Meaning of Christmas

Spike & Mike's Sick and Twisted Animation Festival, featuring the original 5½-minute South Park short, has been extended another week at the Music Box theatre in Chicago.

Beware. It is evil.

[email] wrote:

BTW, it's SPIRIT of Christmas, not Meaning of Christmas.

I thought Spike & Mike's animation thingee was stopped, because it was too "sick and twisted".

I really should ask my brotherabout it, because he saw it. Maybe there will be a (pointless) update?

i saw it here in florida and there wasnt any sex dolls in it. I watched it 4x but i left after the spirit of christmass each time. Im not easily offended or sickened but schlomo's fun house was a bit much for me.

I always wondered what cammel toes were and now i Know

[email] wrote:

Mr. Bean wrote "In Florida...there wasn't any sex dolls in it."

I think the live continuity was just for the evening shows on weekends. Spike and Mike were apparently making a small killing on t-shirt sales, but they're probably also on sale at the concession stand, as I know their videos are. I guess people leaving early is why Spirit of Christmas is now at the end of the program.

On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 [email] wrote:

Here's the deal, it's netiquette, plain and simple. Usenet groups and (most)readers were not constructed with HTML in mind, so using it is more than a bit rude. Flame all you like when people complain...it is is a valid complaint, whether you like it or not.

Here's another pretty well known Usenet practice that I'm sure you must be aware of by now:

*plonk*

Tracy-back to lurking

        "I have a prodigious quantity of mind;
                it takes me as much as a week sometimes to make it up."
                        -Mark Twain

Change the planet to its moon, europa, if you want to mail me

Explain for us, Tracy, why is it "complaining" when Mike posts insults, and "flaming" when I respond?

Seems to me your so-called "netiquette" is missing some pretty fundamental concepts of human courtesy.

In article , [email] says...

Because his complaints are valid. HTML does not belong in Usenet. Period.

uXs

uXs wrote in message ...

[email]

insults,

Period.

No, Exclamation Mark, not Period. Get a hint, folks.

<a href = " .......  Just kidding.

RS

I'll rephrase the identical question for the sake of clarity: Why is Mike's post described as a "complaint" and mine as a "flame?" There has to be more logic to word usage than throwing some insults around.

On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 00:28:14 -0500, [email] wrote:

Maybe because you have all that incredibly annoying HTML script in your tagline that normal newsreaders read as a bunch of garbage.

----- Powerslave AKA Hitchhiker AKA Lone Wolf My Kung-Fu is the best.

"Guns don't kill people... the government does." Dale King of the Hill

"Oh my god! Kenny,,, killed Death!" "You... bastard?" - South Park

On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 15:14:00 GMT, [email] (Lone Wolf) wrote:

My apologies for the piggy back Lone Wolf-I'm not seeing the original post.

You are assuming that I am only referring to Mike's post to begin with...as it happens, I just used his as a followup. Several people have pointed out the HTML thing to you, and all you have done is be slightly beligerant about it. The complaint/flame thing was not in reference to the single post I followed up.

Got it?

It doesn't change the fact that HTML is not appropriate to Usenet, a point that I haven't seen you address beyond the "get over it" arguement. There are valid reasons that people are complaining and you don't seem to be listening.

Now, this is *way* off-topic for this group at this point...so if you have any problems with me, take it to e-mail because I will now be filtering this thread out.

Tracy

        "I have a prodigious quantity of mind;
                it takes me as much as a week sometimes to make it up."
                        -Mark Twain

Replace the planet with the moon europa to mail me

Tracy wrote "You are assuming that I am only referring to Mike's Post." Tracy's post is there for all to view. On the other hand this response has nothing to do with my question.

Tracy also wrote "...HTML is not appropriate to Usenet, a point which I haven't seen you address..." I don't intend to address it. I'm not having a problem. As long as my conduct remains civil I foresee having a place in this newsgroup, along with other webtv-ers.

At any rate, not answering doesn't sound to me like much of a "flame."

I do disagree with the statement that this sub-thread is off-topic. Finished -- we've certainly all had our say -- but not off-topic. Posting is the primary act of the newsgroup's entire existence. Try putting yourself in the position of the person being told that he or she doesn't belong here, and then tell me whether you think the sub-thread is appropriate.

Tracy wrote "I will now be filtering this thread out." I'm very grateful that Tracy suggested it first. I would never have put myself in the position of telling someone else to leave.

One quick question here, since I've never used WebTV I have no clue what you can and can't do with it so please tell me, is it possible for WebTVers to post in plain text only? or are they forced by design to use HTML? I'd like to better understand this whole controversy between "normals" and "HTMLers" Personally since I have a cable modem conn (yea I'm a lucky bastard but I'm not trying to brag though), the HTML posts download as fast as any other plain text ones, so I've never had any reason to take sides here. But I understand how HTML would do to slower cons and why people react the way they do when come across them. Anyway please enlighten me.

