Deciphering some of these USENET X-TRace headers
Rev. Newt Zest
encrypt what is probably the username, IP address and/or other
info in an X-Trace or other X-Header.
Is there any way to decipher some of these?
I know this isn't _completely_ on topic for either group, but I
think this would apply to readers of both groups die to it's
technical nature.
-nz
»Q«
> USENET servers such as Giganews, AIOE, Motzarella, even Google,
> encrypt what is probably the username, IP address and/or other
> info in an X-Trace or other X-Header.
>
> Is there any way to decipher some of these?
Probably the more professional of those organizations are hashing some
identifier which would only be useful if one also has access to their
server logs. But I don't know. I haven't ever seen info about how the
hash is generated posted anywhere.
thanatoid
news:1hxmyaj6...@churchofiowa.org:
> USENET servers such as Giganews, AIOE, Motzarella, even
> Google, encrypt what is probably the username, IP address
> and/or other info in an X-Trace or other X-Header.
No. The user name/address is what you make it, and the IP listed
is the usenet provider's. /Supposedly/ a court order is required
to release the personal info you are referring to.
> Is there any way to decipher some of these?
See above.
> I know this isn't _completely_ on topic for either group,
> but I think this would apply to readers of both groups die
"due"
> to it's
"its"
> technical nature.
(Regulars: just bored as hell. Sorry.)
--
Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion.
Edward Abbey (1927 - 1989)
Rev. Newt Zest
> "Rev. Newt Zest" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:1hxmyaj6...@churchofiowa.org:
>
>> USENET servers such as Giganews, AIOE, Motzarella, even
>> Google, encrypt what is probably the username, IP address
>> and/or other info in an X-Trace or other X-Header.
>
> No. The user name/address is what you make it, and the IP listed
> is the usenet provider's. /Supposedly/ a court order is required
> to release the personal info you are referring to.
Bullshit. Thanks for playing, though.
There are plenty of news servers that publish one or both of the
username and IP address of the sender. Yes, some news servers
require you to post under the name of your login - provided they
even require logins at all.
It's completely up to the news admins if they want to hand out
that information or not. Your info is not legally protected in
any way.
> See above.
>
>> I know this isn't _completely_ on topic for either group,
>> but I think this would apply to readers of both groups die
>
> "due"
>
>> to it's
>
> "its"
Oh, typo and spelling flames to boot! How original.
Next!
-nz
Sven Svenson
> I haven't ever seen info about how the
> hash is generated posted anywhere.
thanatoid
> On 12 Jan 2008 06:53:42 GMT, thanatoid wrote:
>
>> "Rev. Newt Zest" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1hxmyaj6...@churchofiowa.org:
>>
>>> USENET servers such as Giganews, AIOE, Motzarella, even
>>> Google, encrypt what is probably the username, IP address
>>> and/or other info in an X-Trace or other X-Header.
>>
>> No. The user name/address is what you make it, and the IP
>> listed is the usenet provider's. /Supposedly/ a court
>> order is required to release the personal info you are
>> referring to.
>
> Bullshit. Thanks for playing, though.
<SNIP>
OK, smartasss. Now YOU play.
Here are my headers. Where is the personal info (encrypted or
otherwise)?
Path: news.usenetcompany.com!s03-b16.iad01!s02-
b13.iad01!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!post01.iad0
1!news.usenetcompany.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: news.software.readers,alt.cracks
Subject: Re: Deciphering some of these USENET X-TRace headers
From: thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid>
References: <1hxmyaj6...@churchofiowa.org>
Message-ID: <Xns9A239B88...@66.250.146.158>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Date: 12 Jan 2008 06:53:42 GMT
Lines: 31
X-Complaints-To: ab...@usenetcompany.com
Rev. Newt Zest
> "Rev. Newt Zest" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:o5npqhvzwh8w$.d...@churchofiowa.org:
>
>> On 12 Jan 2008 06:53:42 GMT, thanatoid wrote:
>>
>>> "Rev. Newt Zest" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:1hxmyaj6...@churchofiowa.org:
>>>
>>>> USENET servers such as Giganews, AIOE, Motzarella, even
>>>> Google, encrypt what is probably the username, IP address
>>>> and/or other info in an X-Trace or other X-Header.
>>>
>>> No. The user name/address is what you make it, and the IP
>>> listed is the usenet provider's. /Supposedly/ a court
>>> order is required to release the personal info you are
>>> referring to.
>>
>> Bullshit. Thanks for playing, though.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> OK, smartasss. Now YOU play.
>
> Here are my headers. Where is the personal info (encrypted or
> otherwise)?
Did I say they *all* have encrypted data? No. I gave several
specific examples. And do you honestly believe that the IP
address in this post of mine is really that of my ISP's news
server? Think again.
You need to work on addressing the topic instead of inventing
these straw men. Or you can just shut the fuck up.
Now run along like a good little troll.
-nz
Rev. Newt Zest
> Rev. Newt Zest wrote:
>
>>Did I say they *all* have encrypted data? No. I gave several
>>specific examples. And do you honestly believe that the IP
>>address in this post of mine is really that of my ISP's news
>>server? Think again.
>
> I don't, I think it's the IP of your DSL modem in Austin, TX. What do
> I win?
How about the deafening roar of a cheering crowd?
-nz
thanatoid
>>>>> USENET servers such as Giganews, AIOE, Motzarella, even
>>>>> Google, encrypt what is probably the username, IP
>>>>> address and/or other info in an X-Trace or other
>>>>> X-Header.
(We'll skip over the minor detail of Google not being a Usenet
server.)
SO WHAT?
Look up "encrypted". They are saving themselves an extra step
(and possibly the NSA or whomever they give the keys to, IF they
do).
> Did I say they *all* have encrypted data? No. I gave
> several specific examples. And do you honestly believe
> that the IP address in this post of mine is really that of
> my ISP's news server? Think again.
I don't have to. G. Morgan told you what it is, genius. Write it
down for future reference ;-)
You also said, oh wise one:
"There are plenty of news servers that publish one or both of
the
username and IP address of the sender."
Plenty? PUBLISH? Show me headers of ONE which gives the info you
refer to, /unencrypted/.
And if it IS encrypted, then please decrypt it because it is
useless otherwise, and, unlike you or the NSA, I do not have
access to 3 weeks on a Cray (OR your brain "power", see below)
to decrypt somebody's IP address and time of post.
"Yes, some news servers require you to post under the name of
your login - provided they even require logins at all."
Interesting, not to mention self-contradictory. No log-in, huh?
Do you have to have a computer or do you just send them the
message via your brain waves?
Anyway... I am snipping headers which can not possibly contain
the imaginary data you are obsessing about, IE : path, from,
date, subject, organization, reply-to, newsgroups, lines, DMCA
stuff, and X-complaints-*.
IOW, I am leaving in Message-ID and any other extra headers
except for things like X-No-Archive.
I am also using TWO different postings from the SAME poster.
Giganews:
Message-ID: <u9SdnaY0eORbwBra...@giganews.com>
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-
VDbjnrSErmhB2upMrE1DZLg6JHKNI3CyXrKg/FGPkwTRZHw+UU5bB7AOCW2Akl6y
BrTrN0oTDhlmv7+!L6NqBMEGMt4AJjJIYJqViyKnUiv3MNwBCKV9//ErpzrqnpUq
lRjhG5hnIa0SfWKg5+ChxGHWQA==
Xref: news.usenetcompany.com alt.binaries.amp:11353713
and
Message-ID: <EKSdnTNCVq0W3xra...@giganews.com>
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-
QtnsNIvNeOnrCMoaSieA05ON5BwQGAjpxcwu6DKMph00J//wEqHn38Z3Rr1EOXAn
RGAbVANI9y/ecXj!wKvLQVIuxrmjgmAD0lgpcZx0rAEhRb1WQTNavtbSbOH2wCr0
fJ8jgj+CbBK4deRY4RSWVmM5LQ==
Xref: news.usenetcompany.com alt.binaries.amp:11353674
OK, the X-Trace COULD possibly contain the data you talk about.
But you have to decrypt it. Please let me know how that goes for
you.
AND (I could not find any posts from aioe or motzarella)
Easynews:
Message-ID: <maLgj.229608$He.6...@fe08.news.easynews.com>
Xref: news.usenetcompany.com
alt.binaries.nospam.britbabes:835873
and
Message-ID: <rdLgj.229657$He.1...@fe08.news.easynews.com>
Xref: news.usenetcompany.com
alt.binaries.nospam.britbabes:835939
Correct me if I'm wrong, PLEASE, but while you can tell who MY
Usenet Provider is, you know nothing about the poster except
s/he uses Easynews.
GG (just one, even I have my limits):
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <23b9b6b6-c9f0-4b36-9fb3-
266784...@e32g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 117.26.222.223
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1200289922 11677 127.0.0.1 (14 Jan
2008 05:52:02 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:52:02 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: e32g2000prn.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=117.26.222.223; posting-
account=Vk78EwoAAABkKKJz5tAos5gRC6o6noFr
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT
5.1; SV1; TencentTraveler ; Mozilla/4.0(Compatible
Mozilla/4.0(Compatible-EmbeddedWB 14.59 http://bsalsa.com/
EmbeddedWB- 14.59 from: http://bsalsa.com/ ; .NET CLR
1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: news.usenetcompany.com 24hoursupport.helpdesk:1100704
This actually appears to contain some unencrypted info (along
with /encrypted/ info, get that Cray fired up!), except it has
/nothing/ to do with the post. Well, given GG is basically out
to a) spam and b) kill the real Usenet, it is somewhat
interesting.
<SNIP>
>> Here are my headers. Where is the personal info (encrypted
>> or otherwise)?
>
> You need to work on addressing the topic instead of
> inventing these straw men.
You're the OP and YOU started this pointless thread, not me.
Still it is my pleasure to participate.
> Or you can just shut the fuck up.
> Now run along like a good little troll.
It NEVER fails. Anytime there is a /specific/ question, the
members of this group mysteriously grow silent, backpedal, or
resort to name calling - as you did. Sigh.
I /am/ addressing the topic (<dog knows why) but since you don't
like the truth, you resort to the standard "ultimate defense" of
this group of morons, calling a poster a troll. How original.
Congratulations. You win. Would you prefer a fluffy Shrek or a
fluffy Kermit?
As for the info provided by the other poster regarding
albasani.net, a FREE server, it is quite reasonable for FREE
servers to take such steps since they are FREE and tend to
(among other things) to get abused by spammers (even if only for
a few hours before their account is closed). Same applies to
motzarella.
Still, it IS encrypted (see above) and contains a LOT less info
than you seem to think.
From their FAQ:
"Determining identity
/To file charges I need to know who exactly the author of a
posting is. How can I get this information?/
Relevant items are date, time and the IP address used to send
the posting to our server. With these specifications the
concerning internet service provider can determine the customer.
We store the IP address right in the postings, though
encrypted."
"The concerning (sic) internet service provider can determine
the customer". See below. IOW, big fucking deal.
Otherwise, it's EXACTLY like every other Usenet provider in the
world. Just for the hell of it, why don't you contact /any/
premium Usenet provider or major ISP and ask for the full
personal info of one of their subscribers. See how far you get.
(But first, just for fun, decrypt the string. Let us know how
you do.)
--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.
Frank Slootweg
> "Rev. Newt Zest" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:17s1sybly061v$.d...@churchofiowa.org:
>
> >>>>> USENET servers such as Giganews, AIOE, Motzarella, even
> >>>>> Google, encrypt what is probably the username, IP
> >>>>> address and/or other info in an X-Trace or other
> >>>>> X-Header.
>
> (We'll skip over the minor detail of Google not being a Usenet
> server.)
Yeah, let's do that, because it *is* (a Usenet server). It's not
*publically* accessible *via NNTP*, but that doesn't mean it's not a
Usenet server. Usenet/News predates the Internet and hence NNTP and
hence does not *require* NNTP (but only often *uses* it). On the user
side Google Groups just talks HTTP instead of NNTP. Guess what the "TP"
bit means? And last but not least Google Groups' peers happily talk
peer-to-peer (IHAVE) NNTP to it, so I guess it really *is* "a Usenet
server".
[...]
> You also said, oh wise one:
> "There are plenty of news servers that publish one or both of
> the username and IP address of the sender."
>
> Plenty? PUBLISH? Show me headers of ONE which gives the info you
> refer to, /unencrypted/.
Every one which has a From: header - i.e. *all* of them - and a
NNTP-Posting-Host: header - i.e. very many. Example? The one your
looking at.
[...]
> "Yes, some news servers require you to post under the name of
> your login - provided they even require logins at all."
>
> Interesting, not to mention self-contradictory. No log-in, huh?
> Do you have to have a computer or do you just send them the
> message via your brain waves?
Indeed no log-in (on the *News server*). Example? The one you're
looking at. I.e. I just connect and post. I *am* already authenticated
by my IP address, so there's no need to "log-in". Not exactly rocket
science.
> Anyway... I am snipping headers which can not possibly contain
> the imaginary data you are obsessing about, IE : path, from,
> date, subject, organization, reply-to, newsgroups, lines, DMCA
> stuff, and X-complaints-*.
>
> IOW, I am leaving in Message-ID and any other extra headers
> except for things like X-No-Archive.
[...]
> GG (just one, even I have my limits):
>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Message-ID: <23b9b6b6-c9f0-4b36-9fb3-
> 266784...@e32g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 117.26.222.223
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1200289922 11677 127.0.0.1 (14 Jan
> 2008 05:52:02 GMT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:52:02 +0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: e32g2000prn.googlegroups.com; posting-
> host=117.26.222.223; posting-
> account=Vk78EwoAAABkKKJz5tAos5gRC6o6noFr
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT
> 5.1; SV1; TencentTraveler ; Mozilla/4.0(Compatible
> Mozilla/4.0(Compatible-EmbeddedWB 14.59 http://bsalsa.com/
> EmbeddedWB- 14.59 from: http://bsalsa.com/ ; .NET CLR
> 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Xref: news.usenetcompany.com 24hoursupport.helpdesk:1100704
Exactly which part of "posting-host=117.26.222.223" don't you
understand? I.e. you have the unencrypted From: and the unencrypted IP
address, exactly as Rev. Newt Zest said.
Bottom line: Some servers generate an unencrypted NNTP-Posting-Host:
header, some don't and some generate *another* encrypted header.
[...]
Rev. Newt Zest
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>> "Rev. Newt Zest" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:17s1sybly061v$.d...@churchofiowa.org:
>>
>>>>>>> USENET servers such as Giganews, AIOE, Motzarella, even
>>>>>>> Google, encrypt what is probably the username, IP
>>>>>>> address and/or other info in an X-Trace or other
>>>>>>> X-Header.
>>
>> (We'll skip over the minor detail of Google not being a Usenet
>> server.)
>
> Yeah, let's do that, because it *is* (a Usenet server). It's not
> *publically* accessible *via NNTP*, but that doesn't mean it's not a
> Usenet server. Usenet/News predates the Internet and hence NNTP and
> hence does not *require* NNTP (but only often *uses* it). On the user
> side Google Groups just talks HTTP instead of NNTP.
And it acts as an outgoing peer with many other major Usenet
servers, which alone would define it as a Usenet server. Some
peers are only that and are not accessible VIA NNTP or a GUI, but
that doesn't mean their not Usenet servers.
Google certainly qualifies as a Usenet server on many counts, as
you point out. A Usenet Spam server, at least ;-)
-nz
bealoid
>>> "Rev. Newt Zest" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:17s1sybly061v$.d...@churchofiowa.org:
>>>
>>>>>>>> USENET servers such as Giganews, AIOE, Motzarella, even
>>>>>>>> Google, encrypt what is probably the username, IP
>>>>>>>> address and/or other info in an X-Trace or other
>>>>>>>> X-Header.
Answering your original post: different servers use different software, and
even if they're using the same software they use different algorithms.
Here's a link to one:
http://www.albasani.net/technical/x-trace.html.en
So, if you know the algorithm, and they're only using IP address, and no
salt, you could pre-compute all IP addresses and compare your target with
the results. This is, obviously, sub optimal.
An interesting question though.
thanatoid
news:1pcj0ztq040vd$.d...@sqwertz.com:
>> You also said, oh wise one:
>> "There are plenty of news servers that publish one or both
>> of the
>> username and IP address of the sender."
>>
>> Plenty? PUBLISH? Show me headers of ONE which gives the
>> info you refer to, /unencrypted/.
>
> Didn't I just do that in my last post? Duh.
There ARE no "last posts" from you in this thread, squirty. Not
that I was talking to you in the first place.
How did that XFace 100 byte thing work out, BTW?
> Piss off, trollboy.
The usual. Sigh. Just because I disagree with you (let's leave
out who's "right" and who's "wrong" does not make me a troll. If
you're gonna classify someone, at least read the definitions
first.
