So, me and Flint had this inane discussion about whether a single word could be a sentence and it got sidetracked into what I think is the funniest thing for a long time in csma, and I haven't had anything worth digestifying for a while so I was delighted! Flint ignorantly claimed one word could not be a "proper sentence" (as if to suggest that there are sentences that are improper, but still sentences):
03/07/2013 Re: WINDOWS 8 - ANOTHER MS WINNER
Flint <agent001@section-31.net> (c3a62546f8ef187f031e295f993f0406)
Flint <agent001@section-31.net> (c3a62546f8ef187f031e295f993f0406)
"'Interesting is >oneword<, and hardly constitutes as a proper sentence."
This is, of course, incorrect. I had my fun with him trying to make him put some form of support for his ignorant ideas. He even linked to a page that had the title "Can one word be a sentence?" where the answer was, ironically, "Yes."
So after having disproved himself I also added a real substantiation (wikianswer is great and all, but hey...) so I linked to Merriam Webster, which is a slightly more reliable source.
This led up what became so funny. A few posts later, he kept insisting that I had not substantiated the fact that one word can be a sentence, which I obviously had. So I posted a reply that pointed to the post where I made the above sunstantiation
Now, this is how links to other posts on USENET have been made since the dawn of time. A Message-ID within angle brackets. Most, if not all, NNTP client have always been able to parse, and make these clickable for years and years. No problem what so ever. But to Flint, a Message-ID was a complete mystery:
03/12/2013 Re: WINDOWS 8 - ANOTHER MS WINNER
Flint <agent001@section-31.net> (c3a62546f8ef187f031e295f993f0406)
Flint <agent001@section-31.net> (c3a62546f8ef187f031e295f993f0406)
An email address link? Teeheeheheee! :)
Haha, he saw the @ sign and just assumed it was an email address. Now, this is pretty funny as it is right now, and Flint is big enough of an asshole by himself to make fun of him based solely on this little mistake. But things just became funnier. Alan replied and tried to tell him what it was:
No, you twit: a message ID.
If you had decent newsreading software, then clicking that would open
this message:
Now, a smart wannabe troll would at least google "Message ID" at this point to avoid further embarrassment. Flint, however, is not a smart troll wannabe.
03/12/2013 Re: WINDOWS 8 - ANOTHER MS WINNER
Flint <agent001@section-31.net> (c3a62546f8ef187f031e295f993f0406)
Flint <agent001@section-31.net> (c3a62546f8ef187f031e295f993f0406)
Wrong, Ailin Bellyacher . An embedded "@" makes it a broken email link, moron.
Haha, still insisting that it is an email address, and he adds:
Just because you fangurlz expect the rest of the world's usenet newsreader software to follow some non-standard MT-Newswatcher convention for creating broken links, don't assume such links are proper.
So, not only is it a broken email address, it is also some form of "non-standard" MT-NewsWatcher kind of link! Alan replies with links to Google Groups showing these "non-standard" links in Flints own messages, and how it is not at all a MT-NewsWatcher "standard". He replies with this:
03/13/2013 Re: WINDOWS 8 - ANOTHER MS WINNER
Flint <agent001@section-31.net> (c3a62546f8ef187f031e295f993f0406)
Flint <agent001@section-31.net> (c3a62546f8ef187f031e295f993f0406)
The smart thing for you to do is explain just on what basis you claim the software I use is broken because it doesn't handle his/your bogus formed message-ID links.
It's pretty fair to assume that Flint has google some at this point. He is no longer calling it a "broken email address", now it is a Message ID, but it is "bogus formed". He adds:
Got news for you, other newsreaders I've tried with the link simply throws up an email reply edit window as well. I suppose they're all broken too, huh?
Well, go figure :)
When the facts have sunk in, Flint does the only thing he can - he tries to retcon the entire thing into being intentional:
03/13/2013 Re: WINDOWS 8 - ANOTHER MS WINNER
Flint <agent001@section-31.net> (c3a62546f8ef187f031e295f993f0406)
Flint <agent001@section-31.net> (c3a62546f8ef187f031e295f993f0406)
Well, let me let *you* in on a little secret. I've been playing with Sandy a bit, ... My software (T-Bird) handles the link just fine
Now, as you have noted, I haven't been in this conversation yet. I was offline at the moment and the entire "broken email" and "Message ID" thing was between Flint and Alan. He is now trying to make it seem that he was "playing" me by arguing with Alan that an embedded "@" makes it a broken email link. I'm not sure how that logic is going to work out for him really. He then leaves the thread. I come back online and have my laugh at him for the entire spectacle. He then says things like:
I suspect you're too stupid to provide a TinyURL link instead, huh?
Now he wants a HTTP service to provide a link to a NNTP resource!
I have a feeling that this spectacle isn't quite over yet, but I just had to put this into a timeline.