Here is a place that takes advantage of our posts.

http://www.foodbanter.com/search.php?searchid=107938

Just thought you'd like to know.

Bob

On Jul 27, 10:31*am, Bob Muncie > wrote:
> Using other peoples thoughts and writings to gain readership means they
> have nothing worth reading on their own (HEAR THAT FOODBANTER! YOU SUCK
> SO BAD THERE IS NO DESCRIPTION!!!)

Hmmm... other newsgroup providers charge money to view other people's
thoughts and writing. At least foodbanter is free.

-frohe

frohe wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:31 am, Bob Muncie > wrote:
>> Using other peoples thoughts and writings to gain readership means they
>> have nothing worth reading on their own (HEAR THAT FOODBANTER! YOU SUCK
>> SO BAD THERE IS NO DESCRIPTION!!!)
>
> Hmmm... other newsgroup providers charge money to view other people's
> thoughts and writing. At least foodbanter is free.
>
> -frohe

Your point is frohe?

If you subsist in life by using vacuum lips on other people's words, you
suck. Do you disagree?

Bob

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:38:42 -0700 (PDT), frohe wrote:

> On Jul 27, 10:31*am, Bob Muncie > wrote:
>> Using other peoples thoughts and writings to gain readership means they
>> have nothing worth reading on their own (HEAR THAT FOODBANTER! YOU SUCK
>> SO BAD THERE IS NO DESCRIPTION!!!)
>
> Hmmm... other newsgroup providers charge money to view other people's
> thoughts and writing. At least foodbanter is free.

They are providing access to their servers. That's different than
using it for advertising purposes.

In a way, Google does the same thing - shows ads related to the
newsgroup content you are viewing. But I don't see those ads as I
have all google ads blocked by my web browser (using AdBlock+ for
Mozilla).

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:38:42 -0700 (PDT), frohe wrote:
>
>> On Jul 27, 10:31 am, Bob Muncie > wrote:
>>> Using other peoples thoughts and writings to gain readership means they
>>> have nothing worth reading on their own (HEAR THAT FOODBANTER! YOU SUCK
>>> SO BAD THERE IS NO DESCRIPTION!!!)
>> Hmmm... other newsgroup providers charge money to view other people's
>> thoughts and writing. At least foodbanter is free.
>
> They are providing access to their servers. That's different than
> using it for advertising purposes.
>
> In a way, Google does the same thing - shows ads related to the
> newsgroup content you are viewing. But I don't see those ads as I
> have all google ads blocked by my web browser (using AdBlock+ for
> Mozilla).
>
> -sw

Of course you are right sw, I also have used adblock+ (with mozilla) for
a long time, so I often would skip that side of the internet. Thanks for
reminding me.

Bob

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:28:14 -0700, Denny Wheeler wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:57:33 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>>Google doesn't care what comes after the X-No-Archive:
>>
>>It could say "X-No-Archive: no" and google will still only hold it
>>for 7-10 days.
>
> I may have to test that.

What is it with your cabal? Both of you have called me a liar in
the last 48 hours.

Trust me. You know when I'm pulling your leg. I don't kid about
serious issues. Like food. It should be obvious when I'm joking
for jokes sake.

-sw

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:39:31 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:28:14 -0700, Denny Wheeler wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:57:33 -0500, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Google doesn't care what comes after the X-No-Archive:
>>>
>>>It could say "X-No-Archive: no" and google will still only hold it
>>>for 7-10 days.
>>
>> I may have to test that.
>
>What is it with your cabal? Both of you have called me a liar in
>the last 48 hours.
>
>Trust me. You know when I'm pulling your leg. I don't kid about
>serious issues. Like food. It should be obvious when I'm joking
>for jokes sake.
>
>-sw


Actually, I do have some trouble telling when you're kidding, Sqwertz.
And that's no joke.

(and Denny isn't calling you a liar; he just has a scientific mind!)


Desideria

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:12:40 -0700, Desideria wrote:

> Actually, I do have some trouble telling when you're kidding, Sqwertz.
> And that's no joke.

Let me know when one of those occasions comes up and I'll try and
let you know gently ;-)

-sw

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:39:31 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:28:14 -0700, Denny Wheeler wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:57:33 -0500, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Google doesn't care what comes after the X-No-Archive:
>>>
>>>It could say "X-No-Archive: no" and google will still only hold it
>>>for 7-10 days.
>>
>> I may have to test that.
>
>What is it with your cabal? Both of you have called me a liar in
>the last 48 hours.

