On 23/10/2013 22:54, Dave Cornwell wrote:
yttiw wrote:
On 2013-10-23 18:51:04 +0000, Joe Egginton said:

On 23/10/2013 18:10, yttiw wrote:
I agree with those sentiments. I think this borders on harrassment
of an
individual, which is a criminal offence. If that was me, I would be
seeking legal advice.

It is very sad that the internet is becoming a refuge for the nasty
individuals who believe they are immune from prosecution. I think that
recent events on Twitter havr proved this idea to be very misguided, as
well as cruel.



How have I harassed Dawlish by posting his home address, it’s in the
public domain on the electoral register?


But you didn't just post his home address, did you?

You also posted directions of how to get there, followed by an
implication that you wanted people to knock on his door.

And to compound that, you added the christian names of his wife and
daughters, with a hint that they could relay any message that visitors
to his house might want to give.


Only you know why you think that knowing the full names of members of
a persons family who have made no contribution to this newsgroup, or
have never knowingly made a disparaging comment about any contributor
to this newsgroup, is a vital necessity to usenet users.

Why is this not incitement to harrass women?

I find this whole episode to be rather sinister, and if this is the
character of people who purport to have an interest in weather - then
count me out as well.

--------------------------------------
Exactly, the children thing got to me and anyone who can't see that bit
is wrong worries me a lot.
Dave


As his "children" are on the electoral register, they are adults, being
over 18 years of age.

On 23/10/2013 19:55, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:49:06 +0100
Joe Egginton wrote:

On 23/10/2013 18:06, Col wrote:
"MartinR" wrote in message
...
After the latest posting of contributor's address (I don't care if
the address was genuine or not) this group is now totally scraping
the barrel.

Slightly surprised to see it was Joe Eggington, I know he's locked
horns with Dawlish before but he wouldn't have expected that.

I'm out to join the many others who have been forced out by the
idiots.

The killfile is the only way. You can't reason with them, you can't
bargain with them and they absolutely will *not* stop until they
have destroyed this group. I don't know why I even bother to try to
be honest, perhaps it's just the sheer exasperation of seeing yet
another thread wrecked by what is just a very small group of people.



I'm totally exasperated with dullish and his arrogant rantings. If
posting his home address brings him to book, to behave civilised and
respect people then so be it. I thought it was time to name and shame
the bully.

So why don't you just kill-file him instead of making the situation
worse? That way you won't see his postings, rantings, whatever, and
he'll just wind up talking to himself.


It is not quite as simple as that since you will still see the replies
to the killfiled poster and hence the quoted text you were trying to
avoid if you read the replies. If you killfile the respondents then you
lose interesting/valuable contributions by those posters.

If there is a way of killfiling an individual and also filtering out
anything in response to that poster then that would be ideal, but I
don't know how to do that.

On Wednesday, 23 October 2013 20:32:23 UTC+2, Dave Cornwell wrote:
ZZebowa is

the perpetrator

How so? I only asked if he still hung out here, since he seems to have moved to alt.gw where he, like a seagull, flaps his arms, squauks a lot, and ****s all over the place.

If you want to look for a perpetrator just open up one of GArveys posts and see the way he talks to people.

On Wednesday, 23 October 2013 21:01:30 UTC+2, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:


But that man has made enemies out of Ghandi fans.


THats got to be my sig!

In article ,
says...
The killfile is the only way. You can't reason with them, you can't bargain
with them and they absolutely will *not* stop until they have destroyed
this group. I don't know why I even bother to try to be honest, perhaps
it's just the sheer exasperation of seeing yet another thread wrecked by
what is just a very small group of people.



I'm totally exasperated with dullish and his arrogant rantings. If
posting his home address brings him to book, to behave civilised and
respect people then so be it. I thought it was time to name and shame
the bully.


There is a line. You have stepped over it. As others have said, would
not have expected that from you.



--
Alan LeHun
Disappointed.

On 23/10/13 16:40, ron button wrote:
"MartinR" wrote in message
...
After the latest posting of contributor's address (I don't care if the
address was genuine or not) this group is now totally scraping the barrel.

I'm out to join the many others who have been forced out by the idiots.

Matin whlst I appreciate your sentiments and obviously concur with your
misgivings ,I think its worth pointing out that many groups like this are
populated by nutters ,misfits and probably perverts to boot ,most of us are
purely interested in the sublect of weather and glean a lot from the the
knowledgable contributions received daily.
I killfile or just ignore the rants of those who try to dominate these
hallowed halls, and try to just enjoy the really good stuff we get most of
the time, please keep contributing ,ignore the corrosive dross,and don't run
away like so many of our previous esteemed contributors. Don't let the
freaks take over !
Nil desperandum illigitimi desperandum, as they used to say in the RAF .

