Re: rehabilitated words

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-03-17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Mar 17, 1:58 am, "pauljk" <paul.kr...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

>> Every single time you post, it is completely under your control which
>> group, or groups, your message goes to.
>>
>> :-)
>
> It would be very rude to post a reply to a group where the replyee
> wouldn't see it!

Noted.


--
But the government always tries to coax well-known writers into the
Establishment; it makes them feel educated. [Robert Graves]

[António Marques]

Adam Funk wrote (27-03-2012 19:01):
> On 2012-03-17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On Mar 17, 1:58 am, "pauljk"<paul.kr...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>> Every single time you post, it is completely under your control which
>>> group, or groups, your message goes to.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> It would be very rude to post a reply to a group where the replyee
>> wouldn't see it!
>
> Noted.

For every X such that X is rude, X is only rude if it's unwarranted.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Can the Funkster come up with any legitimate reason whatsoever for
that "another short" thread (a) to have been crossposted to sci.lang
in the first place, or (b) for its continued crossposting hither?

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Mar 27, 2:20 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> Adam Funk wrote (27-03-2012 19:01):
>>
>> > On 2012-03-17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> >> It would be very rude to post a reply to a group where the replyee
>> >> wouldn't see it!
>>
>> > Noted.
>>
>> For every X such that X is rude, X is only rude if it's unwarranted.
>
> Can the Funkster

How mature --- your teachers must be so proud of you!

> come up with any legitimate reason whatsoever for
> that "another short" thread (a) to have been crossposted to sci.lang
> in the first place, or (b) for its continued crossposting hither?

Just pointing out your ongoing inconsistency.


--
...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not
necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is
simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large
part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_]

[António Marques]

Adam Funk wrote (17-05-2012 14:22):
> On 2012-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

Look... 17-05-2012 minus 2012-03-27 is beyond the acceptable for a reply
that has nothing especially remarkable about it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

I've repeatedly noted that I don't reply to the Funkster's two-month-
old rejoinders.

[David DeLaney]

"I'm sorry Dave, I can't invert that operation right now."

Dave, convert it to shillings and pence, then export to Laputa
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 17, 9:52 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> B?QW50w7NuaW8gTWFycXVlcw==?= <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >Adam Funk wrote (17-05-2012 14:22):
> >> On 2012-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >Look... 17-05-2012 minus 2012-03-27 is beyond the acceptable for a reply
> >that has nothing especially remarkable about it.
>
> "I'm sorry Dave, I can't invert that operation right now."
>
> Dave, convert it to shillings and pence, then export to Laputa

Oh, jeez, I failed to notice that I'd been shanghaied into the
kibblers again.

[Dr. HotSalt]

On May 17, 8:43 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On May 17, 9:52 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
> > B?QW50w7NuaW8gTWFycXVlcw==?= <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> > >Adam Funk wrote (17-05-2012 14:22):
> > >> On 2012-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > >Look... 17-05-2012 minus 2012-03-27 is beyond the acceptable for a reply
> > >that has nothing especially remarkable about it.
>
> > "I'm sorry Dave, I can't invert that operation right now."
>
> > Dave, convert it to shillings and pence, then export to Laputa

We could nest obscure references all day but who would hatch them?

Can one say "Diagrams of recursive sentences have loops which have
loops which have loops which have..." in languages other than English,
as succinctly as in English?

> Oh, jeez, I failed to notice that I'd been shanghaied into the
> kibblers again.

Seems ambiguous; did you fail to notice that you'd been shanghaied,
or that it exposed you inner "kibbler" (sic), or that neither of the
foregoing was a first?


Dr. Hot"vertently yours"Salt

[bar...@bookpro.com]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 20:43:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>Oh, jeez, I failed to notice that I'd been shanghaied into the
>kibblers again.

Well, there's a first: PTD admits to doing something stupid.

BW

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 18, 8:38 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 20:43:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>

> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >Oh, jeez, I failed to notice that I'd been shanghaied into the
> >kibblers again.
>
> Well, there's a first: PTD admits to doing something stupid.

No, notices that The Funkster did something offensive once again.

[David DeLaney]

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

Someday... someday you will realize that what your fingers are about to
vocalize has Great Comic Potential, and you will stop yourself in time.

Current betting pool has the over-under at 12 years.

Dave

[bar...@bookpro.com]

So you think that failing to notice was a smart thing to do. Okay, I
wouldn't have thought you would consider it so, but I stand corrected.