Of course, in /this. venerable group, the definitionsis "anyone
who does not toe the group line".
> <snip rest unread> OK, so I just glanced at it. Man, are
> you whacked.
Learn to speak English, idiot.
whack (hwak, wak) v., whacked, whack•ing, n.— v.t.1. to
strike with a smart, resounding blow or blows. 2. to cut or chop
vigorously: He whacked the vines from his path with a hunting
knife. — v.i.3. to strike a smart, resounding blow or blows. 4.
whack off,a. to cut off or separate with a blow: The cook
whacked off the fish's head. b.
(...)
wack (wak) Slang.— n.1. WACKO. (...) — [1935–40; perh. back
formation from WACKY] (...)
Have a fulfilling, narcissistic life.
It is neither fulfilling nor narcissistic. I am wacked but so
are all of you, the difference being I admit it and none of you
can even do that.
thanatoid
news:478b72ca$0$41887$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>> "Rev. Newt Zest" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:17s1sybly061v$.d...@churchofiowa.org:
>>
>> >>>>> USENET servers such as Giganews, AIOE, Motzarella,
>> >>>>> even Google, encrypt what is probably the username,
>> >>>>> IP address and/or other info in an X-Trace or other
>> >>>>> X-Header.
>>
>> (We'll skip over the minor detail of Google not being a
>> Usenet server.)
>
> Yeah, let's do that, because it *is* (a Usenet server).
> It's not
> *publically* accessible *via NNTP*, but that doesn't mean
> it's not a Usenet server. Usenet/News predates the Internet
(laughs) Yes, it goes over the air using the participants'
telepathic powers.
Can I PLEASE quote you on that? Unbelievable. PLEASE get an
Internet dictionary and memorize the whole thing before you spew
garbage again.
> and hence NNTP and hence does not *require* NNTP (but only
> often *uses* it). On the user side Google Groups just talks
> HTTP instead of NNTP. Guess what the "TP" bit means?
In THIS case, it means Twit Pontificating. TP without the
preceding letter(s) means almost nothing. This conversation,
were it held in person (<dog forbid) would use a Transfer
Protocol too.
If you can't understand the difference between http, ftp, smtp
and nntp, you should go back to reading you Superman comics and
jerking off to Lois Lane.
> And last but not least Google Groups' peers happily talk
> peer-to-peer (IHAVE) NNTP to it, so I guess it really *is*
> "a Usenet server".
Wihtin its guts, not at the user interface level.
> [...]
Try <SNIP>, oh Usenet expert.
>> You also said, oh wise one:
>> "There are plenty of news servers that publish one or both
>> of the username and IP address of the sender."
>>
>> Plenty? PUBLISH? Show me headers of ONE which gives the
>> info you refer to, /unencrypted/.
>
> Every one which has a From: header - i.e. *all* of them -
> and a
> NNTP-Posting-Host: header - i.e. very many. Example? The
> one your looking at.
You are apparently /quite/ incapable of understanding the
subject of a thread.
> [...]
<SNIP>, idiot.
>> "Yes, some news servers require you to post under the name
>> of your login - provided they even require logins at all."
>>
>> Interesting, not to mention self-contradictory. No log-in,
>> huh? Do you have to have a computer or do you just send
>> them the message via your brain waves?
>
> Indeed no log-in (on the *News server*). Example? The one
> you're
> looking at. I.e. I just connect and post. I *am* already
> authenticated by my IP address, so there's no need to
> "log-in". Not exactly rocket science.
"Authentication" is the same as "login" except /totally/
automatic.
<SNIP>
Frank Slootweg
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> news:478b72ca$0$41887$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>
> > thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
> >> "Rev. Newt Zest" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:17s1sybly061v$.d...@churchofiowa.org:
> >>
> >> >>>>> USENET servers such as Giganews, AIOE, Motzarella,
> >> >>>>> even Google, encrypt what is probably the username,
> >> >>>>> IP address and/or other info in an X-Trace or other
> >> >>>>> X-Header.
> >>
> >> (We'll skip over the minor detail of Google not being a
> >> Usenet server.)
> >
> > Yeah, let's do that, because it *is* (a Usenet server).
> > It's not *publically* accessible *via NNTP*, but that doesn't mean
> > it's not a Usenet server. Usenet/News predates the Internet
[Since you cut mid-sentence, I've to assume that you're referring to the
cut-up part. If not, learn to quote properly.]
> (laughs) Yes, it goes over the air using the participants'
> telepathic powers.
>
> Can I PLEASE quote you on that? Unbelievable. PLEASE get an
> Internet dictionary and memorize the whole thing before you spew
> garbage again.
Please feel free (to show your ignorance -> stupidity). Believe it or
not, but there *was* life and there *were* even computers before the
Internet (hint: Wikipedia is your friend/enemy). I actually used and ran
Usenet in those days. Where were you?
> > and hence NNTP and hence does not *require* NNTP (but only
> > often *uses* it). On the user side Google Groups just talks
> > HTTP instead of NNTP. Guess what the "TP" bit means?
[lamest lame deleted]
> If you can't understand the difference between http, ftp, smtp
> and nntp,
[Oops, I guess you could still go lamer than lamest.]
> > And last but not least Google Groups' peers happily talk
> > peer-to-peer (IHAVE) NNTP to it, so I guess it really *is*
> > "a Usenet server".
>
> Wihtin its guts, not at the user interface level.
Yes, that's what I said ("It's not *publically* accessible *via
NNTP*,").
> > [...]
>
> Try <SNIP>, oh Usenet expert.
Try to cite an actual standard on the subject. Oops, you can't,
because there isn't one! But if it makes you happy: I recently switched
from "[deleted]" because people whined about *that*, so there you go!
Please continue to whine about small stuff like this, and please keep
up the spelling lames. That way we know for sure that we're on the right
track. Not that there is any doubt, but still.
> >> You also said, oh wise one:
> >> "There are plenty of news servers that publish one or both
> >> of the username and IP address of the sender."
> >>
> >> Plenty? PUBLISH? Show me headers of ONE which gives the
> >> info you refer to, /unencrypted/.
> >
> > Every one which has a From: header - i.e. *all* of them -
> > and a NNTP-Posting-Host: header - i.e. very many. Example? The one
> > your looking at.
>
> You are apparently /quite/ incapable of understanding the
> subject of a thread.
*Try* to keep up. I was not addressing the OP, but your response to
Rev. Newt Zest. If you can't keep up, then there's that References:
thingy to help you.
> > [...]
>
> <SNIP>, idiot.
>
> >> "Yes, some news servers require you to post under the name
> >> of your login - provided they even require logins at all."
> >>
> >> Interesting, not to mention self-contradictory. No log-in,
> >> huh? Do you have to have a computer or do you just send
> >> them the message via your brain waves?
> >
> > Indeed no log-in (on the *News server*). Example? The one
> > you're looking at. I.e. I just connect and post. I *am* already
> > authenticated by my IP address, so there's no need to "log-in". Not
> > exactly rocket science.
>
> "Authentication" is the same as "login" except /totally/
> automatic.
False, on *both* counts. Congratulations!
»Q«
> How did that XFace 100 byte thing work out, BTW?
We learned that you cannot count bytes and that you don't know what
uuencoding is or what it's used for. Other than that, I don't remember
much coming of it, other than a couple of people having some fun trying
to figure out how you had arrived at the specific wrong sizes you
reported.
bealoid
news:Xns9A258C9AF...@66.250.146.158:
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> news:478b72ca$0$41887$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>> Yeah, let's do that, because it *is* (a Usenet server).
>> It's not *publically* accessible *via NNTP*, but that
>> doesn't mean it's not a Usenet server. Usenet/News
>> predates the Internet
>
> (laughs) Yes, it goes over the air using the participants'
> telepathic powers.
>
> Can I PLEASE quote you on that? Unbelievable. PLEASE get an
> Internet dictionary and memorize the whole thing before you spew
> garbage again.
[snip]
thanatoid has no idea who he's talking to, eh?
Rev. Newt Zest
Thanks for the example. This is why I crossposted it to
alt.cracks as this is sorta how some of the software protection
schemes work. Using an email address or other identifier as a
seed to generate an activation key.
-nz
Rev. Newt Zest
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>
>> How did that XFace 100 byte thing work out, BTW?
>
> We learned that you cannot count bytes and that you don't know what
> uuencoding is or what it's used for.
Oh, this is *that* same freakazoid? Well, that figures.
-nz
thanatoid
news:Xns9A25E98275...@194.117.143.37:
> [snip]
>
> thanatoid has no idea who he's talking to, eh?
Why don't you enlighten me?
thanatoid
<SNIP>
>> >> (We'll skip over the minor detail of Google not being a
>> >> Usenet server.)
>> >
>> > Yeah, let's do that, because it *is* (a Usenet
>> > server).
>> > It's not *publically* accessible *via NNTP*, but that
>> > doesn't mean it's not a Usenet server. Usenet/News
>> > predates the Internet
"Publicly"
<SNIP>
> Please feel free (to show your ignorance -> stupidity).
Ignorance is not stupidity, it is lack of knowledge about a
particular subject. No one knows EVERYTHING. I assure you I know
a lot of things you know NOTHING about, and I would not be
surprised if our IQ's were in the same ballpark (excuse the
American expression). It just happens that for /some/ reason
(boredom? - they do tend to generate interesting arguments and
I, unfortunately, enjoy arguing) I tend to hang out in "computer
help" groups where a lot of people know much more about
computers than I, although a LOT of people also know a lot
/less/ than I do.
> Believe it or
> not, but there *was* life and there *were* even computers
> before the Internet (hint: Wikipedia is your friend/enemy).
> I actually used and ran Usenet in those days. Where were
> you?
I am well aware of when the Usenet started, etc. As for what I
was doing, I was playing guitar and fucking, while you were
(presumably) carrying 5 lb hard drives around the block and
watching the girls from a safe distance.
OK, I read up on UUCP etc. First time I ever heard of it. I
thought that even in those days anything going over phone lines
that was not voice was considered to be the internet, however
one chose to call it. But I have NO problem admitting my
ignorance when doing so is justified. Still, GG uses http. Care
to elaborate a bit on http vs. /any/ accepted, or at least
/commonly used/ **USENET** protocols?
<SNIP>
>> > And last but not least Google Groups' peers happily talk
>> > peer-to-peer (IHAVE) NNTP to it, so I guess it really
>> > *is* "a Usenet server".
>>
>> Within its guts, not at the user interface level.
>
> Yes, that's what I said ("It's not *publically*
> accessible *via NNTP*,").
"Publicly"
Well, than I would say it is NOT a Usenet server, and IMHO you
should agree.
From what I have read - and I readily admit that my computer-
related knowledge, while /slightly/ broader than 20 minutes ago,
is - and always will be - minuscule compared to yours - doesn't
UUCP /or/ NNTP at the "public" level *have* to be used for
something to be considered "Usenet"?
I may have found the answer if I read ten more pages on this
subject, but I am not that interested and I really should not
have entered this thread in the first place. It was late, I was
bored and a little out of it, etc.
Not making excuses, just that, as opposed to many arguments I
have had with the REAL idiots in n.s.r., this was something
which *absolutely* had to do with things I know nothing about (I
have only the VAGUEST idea of what a hash is, and I am not
interested in encryption) and I should have just stayed out of
it, let alone change the direction of the thread into stupid
things which everyone knows about (like unencrypted headers). So
I apologize.
Frank Slootweg
thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> news:478bc7bd$0$14323$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >> >> (We'll skip over the minor detail of Google not being a
> >> >> Usenet server.)
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, let's do that, because it *is* (a Usenet
> >> > server).
> >> > It's not *publically* accessible *via NNTP*, but that
> >> > doesn't mean it's not a Usenet server. Usenet/News
> >> > predates the Internet
>
> "Publicly"
Yup. It looked strange when I typed it, but I couldn't be bothered to
check.
> <SNIP>
>
> > Please feel free (to show your ignorance -> stupidity).
>
> Ignorance is not stupidity, it is lack of knowledge about a
> particular subject. No one knows EVERYTHING.
Indeed. That's why I used the arrow. I.e. first you showed ignorance,
which - as you say - is perfectly fine, but when you refused to be
educated and became (very) offensive, ignorance turned into stupidity.
But in your last response you show willigness to be educated, so good on
you!
> No one knows EVERYTHING. I assure you I know
> a lot of things you know NOTHING about, and I would not be
> surprised if our IQ's were in the same ballpark (excuse the
> American expression). It just happens that for /some/ reason
> (boredom? - they do tend to generate interesting arguments and
> I, unfortunately, enjoy arguing) I tend to hang out in "computer
> help" groups where a lot of people know much more about
> computers than I, although a LOT of people also know a lot
> /less/ than I do.
>
> > Believe it or
> > not, but there *was* life and there *were* even computers
> > before the Internet (hint: Wikipedia is your friend/enemy).
> > I actually used and ran Usenet in those days. Where were
> > you?
>
> I am well aware of when the Usenet started, etc. As for what I
> was doing, I was playing guitar and fucking, while you were
> (presumably) carrying 5 lb hard drives around the block and
> watching the girls from a safe distance.
The hard drives were probably more like 50 lb and for the rest ... :-)
> OK, I read up on UUCP etc. First time I ever heard of it. I
> thought that even in those days anything going over phone lines
> that was not voice was considered to be the internet, however
> one chose to call it. But I have NO problem admitting my
> ignorance when doing so is justified. Still, GG uses http. Care
> to elaborate a bit on http vs. /any/ accepted, or at least
> /commonly used/ **USENET** protocols?
Of course nowadays NNTP is the most commonly used protocol, both for
peer-to-peer and for client/newsreader-server. Besides Google Groups,
there are other service providers which offer 'web-news' and hence use
HTTP. Also some peer-to-peer connections are still using UUCP, but they
are a small minority.
My *point* however was that the transport protocol is basically
irrelevant. It only matters what a given system *does*. Google Groups
offers Usenet services, both to users and to its peers, so for all
intents and purposes it's a Usenet server.
A common analogy might help you see the light: Probably no-one in hir
right mind would consider a webmail service, not to be a mail service.
Service implies server, i.e. mail server and likewise Usenet server.
> <SNIP>
>
> >> > And last but not least Google Groups' peers happily talk
> >> > peer-to-peer (IHAVE) NNTP to it, so I guess it really
> >> > *is* "a Usenet server".
> >>
> >> Within its guts, not at the user interface level.
> >
> > Yes, that's what I said ("It's not *publically*
> > accessible *via NNTP*,").
>
> "Publicly"
>
> Well, than I would say it is NOT a Usenet server, and IMHO you
> should agree.
No, I shouldn't. See above.
> From what I have read - and I readily admit that my computer-
> related knowledge, while /slightly/ broader than 20 minutes ago,
> is - and always will be - minuscule compared to yours - doesn't
> UUCP /or/ NNTP at the "public" level *have* to be used for
> something to be considered "Usenet"?
If "public" implies a private consumer - i.e. not a company,
institution, etc, - then as explained above NNTP is the most common/used
protocol, and HTTP is the second most common/used. Probably others are
used, but very seldomly.
But as I mentioned, Usenet/News predates the Internet and hence both
NNTP and HTTP, and hence doesn't *need* either. It just needs *a*
transport. In the past even (reel-to-reel) magtape was sometimes used
and I've presonally used diskettes. And when using a multi-user system -
like UNIX - newsreaders could (and some - like mine - still can) read
directly from the 'spool', i.e. they also didn't/don't need a transport
to read/post.
> I may have found the answer if I read ten more pages on this
> subject, but I am not that interested and I really should not
> have entered this thread in the first place. It was late, I was
> bored and a little out of it, etc.
>
> Not making excuses, just that, as opposed to many arguments I
> have had with the REAL idiots in n.s.r., this was something
> which *absolutely* had to do with things I know nothing about (I
> have only the VAGUEST idea of what a hash is, and I am not
> interested in encryption) and I should have just stayed out of
> it, let alone change the direction of the thread into stupid
> things which everyone knows about (like unencrypted headers). So
> I apologize.
Thanks! I think that's a great gesture. I'm glad it turned out this
way.
SINNER
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> news:478bc7bd$0$14323$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> >> (We'll skip over the minor detail of Google not being a
>>> >> Usenet server.)
>>> >
>>> > Yeah, let's do that, because it *is* (a Usenet
>>> > server).
>>> > It's not *publically* accessible *via NNTP*, but that
>>> > doesn't mean it's not a Usenet server. Usenet/News
>>> > predates the Internet
>
> "Publicly"
Both forms are acceptable.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=publically
Get off your high horse and acknowlege that your version of the language
is not the only one lamer.
[...]
--
David
thanatoid
> [Thanks for your change of tone.]
I am capable of it when it's justified. :-)
>> "Publicly"
> Yup. It looked strange when I typed it, but I couldn't be
> bothered to
> check.
