On 2016-12-05 4:25 PM, cshenk wrote:

>>> Keep in mind too that new people show up all the time
>>> on the internet. They know nothing, just as we ALL
>>> knew nothing at first.
>>>
>>> We should be tolerant to new people, especially on Usenet.
>>
>> The fact that I slagged Google Gropers when I am one completely
>> seems to have missed you.
>>
>> The posting date/time appear in the upper-right corner of the post
>> in Google Groups (at least, the way I have it configured). It's
>> pretty easy to miss.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> I don't mind them either, if they are interesting posts.
>


I think we can make an exception for the news that show up from food
banter. The posts all have an uncanny resemblance to each other. As I
recall, they start off with an introduction and explanation that they
are new to our forum and are looking forward to interesting posts. They
take a run and disappear. I don't think any of them have posted a second
time. Lots of new people come by, but not with that prescribed introduction.

On 2016-12-05 4:26 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 3:09:15 PM UTC-5, Jill McQuown wrote:
>> On 12/5/2016 1:20 PM, Cheri wrote:

>> "I found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it. A little
>> while back, I was browsing through newsgroups, just like you are now,"
>>
>> Uh... how many of us just happened to be "browsing through newsgroups"?
>> TROLLS and Spammers do. LOL
>>
>> Before plonking, you should know "you could
>> make thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial
>> investment of $6.00!"
>>
>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>> Jill
>
> Hi, my name is Dave Rhodes...
>

I wonder how many others are getting the same sorts of emails I have
been getting lately about how my email server is going to or is holding
all my mail for some reason. While they claim to be from Symatico (my
provider), Bell (owner of Sympatico) or from Microsoft, they have yahoo
and gmail addresses.

I wonder how many people are dumb enough to believe that their email is
being held when they continue to find new mail in their inbox.

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 3:59:32 PM UTC-6, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> I wonder how many others are getting the same sorts of emails I have
> been getting lately about how my email server is going to or is holding
> all my mail for some reason. While they claim to be from Symatico (my
> provider), Bell (owner of Sympatico) or from Microsoft, they have yahoo
> and gmail addresses.
>
> I wonder how many people are dumb enough to believe that their email is
> being held when they continue to find new mail in their inbox.
>
>
BellSouth is my provider but I use Microsoft's Windows Live
Mail and haven't seen any such notices.

On 2016-12-05 4:26 PM, cshenk wrote:

>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>> Jill
>
> Bozo-binned that person already.
>


Why bother to filter them? They post once and disappear. They are not
likely to come back with the same username. It is not unlike one our our
resident nymshifting psychotic assholes who was off his meds last week
and posted a bunch of vitriolic nonsense last week. There is an obvious
pattern to the silliness. There will be a new username with a bunch of
idiotic posts. Then there will be another new name and a bunch of
similar rants. The deluded fool is barely clever enough to realize what
an ass he is under one name and that he is likely to be filtered or
simply ignored, so he carries on under a different name. It takes him
time and effort to type those idiotic posts over a span of an hour or
two, but when someone downloads a packet of new posts they quickly see
two dozen posts from a new username.

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:06:33 -0800 (PST), Roy >
wrote:

>On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 12:45:23 PM UTC-7, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-5, Roy wrote:
>> > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 7:02:07 AM UTC-7, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> > > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 8:35:21 AM UTC-5, Nancy2 wrote:
>> > > > Who keeps dredging up these old posts??? Stop it.
>> > > >
>> > > > N.
>> > >
>> > > People who use Google Groups. They're idiots.
>> > >
>> > > Cindy Hamilton
>> >
>> > Blanket statement. Blanket statement.
>> > Blanket statement. Blanket statement.
>> > Blanket statement. Blanket statement.
>> > Blanket statement. Blanket statement.
>> >
>> > You can't prove that Cindy.
>> > ======
>>
>> I figured the fact that I post from Google Groups made
>> my statement self-evident.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
>Superficially, there is nothing in your postings that tell me that you are
>posting from Google Groups. I can find the header info if I search for it.
>I post from Google Groups because it is quick and uncomplicated.
>My service provider would just as soon see users not post to any groups
>as they use up system resources. I'm paying plenty for the service so they
>can go to Hell.
>=====

None of that makes a great deal of sense, Roy.

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 08:48:24 +1100, Bruce >
wrote:

>In article >, Roy
>says...
>>
>> Superficially, there is nothing in your postings that tell me that you are
>> posting from Google Groups.
>
>That's because Cindy's one of the few who manage to create clean posts
>with GG. This one of yours is clean too, btw. No endless lines or dramas
>when you quote the text etc.

No attributions, either. Which sucks. Cindy manages to include
attributions.

>> I can find the header info if I search for it.
>> I post from Google Groups because it is quick and uncomplicated.

I think it is far more inconvenient compared to using a proper
newsreader <shrug>.

>> My service provider would just as soon see users not post to any groups
>> as they use up system resources.
>>I'm paying plenty for the service so they
>> can go to Hell.

I'm baffled how or why posting to Usenet would use "more system
resources" for his service provider. Most ISPs stopped providing their
own news server many years ago and everyone knows that there's plenty
of pay or free servers out there.

