be dead wrong about urls. One *always* should repeat a url
if
    >> referring to it.
    >
    > Well, one can not be dead wrong where netiquette is concerned :-),
but
    > I see and share your point. As I said, I was only poking fun. If it is
    > unclear *what* I was poking fun at: Any decent newsreader can easily
    > show the parent article which *does* contain the URL. I.e. a simple
News
    > thread *can* be comment, response, response, etc. without any quoting.
    > That was basically my point/'joke'.
    >
    >> Anyway, I'm curiously uninterested in this whole business, so suggest
    >> that you go 'victimise' someone else :-)
    >
    > But Richard, don't you realize that the fact that you are
uninterested
    > makes you the *ideal* victim! :-)
    >

Frank, you seem bent on exhausting every nuance of this extremely-off
topic subject!

As you apparently come from one of my favourite countries (well, at least
Amsterdam is one of my favourite cities) I will humour you just once more
by stating that one is only a victim when one feels/acts like a victim. I
do not choose to do so.

The *ideal* victim, in my humble op, is one who lends himself (hirself??)
willingly to the notion that they in fact have been victimised. These
folk eagerly look for sympathy because they feel themselves wronged. I
say, get on with living and don't give satisfaction to those who seek to
create victims. IOW don't live your life in the defensive mode...

Ugh! I've finished, good day to you sir! :-)

Cheers.