Steve, saying 'I'm not sure you're right about that' is NOT calling
you a liar. Be sure that if I think you're lying--not the leg-pull
kind, o'course--you'll be in no doubt. Tell me--do you take folks'
unsupported word, even when it's someone you have no genuine reason to
doubt? (that last clause describes my attitude toward you, when
you're being serious--I know the [at least] two aspects of Sqwertz.)

I've not read Desideria's reply to your post, but she just may be
telling you that I've been known to check stuff she's told me. Nor do
I have a problem if someone checks something I say, especially when
it's as easy to do as testing what you said about Googly Gropes.

>Trust me. You know when I'm pulling your leg. I don't kid about
>serious issues. Like food. It should be obvious when I'm joking
>for jokes sake.

Understood.

So don't take it as "you're lying" if I say 'I want to test that
assertion'. Nor am I saying "you're lying" if I tell you you're wrong
and prove it. I don't consider someone lying when they say something
that they believe is true, even when it isn't true. Lying
specifically involves saying what one knows to be untrue.

--
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs -- whenever they see
an offence that isn't nailed down, they take it ;-)
--David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

Know the signs!
http://www.heartinfo.org/ms/guides/9/main.html

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:24:35 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:12:40 -0700, Desideria wrote:
>
>> Actually, I do have some trouble telling when you're kidding, Sqwertz.
>> And that's no joke.
>
>Let me know when one of those occasions comes up and I'll try and
>let you know gently ;-)

Hell, I can't always be sure.
--
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs -- whenever they see
an offence that isn't nailed down, they take it ;-)
--David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

Know the signs!
http://www.heartinfo.org/ms/guides/9/main.html

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:59:19 -0700, Denny Wheeler wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:39:31 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:28:14 -0700, Denny Wheeler wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:57:33 -0500, Sqwertz >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Google doesn't care what comes after the X-No-Archive:
>>>>
>>>>It could say "X-No-Archive: no" and google will still only hold it
>>>>for 7-10 days.
>>>
>>> I may have to test that.
>>
>>What is it with your cabal? Both of you have called me a liar in
>>the last 48 hours.
>
> Steve, saying 'I'm not sure you're right about that' is NOT calling
> you a liar. Be sure that if I think you're lying--not the leg-pull
> kind, o'course--you'll be in no doubt. Tell me--do you take folks'
> unsupported word, even when it's someone you have no genuine reason to
> doubt? (that last clause describes my attitude toward you, when
> you're being serious--I know the [at least] two aspects of Sqwertz.)
>
> I've not read Desideria's reply to your post, but she just may be
> telling you that I've been known to check stuff she's told me. Nor do
> I have a problem if someone checks something I say, especially when
> it's as easy to do as testing what you said about Googly Gropes.
>
>>Trust me. You know when I'm pulling your leg. I don't kid about
>>serious issues. Like food. It should be obvious when I'm joking
>>for jokes sake.
>
> Understood.
>
> So don't take it as "you're lying" if I say 'I want to test that
> assertion'. Nor am I saying "you're lying" if I tell you you're wrong
> and prove it. I don't consider someone lying when they say something
> that they believe is true, even when it isn't true. Lying
> specifically involves saying what one knows to be untrue.

Check this post at Google and see what it says. Then look at the
headers.

-sw

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:01:48 -0700, Denny Wheeler wrote:

> X-No-Archive: No

I guess you already did.

-sw

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:24:35 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:12:40 -0700, Desideria wrote:
>
>> Actually, I do have some trouble telling when you're kidding, Sqwertz.
>> And that's no joke.
>
>Let me know when one of those occasions comes up and I'll try and
>let you know gently ;-)
>
>-sw

You're SO sweet, sqwertz. I'll be sure to tell you, hon!

(and I realize that my idea of gentle and YOUR idea of gentle may be
summat different..)


Desideria

On Aug 4, 7:59*pm, Denny Wheeler >
wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:39:31 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:28:14 -0700, Denny Wheeler wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:57:33 -0500, Sqwertz >

>
> So don't take it as "you're lying" if I say 'I want to test that
> assertion'. *Nor am I saying "you're lying" if I tell you you're wrong
> and prove it. *I don't consider someone lying when they say something
> that they believe is true, even when it isn't true. *Lying
> specifically involves saying what one knows to be untrue.


He's a sensitive soul, isn't he? He brings sensitive to such a new
level that it makes me proud he's a Texan.


