 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT News service
On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:01:40 -1000, dsi1
> wrote: >On 8/5/2014 3:39 PM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:21:04 -1000, dsi1 wrote: >> >>> On 8/5/2014 3:10 PM, Janet Wilder wrote: >>>> On 8/5/2014 8:00 PM, dsi1 wrote: >>> >>>>> The NNTP servers still transfer data like it's 1999. :-) >>>> >>>> Never been a problem for me. I don't do binaries. >>> >>> The low data throughput of this old protocol is pretty amazing in this >>> age of 20Mbps+ speeds. >> >> There you go throwing around those buzzwords that you don't have a >> clue WTF they mean nor how they relate to the Real World. >> >> The transmission protocol here is TCP/IP. The same as it is for >> practically every other protocol that connects you to your ISP and an >> eventual server. Your Usenet download/upload speed is limited by the >> exact same variables that affect transmission of web pages, email, or >> file transfers to/from your computer. >> > >And this affects me how? :-) Once again, somebody points out and explains how and why you're wrong about something - and your only response is some flippant remark. You have a real habit of doing that. I don't know what is so difficult about accepting you're wrong, everyone is wrong sometimes. Doesnt say a lot about your credibility. |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:03:48 AM UTC-10, Je�us wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:01:40 -1000, dsi1 > > > wrote: > > > > >On 8/5/2014 3:39 PM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote: > > >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:21:04 -1000, dsi1 wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 8/5/2014 3:10 PM, Janet Wilder wrote: > > >>>> On 8/5/2014 8:00 PM, dsi1 wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>> The NNTP servers still transfer data like it's 1999. :-) > > >>>> > > >>>> Never been a problem for me. I don't do binaries. > > >>> > > >>> The low data throughput of this old protocol is pretty amazing in this > > >>> age of 20Mbps+ speeds. > > >> > > >> There you go throwing around those buzzwords that you don't have a > > >> clue WTF they mean nor how they relate to the Real World. > > >> > > >> The transmission protocol here is TCP/IP. The same as it is for > > >> practically every other protocol that connects you to your ISP and an > > >> eventual server. Your Usenet download/upload speed is limited by the > > >> exact same variables that affect transmission of web pages, email, or > > >> file transfers to/from your computer. > > >> > > > > > >And this affects me how? :-) > > > > Once again, somebody points out and explains how and why you're wrong > > about something - and your only response is some flippant remark. You > > have a real habit of doing that. I don't know what is so difficult > > about accepting you're wrong, everyone is wrong sometimes. Doesnt say > > a lot about your credibility. I can dig what you're saying - this should concern me why? :-) |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote: >On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:03:48 AM UTC-10, Je�us wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:01:40 -1000, dsi1 >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >On 8/5/2014 3:39 PM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:21:04 -1000, dsi1 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 8/5/2014 3:10 PM, Janet Wilder wrote: >> >> >>>> On 8/5/2014 8:00 PM, dsi1 wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>>> The NNTP servers still transfer data like it's 1999. :-) >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Never been a problem for me. I don't do binaries. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The low data throughput of this old protocol is pretty amazing in this >> >> >>> age of 20Mbps+ speeds. >> >> >> >> >> >> There you go throwing around those buzzwords that you don't have a >> >> >> clue WTF they mean nor how they relate to the Real World. >> >> >> >> >> >> The transmission protocol here is TCP/IP. The same as it is for >> >> >> practically every other protocol that connects you to your ISP and an >> >> >> eventual server. Your Usenet download/upload speed is limited by the >> >> >> exact same variables that affect transmission of web pages, email, or >> >> >> file transfers to/from your computer. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >And this affects me how? :-) >> >> >> >> Once again, somebody points out and explains how and why you're wrong >> >> about something - and your only response is some flippant remark. You >> >> have a real habit of doing that. I don't know what is so difficult >> >> about accepting you're wrong, everyone is wrong sometimes. Doesnt say >> >> a lot about your credibility. > >I can dig what you're saying - this should concern me why? :-) Because your comments about the 'old protocol' of Usenet was erroneous. |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:00:04 AM UTC-10, Je�us wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 > > wrote: > > > > >On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:03:48 AM UTC-10, Je�us wrote: > > >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:01:40 -1000, dsi1 > > >> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >On 8/5/2014 3:39 PM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote: > > >> > > >> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:21:04 -1000, dsi1 wrote: > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >>> On 8/5/2014 3:10 PM, Janet Wilder wrote: > > >> > > >> >>>> On 8/5/2014 8:00 PM, dsi1 wrote: > > >> > > >> >>> > > >> > > >> >>>>> The NNTP servers still transfer data like it's 1999. :-) > > >> > > >> >>>> > > >> > > >> >>>> Never been a problem for me. I don't do binaries. > > >> > > >> >>> > > >> > > >> >>> The low data throughput of this old protocol is pretty amazing in this > > >> > > >> >>> age of 20Mbps+ speeds. > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> There you go throwing around those buzzwords that you don't have a > > >> > > >> >> clue WTF they mean nor how they relate to the Real World. > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> The transmission protocol here is TCP/IP. The same as it is for > > >> > > >> >> practically