I know a lot of people aggressively disdain proper spelling but
you seem too intelligent for that. There are many spell
checkers, including some built into newsreaders. XNews does't
have one but I use Quinion's "spell checker for edit boxes". Of
course, it is old and won't run on anything over 98SE. But it is
EXCELLENT and even has a Dutch dictionary.
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> > Please feel free (to show your ignorance -> stupidity).
>>
>> Ignorance is not stupidity, it is lack of knowledge about
>> a particular subject. No one knows EVERYTHING.
>
> Indeed. That's why I used the arrow. I.e. first you
> showed ignorance,
> which - as you say - is perfectly fine, but when you
> refused to be educated and became (very) offensive,
> ignorance turned into stupidity. But in your last response
> you show willigness to be educated, so good on you!
Hope you don't mind, it's "good /for/ you".
I have had so many fights in n.s.r. I really should never come
here, but like I said I was bored. You are far above the average
n.s.r. cave dweller.
<SNIP>
>> OK, I read up on UUCP etc. First time I ever heard of it.
>> I thought that even in those days anything going over
>> phone lines that was not voice was considered to be the
>> internet, however one chose to call it. But I have NO
>> problem admitting my ignorance when doing so is justified.
>> Still, GG uses http. Care to elaborate a bit on http vs.
>> /any/ accepted, or at least /commonly used/ **USENET**
>> protocols?
>
> Of course nowadays NNTP is the most commonly used
> protocol, both for
> peer-to-peer and for client/newsreader-server. Besides
> Google Groups, there are other service providers which
> offer 'web-news' and hence use HTTP. Also some peer-to-peer
> connections are still using UUCP, but they are a small
> minority.
>
> My *point* however was that the transport protocol is
> basically
> irrelevant. It only matters what a given system *does*.
> Google Groups offers Usenet services, both to users and to
> its peers, so for all intents and purposes it's a Usenet
> server.
Well, that way of looking at things is actually quite reasonable
so I can not argue. I /think/ I previously posted under the
impression we were arguing about the tech side rather than the
"user-experience" side - such as it is with GG.
> A common analogy might help you see the light: Probably
> no-one in hir
Curious. "Hir". Error or a his/her contraction?
> right mind would consider a webmail service, not to be a
> mail service. Service implies server, i.e. mail server and
> likewise Usenet server.
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> >> > And last but not least Google Groups' peers happily
>> >> > talk peer-to-peer (IHAVE) NNTP to it, so I guess it
>> >> > really *is* "a Usenet server".
>> >>
>> >> Within its guts, not at the user interface level.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's what I said ("It's not *publically*
>> > accessible *via NNTP*,").
>>
>> "Publicly"
>>
>> Well, than I would say it is NOT a Usenet server, and IMHO
>> you should agree.
>
> No, I shouldn't. See above.
OK. But you might agree it is badly implemented, buggy, limited,
and annoying as hell, both /in/ using it and BY its use by
people who should have never been born. Plus I really think they
want to kill the real Usenet. "Do not be evil". Right.
>> From what I have read - and I readily admit that my
>> computer- related knowledge, while /slightly/ broader than
>> 20 minutes ago, is - and always will be - minuscule
>> compared to yours - doesn't UUCP /or/ NNTP at the "public"
>> level *have* to be used for something to be considered
>> "Usenet"?
>
> If "public" implies a private consumer - i.e. not a
> company,
> institution, etc, - then as explained above NNTP is the
> most common/used protocol, and HTTP is the second most
> common/used. Probably others are used, but very seldomly.
Yeah, I read UUCP is still used by some large companies for
rather obscure business communications.
> But as I mentioned, Usenet/News predates the Internet and
> hence both
> NNTP and HTTP, and hence doesn't *need* either. It just
> needs *a* transport. In the past even (reel-to-reel)
> magtape was sometimes used and I've presonally used
> diskettes. And when using a multi-user system - like UNIX -
> newsreaders could (and some - like mine - still can) read
> directly from the 'spool', i.e. they also didn't/don't need
> a transport to read/post.
Get it.
<SNIP>
So I apologize.
> Thanks! I think that's a great gesture. I'm glad it
> turned out this
> way.
Well, I am still a considerable asshole and I still want to die,
but at least we cleared this up.
So, even though bealoid hasn't answered so far, I take it you
are one of the Dutch pioneers, huh? I was a professor at a
fairly crappy university in the 80's and there was a lot of very
good work being done in the computer dept. Of course, no one
else knew about it. (AKA the good old days, huh? :-)
Regards.
I R A Darth Aggie
SINNER <arcade...@gmail.com>, in
<Xns9A267A2B2CA45l...@140.99.99.130> wrote:
>+ * thanatoid wrote in news.software.readers:
>+
>+ > Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
>+ > news:478bc7bd$0$14323$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>+ >
>+ > <SNIP>
>+ >
>+ >>> >> (We'll skip over the minor detail of Google not being a
>+ >>> >> Usenet server.)
>+ >>> >
>+ >>> > Yeah, let's do that, because it *is* (a Usenet
>+ >>> > server).
>+ >>> > It's not *publically* accessible *via NNTP*, but that
>+ >>> > doesn't mean it's not a Usenet server. Usenet/News
>+ >>> > predates the Internet
>+ >
>+ > "Publicly"
>+
>+ Both forms are acceptable.
>+
>+ http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=publically
>+
>+ Get off your high horse and acknowlege that your version of the language
>+ is not the only one lamer.
Additionally, I doubt Frank is a native English speaker. English is a
strange enough language to master if you are a native speaker, let
alone if you're learning as a second or later language.
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
thanatoid
news:Xns9A267A2B2CA45l...@140.99.99.130:
> * thanatoid wrote in news.software.readers:
>> "Publicly"
>
> Both forms are acceptable.
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pub
> lically
>
> Get off your high horse and acknowlege that your version of
> the language is not the only one lamer.
And YOUR version of the language is only the second lamer.
(Think about that sentence. Give yourself some time.)
Will you stop using these idiotic expressions (and learn what
commas are for)? Oh, sorry, I forgot you ARE an illiterate
idiot, so you have no choice. Still, I am happy I made you look
in a dictionary - albeit an online one. Interesting things,
aren't they?
Anyway, my 9"x12" 2000+ page "Random House Dictionary of the
English Language" disagrees, and I go with Random House over a
MW, let alone the web version.
How DID you ever get out of my KF?
k, 0, Ent.
thanatoid
news:slrnfoq4j8...@invalid.invalid:
>>lically +
>>+ Get off your high horse and acknowlege that your version
>>of the language + is not the only one lamer.
>
> Additionally, I doubt Frank is a native English speaker.
> English is a strange enough language to master if you are a
> native speaker, let alone if you're learning as a second or
> later language.
Frank is Dutch but speaks English better than /either/ of you.
English is not my first language either, but I speak if better
than /any/ of you.
And English is not "strange", it is the easiest language on
Earth.
Try Hungarian for "strange", Mr. Polyglot.
Mike Easter
publically.
'-ly' generally means for an adverb to modify a verb by causing the verb
to be in an x-manner.
Therefore it would be logical for 'publicly' to mean in a public manner,
or in public. It isn't logical for the adverb to be publically or in a
publical manner.
Publicly sounds right. Publically sounds wrong. Some worthwhile
dictionaries don't recognize publically. Some other dictionaries which
do recognize publically say that it means publicly and that publicly
'comes first' and that publically isn't used much.
And I especially think that it is a stupid argument to be carrying on in
this group and I especially think that the disagreement isn't something
that people should be getting annoyed about in any case. It doesn't
make any sense to correct someone here over saying publicly instead of
publically when the correction could be considered to be in error.
--
Mike Easter
Adam Funk
> Additionally, I doubt Frank is a native English speaker.
ISTR that his native language is Dutch, but I could be wrong. In any
case, he writes English much more coherently than most native speakers
(of English, that is).
--
hmmmm: sounds like the same DLL hell problem my cousin had. try
deleting all DLLs in your Windows/system32 directory and see what
happens. [butting, ark]
Frank Slootweg
thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> news:478c9fad$0$93586$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>
> > [Thanks for your change of tone.]
>
> I am capable of it when it's justified. :-)
I think it would benefit you - and thereby us (TINU) - if you
could/would use such tone more often. Just MHO.
> >> "Publicly"
>
> > Yup. It looked strange when I typed it, but I couldn't be
> > bothered to check.