BW

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-05-17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On May 17, 9:37 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> Adam Funk wrote (17-05-2012 14:22):
>>
>> > On 2012-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> Look... 17-05-2012 minus 2012-03-27 is beyond the acceptable for a reply
>> that has nothing especially remarkable about it.

Google *frequently* piles up its users posts and burps them onto the
USENET with a delay. Why don't you complain about that?

> I've repeatedly noted that I don't reply to the Funkster's two-month-
> old rejoinders.

But you'll reply to a re-rejoinder.


--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 21, 10:29 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 9:37 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> Adam Funk wrote (17-05-2012 14:22):
>
> >> > On 2012-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> Look... 17-05-2012 minus 2012-03-27 is beyond the acceptable for a reply
> >> that has nothing especially remarkable about it.
>
> Google *frequently* piles up its users posts and burps them onto the
> USENET with a delay.  Why don't you complain about that?

Define "*frequently*."

Define "delay."

Someone at rec.puzzles.crosswords about two weeks ago blamed a two-day
absence of postings from all but the google-users on google, but that
seems unlikely.

> > I've repeatedly noted that I don't reply to the Funkster's two-month-
> > old rejoinders.
>
> But you'll reply to a re-rejoinder.

In a timely fashion, of course.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 5/21/2012 3:26 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Someone at rec.puzzles.crosswords about two weeks ago blamed a two-day
> absence of postings from all but the google-users on google, but that
> seems unlikely.

If you're on the other side of the wall, seeing the postings from all
but the Google-users, it seems far less unlikely. If you take the time
to examine the Path: headers on Google of a few posts from outside
Google and see that they enter Google from servers at various different
companies, it seems entirely not unlikely indeed.

Here are a few examples from this thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.kibology/msg/d71426e05f540fdd?dmode=source

> Path: h9ni29888pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.kibology/msg/14702fa9a283e265?dmode=source

> Path: h15ni7546bkw.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.posted.radix!news.posted.radix.POSTED!not-for-mail

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.kibology/msg/fb161678580d0992?dmode=source

> Path: h9ni33894pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn

These show posts arriving from subdomains of glorb.com, giganews.com,
and highwinds-media.com. When those servers and others at domains
including neva.ru, level3.net, and volia.net are all disconnected from
Google at once, my first guess has to be that Google is to blame.

¬R

[António Marques]

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On May 17, 9:37 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>>> Adam Funk wrote (17-05-2012 14:22):
>>>
>>>> On 2012-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>> Look... 17-05-2012 minus 2012-03-27 is beyond the acceptable for a reply
>>> that has nothing especially remarkable about it.
>
> Google *frequently* piles up its users posts and burps them onto the
> USENET with a delay. Why don't you complain about that?

Other than any piece of software doing the same every so often? I don't
usually talk to abstract entities.
--
Sent from one of my newsreaders

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-05-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On May 21, 10:29 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-05-17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > On May 17, 9:37 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> >> Adam Funk wrote (17-05-2012 14:22):
>>
>> >> > On 2012-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> >> Look... 17-05-2012 minus 2012-03-27 is beyond the acceptable for a reply
>> >> that has nothing especially remarkable about it.
>>
>> Google *frequently* piles up its users posts and burps them onto the
>> USENET with a delay.  Why don't you complain about that?
>
> Define "*frequently*."
>
> Define "delay."
>
> Someone at rec.puzzles.crosswords about two weeks ago blamed a two-day
> absence of postings from all but the google-users on google, but that
> seems unlikely.

How would you be able to tell?

>> > I've repeatedly noted that I don't reply to the Funkster's two-month-
>> > old rejoinders.
>>
>> But you'll reply to a re-rejoinder.
>
> In a timely fashion, of course.

Define "timely".


--
Classical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture,
indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us
doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and
Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 22, 8:10 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 10:29 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2012-05-17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> > On May 17, 9:37 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> >> Adam Funk wrote (17-05-2012 14:22):
>
> >> >> > On 2012-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> >> Look... 17-05-2012 minus 2012-03-27 is beyond the acceptable for a reply
> >> >> that has nothing especially remarkable about it.
>
> >> Google *frequently* piles up its users posts and burps them onto the
> >> USENET with a delay.  Why don't you complain about that?
>
> > Define "*frequently*."
>
> > Define "delay."
>
> > Someone at rec.puzzles.crosswords about two weeks ago blamed a two-day
> > absence of postings from all but the google-users on google, but that
> > seems unlikely.
>
> How would you be able to tell?