Dale

Bob Muncie > wrote:
>Here is a place that takes advantage of our posts.
>http://www.foodbanter.com/search.php?searchid=107938
>Just thought you'd like to know.
>Bob

I think this sort of thing is another "the end is near" societal
indicators. So much content is derivative now a days. Sometimes it is
just lifted whole cloth, other times it is passed through an automated
rewriter. And then there are the armchair google "experts" who google
up some posts on a topic and then write an article and sell it to
websites. Sometimes the articles are ok but many times they are
shallow and wrong.

Hmm, I may have typed too soon about foodbanter.
I assumed they "scraped" content aka take it but don't give
credit/attribution but it seems foodbanter is just a web mirror of
USENET/food newsgroups. If so, then they are actually doing a service
by providing web-based access to newsgroups. This could be the
"summer that USENET" dies what with all the spam (doesn't seem to be
from summer vacation punks) and some major ISPs dropping USENET feeds.

Personally I hate what Google groups has done to newsgroups - mainly
diluting/confusing USENET groups with googles own "groups" - *******s!
:-)

btw (USENET = Newsgroups)

jay the pig

(jj) wrote:

>Bob Muncie > wrote:
>>Here is a place that takes advantage of our posts.
>>http://www.foodbanter.com/search.php?searchid=107938
>>Just thought you'd like to know.
>>Bob
>
>I think this sort of thing is another "the end is near" societal
>indicators. So much content is derivative now a days. Sometimes it is
>just lifted whole cloth, other times it is passed through an automated
>rewriter. And then there are the armchair google "experts" who google
>up some posts on a topic and then write an article and sell it to
>websites. Sometimes the articles are ok but many times they are
>shallow and wrong.

jj wrote:
> Hmm, I may have typed too soon about foodbanter.
> I assumed they "scraped" content aka take it but don't give
> credit/attribution but it seems foodbanter is just a web mirror of
> USENET/food newsgroups. If so, then they are actually doing a service
> by providing web-based access to newsgroups. This could be the
> "summer that USENET" dies what with all the spam (doesn't seem to be
> from summer vacation punks) and some major ISPs dropping USENET feeds.
>
> Personally I hate what Google groups has done to newsgroups - mainly
> diluting/confusing USENET groups with googles own "groups" - *******s!
> :-)
>
> btw (USENET = Newsgroups)
>
> jay the pig
>
> (jj) wrote:
>
>> Bob Muncie > wrote:
>>> Here is a place that takes advantage of our posts.
>>> http://www.foodbanter.com/search.php?searchid=107938
>>> Just thought you'd like to know.
>>> Bob
>> I think this sort of thing is another "the end is near" societal
>> indicators. So much content is derivative now a days. Sometimes it is
>> just lifted whole cloth, other times it is passed through an automated
>> rewriter. And then there are the armchair google "experts" who google
>> up some posts on a topic and then write an article and sell it to
>> websites. Sometimes the articles are ok but many times they are
>> shallow and wrong.
>

JJ - I think there is nothing positive with what a crappy web site like
foodbanter is doing. They are literally stealing our posts. They are
doing it in hopes of making "their" site more popular.

I'd rather they make their site popular by having value on their own.

They do not. And in my opinion they do not have value. (LISTENING
READERS OF FOODBANTER?).

Bob

That makes them "bugs" in my opinion. The type you'd rather use a fly
swatter on.

Bob Muncie > wrote:

>jj wrote:
>> Hmm, I may have typed too soon about foodbanter.
>> I assumed they "scraped" content aka take it but don't give
>> credit/attribution but it seems foodbanter is just a web mirror of
>> USENET/food newsgroups. If so, then they are actually doing a service
>> by providing web-based access to newsgroups. This could be the
>> "summer that USENET" dies what with all the spam (doesn't seem to be
>> from summer vacation punks) and some major ISPs dropping USENET feeds.
>>
>> Personally I hate what Google groups has done to newsgroups - mainly
>> diluting/confusing USENET groups with googles own "groups" - *******s!
>> :-)
>>
>> btw (USENET = Newsgroups)
>>
>> jay the pig
>>
>> (jj) wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Muncie > wrote:
>>>> Here is a place that takes advantage of our posts.
>>>> http://www.foodbanter.com/search.php?searchid=107938
>>>> Just thought you'd like to know.
>>>> Bob
>>> I think this sort of thing is another "the end is near" societal
>>> indicators. So much content is derivative now a days. Sometimes it is
>>> just lifted whole cloth, other times it is passed through an automated
>>> rewriter. And then there are the armchair google "experts" who google
>>> up some posts on a topic and then write an article and sell it to
>>> websites. Sometimes the articles are ok but many times they are
>>> shallow and wrong.
>>
>
>JJ - I think there is nothing positive with what a crappy web site like
>foodbanter is doing. They are literally stealing our posts. They are
>doing it in hopes of making "their" site more popular.
>
>I'd rather they make their site popular by having value on their own.
>
>They do not. And in my opinion they do not have value. (LISTENING
>READERS OF FOODBANTER?).
>
>Bob
>
>That makes them "bugs" in my opinion. The type you'd rather use a fly
>swatter on.

