On 7/29/2010 12:38 AM, sf wrote:
>> Ought to be, I love coming here, eating, ****ing Becca, eating, eating
>> Becca..
>>
>> George L.
>>
> So says @cruisemeister, the jerk, not our George Leppla -
> @cruisemaster.
>

So true.

"sf" wrote

> I said if it's dead by the time you read it, leave it dead. What's so
> hard to comprehend about that?

Love you sf, but you do not dictate my reading habits or my reply habits.
If I want to reply to something said 6 months ago, I will.

When I reply to it, it is 'no longer dead'.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:54:54 -0400, "cshenk" > wrote:

> "sf" wrote
>
> > I said if it's dead by the time you read it, leave it dead. What's so
> > hard to comprehend about that?
>
> Love you sf, but you do not dictate my reading habits or my reply habits.
> If I want to reply to something said 6 months ago, I will.
>
> When I reply to it, it is 'no longer dead'.

But you don't and that's why I love you. <smooches>

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
>
> I wasn't talking about threads that refuse to die, Marty. I kill
> those when I'm tired of seeing them. I'm talking about already dead
> threads that people resurrect.

So why not just kill resurrected threads as soon as you see them? Problem
solved.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:12:50 -0400, "Cheryl" >
wrote:

> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I wasn't talking about threads that refuse to die, Marty. I kill
> > those when I'm tired of seeing them. I'm talking about already dead
> > threads that people resurrect.
>
> So why not just kill resurrected threads as soon as you see them? Problem
> solved.

Gee, ya think?

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:09:22 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:54:54 -0400, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
>> "sf" wrote
>>
>>> I said if it's dead by the time you read it, leave it dead. What's so
>>> hard to comprehend about that?
>>
>> Love you sf, but you do not dictate my reading habits or my reply habits.
>> If I want to reply to something said 6 months ago, I will.
>>
>> When I reply to it, it is 'no longer dead'.
>
> But you don't and that's why I love you. <smooches>

Translation: I'm (sf) a Usenet Kop and anyone who obeys me I adore.
--
Oh, the excitement!
http://tr.im/1f9b

"sf" wrote
> "cshenk" wrote:

>> > I said if it's dead by the time you read it, leave it dead. What's so
>> > hard to comprehend about that?

>> Love you sf, but you do not dictate my reading habits or my reply habits.
>> If I want to reply to something said 6 months ago, I will.
>> When I reply to it, it is 'no longer dead'.

> But you don't and that's why I love you. <smooches>

Not often! I am more irritated by all the crossposting that has recently
taken over the places I favor.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:58:15 -0700, sf wrote:

>>> > And you, as is your usual, are braying like a beast of burden that you enjoy
>>> > mimicking.
>>> >
>>> Oh, how witty.
>>
>> I'm glad you enjoyed it. You make it so easy.
>>
> Yeah. I refrained from calling you the other end of the beast.
> Now either blow my rim off or shut the **** up.

Brilliant.

*NOT*
--
Think first! Before you book a cruise from a two bit lying sleazeball
who uses Usenet as free SPAMADVERTISING ground and for purposeful
attempts at personal character assassination. Are you next? Think
twice before booking with Ray Goldenberg. http://tr.im/hlJv

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:12:50 -0400, "Cheryl" >
> wrote:
>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > I wasn't talking about threads that refuse to die, Marty. I kill
>> > those when I'm tired of seeing them. I'm talking about already dead
>> > threads that people resurrect.
>>
>> So why not just kill resurrected threads as soon as you see them?
>> Problem
>> solved.
>
> Gee, ya think?

