Seriously. Who's pulling this joke on the entire tea world?

--Blair

And why does anyone want to pay $400 a share for Google when this is
the way it treats Usenet?

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> And why does anyone want to pay $400 a share for Google when this is
> the way it treats Usenet?
>
What the heck are you talking about, and what has it got to do with Earl
Grey?

dmh

"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> And why does anyone want to pay $400 a share for Google when this is
> the way it treats Usenet?

If you're bothered[1] by your inability to quote from the post you're
replying to, see

http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html
[1]Not that you asked, but I'm bothered by your inability to quote
from the post you're replying to.

No, I'm bothered by the fact that it doesn't actually post messages
when it posts them, causing me to re-post them and look like a moron.

--Blair
"Go ahead. Gainsay is thine."

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> No, I'm bothered by the fact that it doesn't actually post messages
> when it posts them, causing me to re-post them and look like a moron.

Looks to me like you're doing that on your own without any help from
Google.


stePH
--
in cup: Ahmad Earl Grey

I'd say 95% of my Google posts are no delay. The remaining several
minutes,hours but no longer than two sweeps of the hour hand. No lost
posts. I've noticed around any holiday there maybe an extended lag. I
think it is maintenance. I've learned to trust Google and since it is
'free' who is complaining?

Jim

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> No, I'm bothered by the fact that it doesn't actually post messages
> when it posts them, causing me to re-post them and look like a moron.
>
> --Blair
> "Go ahead. Gainsay is thine."

"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> No, I'm bothered by the fact that it doesn't actually post messages
> when it posts them, causing me to re-post them and look like a moron.

I'm afraid that if you're looking for instant propagation, Usenet's
the wrong medium; it isn't just Google Groups as a Usenet provider.

You're still omitting the context for your replies, I notice.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

In article .com>,
Space Cowboy > wrote:
>I'd say 95% of my Google posts are no delay. The remaining several
>minutes,hours but no longer than two sweeps of the hour hand. No lost
>posts. I've noticed around any holiday there maybe an extended lag. I
>think it is maintenance. I've learned to trust Google and since it is
>'free' who is complaining?

I am complaining. Google provides a horribly crude interface to Usenet
and so newbies come in thinking that's the same thing everyone else sees.
Also they purchased the old dejanews archives and have progressively been
making access to them more and more ugly and clumsy. Now even folks like
Blair are winding up stock on it.

Blair, here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

My service provider MSN.COM doesn't have a newgroup server. It's just
a matter of time before yours disappears. I like Google Groups better
than any newsgroup reader I've tried. The most recent threads sort to
the top of the webpage. You don't have to worry about the ones you've
read because IE will highlight any new ones. Google keeps them
threaded so changing Subject has no effect. All the recent replys on
one single webpage more or less. I use sequential view so last post
by simple END key with IE. If push comes to shove switch to the
threaded view to find out who is talking to who when they don't quote
the post. I've done that when I see partial quoted posts. The most
important Google supports international languages once you learn the
trick. If you're a regular poster you can refresh your memory using
Search. All my posts archived by DejaNews are still available. You
can delete old posts which may come back to haunt you. If it isn't
archived by Google you didn't say it. I probably wouldn't go back to a
newsgroup reader. Usenet has it problems with abusers and the clueless
but that has nothing to do with Google. My main problem with Google I
don't like anykind of filtering because of the country I live in or to
protect me from adult material. I'm waiting for some report of Google
and HSA pruning the archives of information usefull to terrorists and
political activists involved in peaceful lawfull assembly and protest.

Jim

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article .com>,
> Space Cowboy > wrote:
> >I'd say 95% of my Google posts are no delay. The remaining several
> >minutes,hours but no longer than two sweeps of the hour hand. No lost
> >posts. I've noticed around any holiday there maybe an extended lag. I
> >think it is maintenance. I've learned to trust Google and since it is
> >'free' who is complaining?
>
> I am complaining. Google provides a horribly crude interface to Usenet
> and so newbies come in thinking that's the same thing everyone else sees.
> Also they purchased the old dejanews archives and have progressively been
> making access to them more and more ugly and clumsy. Now even folks like
> Blair are winding up stock on it.
>
> Blair, here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself...
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"stePH" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> No, I'm bothered by the fact that it doesn't actually post messages
>> when it posts them, causing me to re-post them and look like a moron.
>
> Looks to me like you're doing that on your own without any help from
> Google.
>
>
> stePH
> --
> in cup: Ahmad Earl Grey
>
Now stePH, I've come to know you through your posts as someone who is above
comments like that.