>
> I know a lot of people aggressively disdain proper spelling but
> you seem too intelligent for that. There are many spell
> checkers, including some built into newsreaders. XNews does't
> have one but I use Quinion's "spell checker for edit boxes". Of
> course, it is old and won't run on anything over 98SE. But it is
> EXCELLENT and even has a Dutch dictionary.
I don't use a spell-checker because it makes you lazy. I do
occasionally use an on-line dictionary.
Anyway, as David mentioned, we are both right, so luckily I was not
totally off my rocker! :-)
> But in your last response
> > you show willigness to be educated, so good on you!
>
> Hope you don't mind, it's "good /for/ you".
"good on you" is also a correct expression. Quite possibly an Aussie
or British one, but correct nonetheless.
> Curious. "Hir". Error or a his/her contraction?
hir/her contraction.
[About Google Groups:]
> OK. But you might agree it is badly implemented, buggy, limited,
> and annoying as hell, both /in/ using it and BY its use by
> people who should have never been born. Plus I really think they
> want to kill the real Usenet. "Do not be evil". Right.
Agreed, with the note that I'm not one of those people who thinks that
Google Gro[u]pers are some kind of low life. I don't judge people by the
tools they use, but I *do* judge the people who do. I've seen total
idiots using 'good' tools, quite brilliant people using 'bad' ones and
about anything in between.
> Well, I am still a considerable asshole and I still want to die,
> but at least we cleared this up.
I can't imagine how to even try to properly respond to this, so I
won't (other than that I'm obviously also pleased we cleared this up).
> So, even though bealoid hasn't answered so far, I take it you
> are one of the Dutch pioneers, huh?
No that's way too much hono[u]r!
I have been blessed to have worked in a company - HP - which was an
early adopter and often inventor of many new technologies. That gives me
some three and a half decades experience with computer networks and
e-mail, some two and a half with UNIX and Usenet and about the same but
a little less with [the] Internet. Of these areas my major specialities
were UNIX and Usenet.
But you guessed partly right, *we* - HP and especially HP in The
Netherlands - were UNIX and Usenet 'pioneers', in our country, in Europe
and for UNIX even in the world.
> I was a professor at a
> fairly crappy university in the 80's and there was a lot of very
> good work being done in the computer dept. Of course, no one
> else knew about it. (AKA the good old days, huh? :-)
A CS professor? Other?
Blinky the Shark
So perhaps this thread branchlet will disappear quickally.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
Frank Slootweg
> > But in your last response
> > > you show willigness to be educated, so good on you!
>
> >
> > Hope you don't mind, it's "good /for/ you".
>
> "good on you" is also a correct expression. Quite possibly an Aussie
> or British one, but correct nonetheless.
FYI, I did a quick search and this thread which says that - again :-)
- we're both right:
"good on you -> good on him? "
<http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=61133>
It's interesting to see that "good for you" - which sounds
strange/silly to me - also sounds that way for some in the thread
(""good for him" which is what vegetables are").
I R A Darth Aggie
thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid>, in
<Xns9A2695A8B...@66.250.146.158> wrote:
>+ Frank is Dutch but speaks English better than /either/ of you.
>+ English is not my first language either, but I speak if better
>+ than /any/ of you.
Can you understand the words coming out of my keyboard?
>+ And English is not "strange", it is the easiest language on
>+ Earth.
>+ Try Hungarian for "strange", Mr. Polyglot.
I knew there was a reason why your where consigned to my beaux-zeux
bin. A pity I left all the convicts out.
I'll consider this a VOP. Welcome back.
I R A Darth Aggie
Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>, in
<pan.2008.01.15....@thurston.blinkynet.net> wrote:
>+ Mike Easter wrote:
>+ > And I especially think that it is a stupid argument to be carrying on in
>+ > this group and I especially think that the disagreement isn't something
>+ > that people should be getting annoyed about in any case. It doesn't make
>+ > any sense to correct someone here over saying publicly instead of
>+ > publically when the correction could be considered to be in error.
>+ So perhaps this thread branchlet will disappear quickally.
Depends. Do sharks like to eat thanatoid?
Eggs Zachtly
> [...]
What happened to:
Message-ID: <Xns9A19167C8...@66.250.146.158>
>| The only reason I have carried this shit this far this time is
>| because it is (regrettably) becoming a tradition for me to visit
>| once a year and because I learned about XFaces - even though I
>| was right about what I said even when I knew NOTHING about them
>| except that only lusers use them. It was going to be a one-day
>| thing, and it WILL be a one-day thing.
>|
>| Goodbye until next January, unless I snuff it first.
You even went to the trouble of nymshifting (a couple times) to make sure
everyone saw you spew your drivel.
You even followed up a post of mine with:
Message-ID: <Xns9A18A013C...@66.250.146.158>
>| Unlike some people, I mean what I say.
So, I suppose now you can finally admit that you're full of shit, and a
pathological liar, huh.
--
Eggs
-Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.
Blinky the Shark
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:26:19 -0800,
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>, in
> <pan.2008.01.15....@thurston.blinkynet.net> wrote:
>>+ Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>+ > And I especially think that it is a stupid argument to be carrying on
>>in + > this group and I especially think that the disagreement isn't
>>something + > that people should be getting annoyed about in any case.
>>It doesn't make + > any sense to correct someone here over saying
>>publicly instead of + > publically when the correction could be
>>considered to be in error.
>
>>+ So perhaps this thread branchlet will disappear quickally.
>
> Depends. Do sharks like to eat thanatoid?
Sharks treat him binally.
»Q«
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > It's interesting to see that "good for you" - which sounds
> > strange/silly to me - also sounds that way for some in the thread
> > (""good for him" which is what vegetables are").
>
> PMFJI again: It seems to me that the two phrases are slightly
> different. The Aussie phrase "good on you" is praise, whereas the
> Brit form "good for you" may carry overtones of envy or even censure;
> or so it seems to me at any rate, no doubt an Aussie will correct me
> soon enough.
"Good for you" is used almost exclusively in the States. I've always
taken it to mean "(That's a) good (thing) for you (to have
accomplished)". I don't see overtones of envy or censure, but it is
often used sarcastically, when someone seems overly proud of something.
»Q«
> And I especially think that it is a stupid argument to be carrying on
> in this group and I especially think that the disagreement isn't
> something that people should be getting annoyed about in any case.
Have you met our friend thanatoid yet? ;)
thanatoid
news:18j6kxlbbxqr3$.d...@sneupie.eingang.org:
> thanatoid said:
>
>> [...]
>
> What happened to:
> Message-ID: <Xns9A19167C8...@66.250.146.158>
>>| The only reason I have carried this shit this far this
>>| time is because it is (regrettably) becoming a tradition
>>| for me to visit once a year and because I learned about
>>| XFaces - even though I was right about what I said even
>>| when I knew NOTHING about them except that only lusers
>>| use them. It was going to be a one-day thing, and it WILL
>>| be a one-day thing.
>>|
>>| Goodbye until next January, unless I snuff it first.
>
> You even went to the trouble of nymshifting (a couple
> times) to make sure everyone saw you spew your drivel.
Well, first of all, I did hold out for a while. But then I was
overcome by great boredom, weakness, shortness of breath, and I
knew only a few visits to my good pals here would keep me going
until I could snuff it by my own hand. So kill me.
I know I am (justifiably, by this group's "standards") KF'd by
many of you, and I wanted you to read what I had to say. And
"nym shifting"! I changed ONE fucking letter because when I tell
someone they're a moron, I want them to know it. Not to mention
if you can't tell that a post from thanafoid (SAME "address") is
a post from me, you have /big/ problems. "But ya /HAD/ to (read
them) anyway, DIDN'T YA?"
> You even followed up a post of mine with:
> Message-ID: <Xns9A18A013C...@66.250.146.158>
>>| Unlike some people, I mean what I say.
I DO mean what I say. You are a moron. I /really/ mean that!
And as for snuffing it, I have 250 days to fulfill that
resolution, so fuck off.
> So, I suppose now you can finally admit that you're full of
> shit, and a pathological liar, huh.
I NEVER lie. (Anyway, whether /intentions/ can apply to your
point (such as it is) is VERY debatable, and more suitable for a
newsgroup from which you would be laughed out of after 1 post.)
I had FULL intentions of not visiting, but I changed my mind -
and BELIEVE me, I regret it deeply. I am only human. As for
being full of shit, I am as full of shit as you and every other
mammal.
Anyway, ever heard of the KF? It was /designed/ for people like
you and me.
thanatoid
news:1ias998.jbt2hzygv0xnN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk:
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >>+ Get off your high horse and acknowlege that your
>> >>version of the language + is not the only one lamer.
