http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups

scroll down to Criticism and read this:
{
Any posts made to Usenet groups after (about) August 1, 2011, cannot
be read from Google Groups. This change was unannounced.
}
Goodbye alt.revisionism. It was nice knowing all you cats.
Goodbye rec.food.cooking. ...
I know you love me.

On 8/7/2011 6:26 AM, Stu wrote:
>
> At the very least it will cut down on a huge amount of spam from their servers.
> On another note, Google's pre-emptive strike on usenet will not go un-noticed
> by it's users. No warning, just shut off accessibly to usenet without warning
> says **** you all.

As it goes, lots of stuff on Wikipedia is simply not true. Since there's
no source cited, I wouldn't get all bent out of shape.

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups

I was a little suspicious, since I have heard nothing more since this
morning. I went back to the cite above, and that paragraph has been
deleted. The edit history says that since it is "unannounced", and
nobody reputable has mentioned it elsewhere, it doesn't belong in
Wikipedia.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"A Moose in Love" wrote in message ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups

scroll down to Criticism and read this:
{
Any posts made to Usenet groups after (about) August 1, 2011, cannot
be read from Google Groups. This change was unannounced.
}
Goodbye alt.revisionism. It was nice knowing all you cats.
Goodbye rec.food.cooking. ...
I know you love me.
------------------------
Takes 5 minutes to get an account.

http://www.eternal-september.org/Reg...ewsAccount.php

Use it with windows mail.

Stu wrote:
> At the very least it will cut down on a huge amount of spam from
> their servers. On another note, Google's pre-emptive strike on usenet
> will not go un-noticed by it's users. No warning, just shut off
> accessibly to usenet without warning says **** you all.

Google attacked usenet by *allowing* posting. When they stop posting usenet
will be relieved.

But thanks a lot, Google, for waiting until most ISP's stopped carrying
usenet. All the extra traffic must have contributed.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:31:11 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> wrote:

>
> Stu wrote:
> > At the very least it will cut down on a huge amount of spam from
> > their servers. On another note, Google's pre-emptive strike on usenet
> > will not go un-noticed by it's users. No warning, just shut off
> > accessibly to usenet without warning says **** you all.
>
> Google attacked usenet by *allowing* posting. When they stop posting usenet
> will be relieved.
>
> But thanks a lot, Google, for waiting until most ISP's stopped carrying
> usenet. All the extra traffic must have contributed.

Okay, I'm thoroughly confused now. Does this mean that Google will
stop archiving usenet posts too? I use Google so rarely for posting
that I haven't even looked at it since this discussion started.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

sf wrote:
>
> Okay, I'm thoroughly confused now. Does this mean that Google will
> stop archiving usenet posts too? I use Google so rarely for posting
> that I haven't even looked at it since this discussion started.

I don't know what they're going to do. I just inferred from the other posts
that they will no longer allow posting.

The archive was great, back when that's all they did.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

In article >,
Tom Del Rosso > wrote:
>
>Stu wrote:
>> At the very least it will cut down on a huge amount of spam from
>> their servers. On another note, Google's pre-emptive strike on usenet
>> will not go un-noticed by it's users. No warning, just shut off
>> accessibly to usenet without warning says **** you all.
>
>Google attacked usenet by *allowing* posting. When they stop posting usenet
>will be relieved.
>
>But thanks a lot, Google, for waiting until most ISP's stopped carrying
>usenet. All the extra traffic must have contributed.
>
>
>--
>
>Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
>zero, and remove the last word.
>
>

top1000.org must be witnessing.
--
Member - Liberal International This is Ici
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
IT is done! http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.drwho/about

In article >, lid
says...
>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I'm thoroughly confused now. Does this mean that Google will
> > stop archiving usenet posts too? I use Google so rarely for posting
> > that I haven't even looked at it since this discussion started.
>
> I don't know what they're going to do. I just inferred from the other posts
> that they will no longer allow posting.
>
> The archive was great, back when that's all they did.

They don't seem to be showing posts after August first regardless of the
means of posting.

On 9 Aug 2011 01:12:23 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> If google ceases archiving altogether, it will be reported in the
> technical news. Count on it.

What do you call technical news? Usenet?

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 8/8/2011 5:31 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Stu wrote:
>> At the very least it will cut down on a huge amount of spam from
>> their servers. On another note, Google's pre-emptive strike on usenet
>> will not go un-noticed by it's users. No warning, just shut off
>> accessibly to usenet without warning says **** you all.
>
> Google attacked usenet by *allowing* posting. When they stop posting usenet
> will be relieved.

If the Google Groups shutdown continues for a little longer, you may
just get your most fondest of wishes. Pretty exciting, eh? A world
without Google Groups. Unfortunately, it probably means that some groups
will fade out and other groups will be less lively but I suppose that's
acceptable collateral damage to get rid of that horrendous amount of
Google spam. Keep your fingers crossed!

>
> But thanks a lot, Google, for waiting until most ISP's stopped carrying
> usenet. All the extra traffic must have contributed.

In article >,
dsi1 > wrote:
>On 8/8/2011 5:31 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> Stu wrote:
>>> At the very least it will cut down on a huge amount of spam from
>>> their servers. On another note, Google's pre-emptive strike on usenet
>>> will not go un-noticed by it's users. No warning, just shut off
>>> accessibly to usenet without warning says **** you all.
>>
>> Google attacked usenet by *allowing* posting. When they stop posting usenet
>> will be relieved.
>
>If the Google Groups shutdown continues for a little longer, you may
>just get your most fondest of wishes. Pretty exciting, eh? A world
>without Google Groups. Unfortunately, it probably means that some groups
>will fade out and other groups will be less lively but I suppose that's
>acceptable collateral damage to get rid of that horrendous amount of
>Google spam. Keep your fingers crossed!
>
>>
>> But thanks a lot, Google, for waiting until most ISP's stopped carrying
>> usenet. All the extra traffic must have contributed.
>
>
>

Who wants to but dejanews?
--
Member - Liberal International This is Ici
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
IT is done! http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.drwho/about

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> sf wrote:
>> Okay, I'm thoroughly confused now. Does this mean that Google will
>> stop archiving usenet posts too? I use Google so rarely for posting
>> that I haven't even looked at it since this discussion started.
>
> I don't know what they're going to do. I just inferred from the other posts
> that they will no longer allow posting.
>
> The archive was great, back when that's all they did.
>
>
It was great when it was dejanews. (Hope I remembered that
correctly. Hmmmm. Can one use deja on wayback?)

--
Jean B.

I'm posting through GG right now - through Firefox. IE9 isn't compatible with the new Groups. Big whoop, doesn't matter to me. But my posts are fine - it just took Google 8 days or so to figure out how to make it work.

N.

On Aug 10, 8:24*am, Nancy2 > wrote:
> I'm posting through GG right now - through Firefox. *IE9 isn't compatible with the new Groups. *Big whoop, doesn't matter to me. *But my posts are fine - it just took Google 8 days or so to figure out how to make it work.
>
> N.

==
IE9 isn't compatible with the new Groups? I didn't know that.
==

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

>I'm posting through GG right now - through Firefox. IE9 isn't compatible with the new Groups. Big whoop, doesn't matter to me. But my posts are fine - it just took Google 8 days or so to figure out how to make it work.

Posts are fine? I guess word wrap means nothing.

Lou

On Aug 7, 11:08*am, A Moose in Love >
wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups
>
> scroll down to Criticism and read this:
> {
> Any posts made to Usenet groups after (about) August 1, 2011, cannot
> be read from Google Groups. This change was unannounced.}
>
> Goodbye alt.revisionism. *It was nice knowing all you cats.
> Goodbye rec.food.cooking. *...
> I know you love me.

I hadn't gotten any post on the 6 or so newsgroups from Google, so I
wrote them a note yesterday asking What's Up?, and today here they all
are, updated back to the 1st!
Nan in DE

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:30:07 -0700 (PDT), Nan >
wrote:

> I hadn't gotten any post on the 6 or so newsgroups from Google, so I
> wrote them a note yesterday asking What's Up?, and today here they all
> are, updated back to the 1st!

Who says Google doesn't respond? I'm interested in which newsgroups
you're subscribed to.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

> I'm posting through GG right now - through Firefox. IE9 isn't compatible with the new Groups. Big whoop, doesn't matter to me. But my posts are fine - it just took Google 8 days or so to figure out how to make it work.
>
> N.

Switch to FA. Your posts don't wrap until Agent does it for me in a
reply.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:24:16 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:
>
>> I'm posting through GG right now - through Firefox. IE9 isn't compatible with the new Groups. Big whoop, doesn't matter to me. But my posts are fine - it just took Google 8 days or so to figure out how to make it work.
>>
>> N.
>
>Switch to FA. Your posts don't wrap until Agent does it for me in a
>reply.

LOL. It did a fine job. You really are a moron. You making computer
suggestions is like Jill talking about child rearing.

Lou

On Aug 10, 1:34*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:24:16 -0700, sf > wrote:
> >On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> > wrote:
>
> >> I'm posting through GG right now - through Firefox. *IE9 isn't compatible with the new Groups. *Big whoop, doesn't matter to me. *But my posts are fine - it just took Google 8 days or so to figure out how to make it work.
>
> >> N.
>
> >Switch to FA. *Your posts don't wrap until Agent does it for me in a
> >reply.
>
> LOL. *It did a fine job. *You really are a moron. *You making computer
> suggestions is like Jill talking about child rearing.

I nominate this for post of the year. ROFL

On 8/10/2011 10:24 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> I'm posting through GG right now - through Firefox. IE9 isn't compatible with the new Groups. Big whoop, doesn't matter to me. But my posts are fine - it just took Google 8 days or so to figure out how to make it work.
>
> N.

I wonder if that means their crawler was upgraded and doesn't support
headers lower than what 9 can read?

--
Cheryl
Come carpe diem baby - Metallica

It's all foreign to me, but I keep getting error messages saying this and that isn't compatible with that or this. IE8 and IE9 are mentioned.

N.

Well, if I don't see it ugly on my screen, how do I know that??

N.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:28:00 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

>Well, if I don't see it ugly on my screen, how do I know that??
>
>N.

I don't know. I don't use google but others are getting their posts
wrapped. It's a pita to read unwrapped.

Lou

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:28:00 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

> Well, if I don't see it ugly on my screen, how do I know that??
>
> N.

It's not line wrapping and not quoting for you either. Run, do not
walk, to some other way to post.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila.

Easy for you to say ... It's my choice whether to quote or not, but since this is a new non-auto feature in the new iteration of Groups, I have been forgetting to do it.

Line wrapping - don't know how to cure it because it's fine when I see it.

N.

On Friday, August 12, 2011 1:35:01 PM UTC-5, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:28:00 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> > wrote:
>
> > Well, if I don't see it ugly on my screen, how do I know that??
> >
> > N.
>
> It's not line wrapping and not quoting for you either. Run, do not
> walk, to some other way to post.
>
> --
> I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila.

sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> Nancy2 wrote:

> > Well, if I don't see it ugly on my screen, how do I know that??
> >
> > N.
>
> It's not line wrapping and not quoting for you either. Run, do not
> walk, to some other way to post.

Well as I've listed, I went to Xananews (freeware) as it is very
similar in feel to my outlook express which I liked, but my win7
machine doesn't support. It's not complex like so many of the others
were, but has lots of power if you configure it special. The default
settings work well too. Later, you can frill it up with the special
settings but you'll probably be up and running in 10 mins like I was.

It fixes most of the quoting mess others with livemail have and doesnt
cause anyone any problems with my messages that I have heard of.


--

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:34:50 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

> I went to Xananews (freeware)

Can you get rid of that 3 part screen and just have one?

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila.

sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:34:50 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
> > I went to Xananews (freeware)
>
> Can you get rid of that 3 part screen and just have one?

Sure! If you want to, they drag and drop.


--

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:44:02 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

> sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:34:50 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
> >
> > > I went to Xananews (freeware)
> >
> > Can you get rid of that 3 part screen and just have one?
>
> Sure! If you want to, they drag and drop.

Ability to make easy filters based on key words/subject or author?

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila.

sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:44:02 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
> > sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > > On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:34:50 -0500, "cshenk" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I went to Xananews (freeware)
> > >
> > > Can you get rid of that 3 part screen and just have one?
> >
> > Sure! If you want to, they drag and drop.
>
> Ability to make easy filters based on key words/subject or author?

I haven't played with that feature much but it is there. Not sure how
easy it is. It has a 'bozo button' which can be set to either
permanently delete anything from someone set there, or make them a pale
yellow so easy to ignore. Same thing as a killfile, but 2 ways to work
it. Pete C no longer exists here for example. He had nothing valid to
say so I stopped wasting time with him.


--