Marlene Wood wrote:
> Now stePH, I've come to know you through your posts as someone who is above
> comments like that.

I'm not above comments like that, in the same way that the ground is
not above the sky :-) Particularly when I see something like the
initial post (which smacks of a troll).
If the OP has a problem with Earl Grey, he might actually state his
grievance rather than just post something obscurely snarky.

stePH
--
in cup: 2003 brick sheng puer (from Tao of Tea)
(dregs of) 2nd infusion

>he might actually state his
>grievance rather than just post something obscurely snarky.

Who was being obscure?

--Blair

The problem wasn't instant propagation. It's loading in a timely
manner. Something delayed the original message's appearance in
Google's own database for a considerable time, making it look like
nothing had posted, and a check of the group confirmed that. But when
I reposted, both appeared.

The thing that will probably cause me the most reason to stop using
Google Groups, though, is that it has a posting limit. And doesn't say
what the limit is.

As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader. I wouldn't post
anywhere without one.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader. I wouldn't post
> anywhere without one.

I've found it good etiquette to quote messages for context. You really
don't know what varied ways folks might be accessing your message on Usenet.

Steve

Marlene 1/4/06

>
> "stePH" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>> No, I'm bothered by the fact that it doesn't actually post messages
>>> when it posts them, causing me to re-post them and look like a moron.
>>
>> Looks to me like you're doing that on your own without any help from
>> Google.
>>
>>
>> stePH
>> --
>> in cup: Ahmad Earl Grey
>>
> Now stePH, I've come to know you through your posts as someone who is above
> comments like that.
>
>
Although StePH might be "above" such comments, he is still quite correct in
his assessment.
Michael

1/4/06


>
> Marlene Wood wrote:
>> Now stePH, I've come to know you through your posts as someone who is above
>> comments like that.
>
> I'm not above comments like that, in the same way that the ground is
> not above the sky :-) Particularly when I see something like the
> initial post (which smacks of a troll).
> If the OP has a problem with Earl Grey, he might actually state his
> grievance rather than just post something obscurely snarky.
>
> stePH


StePH, in all fairness and in my case, if I had to refrain from comments
obscurely snarky, I might as well close down the shop and go home.
Michael
drinking Oriental Beauty

Blair P. 1/4/06


> The problem wasn't instant propagation. It's loading in a timely
> manner. Something delayed the original message's appearance in
> Google's own database for a considerable time, making it look like
> nothing had posted, and a check of the group confirmed that. But when
> I reposted, both appeared.
>
> The thing that will probably cause me the most reason to stop using
> Google Groups, though, is that it has a posting limit. And doesn't say
> what the limit is.
>
> As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader. I wouldn't post
> anywhere without one.
>
> --Blair

Blair, with all due respect, and speaking of context, you left contextual
text out of your post above. I wonder if I could ask you to include a
contextualizing snippet of the old post when you respond. Thanks.
Michael

I think the Google assurance of seeing one's post rolled up
'momentarily' is more true than not. I've never lost a post with
Google. There is nothing in the Google psyche that depends on a double
post besides serendipity. If you don't believe me look at the current
share price. Google has a threaded view. You only need it when people
don't quote. If there is a posting limit it is because people try to
post video or audio files in non Usenet format with appropriate
reassembly instructions. The standard formats for Usenet audio video
posts are automatically deleted by Google no matter where they come
from. It is a function of blanket censorship more than storage space.
To this extent I think Google is abusing Usenet and should cease the
practice or cease archiving. Most people complain about software
because it makes them look stupid than coding bugs.