I don't know a lot about foodbanter.com - I did not know they existed
until your thread. I'm not seeing any ads. Maybe they will someday
but I'll chew that butt when it gets served up. So if there are
currently no ads then foodbanter.com is being run at a loss - hosting
fees/network traffic, site admin, etc. Sure maybe they can sell
foodbanter.com at some point if it becomes popular enough but if this
is evil then so is twitter and facebook and myspace and youtube and
google and yahoo and bing. :-)

Sorry, they are not taking content and then claiming it is their
original content.

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:23:33 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:01:48 -0700, Denny Wheeler wrote:
>
>> X-No-Archive: No
>
>I guess you already did.

Well, I won't know for a week or two, assuming it shows up now.

--
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs -- whenever they see
an offence that isn't nailed down, they take it ;-)
--David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

Know the signs!
http://www.heartinfo.org/ms/guides/9/main.html

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:18:57 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>Check this post at Google and see what it says. Then look at the
>headers.

So you're right. Not particularly surprising--but seriously: do you
have a problem with someone checking your assertions?

<shrug> Stupid of the folks at GG. But then, they really don't
give a sweet damn about Usenet anyway. Unlike DejaNews.

--
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs -- whenever they see
an offence that isn't nailed down, they take it ;-)
--David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

Know the signs!
http://www.heartinfo.org/ms/guides/9/main.html

jj wrote:
> Bob Muncie > wrote:
>
>> jj wrote:
>>> Hmm, I may have typed too soon about foodbanter.
>>> I assumed they "scraped" content aka take it but don't give
>>> credit/attribution but it seems foodbanter is just a web mirror of
>>> USENET/food newsgroups. If so, then they are actually doing a service
>>> by providing web-based access to newsgroups. This could be the
>>> "summer that USENET" dies what with all the spam (doesn't seem to be
>>> from summer vacation punks) and some major ISPs dropping USENET feeds.
>>>
>>> Personally I hate what Google groups has done to newsgroups - mainly
>>> diluting/confusing USENET groups with googles own "groups" - *******s!
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> btw (USENET = Newsgroups)
>>>
>>> jay the pig
>>>
>>> (jj) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Muncie > wrote:
>>>>> Here is a place that takes advantage of our posts.
>>>>> http://www.foodbanter.com/search.php?searchid=107938
>>>>> Just thought you'd like to know.
>>>>> Bob
>>>> I think this sort of thing is another "the end is near" societal
>>>> indicators. So much content is derivative now a days. Sometimes it is
>>>> just lifted whole cloth, other times it is passed through an automated
>>>> rewriter. And then there are the armchair google "experts" who google
>>>> up some posts on a topic and then write an article and sell it to
>>>> websites. Sometimes the articles are ok but many times they are
>>>> shallow and wrong.
>> JJ - I think there is nothing positive with what a crappy web site like
>> foodbanter is doing. They are literally stealing our posts. They are
>> doing it in hopes of making "their" site more popular.
>>
>> I'd rather they make their site popular by having value on their own.
>>
>> They do not. And in my opinion they do not have value. (LISTENING
>> READERS OF FOODBANTER?).
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> That makes them "bugs" in my opinion. The type you'd rather use a fly
>> swatter on.
>
> I don't know a lot about foodbanter.com - I did not know they existed
> until your thread. I'm not seeing any ads. Maybe they will someday
> but I'll chew that butt when it gets served up. So if there are
> currently no ads then foodbanter.com is being run at a loss - hosting
> fees/network traffic, site admin, etc. Sure maybe they can sell
> foodbanter.com at some point if it becomes popular enough but if this
> is evil then so is twitter and facebook and myspace and youtube and
> google and yahoo and bing. :-)
>
> Sorry, they are not taking content and then claiming it is their
> original content.
>

JJ - The difference is they never pointed out they were using our posts
for their betterment.