Of course I do. It's a better option than getting upset over dead threads.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:44:29 -0400, "Cheryl" >
wrote:

> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:12:50 -0400, "Cheryl" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "sf" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > I wasn't talking about threads that refuse to die, Marty. I kill
> >> > those when I'm tired of seeing them. I'm talking about already dead
> >> > threads that people resurrect.
> >>
> >> So why not just kill resurrected threads as soon as you see them?
> >> Problem
> >> solved.
> >
> > Gee, ya think?
>
> Of course I do. It's a better option than getting upset over dead threads.
>
>
This is what happens when you come to the party late Cheryl.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:44:29 -0400, "Cheryl" >
> wrote:
>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:12:50 -0400, "Cheryl" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "sf" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > I wasn't talking about threads that refuse to die, Marty. I kill
>> >> > those when I'm tired of seeing them. I'm talking about already dead
>> >> > threads that people resurrect.
>> >>
>> >> So why not just kill resurrected threads as soon as you see them?
>> >> Problem
>> >> solved.
>> >
>> > Gee, ya think?
>>
>> Of course I do. It's a better option than getting upset over dead
>> threads.
>>
>>
> This is what happens when you come to the party late Cheryl.

Ok. I bow out. I still loves ya.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:34:05 +0000 (UTC),
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> What about people who only check the newsgroup every 5 or 10 days?
>>
> That's 4 days of dead thread reasons not to reply.
>

Oh come on now! I haven't bothered reading RFC since Tuesday or Wednesday.
So by your reasoning I shouldn't reply to any topic, whether it interests me
or not. That's faulty logic, IMHO. Just ignore the thread if you don't
like it and move on.

Jill

On Jul 28, 11:18*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
> > Anyway...
> > I now have over a weeks worth (!) of rfc posts to wade through, as my
> > modem decided to expire a week ago. I use satellite for my Internet,
> > so naturally they use some arcane, proprietary modem that can only be
> > sourced from my ISP... who will only send via courier... and no
> > couriers deliver out here. Sigh *
>
> > Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
> > few newsgroups still going strong these days.
>
> > Sorry for any threads or replies I miss, I'll try to catch up today!
>
> I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
> because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. *So please do
> us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
> more than 24 hours.

We aren't all able or inclined to read and post every day. Surely,
some true gems or advice or wisdom have been posted late in a thread.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:28:32 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> wrote:
>
> We aren't all able or inclined to read and post every day. Surely,
> some true gems or advice or wisdom have been posted late in a thread.

Think about what you just said.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:27:29 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:33:06 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:18:21 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyway...
>>>> I now have over a weeks worth (!) of rfc posts to wade through, as my
>>>> modem decided to expire a week ago. I use satellite for my Internet,
>>>> so naturally they use some arcane, proprietary modem that can only be
>>>> sourced from my ISP... who will only send via courier... and no
>>>> couriers deliver out here. Sigh
>>>>
>>>> Damn you people can post a lot in a week... rfc seems to be one of the
>>>> few newsgroups still going strong these days.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for any threads or replies I miss, I'll try to catch up today!
>>>
>>> I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
>>> because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
>>> us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
>>> more than 24 hours.
>>
>> um, what?
>>
> You're one of those people who are here every day, yet you'll go back
> to a dead thread and post a <snork>. Good god. That's when I say
> "he's really bored today".

it's '<snort>' and i've never dug up a dead thread to do so. really, sf,
get a grip.

your pal,
blake

"sf" wrote
> Kalmia wrote:

>> We aren't all able or inclined to read and post every day. Surely,
>> some true gems or advice or wisdom have been posted late in a thread.

> Think about what you just said.

Nothing wrong I can see with Kalmia's post. Then again, this thread is dead.
I'm merely curious why you made this reply.

Me, I kill threads normally when the non-trimmers take over to the point
where it;s just some huge quote with 3 pages of he said, she said' then
pages and pages and a 'me too' at the bottom. I kill before I bother to get
to the bottom. Kill whole thread unless I have a reason to suspect it has
some interest left.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:33:16 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:32:54 -0700, Christine Dabney
> wrote:
>
>> I am sorry to say this to you, but get real. RFC is not here to
>> conform to your preferences..but for people to have a good discussion
>> about food and cooking, even if the threads are a month or so old.
>> Some of those are good threads, and sometimes the current threads are
>> crap. I know which ones I want to participate in ..the ones that are
>> good. No matter if they are a month or so old. If you don't want to
>> read them, fine. But don't try to force your preferences on others
>> here.
>
>It's a good rule of thumb for those who aren't so needy for attention
>that they have to resurrect dead threads. Jebus told me how little
>time he has and yet he insists he wants to read and reply to thousands
>of old posts. There's something very wrong with that picture.

