Darwin crash?
John Harshman
nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
to show up eventually?
Inez
wrote:
My stuff hasn't shown up yet either, which is a pity because I
provided a perfect and incontrovertible refutation of ID, television
evangelists, and unwaxed dental floss.
Cheezits
That's nothing - Ray's paper was posted too!
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
r norman
You mean you didn't receive Wilkins' complete retraction on emergence?
Caranx latus
> Inez <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
>>> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
>>> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect
>>> it to show up eventually?
>> My stuff hasn't shown up yet either, which is a pity because I
>> provided a perfect and incontrovertible refutation of ID, television
>> evangelists, and unwaxed dental floss.
>
> That's nothing - Ray's paper was posted too!
So that's what caused the outage...
John Wilkins
> Inez <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
> >> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
> >> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect
> >> it to show up eventually?
> >
> > My stuff hasn't shown up yet either, which is a pity because I
> > provided a perfect and incontrovertible refutation of ID, television
> > evangelists, and unwaxed dental floss.
>
> That's nothing - Ray's paper was posted too!
>
What do you think crashed Darwin?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Ray Martinez
"Well, if you'd just get yourself a newsreader this wouldn't happen."
That's what computer nerd has always told me.
Obviously I am correct: when the Group is down, for whatever reason,
messages do not post on the Internet. Just because some might show up
on your private newsreader circuit does not mean that they are seen on
the Internet.
I am vindicated by this present incident of down time: no messages
posted, from Google Groups or newsreader.
Computer nerd can say anything but reality says the public cannot read
messages when the Group is down via Google whether its Google's fault
or not.
Ray
Boikat
> Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
> >> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
> >> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect
> >> it to show up eventually?
>
> > My stuff hasn't shown up yet either, which is a pity because I
> > provided a perfect and incontrovertible refutation of ID, television
> > evangelists, and unwaxed dental floss.
>
> That's nothing - Ray's paper was posted too!
>
It also seems to have had a benificial side effect: The current crop
of trolls seem to have wandered off. I probably jinxed that, didn't
I?
Boikat
Kent
The first two are fairly obvious but could you repost the third?
Kent
Steven L.
Maybe we'll discover it again in 360 years, like what happened with
Fermat's Last Theorem.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
John Harshman
eventually. I await your refutation of dental floss.
chris thompson
wrote:
I thought it was just Google Groups being constipated again. Darwin
had an email problem not long ago- a relapse perhaps?
Chris
Boikat
> > On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
> >> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
> >> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect
> >> it to show up eventually?
>
> > My stuff hasn't shown up yet either, which is a pity because I
> > provided a perfect and incontrovertible refutation of ID, television
> > evangelists, and unwaxed dental floss.
>
> That's nothing - Ray's paper was posted too!
>
That explains it. Darwins' BS filter exploded and opened the server
connection to let the BS drain out. That is probably why it took so
long.
Boikat
Boikat
When *Darwin* is down *nobody* can post, idiot. When *Google* is
down, only people who rely on Google to read and post are out of the
picture, you fucktard.
I trust you used the down-time to write a paragraph or two on your
worthless "paper"....
Boikat
Caranx latus
> On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
>> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
>> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
>> to show up eventually?
>
> "Well, if you'd just get yourself a newsreader this wouldn't happen."
> That's what computer nerd has always told me.
>
> Obviously I am correct: when the Group is down, for whatever reason,
> messages do not post on the Internet. Just because some might show up
> on your private newsreader circuit does not mean that they are seen on
> the Internet.
You have no idea what the Internet is. Here's a hint: neither Google nor
the World Wide Web are the Internet. There a number of different
applications that the Internet is used for, and two of these are the Web
(using primarily the HTTP protocol) and Usenet (using the NNTP protocol).
So, it is incorrect to say that "when the group is down, ... messages do
not post on the Internet." Instead, it would be true to say that when
the talk.origins server is down, messages do not post on the server.
However, if a genuine newsreader can display posts, then they are *by
definition* available on the Internet.
You seem to think that newsreaders are somewhat evil. How do you think
Google is able to display posts from this newsgroup? Here's a hint: it's
communicating with the talk.origins server in precisely the same way
that a newsreader does.
There is no such thing as a "private newsreader circuit." Newsreaders
operate across the Internet, which is public.
> I am vindicated by this present incident of down time: no messages
> posted, from Google Groups or newsreader.
>
> Computer nerd can say anything but reality says the public cannot read
> messages when the Group is down via Google whether its Google's fault
> or not.
Ummm... no. When Google is down, only those people reading and posting
through Google are affected. Everyone else is still able to read and
post. When the talk.origins server is down, everyone is affected.
Ye Old One
Lying arsehole.
--
Bob.
*Hemidactylus*
that there can be many reasons you might not be able to read your t.o.
posts on your google access point. "Darwin" could crash, google groups
could crash, or the problem could lie somewhere in between, maybe a
connection point between the two.
Now computer nerd(s) will tell you that your are an idiot and will
probably bash my non-techy explanation while they are at it.