Jim

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> The problem wasn't instant propagation. It's loading in a timely
> manner. Something delayed the original message's appearance in
> Google's own database for a considerable time, making it look like
> nothing had posted, and a check of the group confirmed that. But when
> I reposted, both appeared.
>
> The thing that will probably cause me the most reason to stop using
> Google Groups, though, is that it has a posting limit. And doesn't say
> what the limit is.
>
> As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader. I wouldn't post
> anywhere without one.
>
> --Blair

"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> [...]
> As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader.

I have one too.

> I wouldn't post anywhere without one.

Sorry, that doesn't get you off the hook. When you reply to a long
post that makes a number of points, it's only fair to your readers to
make it clear which points you're responding to. To achieve that, I
recommend replying inline to text you quote.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

>I wonder if I could ask you to include a contextualizing snippet of the old post

I'd prefer not to have to do so in every case.

Track back on the thread (you do have a threaded
newsreader, don't you? I mean, *gosh*, it's 2006 already) and you'll
see plainly what I'm responding to. Though if it were relevant, I'd
include it.

--Blair

I actually saw one lost last week; there was an error message,
and I clicked the back button, and the edit was gone.

I've since discovered that if I'd clicked the "Reply" widget it
would have reopened the edit box, and my text would probably
still be in there (Firefox is stickier than IE for edit-box contents,
so YMMV).

Given that Google's not a high-reliability system (reliability may
be a forethought to some google coders, but I'm not expecting
them to have done a FMEA on it nor to be standardized as to
their diligence) I'll just have to take care to preserve content
myself.

--Blair
"ctrl-A ctrl-C tab tab tab enter"

Lewis 1/5/06

> "Blair P. Houghton" > writes:
>
>> [...]
>> As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader.
>
> I have one too.
>
>> I wouldn't post anywhere without one.
>
> Sorry, that doesn't get you off the hook. When you reply to a long
> post that makes a number of points, it's only fair to your readers to
> make it clear which points you're responding to. To achieve that, I
> recommend replying inline to text you quote.

Lew, that's a good idea. It works especially well for me since the two
programs I use color code the generations of text and also indicate the
generations with lines or other marks. I understand though that some
programs don't separate the generations, so it would be a problem for them.
Adding the name of the poster to the top of each paragraph, which I learned
from other posters here, solves that problem. In any event, those of us who
feel more comfortable in a contextualized world appreciate it.

Michael

Blair P. 1/6/06


>> I wonder if I could ask you to include a contextualizing snippet of the old
>> post
>
> I'd prefer not to have to do so in every case.

It would not be necessary in "every case," but it would be appreciated in
those cases where it is.
>
> Track back on the thread (you do have a threaded
> newsreader, don't you? I mean, *gosh*, it's 2006 already) and you'll
> see plainly what I'm responding to. Though if it were relevant, I'd
> include it.

I do have a threaded newsreader. It is unfair to expect your reader to sift
back through a thread's history to find your referent. At this point, I
agree to disagree with you.

Michael

The only error I've ever seen to the Post Message button is Server Not
Available. Sending the information in the Text Message box back to
Google is a function of your Web Browser and ISP. That is the Modus
Operandi of the Client Server model of the Internet. The only
consistent glitch I can replicate in Google is keep the edit window
open a long time before the Post Message. Occasionally it return you
to the edit window again with the same information like you didn't do a
Post Message. This is because in the meantime other Usenet posts have
been rolled up in the same thread so your position has changed. You
hit the Post Message one more time to get the 'wait momentarily'
message while you are properly positioned in the thread. I don't even
worry about any backup strategy to my posts anymore. I cut my teeth on
Google when 24 hour postings were the standard and not momentarily. I
also log in and out for each post because the Internet is a stateless
system that is there is no guarantee you will be recognized as a Client
the next time you use the Post method expected by the Server. There
are ways around this conundrum but no standards. BTW the non standard
communications are also used by viruses.

Jim

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> I actually saw one lost last week; there was an error message,
> and I clicked the back button, and the edit was gone.
>
> I've since discovered that if I'd clicked the "Reply" widget it
> would have reopened the edit box, and my text would probably
> still be in there (Firefox is stickier than IE for edit-box contents,
> so YMMV).
>
> Given that Google's not a high-reliability system (reliability may
> be a forethought to some google coders, but I'm not expecting
> them to have done a FMEA on it nor to be standardized as to
> their diligence) I'll just have to take care to preserve content
> myself.
>
> --Blair
> "ctrl-A ctrl-C tab tab tab enter"

"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> >I wonder if I could ask you to include a contextualizing snippet of
> >the old post
>
> I'd prefer not to have to do so in every case.
>
> Track back on the thread (you do have a threaded newsreader, don't
> you? I mean, *gosh*, it's 2006 already) and you'll see plainly what
> I'm responding to.

Let's think of it in terms of economics. There's only one of you, and
on the other side we have the (possibly dwindling) multitude of your
readers. You could do the work yourself, or *each* of your readers
could do it. Which way is more efficient?

>Though if it were relevant, I'd include it.

You appear to be a recent convert to Contextualism, brother, but we
welcome all reformed sinners.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Threaded views are an eyesore. It is normally used for genesis and
scope of more than one post. It isn't used to verify that someone
simply is or isn't talking to themself.

Jim

Michael Plant wrote:
> Blair P. 1/6/06
>
>
> >> I wonder if I could ask you to include a contextualizing snippet of the old
> >> post
> >
> > I'd prefer not to have to do so in every case.
>
> It would not be necessary in "every case," but it would be appreciated in
> those cases where it is.
> >
> > Track back on the thread (you do have a threaded
> > newsreader, don't you? I mean, *gosh*, it's 2006 already) and you'll
> > see plainly what I'm responding to. Though if it were relevant, I'd
> > include it.
>
> I do have a threaded newsreader. It is unfair to expect your reader to sift
> back through a thread's history to find your referent. At this point, I
> agree to disagree with you.
>
> Michael

"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Seriously. Who's pulling this joke on the entire tea world?
>
> --Blair
>

FLUSH!

Lewis Perin wrote:
> "Blair P. Houghton" > writes:
>
> > [...]
> > As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader.
>
> I have one too.
>
> > I wouldn't post anywhere without one.
>
> Sorry, that doesn't get you off the hook.

There is no hook. Are you presuming to be the king of Usenet?

> When you reply to a long
> post that makes a number of points, it's only fair to your readers to
> make it clear which points you're responding to. To achieve that, I
> recommend replying inline to text you quote.

I do so when it's necessary and efficient, to me. When it's not,
I won't bother.

You're responsible for understanding what you're reading. I'm not
responsible for your misunderstanding it. I could cross-index
every word to the moment I learned it in school, and you could
still misunderstand the meanings of them. That's not my problem.
If you need more context than you got, you know where to find it.

--Blair

>Let's think of it in terms of economics. There's only one of you, and
on the other side we have the (possibly dwindling) multitude...

That's not economics, it's politics, which indicates that you
either don't understand what you're saying or are dissembling
for a purpose.

>From an economic standpoint, I will quote as little as I desire,
and you will understand as little as you desire. We'll see who
loses the most.

--Blair

In article >,
Michael Plant > wrote:

> Lew, that's a good idea. It works especially well for me since the two
> programs I use color code the generations of text and also indicate the
> generations with lines or other marks. I understand though that some
> programs don't separate the generations, so it would be a problem for them.
> Adding the name of the poster to the top of each paragraph, which I learned
> from other posters here, solves that problem. In any event, those of us who
> feel more comfortable in a contextualized world appreciate it.

Another feature on most newsreaders that many people don't
know about is the quote highlight thing. You just drag your mouse
over just the part of the post you wish to appear in your reply,
and select it, so that it becomes highlighted. THEN you hit the
'reply' button, and when your page comes up it will contain only
what you highlighted previously, along with the proper attribution.

I hope the above is intelligible.

pilo_ > writes:

> [...]
>
> I hope the above is intelligible.

Would you mind if I use that as my new signature?

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

[Blair]
>As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader.
[...]
[Blair]
>I do so when it's necessary and efficient, to me. When it's not,
>I won't bother.
[...]


This whole thread would be a great case study for an "Effective
Communication Skills" seminar.

"What we have here.... is a failure... to communicate"
(cant figure out how to put that southern drawl in there)

Not quoting pertinent points in a long thread is simply ineffective
communications. Consider these points:

1) It is a fallacy to "assume" that readers will have a threaded
Usenet client.

2) Don't assume that your audience is even Usenet savvy. The
proliferation of various http Usenet clients has opened the door to
many users who do not even know what the Usenet is, or for that matter
what a "thread" is.

3) Even if the reader does have a threaded client it is inconsiderate
to force them to sort through any number of previous posts just to
understand your context.

4) It is widely accepted and time honored "Netiquette" to judicially
quote the context in a threaded medium. Hundreds upon hundreds of
resources can be found that clearly document this, for instance
http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/repl.htm or
http://www.zedtoo.demon.co.uk/jcode/basic.html
and I highly recommend reading http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
in its entirety.

The bottom line is if your intended audience does not understand your
context then you are NOT communicating effectively. If you don't care
about communicating effectively then why bother at all?

That's my 2 cents worth,

Mike Petro
www.pu-erh.net





Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net

dickface

Apologizing in advance for the tedium,

"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> Lewis Perin wrote:
> > "Blair P. Houghton" > writes:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader.
> >
> > I have one too.
> >
> > > I wouldn't post anywhere without one.
> >
> > Sorry, that doesn't get you off the hook.
>
> There is no hook. Are you presuming to be the king of Usenet?

I was trying to be the slightest bit colorful in warning that your
position was still vulnerable to the argument immediately following.

> > When you reply to a long post that makes a number of points, it's
> > only fair to your readers to make it clear which points you're
> > responding to. To achieve that, I recommend replying inline to
> > text you quote.
>
> I do so when it's necessary and efficient, to me. When it's not, I
> won't bother.

So your readers' needs are unworthy of consideration?

> You're responsible for understanding what you're reading. I'm not
> responsible for your misunderstanding it. I could cross-index every
> word to the moment I learned it in school, and you could still
> misunderstand the meanings of them. That's not my problem. If you
> need more context than you got, you know where to find it.

That sounds like a Yes.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> >Let's think of it in terms of economics. There's only one of you, and
> >on the other side we have the (possibly dwindling) multitude...
>
> That's not economics, it's politics, which indicates that you
> either don't understand what you're saying or are dissembling
> for a purpose.

I was about to reply that my argument was economic because it (the
part you snipped) was about efficiency:

You could do the work yourself, or *each* of your readers could do
it. Which way is more efficient?

But, come to think of it, there *is* a political assumption in there.
I was assuming that the "normal" point of view, the one governing what
is to be optimized in an economic sense, was that of the whole
community following the thread. But of course, in the abstract,
there's nothing to recommend the community's interest as superior to
your own.

> >From an economic standpoint, I will quote as little as I desire,
> and you will understand as little as you desire. We'll see who
> loses the most.

Well, I think we understand each other now.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Space Cowboy wrote:
> I also log in and out for each post because the Internet is a stateless
> system that is there is no guarantee you will be recognized as a Client
> the next time you use the Post method expected by the Server. There
> are ways around this conundrum but no standards. BTW the non standard
> communications are also used by viruses.
>
> Jim
>

I don’t think there is any need to login and logout for each post, HTTP
protocol is stateless (Internet is too broad a term) but the most common
way to track state is thru cookies, so I am pretty sure they know who
you are, and the fact that your login is 10 or 20 min old should not
make any difference, however Google can use some timeout, so if you were
inactive for some time they can log you out. But I don’t use browser to
post messages to this group and could not be sure if Google have timeout
and of the amount of time before timeout.

Oleg

Girls, when you're done trying to pretend that I am required to
care what you think, we'll get on with things.

--Blair

>This whole thread would be a great case study for an "Effective
>Communication Skills" seminar.

Only in the sense that nobody quite understands that
I'm perfectly happy with not making things easier for you.

If you need a threaded newsreader, get one.

--Blair

1/7/06

> dickface

Great comment, crymad! No need for context
here?

Best,
michael