There is indeed something very wrong with that picture... because I
never said that.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:20:39 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:20:01 +1000, Jeßus wrote:
>
>> I've just noticed that I seem to be missing the odd post or reply here
>> and there - I noticed because I was playing around with an old Power
>> Mac earlier and downloaded a bunch of headers, some I know I didn't
>> see using Usenet-News.net. Could be just myself affected, could be
>> this news client (Agent)... Anyway, thought I should make mention of
>> this, because I know quite a few of you use Usenet-News.net.
>
>I switch between a few servers to keep people unaware of all my
>many multiple sock puppets, but I'm currently using Usenet News
>and I haven't noticed any missing posts (and I'm pretty observant
>about that). I was missing posts with blocknews.net (and severely
>*late* posts), but not with U-N.net.

Thanks for that. It's probably my news client going awray rather than
the server.

>Blocknews posts sometimes don't show up for 6-12 hours. It's a
>really lame server. UN has different problems, but they're more
>bearable.

Can't say I've had many problems with UN, been using them for about
two years now. Being able to buy blocks of GB is ideal for text only
use.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:26:12 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

>On 7/28/2010 4:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> I've just noticed that I seem to be missing the odd post or reply here
>> and there - I noticed because I was playing around with an old Power
>> Mac earlier and downloaded a bunch of headers, some I know I didn't
>> see using Usenet-News.net. Could be just myself affected, could be
>> this news client (Agent)... Anyway, thought I should make mention of
>> this, because I know quite a few of you use Usenet-News.net.
>
>As I recall, Usenet-news.net has a long retention policy.

About 4 years, from what I can see. There are plenty of 5 year old
headers as well, but maybe only 50% of the bodies are still available.

>I don't know
>exactly what it is and it doesn't matter much to me anyway cause I
>delete messages older than 15 days in my computer. Normally, a long
>retention is a good thing but there's just too many messages here to do
>otherwise.

Good retention is pretty crucial for binary stuff - but that is
academic on my satellite connection due to the tiny quota I have to
live with.

>If you're interested in old stuff, you should check out the Google
>Groups archives. The oldest post they have for rfc is dated 12-5-86 and
>the Palo Alto, CA origin was probably typical of usenet posts at the
>time.


1986! I'm impressed. It's a shame that the search facility is a little
inconsistent on Google Groups though. I've seen a few posts from
around 1980 (I think) on GG before.

>I have no idea what cleartext recipes is but my guess is that it's
>no longer a format in consideration. Things sure have changed from those
>boring academic days! :

Understatement

sf wrote:

> I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
> because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
> us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
> more than 24 hours.

Last night as an experiment as to what "we" want, I replied to the
"Thermometers" thread which had been dead since February 2. Now there's an
ongoing discussion in that thread.

Seems like we want to discuss whatever strikes our fancy at any given
moment, even if a discussion has had no traffic for months and months.

Bob

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:30:00 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
> > because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
> > us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
> > more than 24 hours.
>
> Last night as an experiment as to what "we" want, I replied to the
> "Thermometers" thread which had been dead since February 2. Now there's an
> ongoing discussion in that thread.
>
> Seems like we want to discuss whatever strikes our fancy at any given
> moment, even if a discussion has had no traffic for months and months.
>
You must be really bored. Be sure to download at least 10,000 posts
when you return home and rely to every single one of them.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:30:00 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >
> > > I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
> > > because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
> > > us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
> > > more than 24 hours.
> >
> > Last night as an experiment as to what "we" want, I replied to the
> > "Thermometers" thread which had been dead since February 2. Now there's an
> > ongoing discussion in that thread.
> >
> > Seems like we want to discuss whatever strikes our fancy at any given
> > moment, even if a discussion has had no traffic for months and months.
> >
> You must be really bored. Be sure to download at least 10,000 posts
> when you return home and rely to every single one of them.