Because it affected everyone _except_ google users. The non-google-
users did not see messages from each other during that time.

> >> > I've repeatedly noted that I don't reply to the Funkster's two-month-
> >> > old rejoinders.
>
> >> But you'll reply to a re-rejoinder.
>
> > In a timely fashion, of course.
>
> Define "timely".

Within a few hours.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>On May 22, 8:10 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> How would you be able to tell?
>Because it affected everyone _except_ google users. The non-google-
>users did not see messages from each other during that time.

How would you be able to tell that, unless you were one of them?

http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/bluemoon.html / I haven't laughed
ŹR / so hard since I was waiting to see 'The Aristocrats!' --Cam

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 22, 9:54 am, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >On May 22, 8:10 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> How would you be able to tell?
> >Because it affected everyone _except_ google users. The non-google-
> >users did not see messages from each other during that time.
>
> How would you be able to tell that, unless you were one of them?

Because when messages reappeared, people reported so.

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

What I saw a few times recently was messages posted to Usenet newsgroups
via Google Groups not getting out of GG to Usenet servers. People using
Usenet servers for posting and receiving were able to see one another's
messages without any problem. GG users were able to see all messages.
After a delay of a few days there would be a flood of delayed messges
from GG.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <dtbnr7haknfsvcpnv...@4ax.com>,

That's exactly what I saw, too.

And has been noted, this isn't the first time this exact behavior has
happened.

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 5/22/2012 11:18 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Because when messages reappeared, people reported so.

Well, I'm reporting now that I saw plenty of messages from people on
other non-Google domains during Google's recent disconnection.

ŹR

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

What I can't report without the help of others on other non-Google
domains is how many different servers normally receive messages directly
from Google. I suppose it's possible that Google will only send
messages to one server, or only one server will receive them directly
from Google. If that's the case, then the outage could equally easily
be the fault of either side--though the *likelihood* of such an outage
could still be blamed on Google's refusal to cooperate with many other
NNTP servers.

Here's the Path: header that arrived at my server with your message:

> Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!ec4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail

This shows that it was sent directly from Google to Giganews. Maybe
Adam and others can chime in with the paths that it took to their
servers and help end the blame game.

ŹR

[Whiskers]

> ¬R

Here's mine:

Path: uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!postnews.google.com!ec4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail

So Google are 'peered' directly with Individual.net
("uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de" in Path headers), as well as with
Giganews. Most large NSPs are peered to several others.

I too have seen delays in Google posts getting to usenet. If they are
the same articles as others have seen delayed, then the delay would
appear to be within Google's system.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Peter Moylan]

> On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On May 22, 8:10 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>> How would you be able to tell?
>> Because it affected everyone _except_ google users. The non-google-
>> users did not see messages from each other during that time.

Really? So we were just imagining that we were communicating with one
another?

The only effect on the rest of us was that the Google users disappeared,
which was no great loss.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Peter Moylan]

There's a simpler test. Was _any_ non-Google user cut off from the
discussions while the Google server was down? You'd think that such
people would comment, but nobody has.

[António Marques]

What Peter described was GG users being able to read each other and no one
else being able to read anyone else. That doesn't sound at all like what
you're all referring to, so why the assumption that you're discussing the
same event?

What I recently saw was different from both - I could read both GGers and
non-GGers by using GG. I could read no one by using either
eternal-september or my ISP's server. It lasted for almost a week, then
went away, then another near week. One has to face the fact that Usenet has
been dying for ages, though it never gets quite dead.

[António Marques]

Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 12:37 PM, I wrote:
>> On 5/22/2012 11:18 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Because when messages reappeared, people reported so.
>> Well, I'm reporting now that I saw plenty of messages from people on
>> other non-Google domains during Google's recent disconnection.
>
> What I can't report without the help of others on other non-Google
> domains is how many different servers normally receive messages directly
> from Google. I suppose it's possible that Google will only send
> messages to one server, or only one server will receive them directly
> from Google. If that's the case, then the outage could equally easily
> be the fault of either side--though the *likelihood* of such an outage
> could still be blamed on Google's refusal to cooperate with many other
> NNTP servers.

It's been shown that is not the case, but it was a nice way to smuggle in
the completely baseless 'Google's refusal to cooperate with many other NNTP
servers.'.

Another annoying thing about people bullying GG users is that it forces the
google hater that I am to defend google :(

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 22, 6:42 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:

> Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> > Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
> >> On 5/22/2012 12:37 PM, I wrote:
> >>> On 5/22/2012 11:18 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>> Because when messages reappeared, people reported so.
> >>> Well, I'm reporting now that I saw plenty of messages from people on
> >>> other non-Google domains during Google's recent disconnection.
>
> >> What I can't report without the help of others on other non-Google
> >> domains is how many different servers normally receive messages directly
> >> from Google.  I suppose it's possible that Google will only send
> >> messages to one server, or only one server will receive them directly
> >> from Google.  If that's the case, then the outage could equally easily
> >> be the fault of either side--though the *likelihood* of such an outage
> >> could still be blamed on Google's refusal to cooperate with many other
> >> NNTP servers.
>
> >> Here's the Path: header that arrived at my server with your message:
>
> >>> Path:

> >>> border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!ec4g200­0vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail

>
> >> This shows that it was sent directly from Google to Giganews.  Maybe
> >> Adam and others can chime in with the paths that it took to their
> >> servers and help end the blame game.
>
> > There's a simpler test. Was _any_ non-Google user cut off from the
> > discussions while the Google server was down? You'd think that such
> > people would comment, but nobody has.
>
> What Peter described was GG users being able to read each other and no one
> else being able to read anyone else. That doesn't sound at all like what
> you're all referring to, so why the assumption that you're discussing the
> same event?
>
> What I recently saw was different from both - I could read both GGers and
> non-GGers by using GG. I could read no one by using either
> eternal-september or my ISP's server. It lasted for almost a week, then
> went away, then another near week. One has to face the fact that Usenet has
> been dying for ages, though it never gets quite dead.

That sounds like what happened at rpc -- over a weekend and a bit
more, last month.

[pauljk]

"António Marques" <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in message
news:jph4oh$b2o$1...@dont-email.me...

That is exactly what I experienced down here. Normally, I use eternal-
september, but during the outage lasting several days I had to use
Google (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!forum/sci.lang).

When the outage finished the eternal-september delivered a big bundle
of messages with their original dates, so retrospectively it's difficult
to say when exactly the outage started and when it finished.

pjk

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 22, 5:47 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:

> > On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On May 22, 8:10 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>> How would you be able to tell?
> >> Because it affected everyone _except_ google users. The non-google-
> >> users did not see messages from each other during that time.
>
> Really? So we were just imagining that we were communicating with one
> another?

You? I don't seei any indication that you tried to comment on the
contest I moderated, while David A. and I were wondering where
everyone was.

> The only effect on the rest of us was that the Google users disappeared,
> which was no great loss.

Name all the rpc gg users.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 5/22/2012 5:51 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> There's a simpler test. Was _any_ non-Google user cut off from the
> discussions while the Google server was down?

You've missed my point. If Google normally sent posts *only* to
Giganews to be distributed to the rest of Usenet, then it could have
been the Giganews server that was down.

Now that we know Google also sends posts directly to (at least)
Individual.net, we can conclude that it's more likely the outage was at
Google's end.

¬R

[Peter T. Daniels]

So you're saying that people who don't use google groups, like Peter
Moylan, didn't see postings from other people who don't use google
groups, because of something that google groups did or failed to do?
How does that work?

[António Marques]

Exactly. And I thank you for coming forth with it, otherwise folks would
just say I was making it up for my usual nefarious purposes.

[António Marques]

Oliver Cromm <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
> * António Marques:

> What Peter described doesn't sound like anything I've witnessed in
> many (>10 active) years on Usenet,

On the contrary, it's quite easy to happen: generalised NNTP breakdown - I
suppose it might only take some few crucial hosts to be disconnected from
each other - plus the fact that while GG has lots of users for each group,
many other usenet providers don't, so if a given provider only had its
couple of users to show, it might look like it was empty.

> so why the assumption that

> we're discussing an actual event?

I'd rather discuss the event as presented by the person who originally
presented it rather than other people's exquisite twists of it tailored to
blame GG.

> P.S. I am shielded from failures of a few individual servers
> because I pull from 6 of them (or so).

Yeah, did that too once upon a time. Newsplex?

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

That doesn't work. That is not what I understood Glenn to have said.