Do you agree with them that stealing is OK if you don't do something
*bad* with what you stole?

Bob

On Aug 6, 7:08*pm, Bob Muncie > wrote:
> jj wrote:
> > Bob Muncie > wrote:
>
> >> jj wrote:
> >>> Hmm, I may have typed too soon about foodbanter.
> >>> I assumed they "scraped" content aka take it but don't give
> >>> credit/attribution but it seems foodbanter is just a web mirror of
> >>> USENET/food newsgroups. *If so, then they are actually doing a service
> >>> by providing web-based access to newsgroups. *This could be the
> >>> "summer that USENET" dies what with all the spam (doesn't seem to be
> >>> from summer vacation punks) and some major ISPs dropping USENET feeds..
>
> >>> Personally I hate what Google groups has done to newsgroups - mainly
> >>> diluting/confusing USENET groups with googles own "groups" - *******s!
> >>> :-)
>
> >>> btw (USENET = Newsgroups)
>
> >>> jay the pig
>
> >>> (jj) wrote:
>
> >>>> Bob Muncie > wrote:
> >>>>> Here is a place that takes advantage of our posts.
> >>>>>http://www.foodbanter.com/search.php?searchid=107938
> >>>>> Just thought you'd like to know.
> >>>>> Bob
> >>>> I think this sort of thing is another "the end is near" societal
> >>>> indicators. *So much content is derivative now a days. Sometimes it is
> >>>> just lifted whole cloth, other times it is passed through an automated
> >>>> rewriter. *And then there are the armchair google "experts" who google
> >>>> up some posts on a topic and then write an article and sell it to
> >>>> websites. *Sometimes the articles are ok but many times they are
> >>>> shallow and wrong.
> >> JJ - I think there is nothing positive with what a crappy web site like
> >> foodbanter is doing. They are literally stealing our posts. They are
> >> doing it in hopes of making "their" site more popular.
>
> >> I'd rather they make their site popular by having value on their own.
>
> >> They do not. And in my opinion they do not have value. (LISTENING
> >> READERS OF FOODBANTER?).
>
> >> Bob
>
> >> That makes them "bugs" in my opinion. The type you'd rather use a fly
> >> swatter on.
>
> > I don't know a lot about foodbanter.com - I did not know they existed
> > until your thread. *I'm not seeing any ads. *Maybe they will someday
> > but I'll chew that butt when it gets served up. *So *if there are
> > currently no ads then foodbanter.com is being run at a loss - hosting
> > fees/network traffic, site admin, etc. *Sure maybe they can sell
> > foodbanter.com at some point if it becomes popular enough but if this
> > is evil then so is twitter and facebook and myspace and youtube and
> > google and yahoo and bing. *:-)
>
> > Sorry, they are not taking content and then claiming it is their
> > original content.
>
> JJ - The difference is they never pointed out they were using our posts
> for their betterment.
>
> Do you agree with them that stealing is OK if you don't do something
> *bad* with what you stole?


Your analogy fails as these posts are public, you can't steal what's
publicly available. That dude that made "Girls Gone Wild" videos made
a mint on the concept.

Your feigned rage (I sure hope it's feigned ) is not endearing.

Duwop will think bad thoughts at Bob if Bob keeps on in this vein. bOb
is not white knights on silver charger, boB has no control over
internets. Duwop is going to think bOb is silly person to be mocked if
he insists on pretending to be savior and defender of righteousness.
Duwop agree with jj, Duwop say HI! to JJ. Hi JJ!

Duwop hungry now, Duwop go eat whisky sours.

Duwop like writing Bob as bOb, look funny.

If Bob doesn't start to shape up, I'm going to, well you don't want to
know what Duwop would do, it's that horrific Bob. Seriously Bob, don't
go there, it's dark and (wooo) scary Bob. I'd really rather not Bob.
But if you make Duwop, Duwop won't hesitate Bob.

Just ask Steve, he knows.....................

