Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Emperor.
22 views
Skip to first unread message
mirror
Nov 15, 2012, 6:28:02 PM11/15/12
to
chance
Nov 16, 2012, 5:16:21 AM11/16/12
to
"mirror" <mai...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:qguaa89a30guljdn5...@4ax.com...
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/expect-be-lied-japan/
>
> Paul
The link doesn't work.
Jim Breen
Nov 16, 2012, 6:16:18 AM11/16/12
to
URL.
Jim
chance
Nov 16, 2012, 6:53:14 AM11/16/12
to
"Jim Breen" <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44663c38-d3a7-40dd...@googlegroups.com...
Thanks
CK
Ben Bullock
Nov 16, 2012, 9:46:05 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 8:52 pm, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> "Jim Breen" <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
usual, no particular relevance to anything in particular. What is
bothering me is that I thought that "mirror" was either
"wasabi" (because of the X-No-Archive) or "aesthete8" (because of the
strange posting style) but it seems we have two people who are both
doing these things and all seem to be different people.
> > On principle I ignore postings that consist of a
> > URL.
>
> Would you kindly let us know why it is so?
He doesn't want to take a chance.
> "Jim Breen" <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:44663c38-d3a7-40dd...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Friday, 16 November 2012 21:16:09 UTC+11, chance wrote:
> >> "mirror" <mai...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >>news:qguaa89a30guljdn5...@4ax.com...
> >> >http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/expect-be-lied-j...
> news:44663c38-d3a7-40dd...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Friday, 16 November 2012 21:16:09 UTC+11, chance wrote:
> >> "mirror" <mai...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >>news:qguaa89a30guljdn5...@4ax.com...
>
> >> > Paul
>
> >> The link doesn't work.
It is working now. It just links to a review of two books, with, as
> >> > Paul
>
> >> The link doesn't work.
usual, no particular relevance to anything in particular. What is
bothering me is that I thought that "mirror" was either
"wasabi" (because of the X-No-Archive) or "aesthete8" (because of the
strange posting style) but it seems we have two people who are both
doing these things and all seem to be different people.
> > On principle I ignore postings that consist of a
> > URL.
>
> Would you kindly let us know why it is so?
chance
Nov 16, 2012, 12:58:57 PM11/16/12
to
"Ben Bullock" <benkasmi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c567fc5-aae9-45e1...@g7g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 8:52pm, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> "Jim Breen" <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:44663c38-d3a7-40dd...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Friday, 16 November 2012 21:16:09 UTC+11, chance wrote:
> >> "mirror" <mai...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >>news:qguaa89a30guljdn5...@4ax.com...
> >> >http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/expect-be-lied-j...
>
> >> > Paul
>
> >> The link doesn't work.
It is working now. It just links to a review of two books, with, as
usual, no particular relevance to anything in particular. What is
bothering me is that I thought that "mirror" was either
"wasabi" (because of the X-No-Archive) or "aesthete8" (because of the
strange posting style) but it seems we have two people who are both
doing these things and all seem to be different people.
Nah. Mirror is Mirror. Couldn't masquerade as asthete8
> "Jim Breen" <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:44663c38-d3a7-40dd...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Friday, 16 November 2012 21:16:09 UTC+11, chance wrote:
> >> "mirror" <mai...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >>news:qguaa89a30guljdn5...@4ax.com...
> >> >http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/expect-be-lied-j...
>
> >> > Paul
>
> >> The link doesn't work.
It is working now. It just links to a review of two books, with, as
usual, no particular relevance to anything in particular. What is
bothering me is that I thought that "mirror" was either
"wasabi" (because of the X-No-Archive) or "aesthete8" (because of the
strange posting style) but it seems we have two people who are both
doing these things and all seem to be different people.
nor wasabi, methinks.
> > On principle I ignore postings that consist of a
> > URL.
>
> Would you kindly let us know why it is so?
He doesn't want to take a chance.
chance
Nov 16, 2012, 1:06:28 PM11/16/12
to
"Ben Bullock" <benkasmi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c567fc5-aae9-45e1...@g7g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 8:52pm, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> "Jim Breen" <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:44663c38-d3a7-40dd...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Friday, 16 November 2012 21:16:09 UTC+11, chance wrote:
> >> "mirror" <mai...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >>news:qguaa89a30guljdn5...@4ax.com...