RonB






Ron, hear hear (or is it here here?)

Hugh

--

Hugh Newbury

www.evershot-weather.org

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 23:48:10 +0100
Adam Lea wrote:

SNIP

So why don't you just kill-file him instead of making the situation
worse? That way you won't see his postings, rantings, whatever, and
he'll just wind up talking to himself.


It is not quite as simple as that since you will still see the
replies to the killfiled poster and hence the quoted text you were
trying to avoid if you read the replies. If you killfile the
respondents then you lose interesting/valuable contributions by those
posters.

If there is a way of killfiling an individual and also filtering out
anything in response to that poster then that would be ideal, but I
don't know how to do that.

I don't think that is possible. I've come across some newsreaders that
don't cater for ignoring individual posts by kill-filed characters but,
instead, use the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut technique of only allowing
whole or parts of threads to be ignored; not a useful technique. Others
hide offending posts so that you don't even realise a thread may be
polluted; also not very useful.

The newsreader that I'm using, Claws, allows me to deal with posts in
quite a flexible way by adding a variety of actions to a filtering
process. I've set it up to mark offending posts as read and also to
colour them red. If I see a thread contains a lot of red posts, I can
skip past it or mark it with the 'ignore thread' button.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
'In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is
bacteria.' - Benjamin Franklin

Graham P Davis wrote:

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 23:48:10 +0100
Adam Lea wrote:

SNIP

So why don't you just kill-file him instead of making the situation
worse? That way you won't see his postings, rantings, whatever, and
he'll just wind up talking to himself.


It is not quite as simple as that since you will still see the
replies to the killfiled poster and hence the quoted text you were
trying to avoid if you read the replies. If you killfile the
respondents then you lose interesting/valuable contributions by those
posters.

If there is a way of killfiling an individual and also filtering out
anything in response to that poster then that would be ideal, but I
don't know how to do that.

I don't think that is possible. I've come across some newsreaders that
don't cater for ignoring individual posts by kill-filed characters but,
instead, use the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut technique of only allowing
whole or parts of threads to be ignored; not a useful technique. Others
hide offending posts so that you don't even realise a thread may be
polluted; also not very useful.

The newsreader that I'm using, Claws, allows me to deal with posts in
quite a flexible way by adding a variety of actions to a filtering
process. I've set it up to mark offending posts as read and also to
colour them red. If I see a thread contains a lot of red posts, I can
skip past it or mark it with the 'ignore thread' button.


It can be done very easily. Use a filter to ignore any posts containing the
name of the offending poster in the text. For example, in this response the
words "Adam Lea" and "Graham P Davis" appear. Anyone who didn't want to see
posts authored by either of these people could filter out this response as well
as ignoring the original posts via the kill-file.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:48:22 +0100, Hugh Newbury wrote:

Ron, hear hear (or is it here here?)

Hear, as in "Hear what is being said" not as in "pass the ball over
here".

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL.

On 24/10/2013 09:01, Norman wrote:
Graham P Davis wrote:

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 23:48:10 +0100
Adam Lea wrote:

SNIP

So why don't you just kill-file him instead of making the situation
worse? That way you won't see his postings, rantings, whatever, and
he'll just wind up talking to himself.


It is not quite as simple as that since you will still see the
replies to the killfiled poster and hence the quoted text you were
trying to avoid if you read the replies. If you killfile the
respondents then you lose interesting/valuable contributions by those
posters.

If there is a way of killfiling an individual and also filtering out
anything in response to that poster then that would be ideal, but I
don't know how to do that.

I don't think that is possible. I've come across some newsreaders that
don't cater for ignoring individual posts by kill-filed characters but,
instead, use the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut technique of only allowing
whole or parts of threads to be ignored; not a useful technique. Others
hide offending posts so that you don't even realise a thread may be
polluted; also not very useful.

The newsreader that I'm using, Claws, allows me to deal with posts in
quite a flexible way by adding a variety of actions to a filtering
process. I've set it up to mark offending posts as read and also to
colour them red. If I see a thread contains a lot of red posts, I can
skip past it or mark it with the 'ignore thread' button.


It can be done very easily. Use a filter to ignore any posts containing the
name of the offending poster in the text. For example, in this response the
words "Adam Lea" and "Graham P Davis" appear. Anyone who didn't want to see
posts authored by either of these people could filter out this response as well
as ignoring the original posts via the kill-file.

Comparatively few newsreaders allow filtering on message body content.
(it is much slower than filtering on headers)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown