|
Re: Let the Bandwidth-wasting Begin! (was Re: Doesn't matter eep. :)) (Community)
Re: Let the Bandwidth-wasting Begin! (was Re: Doesn't matter eep. :)) // Community
Jul 7, 2000, 12:38pm
To every one stop replying to Eep (least when he is being annoying) and =
he will have to find something else to do. And no more bandwidth would =
be wasted.
[View Quote]"Eep=B2" <eep at tnlc.com> wrote in message =
news:3965da0c$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> <39648950$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com> =
<39650624$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Diso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Path: 63.23.195.230
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.23.195.230
> Date: 7 Jul 2000 09:13:57 -0400
> X-Trace: 7 Jul 2000 09:13:57 -0400, 63.23.195.230
> Lines: 45
> X-Authenticated-User: eep
> X-RCPT-TO: <moderator at activeworlds.com>
> X-UIDL: 1122
> Status: U
>=20
> Goober King wrote:
>=20
ain't
willing
across.
attempt
>=20
> Um, the point YOU are proving of Bits' is "contribut[ing] to =
overloaded threads [which wastes] bandwidth because of the domino effect =
it causes".
>=20
this
to.
>=20
> If only you were around when--gee, I can't even remember the twit's =
name anymore it's been so long--some old-time AWer challenged me to a =
flame match. We kept it up for weeks and he eventually broke down crying =
or something.
>=20
to wanting to waste bandwidth). In essence, you're both hippocrits, =
while I never claimed to not want to reduce bandwidth by simply =
responding to a post. Not my fault if it causes a multitude of twits to =
respond to my response, wasting bandwidth!
Internet with your sorry bits...;)
Here's a
wasted
Therefore, you
message) and
consider
total
your time..
pretty
replied to
him. You
stupid
>=20
>=20
|
|