Usenet servers (hundreds or thousands of them) propagate newsgroup posts
between themselves on a peer-to-peer basis. Google Groups is just
another node in that peer-to-peer network. What has been happening
recently is that GG's connection with the rest of Usenet has become
temporarily unidirectional. It has been receiving posts from the rest of
Usenet but has delayed, for a few days, transmitting posts originating
from GG users.

[pauljk]

"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:4vvrr7lv5agt7slcb...@4ax.com...

However, that does not explain the recent scenario as described by
António (AFAICT) and me. Earlier this month there was a period
of several days (over a week long) when no new posts were
received from usually very reliable eternal-september NNTP server.
As far as I remember, this was the first time when neither GG-posts
nor NNTP-posts were being received during such a long hiccup.

I can't see how could GG prevent the NNTP-originated posts
from being propagated along the peer to peer NNTP network.

pjk

PS. Oh, by the way, while no sci.lang posts were being served
out by eternal-september their home page
http://www.eternal-september.org/serverstatus.php?language=en
showed status 'green' for all their ports.

[António Marques]

"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:45:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On May 23, 2:01 pm, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2012 5:51 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's a simpler test. Was _any_ non-Google user cut off from the
>>>> discussions while the Google server was down?
>>>
>>> You've missed my point. If Google normally sent posts *only* to
>>> Giganews to be distributed to the rest of Usenet, then it could have
>>> been the Giganews server that was down.
>>>
>>> Now that we know Google also sends posts directly to (at least)
>>> Individual.net, we can conclude that it's more likely the outage was at
>>> Google's end.
>>
>> So you're saying that people who don't use google groups, like Peter
>> Moylan, didn't see postings from other people who don't use google
>> groups, because of something that google groups did or failed to do?
>> How does that work?
>
> That doesn't work. That is not what I understood Glenn to have said.

Correct, because instead of wondering about the actual issue, both you and
Glenn were intent on imagining a different issue in which the problem could
be easily blamed on GG.

[António Marques]

(I see one of my newsreaders has been leaving a.u.e out. Sorry.)

"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:45:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On May 23, 2:01 pm, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2012 5:51 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's a simpler test. Was _any_ non-Google user cut off from the
>>>> discussions while the Google server was down?
>>>
>>> You've missed my point. If Google normally sent posts *only* to
>>> Giganews to be distributed to the rest of Usenet, then it could have
>>> been the Giganews server that was down.
>>>
>>> Now that we know Google also sends posts directly to (at least)
>>> Individual.net, we can conclude that it's more likely the outage was at
>>> Google's end.
>>
>> So you're saying that people who don't use google groups, like Peter
>> Moylan, didn't see postings from other people who don't use google
>> groups, because of something that google groups did or failed to do?
>> How does that work?
>
> That doesn't work. That is not what I understood Glenn to have said.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-05-24, António Marques wrote:

> It's been shown that is not the case, but it was a nice way to smuggle in
> the completely baseless 'Google's refusal to cooperate with many other NNTP
> servers.'.
> Another annoying thing about people bullying GG users is that it forces the
> google hater that I am to defend google :(

Well, follow your instincts!


--
When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him
whose? --- Don Marquis

[António Marques]

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-24, António Marques wrote:
>
>> It's been shown that is not the case, but it was a nice way to smuggle in
>> the completely baseless 'Google's refusal to cooperate with many other NNTP
>> servers.'.
>> Another annoying thing about people bullying GG users is that it forces the
>> google hater that I am to defend google :(
>
> Well, follow your instincts!

I hate bullying more than google. (And before you say something, bullying
is a very particular type of hostile behaviour, not every kind of it.
(Another thing I hate is people misusing such labels.))

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:40:44 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>You? I don't seei any indication that you tried to comment on the
>contest I moderated, while David A. and I were wondering where
>everyone was.

Why would you expect someone who couldn't see your posts to try to
comment on your contest?

ŹR http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/bluemoon.html
"Nothing says 'Thursday' quite like Ira Fusfeld."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 25, 11:48 pm, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:40:44 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >You? I don't seei any indication that you tried to comment on the
> >contest I moderated, while David A. and I were wondering where
> >everyone was.
>
> Why would you expect someone who couldn't see your posts to try to
> comment on your contest?

I would expect someone who regularly reads a group that usually has
several messages a day -- contest entries, mostly, and in this case
the start of a new contest by the winner of the last one -- to wonder
why no messages had appeared over 3 or 4 days.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On May 18, 8:38 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 20:43:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>
>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >Oh, jeez, I failed to notice that I'd been shanghaied into the
>> >kibblers again.
>>
>> Well, there's a first: PTD admits to doing something stupid.
>
> No, notices that The Funkster did something offensive once again.


