On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 18:52:45 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 3:29:36 PM UTC-10, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 18:17:20 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi10yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 1:05:13 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> >> In article >,
>> >> dsyahoo.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 10:09:34 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> >> > > In article >,
>> >> > > dsi1yahoo.com says...
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 12:26:45 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> >> > > > > > On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 9:55:52 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > People with an abundance of food have the luxury of dissing Spam and other foods they consider "low class."
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Don't we all have an abundance of food? Is anybody here forced to eat bad stuff, just to stay alive?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > http://www.google.com/search?q=hunger+in+america
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I know there is poverty in the world, but my "we" was referring to rfc.
>> >> > > "We" can diss bad food because "we" all have an abundance of food,
>> >> > > unless I missed something.
>> >> >
>> >> > This newsgroup has 6,200 subscribers. I will not talk on behalf of the few people that post here nor will I make presumptions about the thousands that don't post. You ask a question that is unanswerable.
>> >>
>> >> This newsgroup has 6,2000 subscribers??? Is this some kind of Google
>> >> Groups speak? And you're saying that these poor and nearly starving
>> >> "subscribers" are lurking in rfc? Shouldn't we occasionally wave at them
>> >> while we discuss good food?
>> >
>> >Don't believe me, just ask Google
>> >
>> >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ab...c.food.cooking
>>
>> 6210 'google groups' subscribers. Google doesnt speak for the whole of
>> Usenet.
>
>It says on the page that this is a public Usenet newsgroup. It doesn't claim it as a Google Group forum.

That must be why they call it 'google groups' and not 'Usenet' so
frequently. Do you seriously think google knows how many people are
'subscribed' to particular newsgroups across all of Usenet? Quite an
(impossible) technical feat if they have managed to do that. Not
mention the privacy issues. All they know is how many GGers have
subscribed.

>OTOH, GG will not retain/display posts from posters of an unseemly nature so I guess that's a step in the right direction.

Haha, yeah, sure. They would *never* harbour serial spammers or trolls
now, would they? LOL. And by definition that claim of yours proves GG
isn't compliant with accepted Usenet standards.