-Jedi

    [email] wrote in message
...
    Tracy wrote "You are assuming that I am only referring to Mike's Post."
    Tracy's post is there for all to view. On the other hand this response
    has nothing to do with my question.

    Tracy also wrote "...HTML is not appropriate to Usenet, a point which I
    haven't seen you address..." I don't intend to address it. I'm not
    having a problem. As long as my conduct remains civil I foresee having a
    place in this newsgroup, along with other webtv-ers.

At any rate, not answering doesn't sound to me like much of a "flame."

    I do disagree with the statement that this sub-thread is off-topic.
    Finished -- we've certainly all had our say -- but not off-topic.
    Posting is the primary act of the newsgroup's entire existence. Try
    putting yourself in the position of the person being told that he or she
    doesn't belong here, and then tell me whether you think the sub-thread
    is appropriate.

    Tracy wrote "I will now be filtering this thread out." I'm very grateful
    that Tracy suggested it first. I would never have put myself in the
    position of telling someone else to leave.

In article , [email] says...

There is no controversy. The people who post in HTML are wrong and that's it. Now about your question.

Downloading HTML is as fast as downloading normal text. However, when you have a newsreader that decodes HTML automatically, Usenet posts with pictures tagged in them can take a _long_ time to download... Ok ?

On the other hand, if your newsreader doesn't decode HTML, the only thing you see is a bunch of garbage.

So, when you can decode HTML, it sucks for people with slow connections, and when you can't or won't, all you see is a bunch of crap. It's a loss-loss-loss situation, the last "loss" being for the HTML- poster because everybody hates him and flames him.

I hope it's a bit clearer now...

uXs

I'm not saying it's right, I'm asking if those WebTVers can even post plain text to begin with.

Allready know that, any post for me dowloads fast now, but I too had a 28.8 once so I know the horrors that come with that.

I know that, all you see is the HTML language tags and garbage that makes up whatever design they are sending or pictures. I make my own web pages so I know the coding when I see it. But again this is fortunately not a problem for me anymore because of my connection and system speed.

Thanx for the post, but I allready knew all this. I'm not a net newbie by a long shot, but I am ignorant 'specifically' of WebTV (the system) and how it works, and again my original question is "Can WebTVers even post plain text to begin with" or are they forced to use HTML. THAT'S what I want to know. Later.

-Jedi

Enlightenment! You just made something clear to me right now. I've been thinking in terms of speed and that's all. I use Outlook Exp. to read mail and browse news and it has no problem displaying HTML messages when I run across them, but I was not taking into account the fact that some people use dedicated news readers that don't recognize HTML or display it (and rightfully so). Ok got that part, but still my unanswered question remains, are WebTVers able to post in plain text. Thanx for the brain jump start.

-Jedi (duh me)

On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, uXs wrote:

*Her* complaints.<g>

I missed the original reply on this, since Rick is the newest edition to my killfile. The point has been made several times that HTML has no place here for many reasons. He chooses to ignore requests and gets defensive. Fine, so be it...I'm starting to see why the UDP is being considered for posts containing HTML.

        "I have a prodigious quantity of mind;
                it takes me as much as a week sometimes to make it up."
                        -Mark Twain

Change the planet to its moon, europa, if you want to mail me

That html was a lot of hard honest werk, and it looks damn good. Sounds like Mr. Mike could stand to learn something about the Meaning of Christmas himself.

Sic 'im, Santa!

Mark wrote "Most people posting with computers have put you in their killfile."

No, I've had this spiffy new signature for months and the few people commenting on it here are the only ones to date. Actually I'm thinking of doing more. You'd be surprised what webtv-ers have in their messages -- especially of South Park material. Anyone who would come after us so antagonistically must simply be jealous.

In the second place, the html is in the signature, after the body of the message, and so it could not interfere with the message being read or understood.

In article , [email] writes

Ooooooh, yes. That was such a spiffy signature that I have just ditched my PC and gone for webtv as it offers soooooo much more.

[email] wrote:

No, I'm not surprised... take a joke that's being forwarded for the 5th time... and just for the sake of argument, all 5 have been WEBTVers. GREAT. About 10 images, a couple of plug-ins, and if I happen to be receiving this mail in the peak hours, we're talking 3-5 minutes to download a message that will take me all of 45 seconds to read.

No, just mindful of usenet etiquette. And ticked at time wasted.

Loaded, however...

"Can we get rid of all the Mexicans?"

Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong. - Dandemis

"My mah says there's a lot of black people in Mexico."