>> >
>> > Additionally, I doubt Frank is a native English speaker.
>> > English is a strange enough language to master if you
>> > are a native speaker, let alone if you're learning as a
>> > second or later language.
>>
>> Frank is Dutch but speaks English better than /either/ of
>> you. English is not my first language either, but I speak
>> if better than /any/ of you.
>
> It's a common failing of non-native speakers of English
> that they erroneously believe that they know the language
> better than people whose mother tongue it is.
Judging by /readily available evidence/, I write English better
than 95% of the people who are regulars in this group.
>> And English is not "strange", it is the easiest language
>> on Earth.
>> Try Hungarian for "strange", Mr. Polyglot.
>
> Offensive.
Huh? I have NO idea what that is supposed to mean, but if you
feel I offended [whomever] by calling him "polyglot", you have
just proven my point.
BTW, k, 0, Ent.
thanatoid
> [Just some tidbits.]
>
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
>> news:478c9fad$0$93586$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>>
>> > [Thanks for your change of tone.]
>>
>> I am capable of it when it's justified. :-)
>
> I think it would benefit you - and thereby us (TINU) - if
> you
> could/would use such tone more often. Just MHO.
You are right. And trust me, I really wish I had been born an
entirely different person (or not at all)... Alas... And this
n.s.r. bunch REALLY infuriates me. I don't mind it when someone
like you tells me I have no clue, but to have people who appear
never to have made it past grade ten (and that without ever
having read anything other than textbooks [VERY SELECTIVELY] and
the sports pages) insult my integrity and intelligence (and
occasional knowledge) is very annoying.
>> >> "Publicly"
>>
>> > Yup. It looked strange when I typed it, but I couldn't
>> > be
>> > bothered to check.
>>
>> I know a lot of people aggressively disdain proper
>> spelling but you seem too intelligent for that. There are
>> many spell checkers, including some built into
>> newsreaders. XNews does't have one but I use Quinion's
>> "spell checker for edit boxes". Of course, it is old and
>> won't run on anything over 98SE. But it is EXCELLENT and
>> even has a Dutch dictionary.
>
> I don't use a spell-checker because it makes you lazy. I
> do
> occasionally use an on-line dictionary.
I understand your point, but certainly you are aware of the
human mind's astounding capacity for fooling itself in a myriad
ways? Why do you think proofreaders exist? It is /extremely/
common to simply "not see" your own typos etc.
> Anyway, as David mentioned, we are both right, so luckily
> I was not
> totally off my rocker! :-)
He is wrong. IMO. /And/ Random House's.
As I look at it, there IS no such word as "publical" so there
can not be "publically". Pretty simple. But horrible things are
being done to English these days.
>> But in your last response
>> > you show willigness to be educated, so good on you!
(I forgot to say I am ALWAYS willing to be educated, but my (and
others') "personalities" sometimes get in the way... ;-)
>> Hope you don't mind, it's "good /for/ you".
>
> "good on you" is also a correct expression. Quite
> possibly an Aussie
> or British one, but correct nonetheless.
Hmm. That's not something that you'll find in a standard
dictionary but I do have some idiomatic and slang ones. But it
makes sense.
>> Curious. "Hir". Error or a his/her contraction?
>
> hir/her contraction.
>
> [About Google Groups:]
>
>> OK. But you might agree it is badly implemented, buggy,
>> limited, and annoying as hell, both /in/ using it and BY
>> its use by people who should have never been born. Plus I
>> really think they want to kill the real Usenet. "Do not be
>> evil". Right.
>
> Agreed, with the note that I'm not one of those people
> who thinks that
> Google Gro[u]pers are some kind of low life. I don't judge
> people by the tools they use, but I *do* judge the people
> who do. I've seen total idiots using 'good' tools, quite
> brilliant people using 'bad' ones and about anything in
> between.
BION, I could not agree more. In fact I feel quite guilty about
having jumped on the bully wagon of GG-haters, but one of the
unfortunate aspects of my personality is that I excel (sorry,
MS!) at adopting the /very worst/ of the behavior of others. And
I /have/ had some VERY annoying and frustrating experiences
>>with GG's<< in help groups.
That being said, I do think the "average" nntp client user is,
for lack of a better term, more tolerable than the "average" GG
user.
Also, leaving aside /who/ uses /what/ etc., filtering GG will
significantly reduce the Usenet clutter on this machine, which
in turn is BADLY cluttering up what's left of my brain. I used
to NEVER KF anyone, now I KF someone almost every other day.
Filtering GG will be like Xmas for the KF! :-)
>> Well, I am still a considerable asshole and I still want
>> to die, but at least we cleared this up.
>
> I can't imagine how to even try to properly respond to
> this, so I
> won't (other than that I'm obviously also pleased we
> cleared this up).
%~#
>> So, even though bealoid hasn't answered so far, I take it
>> you are one of the Dutch pioneers, huh?
>
> No that's way too much hono[u]r!
>
> I have been blessed to have worked in a company - HP -
> which was an
> early adopter
SO happy to see you not spell that "adoptor". A MAJOR pet peeve.
> and often inventor of many new technologies.
> That gives me some three and a half decades experience with
> computer networks and e-mail, some two and a half with UNIX
> and Usenet and about the same but a little less with [the]
> Internet. Of these areas my major specialities were UNIX
> and Usenet.
>
> But you guessed partly right, *we* - HP and especially HP
> in The
> Netherlands - were UNIX and Usenet 'pioneers', in our
> country, in Europe and for UNIX even in the world.
As we both know, Holland has an impressive history of being
pioneers. I consider the audio cassette to have been of one of
the greatest inventions of the last century. (Of course, that is
not Holland's most important achievement, just a favorite
personal example.)
>> I was a professor at a
>> fairly crappy university in the 80's and there was a lot
>> of very good work being done in the computer dept. Of
>> course, no one else knew about it. (AKA the good old days,
>> huh? :-)
>
> A CS professor? Other?
C'mon. It would have to have been a ///R E A L L Y/// crappy
university if *I* had taught in the CS dept! Remember where we
started this exchange? No, I taught film production and history.
*I* had NO idea what was done in the building next to ours. My
last year there, the secretary got the IBM PC (AND a knee-
chair!) but it took MAJOR begging for her to even let me sit in
front of it! Needless to say, she knew nothing, I knew nothing,
so no one got very far. A year or so later, in another place, I
programmed an identical machine to draw a circle on the screen.
That was THE most satisfying computing experience I have ever
had.
thanatoid
Very true. Learning English in North America, I have gotten used
(after a WHILE) to "good for you" but it actually makes NO sense
whatsoever.
I like languages. Instead of having ruined my life I should have
studied linguistics. (Of course, I would have probably still
ruined my life, but at least I would have degrees which actually
mean something.)
thanatoid
news:1ias8wh.1gcpswf689nk6N%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk:
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > > Hope you don't mind, it's "good /for/ you".
>> >
>> > "good on you" is also a correct expression. Quite
>> > possibly an Aussie
>> > or British one, but correct nonetheless.
>>
>> FYI, I did a quick search and this thread which says
>> that - again :-)
>> - we're both right:
>>
>> "good on you -> good on him? "
>> <http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=61133>
>>
>> It's interesting to see that "good for you" - which
>> sounds
>> strange/silly to me - also sounds that way for some in the
>> thread (""good for him" which is what vegetables are").
>
> PMFJI again: It seems to me that the two phrases are
> slightly different. The Aussie phrase "good on you" is
> praise, whereas the Brit form "good for you" may carry
> overtones of envy or even censure; or so it seems to me at
> any rate, no doubt an Aussie will correct me soon enough.
>
That is quite an intelligent, insightful, and thought-provoking
post.
Why are you such a jerk most of the time? (Rhetorical. It's
because *I* am, right?)
»Q«
> I know I am (justifiably, by this group's "standards") KF'd by
> many of you, and I wanted you to read what I had to say. And
> "nym shifting"! I changed ONE fucking letter because when I tell
> someone they're a moron, I want them to know it. Not to mention
> if you can't tell that a post from thanafoid (SAME "address") is
> a post from me, you have /big/ problems. "But ya /HAD/ to (read
> them) anyway, DIDN'T YA?"
I'm not sure I've ever seen a troll so proud of his work. Good on ya.
thanatoid
news:d1lnu2hglr01.1c...@40tude.net:
<SNIP>
> Get real! Accept yourself
Impossible, I have been trying for 52 years.