Duwop wrote:
> On Aug 6, 7:08 pm, Bob Muncie > wrote:
>> jj wrote:
>>> Bob Muncie > wrote:
>>>> jj wrote:
>>>>> Hmm, I may have typed too soon about foodbanter.
>>>>> I assumed they "scraped" content aka take it but don't give
>>>>> credit/attribution but it seems foodbanter is just a web mirror of
>>>>> USENET/food newsgroups. If so, then they are actually doing a service
>>>>> by providing web-based access to newsgroups. This could be the
>>>>> "summer that USENET" dies what with all the spam (doesn't seem to be
>>>>> from summer vacation punks) and some major ISPs dropping USENET feeds.
>>>>> Personally I hate what Google groups has done to newsgroups - mainly
>>>>> diluting/confusing USENET groups with googles own "groups" - *******s!
>>>>> :-)
>>>>> btw (USENET = Newsgroups)
>>>>> jay the pig
>>>>> (jj) wrote:
>>>>>> Bob Muncie > wrote:
>>>>>>> Here is a place that takes advantage of our posts.
>>>>>>> http://www.foodbanter.com/search.php?searchid=107938
>>>>>>> Just thought you'd like to know.
>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>> I think this sort of thing is another "the end is near" societal
>>>>>> indicators. So much content is derivative now a days. Sometimes it is
>>>>>> just lifted whole cloth, other times it is passed through an automated
>>>>>> rewriter. And then there are the armchair google "experts" who google
>>>>>> up some posts on a topic and then write an article and sell it to
>>>>>> websites. Sometimes the articles are ok but many times they are
>>>>>> shallow and wrong.
>>>> JJ - I think there is nothing positive with what a crappy web site like
>>>> foodbanter is doing. They are literally stealing our posts. They are
>>>> doing it in hopes of making "their" site more popular.
>>>> I'd rather they make their site popular by having value on their own.
>>>> They do not. And in my opinion they do not have value. (LISTENING
>>>> READERS OF FOODBANTER?).
>>>> Bob
>>>> That makes them "bugs" in my opinion. The type you'd rather use a fly
>>>> swatter on.
>>> I don't know a lot about foodbanter.com - I did not know they existed
>>> until your thread. I'm not seeing any ads. Maybe they will someday
>>> but I'll chew that butt when it gets served up. So if there are
>>> currently no ads then foodbanter.com is being run at a loss - hosting
>>> fees/network traffic, site admin, etc. Sure maybe they can sell
>>> foodbanter.com at some point if it becomes popular enough but if this
>>> is evil then so is twitter and facebook and myspace and youtube and
>>> google and yahoo and bing. :-)
>>> Sorry, they are not taking content and then claiming it is their
>>> original content.
>> JJ - The difference is they never pointed out they were using our posts
>> for their betterment.
>>
>> Do you agree with them that stealing is OK if you don't do something
>> *bad* with what you stole?
>
>
> Your analogy fails as these posts are public, you can't steal what's
> publicly available. That dude that made "Girls Gone Wild" videos made
> a mint on the concept.
>
> Your feigned rage (I sure hope it's feigned ) is not endearing.
>
> Duwop will think bad thoughts at Bob if Bob keeps on in this vein. bOb
> is not white knights on silver charger, boB has no control over
> internets. Duwop is going to think bOb is silly person to be mocked if
> he insists on pretending to be savior and defender of righteousness.
> Duwop agree with jj, Duwop say HI! to JJ. Hi JJ!
>
> Duwop hungry now, Duwop go eat whisky sours.
>
> Duwop like writing Bob as bOb, look funny.
>
> If Bob doesn't start to shape up, I'm going to, well you don't want to
> know what Duwop would do, it's that horrific Bob. Seriously Bob, don't
> go there, it's dark and (wooo) scary Bob. I'd really rather not Bob.
> But if you make Duwop, Duwop won't hesitate Bob.
>
> Just ask Steve, he knows.....................
>
>
>

Well Duwop... You are certainly the character. And no, I have not
specifically been aiming to make your KF. But if you feel better by
placing me there, so be it. I have two people in my KF permanently, but
no one else is there. You being funny would not cause me to place you
there either.

I do have an irritation (not rage) that our postings are used elsewhere
for someone else's benefit. That does not irritate you?

And I was not asking Steve.... Although I do have room to host a horse,
it wouldn't be a white charger.

(hi to JJ also) :-)

bOb

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:10:16 -0700 (PDT), Duwop wrote:

> He's a sensitive soul, isn't he?

Men should not use the word "sensitive". Makes you sound like a
pussy.

-sw

On Aug 7, 5:30*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:10:16 -0700 (PDT), Duwop wrote:
> > He's a sensitive soul, isn't he?
>
> Men should not use the word "sensitive". *Makes you sound like a
> pussy.
>
> -sw

Yes, yes, I see what you mean. Especially bad when used in conjunction
with quotations isn't it?