Sheldon wrote:
> Sheryl Rosen wrote:
>>
>> nancree wrote:
>>
>>>> Also, Google does not carry your e-mail address on
>>>> your posts. So if you need a private reply (some of
>>>> you ask for that), you'll have to include your address
>>>> in the body of your post.
>>>
>>>
>>> Incorrect, merely demonstrating that you don't know how
>>> to use the Google interface. I suppose that's why you
>>> don't bother with quoting when you reply.
>>>
>>> Brian--------
>>> -----------------------
>>> Again, your post is useless. If you have a helpful
>>> suggestion, please make it. Otherwise, don't bother me.
>>> (Google Groups does *not* carry a full e-mail address
>>> for the e-mail it posts. They are munged. Nancree
>>>
>>
>> You can hit "Show Options" and it will show you the
>> return address on any post you care to do this on. This
>> is the default. It's always available, you just have to
>> click on it.
>>
>> I was playing around with it at work the other day (the
>> only place I use Google to read RFC) and you can
>> actually change the default settings to display all
>> posts with header info visible, including the poster's
>> return address, if you so choose.
>
> I only just recently subscribed to Google for Newsgroups,
> about a week ago. When I subscribed they asked me to
> supply a password, an email address, and a nickname. I
> could have easily chosen to supply a munged email address
> and a nicknmae that no one would recognize as being me...
> same as I could with my AOL acct. or with any other
> ISP/Newsreader. I have no doubt whatsoever that many,
> regardless of how they read Newsgroups, whether through
> Google or otherwise, use munged and/or multiple IDs...
> phoney baloney is just a fact of internet life. But I do
> not do that, never have, never will... I'm exactly
> who/how I purport myself to be.
>
> Now that I've been using Google long enough to
> familiarize myself with it I don't find it much different
> from using AOL's Newsgroups feature, was just that I was
> so familiar with AOL's that I could race through the
> posts and make my replys with no effort whatsoever, even
> while multi-tasking. I've used Internet Explorer's
> Newsgroups feature in the past too, Google is easier. I
> even down loaded the Mozilla Newsreader a few days ago
> and tried it, it sucks, big time, extremely cumbersome.
>
> I have my high speed connection through a local cable
> company, I can easily use it as my only ISP, but I use
> AOL for lots more, not just to access Newsgroups... to me
> it's well worth keeping it for only $15/month... 50¢/day.
> Anyone doesn't like AOL, that's their choice, I like
> it... Baskin & Robins has 31 flavors, why do you think
> that is?
>
> I don't like that AOL is going to abandon Usenet,
> especially without even so much as a by your leave... no
> explanation whatsoever. But for now I will continue
> using AOL... I'm positive many will not... AOL will pay a
> large price for their fercocktah decision.
>
> Anyway, anyone can munge their ID, and to any degree.
>
> Sheldon

All of that aside...when you get tired of google, you can go to
www.individual.net and sign up for a free account that will give you most
of the text newsgroups. You will also need a newsreader if you don't have
one. I won't even try to suggest one sinceeverybody has their own
preference, and some people are more "religious" with their newsreader
than they are with theri religion. It's a Ford vs Chevy thing.

BOB
using outlook express and happy with it even after trying agent (free and
paid), netscape (and most of the spin-offs)