> as being "you", an individual and
> human, that life /is/ a bitch
No argument here.
> then forgive yourself
No, can't do that either. I hate myself.
> take
> each day as it comes and live one day at a time
I do that, with the minor (yet crucial) added ingredient of
knowing each day brings me closer to the end and being /very/
happy about that.
> and forget
> about the not being someone else, the 'what ifs', 'I
> wish...', and regrets nonsense.
I do not ruminate on those things as much as I used to, but it
is part of the basic symptoms of a clinically depressed person
and not much can be done about it. Just be glad you are not me.
>> (or not at all)...
>
> If you or you have lived with a loved one with a terminal
> illness or something with no cure, then you may see things
> differently and how much 'fight' or 'life' people have
> left, and also 'know', but you come off sounding pitiful.
I know I am pitiful and pathetic. But thanks anyway.
>> Alas... And this
>> n.s.r. bunch REALLY infuriates me.
>
> Stop stuffing everyone into the same pigeonhole.
I am not "stuffing everyone into the same pigeonhole". I am
calling this bunch what it is, jerks. Even depressed assholes
have a right to an opinion. No one has to reply and agree with
me, you know.
Anyway, AFA the first part of your post, I appreciate it, but it
belongs in alt.suicide.holiday, you will get flak for it (or
would if I hadn't just predicted it) and it is pointless. I am
cursed. I have accepted it. Let's move on to more insults and
arguments about Usenet protocols.
Regards,
t
Eggs Zachtly
> Eggs Zachtly <r...@d.thereplyto.header> wrote in
> news:18j6kxlbbxqr3$.d...@sneupie.eingang.org:
>
>> thanatoid said:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> What happened to:
>> Message-ID: <Xns9A19167C8...@66.250.146.158>
>>>| The only reason I have carried this shit this far this
>>>| time is because it is (regrettably) becoming a tradition
>>>| for me to visit once a year and because I learned about
>>>| XFaces - even though I was right about what I said even
>>>| when I knew NOTHING about them except that only lusers
>>>| use them. It was going to be a one-day thing, and it WILL
>>>| be a one-day thing.
>>>|
>>>| Goodbye until next January, unless I snuff it first.
>>
>> You even went to the trouble of nymshifting (a couple
>> times) to make sure everyone saw you spew your drivel.
>
> Well, first of all, I did hold out for a while.
You posted the next fucking day, liar.
[...]
>
> I know I am (justifiably, by this group's "standards") KF'd by
> many of you, and I wanted you to read what I had to say. And
> "nym shifting"! I changed ONE fucking letter because when I tell
> someone they're a moron, I want them to know it.
That's nym-shifting, dumbass. It's common troll behavior, of which you
display classic symptoms.
> Not to mention
> if you can't tell that a post from thanafoid (SAME "address") is
> a post from me, you have /big/ problems. "But ya /HAD/ to (read
> them) anyway, DIDN'T YA?"
I never said I didn't know it was you, now did I. We can all tell your
posts as soon as they propagate.
>
>> You even followed up a post of mine with:
>> Message-ID: <Xns9A18A013C...@66.250.146.158>
>>>| Unlike some people, I mean what I say.
>
> I DO mean what I say. You are a moron. I /really/ mean that!
You _don't_ mean what you say. You say you aren't going to post for a year,
and you post the next day.
>
> And as for snuffing it, I have 250 days to fulfill that
> resolution, so fuck off.
Why 250 days? If you're so adamant about it, just do it. Like I said
before, that's all bullshit. Those that always talk about suicide, never do
it. They're too scared. They don't really want to die, they just want
attention. Yet more lies.
>
>> So, I suppose now you can finally admit that you're full of
>> shit, and a pathological liar, huh.
>
> I NEVER lie.
You CONSTANTLY lie.
[...]
>
> I had FULL intentions of not visiting, but I changed my mind -
So, you changed your mind, and that justifies your lies. Gotchya.
>
> Anyway, ever heard of the KF? It was /designed/ for people like
> you and me.
You tell people to kf you, but you can't stand that lack of an audience, so
you nymshift. Kinda defeats the point, eh? Oh, and some of the people you
reply to, you've stated that you've kf'd. Guess that's yet more of your
lies.
Keep dancing, asswipe.
--
Eggs
-A little bit of pain never hurt anyone
I R A Darth Aggie
Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>, in
>+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
>+
>+ > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:26:19 -0800,
>+ > Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>, in
>+ > <pan.2008.01.15....@thurston.blinkynet.net> wrote:
>+ >>+ Mike Easter wrote:
>+ >
>+ >>in + > this group and I especially think that the disagreement isn't
>+ >>something + > that people should be getting annoyed about in any case.
>+ >>It doesn't make + > any sense to correct someone here over saying
>+ >>publicly instead of + > publically when the correction could be
>+ >>considered to be in error.
>+ >
>+ >>+ So perhaps this thread branchlet will disappear quickally.
>+ >
>+ > Depends. Do sharks like to eat thanatoid?
>+
>+ Sharks treat him binally.
That's sick. Sick, sick, sick.
Top
news:Xns9A267A2B2CA45l...@140.99.99.130:
> * thanatoid wrote in news.software.readers:
>
>> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
>> news:478bc7bd$0$14323$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>> >> (We'll skip over the minor detail of Google not being a
>>>> >> Usenet server.)
>>>> >
>>>> > Yeah, let's do that, because it *is* (a Usenet
>>>> > server).
>>>> > It's not *publically* accessible *via NNTP*, but that
>>>> > doesn't mean it's not a Usenet server. Usenet/News
>>>> > predates the Internet
>>
>> "Publicly"
>
> Both forms are acceptable.
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=publically
>
> Get off your high horse and acknowlege that your version of the
> language is not the only one lamer.
>
> [...]
>
Historically where does fidonet fit into this?
Top
SINNER
> I R A Darth Aggie <n0b...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:slrnfoq4j8...@invalid.invalid:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:00:38 GMT,
>> SINNER <arcade...@gmail.com>, in
>> <Xns9A267A2B2CA45l...@140.99.99.130> wrote:
>>>+ * thanatoid wrote in news.software.readers:
>>>+
>>>+ > Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
>>>+ > news:478bc7bd$0$14323$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>>>+ >
>>>+ > <SNIP>
>>>+ >
>>>+ >>> >> (We'll skip over the minor detail of Google not
>>>being a + >>> >> Usenet server.)
>>>+ >>> >
>>>+ >>> > Yeah, let's do that, because it *is* (a Usenet
>>>+ >>> > server).
>>>+ >>> > It's not *publically* accessible *via NNTP*, but
>>>that + >>> > doesn't mean it's not a Usenet server.
>>>Usenet/News + >>> > predates the Internet
>>>+ >
>>>+ > "Publicly"
>>>+
>>>+ Both forms are acceptable.
>>>+
>>>+
>>>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pub
>>>lically +
>>>+ Get off your high horse and acknowlege that your version
>>>of the language + is not the only one lamer.
>>
>> Additionally, I doubt Frank is a native English speaker.
>> English is a strange enough language to master if you are a
>> native speaker, let alone if you're learning as a second or
>> later language.
>
>
> Frank is Dutch but speaks English better than /either/ of you.
> English is not my first language either, but I speak if better
> than /any/ of you.
I dont recall ever SPEAKING to you.
>
> And English is not "strange", it is the easiest language on
> Earth.
Cite?
--
David
SINNER
But his grammar is something to be seen!
--
David
Shay Buchanan
<snip>
>
>
> Frank is Dutch but speaks English better than /either/ of you.
> English is not my first language either, but I speak if better
> than /any/ of you.
>
"it" :)
> And English is not "strange", it is the easiest language on
> Earth.
thanatoid
news:478f6a92$0$13930$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk:
> On 2008-01-15, thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>
>> Frank is Dutch but speaks English better than /either/ of
>> you. English is not my first language either, but I speak
>> if better than /any/ of you.
>>
>
> "it" :)
Yeah, I know. :-)
Damn spellcheckers. I didn't post a correction since f looks so
much like a t that I hoped no one would notice... Sigh.
Frank Slootweg
[...]
> I didn't post a correction since f looks so much like a t
It doesn't in *my* tonf!
SINNER
It was a backpedal, Frank. Good for the goose, not good for the gander,
etc...
--
David
Aatu Koskensilta
> And English is not "strange", it is the easiest language on
> Earth.
"English" in the form we find many using it might or might not be the
easiest language on Earth, but fluent, idiomatic English certainly isn't.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus