Steve Wertz wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2004 20:21:17 -0700, "F.G. Whitfurrows"
wrote:

Could you give ol' Nick Cramer's history a look-see and let me know if
he's posted any excuses that you can spot?

Nick uses that pussy-shit X-No-Archive header. Hrmpf!

Why would somebody do that? Many people set the X-NO-ARCHIIVE to
YES because they want to be able to post any kind of fool bullshit
to Usenet without consequence and without being held accountable
for their posts. It's particularly helpful if you are in the habit
of arguing on Usenet but don't want to have to back up the claims
you make in those arguments. If your detractors can't look up
what you said, you can claim that you never said what you did, or
that your detractors have misconstrued what you said. For obvious
reasons, 'Net k00ks, trolls, and blow-hards love the X-NO-ARCHIVE
header. Is it chickenshit to use the header that way? You betcha.

Guilty as charged. I went to 'X-No-Archive header' because when I would
supersede an article with a typo that I wanted to correct, many people
continued to see the original post as well. However, since it appears that
I'm in a Catch-22 on this, I will, effective immediately tells Usenet
archive services to save this and all future articles.

Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

--
Intuitive insights from Nick, Retired in the San Fernando Valley
"Giving violent criminals a government guarantee that their intended
victims are defenseless is bad public policy."
- John Ross, "Unintended Consequences"
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read it in English, THANK A VETERAN!