The man who keeps saying "kibblers" is the deliberately offensive one.
And a hypocrite.

[Adam Funk]

You've missed PTD's point: the entire USERNET revolves around him.


--
But the government always tries to coax well-known writers into the
Establishment; it makes them feel educated. [Robert Graves]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 28, 7:48 am, Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 8:38 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 May 2012 20:43:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >Oh, jeez, I failed to notice that I'd been shanghaied into the
> >> >kibblers again.
>
> >> Well, there's a first: PTD admits to doing something stupid.
>
> > No, notices that The Funkster did something offensive once again.
>
> The man who keeps saying "kibblers" is the deliberately offensive one.
> And a hypocrite.

Why wouldn't someone with a "kibology" fantasy not be called a kibbler?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 28, 7:48 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-23, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>
> > On 5/22/2012 5:51 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> There's a simpler test. Was _any_ non-Google user cut off from the
> >> discussions while the Google server was down?
>
> > You've missed my point.  If Google normally sent posts *only* to
> > Giganews to be distributed to the rest of Usenet, then it could have
> > been the Giganews server that was down.
>
> > Now that we know Google also sends posts directly to (at least)
> > Individual.net, we can conclude that it's more likely the outage was at
> > Google's end.
>
> You've missed PTD's point: the entire USERNET revolves around him.

What is "USERNET"?

Your invention, so it revolves around _you_?

[pauljk]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0de12b4c-aa3d-40b6...@t23g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

A rhotic Usenet? :-)
pjk

[António Marques]

Adam Funk wrote (28-05-2012 12:48):
> On 2012-05-23, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/2012 5:51 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> There's a simpler test. Was _any_ non-Google user cut off from the
>>> discussions while the Google server was down?
>>
>> You've missed my point. If Google normally sent posts *only* to
>> Giganews to be distributed to the rest of Usenet, then it could have
>> been the Giganews server that was down.
>>
>> Now that we know Google also sends posts directly to (at least)
>> Individual.net, we can conclude that it's more likely the outage was at
>> Google's end.
>
>
> You've missed PTD's point: the entire USERNET revolves around him.

Could it be that, in your desire to say something about PTD, you read 'Peter
Moylan' as 'PTD'?

[Jared]

What's a kibology fantasy? I thought kibology was the study and/or
worship of Kibo.

--
Jared

[António Marques]

Adam Funk wrote (24-05-2012 16:01):
> On 2012-05-24, António Marques wrote:
>
>> It's been shown that is not the case, but it was a nice way to smuggle in
>> the completely baseless 'Google's refusal to cooperate with many other NNTP
>> servers.'.
>> Another annoying thing about people bullying GG users is that it forces the
>> google hater that I am to defend google :(
>
> Well, follow your instincts!

I hate bullying more. (And before you say something, bullying is a specific
type of hostile behaviour, not any kind of it. (And by now probably you know
that nothing annoys me so much as people mixing up such concepts. (Concepts
which may have something similar in their definitions but are otherwise
clearly distinct, because their emphasis is somewhere else, and if people
can't grasp that then they shouldn't be using the labels.)))

[Peter T. Daniels]

That's an imaginary construct (i.e., a fantasy) that has been invented
so that its "followers" can make stupid puns and attempt to disrupt
conversations in newsgroups.

[Ruud Harmsen]

"pauljk" <paul....@xtra.co.nz> schreef/wrote:

>> What is "USERNET"?
>
>A rhotic Usenet? :-)

LORL!!
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[Dr. HotSalt]

On May 28, 4:48 am, Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 8:38 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 May 2012 20:43:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >Oh, jeez, I failed to notice that I'd been shanghaied into the
> >> >kibblers again.
>
> >> Well, there's a first: PTD admits to doing something stupid.
>
> > No, notices that The Funkster did something offensive once again.
>
> The man who keeps saying "kibblers" is the deliberately offensive one.

Well, yes. But it's OK because you can't insult something with no
redeeming features, you see.

> And a hypocrite.

Nah, he just doesn't understand the concept of vertency.


Dr. HotSalt

[Adam Funk]

No, I specifically wrote 'PTD' rather than 'Peter' because I didn't
want Peter Moylan to think I meant him.