>> =====
>
>They may not want to run a news server, but if you want to post using
>one of the free, public news servers, they won't mind that at all,
>because there's little you can do on the Internet that's less of a
>burden on the system than posting to text-only newsgroups.

Yep. Reading/posting to text only newsgroups uses less bandwidth than
just about anything else on the Internet.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:37:33 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> Nancy2 wrote:
>> > Who keeps dredging up these old posts??? Stop it.
>> >
>> > N.
>>
>> People who use Google Groups. They're idiots.
>
>Old posts don't bother me even if I've seen them before.
>Keep in mind, not everyone was here back then and it
>can be useful info to some even now.
>
>Keep in mind too that new people show up all the time
>on the internet. They know nothing, just as we ALL
>knew nothing at first.
>
>We should be tolerant to new people, especially on Usenet.

I specifically disagree with that when it comes to Usenet.

The intelligence bar used to be much higher on Usenet, when Google
took over the Deja database, the bar became so low you now need to be
a limbo dancer. There's plenty of other options for newbies who think
the Internet is something you can only see through a web browser, such
as faecebook, for example. The sad thing is, google groups could be
quite okay for Usenet, but they've designed not to follow basic Usenet
conventions.

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:59:28 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 12/5/2016 12:52 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> The posting date/time appear in the upper-right corner of the post
>> in Google Groups (at least, the way I have it configured). It's
>> pretty easy to miss.

You don't even get the time of posting when using a smart phone, it's
very, very basic compared to the options you get when using a PC, as I
found out recently.

>Thing is, most people who use Google Groups to access RFC rarely come
>back. It's unlikely we'll ever hear from "Joe" again.

Much like the crap from the 'banter' sites, etc.

Earlier this year, I saw a GG reply to a *1993* post <G>.

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 9:45:23 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-5, Roy wrote:
> > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 7:02:07 AM UTC-7, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 8:35:21 AM UTC-5, Nancy2 wrote:
> > > > Who keeps dredging up these old posts??? Stop it.
> > > >
> > > > N.
> > >
> > > People who use Google Groups. They're idiots.
> > >
> > > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> > Blanket statement. Blanket statement.
> > Blanket statement. Blanket statement.
> > Blanket statement. Blanket statement.
> > Blanket statement. Blanket statement.
> >
> > You can't prove that Cindy.
> > ======
>
> I figured the fact that I post from Google Groups made
> my statement self-evident.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Yes, yes, everything is going exactly as we have planned...

The dark side

"dsi1" wrote in message
...

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 9:45:23 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-5, Roy wrote:
> > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 7:02:07 AM UTC-7, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 8:35:21 AM UTC-5, Nancy2 wrote:
> > > > Who keeps dredging up these old posts??? Stop it.
> > > >
> > > > N.
> > >
> > > People who use Google Groups. They're idiots.
> > >
> > > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> > Blanket statement. Blanket statement.
> > Blanket statement. Blanket statement.
> > Blanket statement. Blanket statement.
> > Blanket statement. Blanket statement.
> >
> > You can't prove that Cindy.
> > ======
>
> I figured the fact that I post from Google Groups made
> my statement self-evident.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Yes, yes, everything is going exactly as we have planned...

The dark side

==========

LOL you two are baddddddddddd))))



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Roy, +1 on Google Groups.

Jill, you are painting a whole group of ordinary, useful users with a broad
brush of mistaken stereotypical intolerance, if you know what I mean.

Google Groups users are far from the worst abusers of Usenet resources.

N.

In article >,
Nancy2 says...
>
> Roy, +1 on Google Groups.
>
> Jill, you are painting a whole group of ordinary, useful users with a broad
> brush of mistaken stereotypical intolerance, if you know what I mean.
>
> Google Groups users are far from the worst abusers of Usenet resources.

But nobody knows what you're replying to.

In article >,
says...
>
> Roy, +1 on Google Groups.
>
> Jill, you are painting a whole group of ordinary, useful users with a broad
> brush of mistaken stereotypical intolerance, if you know what I mean.
>
> Google Groups users are far from the worst abusers of Usenet resources.
>
> N.

But Nancy, your post is a perfect demonstration of the annoying GG
disruption of usenet conversations. We do NOT all see threads laid out
in the same order you do.

You haven't quoted what Roy and Jill said that you agree or disagree
with. We don't even know know which post by Jill, or Roy, you're
responding to; or when they wrote it.

Janet UK

On 12/9/2016 7:00 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> Roy, +1 on Google Groups.
>>
>> Jill, you are painting a whole group of ordinary, useful users with a broad
>> brush of mistaken stereotypical intolerance, if you know what I mean.
>>
>> Google Groups users are far from the worst abusers of Usenet resources.
>>
>> N.
>
> But Nancy, your post is a perfect demonstration of the annoying GG
> disruption of usenet conversations. We do NOT all see threads laid out
> in the same order you do.
>
> You haven't quoted what Roy and Jill said that you agree or disagree
> with. We don't even know know which post by Jill, or Roy, you're
> responding to; or when they wrote it.
>
> Janet UK
>
>
Thank you, Janet UK. It's impossible if they can't figure out how to
quote, to know what the heck they're talking about.

Jill