One post from six months ago is an "experiment", 10,000 is the mark of a
boor.

Maybe I'll give it a try. Pick one post each week, from six months ago,
that I personally think died a premature death, and see who responds to
it.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:11:05 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

> Maybe I'll give it a try. Pick one post each week, from six months ago,
> that I personally think died a premature death, and see who responds to
> it.

Be sure to provide proper attributions with your quote.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:11:05 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:30:00 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> sf wrote:
>>>
>>> > I usually don't download anymore than 2 days worth of posts, mainly
>>> > because when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
>>> > us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
>>> > more than 24 hours.
>>>
>>> Last night as an experiment as to what "we" want, I replied to the
>>> "Thermometers" thread which had been dead since February 2. Now there's an
>>> ongoing discussion in that thread.
>>>
>>> Seems like we want to discuss whatever strikes our fancy at any given
>>> moment, even if a discussion has had no traffic for months and months.
>>>
>> You must be really bored. Be sure to download at least 10,000 posts
>> when you return home and rely to every single one of them.
>
> One post from six months ago is an "experiment", 10,000 is the mark of a
> boor.
>
> Maybe I'll give it a try. Pick one post each week, from six months ago,
> that I personally think died a premature death, and see who responds to
> it.

i really don't see what the big deal is. if people are interested, they'll
respond, if not, they won't.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:20:14 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

> i really don't see what the big deal is. if people are interested, they'll
> respond, if not, they won't.

I noticed that he's not even doing it under his regular posting name.
What a coward.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:20:14 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:

>> i really don't see what the big deal is. if people are interested,
>> they'll
>> respond, if not, they won't.
>>
> I noticed that he's not even doing it under his regular posting name.
> What a coward.

Did you self-medicate your focusing regime this morning? WTF are you whining
about?

The Ranger

The Ranger wrote:

>>> i really don't see what the big deal is. if people are interested,
>>> they'll respond, if not, they won't.
>>>
>> I noticed that he's not even doing it under his regular posting name.
>> What a coward.
>
> Did you self-medicate your focusing regime this morning? WTF are you
> whining about?

Someone took the "resurrect dead threads" notion and applied it to one of
kili's posts. It wasn't in this thread, though, so you might have missed it.

Bob

Bob Terwilliger > wrote in message
...
> The Ranger wrote:
>
>>>> i really don't see what the big deal is. if people are interested,
>>>> they'll respond, if not, they won't.
>>>>
>>> I noticed that he's not even doing it under his regular posting name.
>>> What a coward.
>>
>> Did you self-medicate your focusing regime this morning? WTF are you
>> whining about?
>
> Someone took the "resurrect dead threads" notion and applied it to one of
> kili's posts. It wasn't in this thread, though, so you might have missed
> it.

Thanks, I did miss it but I'll bet she couldn't help herself in responding
to it...

The Ranger

The Ranger wrote:

>> Someone took the "resurrect dead threads" notion and applied it to one of
>> kili's posts. It wasn't in this thread, though, so you might have missed
>> it.
>
> Thanks, I did miss it but I'll bet she couldn't help herself in responding
> to it...

It's the "Chicken Hearts" thread. Yes, she did reply, but she wasn't the
first. Also, the presumably-trollish post showed up at 8:06 AM, and sf
responded at 10:46 AM, having already sent eight other posts that morning.
It's not like she leaped on the post as soon as it showed up. She probably
didn't even recognize what had happened until she read Dan Abel's reply to
it.

Bob

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 21:57:28 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>She probably
>didn't even recognize what had happened until she read Dan Abel's reply to
>it.

Dan replied before me and I saw his post when I refreshed.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.