--
Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results,
but that's not why we do it. [Richard Feynman]

[António Marques]

Adam Funk wrote (29-05-2012 12:54):
> On 2012-05-28, António Marques wrote:
>
>> Adam Funk wrote (28-05-2012 12:48):
>>> On 2012-05-23, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2012 5:51 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> There's a simpler test. Was _any_ non-Google user cut off from the
>>>>> discussions while the Google server was down?
>>>>
>>>> You've missed my point. If Google normally sent posts *only* to
>>>> Giganews to be distributed to the rest of Usenet, then it could have
>>>> been the Giganews server that was down.
>>>>
>>>> Now that we know Google also sends posts directly to (at least)
>>>> Individual.net, we can conclude that it's more likely the outage was at
>>>> Google's end.
>>>
>>>
>>> You've missed PTD's point: the entire USERNET revolves around him.
>>
>> Could it be that, in your desire to say something about PTD, you read 'Peter
>> Moylan' as 'PTD'?
>
>
> No, I specifically wrote 'PTD' rather than 'Peter' because I didn't
> want Peter Moylan to think I meant him.

So your remark had no connection at all to anything?

[Adam Funk]

You're dealing with someone who probably thinks tribology is connected
with Star Trek.


--
Bob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. [Guy Steele]

[Peter T. Daniels]

> So your remark had no connection at all to anything?-

His insults generally don't.

He has formed some preconceptions in his own mind and acts on them
irrationally.

[Peter Moylan]

Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2012-05-28, António Marques wrote:
>
>> Adam Funk wrote (28-05-2012 12:48):
>>> On 2012-05-23, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2012 5:51 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> There's a simpler test. Was _any_ non-Google user cut off from the
>>>>> discussions while the Google server was down?
>>>> You've missed my point. If Google normally sent posts *only* to
>>>> Giganews to be distributed to the rest of Usenet, then it could have
>>>> been the Giganews server that was down.
>>>>
>>>> Now that we know Google also sends posts directly to (at least)
>>>> Individual.net, we can conclude that it's more likely the outage was at
>>>> Google's end.
>>>
>>> You've missed PTD's point: the entire USERNET revolves around him.
>> Could it be that, in your desire to say something about PTD, you read 'Peter
>> Moylan' as 'PTD'?
>
>
> No, I specifically wrote 'PTD' rather than 'Peter' because I didn't
> want Peter Moylan to think I meant him.
>
>

That's a huge relief. I've been wondering whether I should change my name.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Peter Moylan]

Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2012-05-28, Jared wrote:
>
>> On 5/28/2012 8:17 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On May 28, 7:48 am, Adam Funk<a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The man who keeps saying "kibblers" is the deliberately offensive one.
>>>> And a hypocrite.
>>> Why wouldn't someone with a "kibology" fantasy not be called a kibbler?
>> What's a kibology fantasy? I thought kibology was the study and/or
>> worship of Kibo.
>
> You're dealing with someone who probably thinks tribology is connected
> with Star Trek.

That's ridiculous. Everyone knows it's the study of tribes.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-05-30, Peter Moylan wrote:

> Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2012-05-28, Jared wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/28/2012 8:17 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On May 28, 7:48 am, Adam Funk<a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The man who keeps saying "kibblers" is the deliberately offensive one.
>>>>> And a hypocrite.
>>>> Why wouldn't someone with a "kibology" fantasy not be called a kibbler?
>>> What's a kibology fantasy? I thought kibology was the study and/or
>>> worship of Kibo.
>>
>> You're dealing with someone who probably thinks tribology is connected
>> with Star Trek.
>
> That's ridiculous. Everyone knows it's the study of tribes.

Yes, with or without tattoos.


--
English has perfect phonetic spelling. It just doesn't have phonetic
pronunciation. [Peter Moylan]

[Peter Brooks]

On May 30, 11:08 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-30, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Adam Funk wrote:
> >> On 2012-05-28, Jared wrote:
>
> >>> On 5/28/2012 8:17 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>> On May 28, 7:48 am, Adam Funk<a24...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>>> The man who keeps saying "kibblers" is the deliberately offensive one.
> >>>>> And a hypocrite.
> >>>> Why wouldn't someone with a "kibology" fantasy not be called a kibbler?
> >>> What's a kibology fantasy? I thought kibology was the study and/or
> >>> worship of Kibo.
>
> >> You're dealing with someone who probably thinks tribology is connected
> >> with Star Trek.
>
> > That's ridiculous. Everyone knows it's the study of tribes.
>
> Yes, with or without tattoos.
>

Not all scotch tribal tattoos are indelible, the Edinburgh washes out
with rohypnol.