> >> >http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/expect-be-lied-j...
>
> >> > Paul
>
> >> The link doesn't work.
It is working now.
It's true. Thanks.
> "Jim Breen" <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:44663c38-d3a7-40dd...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Friday, 16 November 2012 21:16:09 UTC+11, chance wrote:
> >> "mirror" <mai...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >>news:qguaa89a30guljdn5...@4ax.com...
> >> >http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/expect-be-lied-j...
>
> >> > Paul
>
> >> The link doesn't work.
It is working now.
Don Kirkman
Nov 16, 2012, 1:45:54 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:53:14 +0900, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr>
wrote:
Jim will give you his own answer, I'm sure, but a naked URL gives no
information about why the user should open it. I don't want to go to
a site unless I know what to expect when I get there, and I'd also
like some information about the OP's reasoning for providing the URL.
A naked URL is essentially meaningless and a waste of time--for both
OP and reader.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
wrote:
information about why the user should open it. I don't want to go to
a site unless I know what to expect when I get there, and I'd also
like some information about the OP's reasoning for providing the URL.
A naked URL is essentially meaningless and a waste of time--for both
OP and reader.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Jim Breen
Nov 17, 2012, 2:10:19 AM11/17/12
to don...@charter.net
On Saturday, 17 November 2012 05:46:33 UTC+11, Don Kirkman wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:53:14 +0900, "chance" <cinc...@yazoo.co.br>
> wrote:
It's effectively saying: "I think you should go and look
at this, but I can't be bothered telling you why".
Better etiquette would be to say something like:
"I saw an interesting article about XXX in the YYY.
It said <a few words of summary>. It is available
at <link>."
Cheers
Jim
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:53:14 +0900, "chance" <cinc...@yazoo.co.br>
> wrote:
> >"Jim Breen" <jimb...@barrelmail.com> wrote:
> >> On principle I ignore postings that consist of a
> >> URL.
>
> >Would you kindly let us know why it is so?
>
> Jim will give you his own answer, I'm sure, but a naked URL gives no
> information about why the user should open it. I don't want to go to
> a site unless I know what to expect when I get there, and I'd also
> like some information about the OP's reasoning for providing the URL.
> A naked URL is essentially meaningless and a waste of time--for both
> OP and reader.
That's pretty much it. I think it is a bit discourteous.
> >> On principle I ignore postings that consist of a
> >> URL.
>
> >Would you kindly let us know why it is so?
>
> Jim will give you his own answer, I'm sure, but a naked URL gives no
> information about why the user should open it. I don't want to go to
> a site unless I know what to expect when I get there, and I'd also
> like some information about the OP's reasoning for providing the URL.
> A naked URL is essentially meaningless and a waste of time--for both
> OP and reader.
It's effectively saying: "I think you should go and look
at this, but I can't be bothered telling you why".
Better etiquette would be to say something like:
"I saw an interesting article about XXX in the YYY.
It said <a few words of summary>. It is available
at <link>."
Cheers
Jim
chance
Nov 17, 2012, 2:43:30 AM11/17/12
to
chance
Nov 17, 2012, 2:44:20 AM11/17/12
to
news:5f261679-f28c-449a...@googlegroups.com...
Thanks
CK
CK
mirror
Nov 17, 2012, 10:08:28 PM11/17/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:10:19 -0800 (PST), Jim Breen
<jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On principle I ignore postings that consist of a
<jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On principle I ignore postings that consist of a
>That's pretty much it. I think it is a bit discourteous.
>It's effectively saying: "I think you should go and look
>at this, but I can't be bothered telling you why".
>
>Better etiquette would be to say something like:
>"I saw an interesting article about XXX in the YYY.
>It said <a few words of summary>. It is available
>at <link>."
I'll do this from now on. Thank you, Jim.
>It's effectively saying: "I think you should go and look
>at this, but I can't be bothered telling you why".
>
>Better etiquette would be to say something like:
>"I saw an interesting article about XXX in the YYY.
>It said <a few words of summary>. It is available
>at <link>."
Paul
0 new messages