every other protocol that connects you to your ISP and an > > >> > > >> >> eventual server. Your Usenet download/upload speed is limited by the > > >> > > >> >> exact same variables that affect transmission of web pages, email, or > > >> > > >> >> file transfers to/from your computer. > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> >And this affects me how? :-) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Once again, somebody points out and explains how and why you're wrong > > >> > > >> about something - and your only response is some flippant remark. You > > >> > > >> have a real habit of doing that. I don't know what is so difficult > > >> > > >> about accepting you're wrong, everyone is wrong sometimes. Doesnt say > > >> > > >> a lot about your credibility. > > > > > >I can dig what you're saying - this should concern me why? :-) > > > > Because your comments about the 'old protocol' of Usenet was > > erroneous. By "old protocol" I mean NNTP. By "low data throughput" I mean compared to a HTML based internet. What's your problem with that? You don't really think that I'd take a troll named "Usenet Support Personnel" seriously, do you? Ha ha, I thought so. :-) |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:12:02 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote: >On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:00:04 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:03:48 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:01:40 -1000, dsi1 >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 8/5/2014 3:39 PM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:21:04 -1000, dsi1 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 8/5/2014 3:10 PM, Janet Wilder wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On 8/5/2014 8:00 PM, dsi1 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The NNTP servers still transfer data like it's 1999. :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Never been a problem for me. I don't do binaries. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> The low data throughput of this old protocol is pretty amazing in this >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> age of 20Mbps+ speeds. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There you go throwing around those buzzwords that you don't have a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> clue WTF they mean nor how they relate to the Real World. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The transmission protocol here is TCP/IP. The same as it is for >> >> >> >> >> >> >> practically every other protocol that connects you to your ISP and an >> >> >> >> >> >> >> eventual server. Your Usenet download/upload speed is limited by the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> exact same variables that affect transmission of web pages, email, or >> >> >> >> >> >> >> file transfers to/from your computer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >And this affects me how? :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Once again, somebody points out and explains how and why you're wrong >> >> >> >> >> >> about something - and your only response is some flippant remark. You >> >> >> >> >> >> have a real habit of doing that. I don't know what is so difficult >> >> >> >> >> >> about accepting you're wrong, everyone is wrong sometimes. Doesnt say >> >> >> >> >> >> a lot about your credibility. >> >> > >> >> >I can dig what you're saying - this should concern me why? :-) >> >> >> >> Because your comments about the 'old protocol' of Usenet was >> >> erroneous. > >By "old protocol" I mean NNTP. By "low data throughput" I mean compared to a HTML based internet. What's your problem with that? My problem is that I don't have mind-reading abilities. NNTP, OK. I never guessed you were referring to NNTP (why not just say that?) as I'm not clear on how NNTP causes 'low data throughput'? I suspect your terminology is suspect... if you mean HTML is more *efficient* from the distribution aspect... then yes. >You don't really think that I'd take a troll named "Usenet Support Personnel" seriously, do you? Ha ha, I thought so. :-) Oh, they are a troll? You guys love to throw that word around like it's confetti. I saw nothing in their post that was trolling. They were factually correct. And here you are, trying to debate the technicalities, and you're using google groups. Look above at the mess it makes, yet you don't seem to know or care. |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:12:02 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:00:04 AM UTC-10, Je�us wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >> >> wrote: >> >>>On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:03:48 AM UTC-10, Je�us wrote: >> >>>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:01:40 -1000, dsi1 >> >>>> >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >On 8/5/2014 3:39 PM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:21:04 -1000, dsi1 wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> On 8/5/2014 3:10 PM, Janet Wilder wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> On 8/5/2014 8:00 PM, dsi1 wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> The NNTP servers still transfer data like it's 1999. :-) >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> Never been a problem for me. I don't do binaries. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> The low data throughput of this old protocol is pretty amazing in this >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> age of 20Mbps+ speeds. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> There you go throwing around those buzzwords that you don't have a >> >>>> >> >>>> >> clue WTF they mean nor how they relate to the Real World. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> The transmission protocol here is TCP/IP. The same as it is for >> >>>> >> >>>> >> practically every other protocol that connects you to your ISP and an >> >>>> >> >>>> >> eventual server. Your Usenet download/upload speed is limited by the >> >>>> >> >>>> >> exact same variables that affect transmission of web pages, email, or >> >>>> >> >>>> >> file transfers to/from your computer. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >And this affects me how? :-) >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Once again, somebody points out and explains how and why you're wrong >> >>>> >> >>>> about something - and your only response is some flippant remark. You >> >>>> >> >>>> have a real habit of doing that. I don't know what is so difficult >> >>>> >> >>>> about accepting you're wrong, everyone is wrong sometimes. Doesnt say >> >>>> >> >>>> a lot about your credibility. >> >>> >> >>>I can dig what you're saying - this should concern me why? :-) >> >> Because your comments about the 'old protocol' of Usenet was >> >> erroneous. > > By "old protocol" I mean NNTP. By "low data throughput" I mean > compared to a HTML based internet. What's your problem with that? My problem is that you still don't make any sense and are just digging yourself deeper. The NNTP protocol has nothing to do with throughput/speed (and neither does HTML for that matter). It simply defines conversation between a client or news server and [another] news server. If you want to somehow compare the two in terms of speed, then NNTP has far less overhead than HTML which would allow raw data to transfer faster - but still both are over the TCP protocol. I'm not even going to ask what you mean by "HTML-based internet" because your answer will just be more no-brained double-talk. > You don't really think that I'd take a troll named "Usenet Support > Personnel" seriously, do you? Ha ha, I thought so. :-) Yeah, try and laugh it off, but you should care. Because she knows you're just talking out of your ass always trying to project yourself as some smooth-talking Mr. KnowItAll when it comes to any sort of technical issue. And she's exposing you for the dick you really are. |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:40:15 AM UTC-10, Je�us wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:12:02 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 > > wrote: > > > > >On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:00:04 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote: > > >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 > > >> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:03:48 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote: > > >> > > >> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:01:40 -1000, dsi1 > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > wrote: > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >On 8/5/2014 3:39 PM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote: > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:21:04 -1000, dsi1 wrote: > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >>> On 8/5/2014 3:10 PM, Janet Wilder wrote: > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >>>> On 8/5/2014 8:00 PM, dsi1 wrote: > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >>> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >>>>> The NNTP servers still transfer data like it's 1999. :-) > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >>>> Never been a problem for me. I don't do binaries. > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >>> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >>> The low data throughput of this old protocol is pretty amazing in this > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >>> age of 20Mbps+ speeds. > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> There you go throwing around those buzzwords that you don't have a > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> clue WTF they mean nor how they relate to the Real World. > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> The transmission protocol here is TCP/IP. The same as it is for > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> practically every other protocol that connects you to your ISP and an > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> eventual server. Your Usenet download/upload speed is limited by the > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> exact same variables that affect transmission of web pages, email, or > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> file transfers to/from your computer. > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >And this affects me how? :-) > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> Once again, somebody points out and explains how and why you're wrong > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> about something - and your only response is some flippant remark. You > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> have a real habit of doing that. I don't know what is so difficult > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> about accepting you're wrong, everyone is wrong sometimes. Doesnt say > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> a lot about your credibility. > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> >I can dig what you're saying - this should concern me why? :-) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Because your comments about the 'old protocol' of Usenet was > > >> > > >> erroneous. > > > > > >By "old protocol" I mean NNTP. By "low data throughput" I mean compared to a HTML based internet. What's your problem with that? > > > > My problem is that I don't have mind-reading abilities. NNTP, OK. I > > never guessed you were referring to NNTP (why not just say that?) as > > I'm not clear on how NNTP causes 'low data throughput'? I suspect your > > terminology is suspect... if you mean HTML is more *efficient* from > > the distribution aspect... then yes. > Your problem is that you don't read for comprehension. If your were following the thread, you'd know that I was talking about NNTP. I also never said anything about efficiency - just the small amount of data transfered. This was important back in the old days. In this modern world we don't notice this but the reality is that the same post on HTML based Google Groups would a lot longer to download if this were the 90s. > > > >You don't really think that I'd take a troll named "Usenet Support Personnel" seriously, do you? Ha ha, I thought so. :-) > > > > Oh, they are a troll? You guys love to throw that word around like > > it's confetti. I saw nothing in their post that was trolling. They > > were factually correct. > > > > And here you are, trying to debate the technicalities, and you're > > using google groups. Look above at the mess it makes, yet you don't > > seem to know or care. I do know that's it's kind of a mess on your 90s era reader. Do I care? Not really, cause on GG, it comes out clean and easy to read. I'm also using Thunderbird to read GG posts and you don't see me whinning endlessly about having to wade through all the crap because I'm a guy that doesn't complain about most things or feels like projecting a general aura of helplessness about him. I'll give you the last word on this. |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On 8/6/2014 5:40 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:12:02 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:00:04 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote: >>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:03:48 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote: >>> >>>>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:01:40 -1000, dsi1 >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> > wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> On 8/5/2014 3:39 PM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:21:04 -1000, dsi1 wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> On 8/5/2014 3:10 PM, Janet Wilder wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2014 8:00 PM, dsi1 wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> The NNTP servers still transfer data like it's 1999. :-) >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Never been a problem for me. I don't do binaries. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> The low data throughput of this old protocol is pretty amazing in this >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> age of 20Mbps+ speeds. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> There you go throwing around those buzzwords that you don't have a >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> clue WTF they mean nor how they relate to the Real World. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> The transmission protocol here is TCP/IP. The same as it is for >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> practically every other protocol that connects you to your ISP and an >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> eventual server. Your Usenet download/upload speed is limited by the >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> exact same variables that affect transmission of web pages, email, or >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> file transfers to/from your computer. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> And this affects me how? :-) >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Once again, somebody points out and explains how and why you're wrong >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> about something - and your only response is some flippant remark. You >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> have a real habit of doing that. I don't know what is so difficult >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> about accepting you're wrong, everyone is wrong sometimes. Doesnt say >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> a lot about your credibility. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I can dig what you're saying - this should concern me why? :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> Because your comments about the 'old protocol' of Usenet was >>> >>> erroneous. >> >> By "old protocol" I mean NNTP. By "low data throughput" I mean compared to a HTML based internet. What's your problem with that? > > My problem is that I don't have mind-reading abilities. NNTP, OK. I > never guessed you were referring to NNTP (why not just say that?) as > I'm not clear on how NNTP causes 'low data throughput'? I suspect your > terminology is suspect... if you mean HTML is more *efficient* from > the distribution aspect... then yes. > Yet web based HTML is so much more clunky. dsi1 posts from Google Groups, which I despise. Also tries to come across as very authoritative, which I doubt. >> You don't really think that I'd take a troll named "Usenet Support Personnel" seriously, do you? Ha ha, I thought so. :-) > > Oh, they are a troll? You guys love to throw that word around like > it's confetti. I saw nothing in their post that was trolling. They > were factually correct. > Oft times calling a troll a troll is factual. In this case, I don't care what the username is, it was true. > And here you are, trying to debate the technicalities, and you're > using google groups. Look above at the mess it makes, yet you don't > seem to know or care. > Kudos!  Jill |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 15:22:06 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote: >On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:40:15 AM UTC-10, Je�us wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:12:02 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:00:04 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:03:48 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:01:40 -1000, dsi1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 8/5/2014 3:39 PM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:21:04 -1000, dsi1 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 8/5/2014 3:10 PM, Janet Wilder wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On 8/5/2014 8:00 PM, dsi1 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The NNTP servers still transfer data like it's 1999. :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Never been a problem for me. I don't do binaries. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> The low data throughput of this old protocol is pretty amazing in this >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> age of 20Mbps+ speeds. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There you go throwing around those buzzwords that you don't have a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> clue WTF they mean nor how they relate to the Real World. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The transmission protocol here is TCP/IP. The same as it is for >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> practically every other protocol that connects you to your ISP and an >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> eventual server. Your Usenet download/upload speed is limited by the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> exact same variables that affect transmission of web pages, email, or >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> file transfers to/from your computer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And this affects me how? :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Once again, somebody points out and explains how and why you're wrong >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> about something - and your only response is some flippant remark. You >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> have a real habit of doing that. I don't know what is so difficult >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> about accepting you're wrong, everyone is wrong sometimes. Doesnt say >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a lot about your credibility. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >I can dig what you're saying - this should concern me why? :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Because your comments about the 'old protocol' of Usenet was >> >> >> >> >> >> erroneous. >> >> > >> >> >By "old protocol" I mean NNTP. By "low data throughput" I mean compared to a HTML based internet. What's your problem with that? >> >> >> >> My problem is that I don't have mind-reading abilities. NNTP, OK. I >> >> never guessed you were referring to NNTP (why not just say that?) as >> >> I'm not clear on how NNTP causes 'low data throughput'? I suspect your >> >> terminology is suspect... if you mean HTML is more *efficient* from >> >> the distribution aspect... then yes. >> > >Your problem is that you don't read for comprehension. If your were following the thread, you'd know that I was talking about NNTP. I know you were. You also referred to HTML. WTF are you talking about now? >I also never said anything about efficiency - just the small amount of data transfered. I said " if you mean HTML is more *efficient* from the distribution aspect... then yes" I never said you *said* that, obviously I was speculating/asking you if that's what you meant. And you criticise my reading comprehension... >This was important back in the old days. In this modern world we don't notice this Who is this 'we'? Not everyone has unlimited bandwidth. I and millions of others certainly do notice the difference to this day. >but the reality is that the same post on HTML based Google Groups would a lot longer to download if this were the 90s. Umm, what? Now you're arguing the exact opposite to what you began with? So now you agree with me and the other poster? Are you trolling? >> >You don't really think that I'd take a troll named "Usenet Support Personnel" seriously, do you? Ha ha, I thought so. :-) >> >> >> >> Oh, they are a troll? You guys love to throw that word around like >> >> it's confetti. I saw nothing in their post that was trolling. They >> >> were factually correct. >> >> >> >> And here you are, trying to debate the technicalities, and you're >> >> using google groups. Look above at the mess it makes, yet you don't >> >> seem to know or care. > >I do know that's it's kind of a mess on your 90s era reader. Do I care? Not really, cause on GG, it comes out clean and easy to read. I'm also using Thunderbird to read GG posts and you don't see me whinning endlessly about having to wade through all the crap because I'm a guy that doesn't complain about most things or feels like projecting a general aura of helplessness about him. I'll give you the last word on this. Case closed on you. No question at all, you're a complete dickhead. |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 18:23:01 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote: >On 8/6/2014 5:40 PM, Jeßus wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:12:02 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 > >> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:00:04 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote: >>>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >>> You don't really think that I'd take a troll named "Usenet Support Personnel" seriously, do you? Ha ha, I thought so. :-) >> >> Oh, they are a troll? You guys love to throw that word around like >> it's confetti. I saw nothing in their post that was trolling. They >> were factually correct. >> >Oft times calling a troll a troll is factual. In this case, I don't >care what the username is, it was true. Yup, know what you mean. Maybe they are a troll elsewhere, I don't know or much care. But they were factually correct without any trolling evident in their posts. >> And here you are, trying to debate the technicalities, and you're >> using google groups. Look above at the mess it makes, yet you don't >> seem to know or care. >> >Kudos! Check out his response to that comment of mine |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On 8/6/2014 12:23 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 8/6/2014 5:40 PM, Jeßus wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:12:02 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 > >> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:00:04 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote: >>>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:03:48 AM UTC-10, Je?us wrote: >>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:01:40 -1000, dsi1 >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On 8/5/2014 3:39 PM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:21:04 -1000, dsi1 wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2014 3:10 PM, Janet Wilder wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2014 8:00 PM, dsi1 wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The NNTP servers still transfer data like it's 1999. :-) >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Never been a problem for me. I don't do binaries. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> The low data throughput of this old protocol is pretty amazing >>>>>>>>> in this >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> age of 20Mbps+ speeds. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> There you go throwing around those buzzwords that you don't have a >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> clue WTF they mean nor how they relate to the Real World. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> The transmission protocol here is TCP/IP. The same as it is for >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> practically every other protocol that connects you to your ISP >>>>>>>> and an >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> eventual server. Your Usenet download/upload speed is limited >>>>>>>> by the >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> exact same variables that affect transmission of web pages, >>>>>>>> email, or >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> file transfers to/from your computer. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> And this affects me how? :-) >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Once again, somebody points out and explains how and why you're wrong >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> about something - and your only response is some flippant remark. You >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> have a real habit of doing that. I don't know what is so difficult >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> about accepting you're wrong, everyone is wrong sometimes. Doesnt say >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> a lot about your credibility. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I can dig what you're saying - this should concern me why? :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Because your comments about the 'old protocol' of Usenet was >>>> >>>> erroneous. >>> >>> By "old protocol" I mean NNTP. By "low data throughput" I mean >>> compared to a HTML based internet. What's your problem with that? >> >> My problem is that I don't have mind-reading abilities. NNTP, OK. I >> never guessed you were referring to NNTP (why not just say that?) as >> I'm not clear on how NNTP causes 'low data throughput'? I suspect your >> terminology is suspect... if you mean HTML is more *efficient* from >> the distribution aspect... then yes. >> > Yet web based HTML is so much more clunky. dsi1 posts from Google > Groups, which I despise. Also tries to come across as very > authoritative, which I doubt. I come across as authoritative because I have rules against posting about other posters in the third person, try not to bitch and whine about my personal problems, and I try to stick with the facts, not opinions. I also do not comment on how other posters choose to post because that's none of my business. I got a shitload of other rules that I follow. Looks like I gotta add some more. As far as Google Groups goes, I'm aware of it's problems. There's some neat features and some very bad ones. I have posted about these things many times. What you don't know is my personal feelings about it. That's pretty much irrelevant. What is relevant is that there's no way I will load in a news reader and open an NNTP account on a computer that I do not own. When I post using GG, it's because it's on a computer that's not mine or because the NNTP server is down. > >>> You don't really think that I'd take a troll named "Usenet Support >>> Personnel" seriously, do you? Ha ha, I thought so. :-) >> >> Oh, they are a troll? You guys love to throw that word around like >> it's confetti. I saw nothing in their post that was trolling. They >> were factually correct. >> > Oft times calling a troll a troll is factual. In this case, I don't > care what the username is, it was true. > >> And here you are, trying to debate the technicalities, and you're >> using google groups. Look above at the mess it makes, yet you don't >> seem to know or care. >> > Kudos! > > Jill |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 17:08:59 -0500, Usenet Support Personnel
> wrote: > Yeah, try and laugh it off, but you should care. Because she knows > you're just talking out of your ass always trying to project yourself > as some smooth-talking Mr. KnowItAll when it comes to any sort of > technical issue. And she's exposing you for the dick you really are. Between the two of you, he's humorous and you're the dick. -- Never trust a dog to watch your food. |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On 8/6/2014 12:08 PM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
> > My problem is that you still don't make any sense and are just digging > yourself deeper. The NNTP protocol has nothing to do with > throughput/speed (and neither does HTML for that matter). It simply > defines conversation between a client or news server and [another] > news server. If you want to somehow compare the two in terms of > speed, then NNTP has far less overhead than HTML which would allow raw > data to transfer faster - but still both are over the TCP protocol. > > I'm not even going to ask what you mean by "HTML-based internet" > because your answer will just be more no-brained double-talk. > >> You don't really think that I'd take a troll named "Usenet Support >> Personnel" seriously, do you? Ha ha, I thought so. :-) > > Yeah, try and laugh it off, but you should care. Because she knows > you're just talking out of your ass always trying to project yourself > as some smooth-talking Mr. KnowItAll when it comes to any sort of > technical issue. And she's exposing you for the dick you really are. > Please continue your rants on this subject Usenet Support Personnel. It's gratifying to see the lengths you'll go to to get the attention of little ole me. I'm just happy that now I got two ways to ignore your nasty-ass. Carry on little buddy. :-) |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT News service
On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 22:01:16 -1000, dsi1
> wrote: > Please continue your rants on this subject Usenet Support Personnel. > It's gratifying to see the lengths you'll go to to get the attention of > little ole me. I'm just happy that now I got two ways to ignore your > nasty-ass. Carry on little buddy. :-) Good old RFC has someone for everyone, don't it? -- Never trust a dog to watch your food. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT News service | General Cooking | |||
| OT News service | General Cooking | |||
| OT News service | General Cooking | |||
| Free News Service | Barbecue | |||
![Jeßus[_3_] is offline](https://www.foodbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
