C++ How to Program, 7/E Deitel & Deitel instructors solution manual ch 1-27 is available at affordable prices. Email at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com if you need to buy this. All emails will be answered ASAP.

SolutionPerson

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 2:11:37 PM12/11/09

to

C++ How to Program, 7/E Deitel & Deitel instructors solution manual
ch 1-27 is available at affordable prices. Email at
allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com if you need to buy this. All emails
will be answered ASAP.

shio...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 12:35:19 PM3/12/13

to

SolutionPerson於 2009年12月12日星期六UTC+8上午3時11分37秒寫道：

another fraud?

Keith Thompson

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 2:58:05 PM3/12/13

to

shio...@gmail.com writes:
> [attribution deleted]
>> [content deleted]
>
> another fraud?

Another spam, which I wouldn't have seen if you hadn't reposted
it, since it has already been deleted on the news server I use.
Please don't post followups to obvious spam.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Hans-Bernhard Bröker

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 4:17:51 PM3/12/13

to

On 12.03.2013 19:58, Keith Thompson wrote:

> Please don't post followups to obvious spam.

... and if you really have to, try to at least be quick about it. Over
_three_years_ after the original post, you can't seriously still be in
doubt whether that was fraudulent, now can you?

OTOH, there's been a surge of people answering incredibly old postings
recently, without so much as a hint that they're aware of what they're
doing. The other common feature of these postings is that they're all
from Google Groups.

So it appears Google Groups' latest attempt to finally bury USENET under
a mountain of garbage was to completely blow their users' ability to
notice the age of the posts they're answering to.

Shao Miller

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 6:46:36 PM3/12/13

to

On 3/12/2013 16:17, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker wrote:
>
> OTOH, there's been a surge of people answering incredibly old postings
> recently, without so much as a hint that they're aware of what they're
> doing. The other common feature of these postings is that they're all
> from Google Groups.
>
> So it appears Google Groups' latest attempt to finally bury USENET under
> a mountain of garbage was to completely blow their users' ability to
> notice the age of the posts they're answering to.

Well sometimes people who were around for the original conversation (and
who are still around) might remember a conversation, and some quote
might be useful for triggering memories. If you're expecting a hint
that posters are aware of the age of the posts that they are responding
to, I'm not sure why that is. Is there a serious problem with
responding to old posts, in general? In this particular case, it seems
pretty useless.

--
- Shao Miller
--
"Thank you for the kind words; those are the kind of words I like to hear.

Cheerily," -- Richard Harter

Hans-Bernhard Bröker

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 8:00:14 PM3/12/13

to

On 12.03.2013 23:46, Shao Miller wrote:

> On 3/12/2013 16:17, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:

>> OTOH, there's been a surge of people answering incredibly old
>> postings recently, without so much as a hint that they're aware of
>> what they're doing. The other common feature of these postings is
>> that they're all from Google Groups.

> Well sometimes people who were around for the original conversation
> (and who are still around) might remember a conversation, and some
> quote might be useful for triggering memories. If you're expecting a
> hint that posters are aware of the age of the posts that they are
> responding to, I'm not sure why that is.

It's because in my experience, in the very rare cases USENET citizens
with extended experience do something like that on purpose,
they pretty much invariably do point out that fact explicitly, because
they're aware they're doing something highly unusual. You'll see phrases
like "Did we ever resolve that issue we discussed back in ....?" or
"Remember this discussion? Well, guess what, something new came up in
relation to it...".

It's been clear from their total lack of context that these recent
posters never had any connection to those old threads of discussion, nor
any awareness of the age of the posts they're replying to.

Seebs

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 1:56:47 PM3/14/13

to

On 2013-03-12, Shao Miller <sha0....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well sometimes people who were around for the original conversation (and
> who are still around) might remember a conversation, and some quote
> might be useful for triggering memories. If you're expecting a hint
> that posters are aware of the age of the posts that they are responding
> to, I'm not sure why that is. Is there a serious problem with
> responding to old posts, in general? In this particular case, it seems
> pretty useless.

There is not a rigid logical inference that a response to a very old post
is useless or invalid, but there's a solid statisical claim -- I'd guess
over 99% of responses to posts over a year old are incoherent and irrelevant.
Many people object simply on principle, and on web forums, it's often called
"thread necromancy", but in some rare cases it's reasonable. Although
nowadays, the mere fact that people who view "don't do that" as a rule rather
than a principle will freak out and become disruptive tends to undermine it;
it can be better to start a new thread and link-to/quote the old one.

-s
--
Copyright 2013, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.