[Charles Bishop]

In article
<1bf0b787-2042-4255...@f7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, "Peter
T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On May 28, 11:15=A0am, Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/28/2012 8:17 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > On May 28, 7:48 am, Adam Funk<a24...@yahoo.com> =A0wrote:

>> >> On 2012-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> >>> On May 18, 8:38 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 20:43:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>

>> >>>> <gramma...@verizon.net> =A0wrote:

>> >>>>> Oh, jeez, I failed to notice that I'd been shanghaied into the
>> >>>>> kibblers again.
>>
>> >>>> Well, there's a first: PTD admits to doing something stupid.
>>
>> >>> No, notices that The Funkster did something offensive once again.
>>
>> >> The man who keeps saying "kibblers" is the deliberately offensive one.
>> >> And a hypocrite.
>>
>> > Why wouldn't someone with a "kibology" fantasy not be called a kibbler?
>>
>> What's a kibology fantasy? I thought kibology was the study and/or
>> worship of Kibo.
>
>That's an imaginary construct (i.e., a fantasy) that has been invented
>so that its "followers" can make stupid puns and attempt to disrupt
>conversations in newsgroups.

"KNOCK, KNOCK"

"Who's there?"

"Interupting Kibologist"

"Interupting Kibologist w. ."

"<Bad Pun>"

--


charkes

[Adam Funk]

Further up, PTD was taking his usual "I can post, so there's nothing
wrong" line.


--
And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb
through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a
sucker you are. [Rufus T. Firefly]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jun 6, 8:05 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-29, António Marques wrote:
>
> > Adam Funk wrote (29-05-2012 12:54):
> >> On 2012-05-28, António Marques wrote:
>
> >>> Adam Funk wrote (28-05-2012 12:48):
> >>>> You've missed PTD's point: the entire USERNET revolves around him.
>
> >>> Could it be that, in your desire to say something about PTD, you read 'Peter
> >>> Moylan' as 'PTD'?
>
> >> No, I specifically wrote 'PTD' rather than 'Peter' because I didn't
> >> want Peter Moylan to think I meant him.
>
> > So your remark had no connection at all to anything?
>
> Further up, PTD was taking his usual "I can post, so there's nothing
> wrong" line.

The Funkster turns into a Franz. Quote the words that make that claim.

[António Marques]

Adam Funk wrote (06-06-2012 13:05):
> On 2012-05-29, António Marques wrote:
>
>> Adam Funk wrote (29-05-2012 12:54):
>>> On 2012-05-28, António Marques wrote:
>>>
>>>> Adam Funk wrote (28-05-2012 12:48):
>
>>>>> You've missed PTD's point: the entire USERNET revolves around
>>>>> him.
>>>>
>>>> Could it be that, in your desire to say something about PTD, you
>>>> read 'Peter Moylan' as 'PTD'?
>>>
>>> No, I specifically wrote 'PTD' rather than 'Peter' because I didn't
>>> want Peter Moylan to think I meant him.
>>
>> So your remark had no connection at all to anything?
>
> Further up, PTD was taking his usual "I can post, so there's nothing
> wrong" line.

My recollection of this discussion disagrees with you.
(Nor do I agree that that's a 'usual line of PTD's', but that's a separate
matter.)

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-05-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> He has formed some preconceptions in his own mind and acts on them
> irrationally.

That's hilarious coming from you. I guess you're still reeling from
the cognitive dissonance of that Caslon specimen with wide
intersentence spacing.


--
Civilization is a race between catastrophe and education.
[H G Wells]

[bar...@bookpro.com]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:09:31 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2012-05-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> He has formed some preconceptions in his own mind and acts on them
>> irrationally.
>
>
>That's hilarious coming from you.

Yes, given the preconceptions he has formed (in his own mind, of
course, because he can't form preconceptions in anyone else's mind) of
"kibblers" and how he acts on them irrationally.

BW

[Mark Edwards]

No cluons were harmed when Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> That's hilarious coming from you. I guess you're still reeling from
> the cognitive dissonance of that Caslon specimen with wide
> intersentence spacing.

I'm still reeling from the concept of interspecies sentencing.

--
Proof of sanity forged upon request