Dogma Discharge
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d3a17ee9-6c14-4bb0...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> I am vindicated by this present incident of down time: no messages
> posted, from Google Groups or newsreader.
>
> Computer nerd can say anything but reality says the public cannot read
> messages when the Group is down via Google whether its Google's fault
> or not.
>
> Ray
I just blew biscuits out my nose.
*Hemidactylus*
little old lady in Idaho doing her crosswords and watching Oprah could
care less.
If a transformer were to blow nearby Ray's internet access point I
wonder if he would call in a complaint to the local power company with
the gripe that they, the power nerds, are impeding the public's access
to the group. When the service representative handling the complaint
asks what group Ray is talking about he says "talk.origins". When she/
he asks "What's that?" Ray goes ballistic and starts using the f-word.
*Hemidactylus*
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Inez
>
Kermit
I am a computer nerd, Ray, but I use Google as you do.
Sometimes Darwin, the computer on which talk.origins resides, is down,
as it was a few hours ago.
Sometimes Google Groups, the method you and I use to post here, is
down.
Sometimes Charter Communications, my ISP (Internet Service Provider),
is down, or at least the link it provides to me for the internet.
Sometimes my router has failed (the box that connects my home network
to the cable Charter has run into my house).
Sometimes my computer is down.
Only the first possibility affects everybody here. The items listed
above inconvenience fewer and fewer people in turn. The last
possibility listed doesn't even affect my wife's connection to the
internet.
Kermit
*Hemidactylus*
Whether it's Darwin, Google, or somewhere in between, people will have
access problems to t.o. in the future I'm sure. And Ray will keep us
posted.
Google isn't the only web-based usenet access point. I've looked into
others recently. Some charge a nominal fee.
Computer nerd has set up their computer to read newsgroups via a
newsreader configured for their own applications. Crappy WebTV came
with a dedicated newsreader, with serious reply limitations. Nontechy
people could use this resource to read t.o. when Darwin is working and
the problem stems from google or a connection to Darwin. If WebTVers
could potentially read t.o. while Ray is it fuming about his lack of
access, I don't see what his basic overall gripe is.
Stuff happens.
>
> I trust you used the down-time to write a paragraph or two on your
> worthless "paper"....
>
Shouldn't he, if serious about "the paper", go on a sabbatical and
finish the thing?
Caranx latus
Unless she is doing her crosswords in Martineze, of course. You know the
kind of thing: 7-letter word starting with 'a' meaning 'lacking' =
'against'. Without talk.origins, no-one would ever 'know' things like this.
> If a transformer were to blow nearby Ray's internet access point I
> wonder if he would call in a complaint to the local power company with
> the gripe that they, the power nerds, are impeding the public's access
> to the group. When the service representative handling the complaint
> asks what group Ray is talking about he says "talk.origins". When she/
> he asks "What's that?" Ray goes ballistic and starts using the f-word.
No, anytime Ray has some kind of trouble accessing talk.origins, it is
invariably *our* fault. It must be, or he wouldn't be continually
griping to us.
Ye Old One
Funny place to keep biscuits. They tend to keep better in an airtight
container, you will also find you can breath better.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
He will not understand it - honest.
--
Bob.
Anthony Williams
I don't always get the messages in order, sometimes it has made me out
to be quite the asshole. Has that happen to anyone else? It's happened
today even.
John Harshman
Robert Weldon
And Ray proves, once again, that he is dumber than dirt.
Anthony Williams
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
>>> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
>>> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
>>> to show up eventually?
>>
>> "Well, if you'd just get yourself a newsreader this wouldn't happen."
>> That's what computer nerd has always told me.
>>
>> Obviously I am correct: when the Group is down, for whatever reason,
>> messages do not post on the Internet. Just because some might show up
>> on your private newsreader circuit does not mean that they are seen on
>> the Internet.
>
> You have no idea what the Internet is. Here's a hint: neither Google nor
> the World Wide Web are the Internet. There a number of different
> applications that the Internet is used for, and two of these are the Web
> (using primarily the HTTP protocol) and Usenet (using the NNTP protocol).
You sure it's not called tcp/ip?
r norman
<Truth...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Caranx latus wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
>>>> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
>>>> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
>>>> to show up eventually?
>>>
>>> "Well, if you'd just get yourself a newsreader this wouldn't happen."
>>> That's what computer nerd has always told me.
>>>
>>> Obviously I am correct: when the Group is down, for whatever reason,
>>> messages do not post on the Internet. Just because some might show up
>>> on your private newsreader circuit does not mean that they are seen on
>>> the Internet.
>>
>> You have no idea what the Internet is. Here's a hint: neither Google nor
>> the World Wide Web are the Internet. There a number of different
>> applications that the Internet is used for, and two of these are the Web
>> (using primarily the HTTP protocol) and Usenet (using the NNTP protocol).
>
>You sure it's not called tcp/ip?
>
NNTP is correct. It is application layer and is based on TCP in the
transport layer and IP in the Internet layer.
Anthony Williams
Good to know, I was wondering if it was my newsreader.
r norman
Or perhaps maybe you are sometimes quite the....
No, no, sorry, worrying about tree rings has made me quite
irrational! Forget I wrote that.
Anthony Williams
> Anthony Williams wrote:
>
>> Caranx latus wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>> You have no idea what the Internet is. Here's a hint: neither Google
>>> nor the World Wide Web are the Internet. There a number of different
>>> applications that the Internet is used for, and two of these are the
>>> Web (using primarily the HTTP protocol) and Usenet (using the NNTP
>>> protocol).
>> You sure it's not called tcp/ip?
>
>
Are you saying I am wrong or did I hurt your feelings by not
acknowledging a couple of application protocols?
The Stoon
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well as TCP/IP is not a protocol.....i'd say yes. You are wrong. As is
he, the OSI Layer model and the TCP/IP layer model are not the same.
Steve..
Anthony Williams
Maybe I should have said uninformed asshole.
Inez
wrote:
> >> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
> >> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
> >> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
> >> to show up eventually?
>
> > provided a perfect and incontrovertible refutation of ID, television
> > evangelists, and unwaxed dental floss.
>
> eventually. I await your refutation of dental floss.
Well you are not disappointed, but none of the 3 or 4 posts I made
yesterday during the outage have appeared yet.
Tiny Bulcher
I hear Patmos is nice this time of year.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>:
>Lying arsehole.
It's only a lie if he doesn't believe it. Unfortunately, he
actually believes that this incoherent and incorrect word
salad is an accurate description. It's really no surprise
that his scientific illiteracy is combined with his
technological illiteracy; science and technology *are*
related, after all, and both require the capacity for
rational thought.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Dick C
Long long ago, in an internet far away, it would take 2 or 3 days for a
message to propagate. The companies and schools, and government agencies
that connected to the internet would each have its' own server, and a message
would have to travel one to the other. And since bandwidth was an issue then
the messages would be passed on only at times when the internet connection
was not being used for other things. Consequently discussions would last
a long time with several days between replies. When the internet opened
up to isp's and bandwidth expanded news propagation became much faster,
and now it seems strange that messages appear out of order. But 15 years ago
it was fairly normal.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Rupert Morrish
> On Aug 19, 6:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
>>> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
>>> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
>>> to show up eventually?
>> "Well, if you'd just get yourself a newsreader this wouldn't happen."
>> That's what computer nerd has always told me.
>>
>> Obviously I am correct: when the Group is down, for whatever reason,
>> messages do not post on the Internet. Just because some might show up
>> on your private newsreader circuit does not mean that they are seen on
>> the Internet.
>>
>> I am vindicated by this present incident of down time: no messages
>> posted, from Google Groups or newsreader.
>>
>> Computer nerd can say anything but reality says the public cannot read
>> messages when the Group is down via Google whether its Google's fault
>> or not.
>>
>> Ray
>
> I am a computer nerd, Ray, but I use Google as you do.
>
> Sometimes Darwin, the computer on which talk.origins resides,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any meaningful sense in which
talk.origins "resides" on Darwin. Darwin is the computer on which the
*robo-moderator* resides, and (I think) part of the email address of
that moderator. However, once a post passes moderation, the post is then
available on the original NNTP server to all its peers and to its local
clients. No-one (except perhaps DIG) gets their talk.origins feed from
Darwin.
Walter Bushell
r norman
<Truth...@swbell.net> wrote:
You don't have to wear special clothes, civvies will do.
r norman
Tristan Miller
In article
<580adc96-ac78-436f...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit wrote:
> Sometimes Darwin, the computer on which talk.origins resides, is down,
> as it was a few hours ago.
talk.origins does not "reside" on any one machine. It resides on Usenet,
which is a distributed system encompassing thousands of machines all over
the world. Messages here can be read regardless whether any one machine
is down (unless that machine happens to be the one you use to connect to
the group).
On moderated newsgroups, messages cannot be posted directly. Rather,
messages are automatically forwarded to a moderator for approval. Once
approval is received, the message then appears on the newsgroup.
Talk.origins happens to be a moderated group, and a computer named Darwin
does the moderating. Thus if Darwin is down, then messages cannot be
posted. However, past messages can still be read.
I suspect you already knew this, Kermit, and were simply oversimplifying
things, but I thought it would be useful to explain this in more detail in
case anyone else got the wrong idea.
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
John Wilkins
> On Aug 19, 8:58 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Inez
> >
> > <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > >wrote:
> > >> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
> > >> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
> > >> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
> > >> to show up eventually?
> >
> > >My stuff hasn't shown up yet either, which is a pity because I
> > >provided a perfect and incontrovertible refutation of ID, television
> > >evangelists, and unwaxed dental floss.
> >
> > You mean you didn't receive Wilkins' complete retraction on emergence?
> >
> Yeah...right!
No, it's true. I published it right after Richard announced that he was,
after all, a hard arsed reductionist.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d3a17ee9-6c14-4bb0...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> wrote:
> > There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
> > nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
> > everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
> > to show up eventually?
>
> That's what computer nerd has always told me.
>
> Obviously I am correct: when the Group is down, for whatever reason,
> messages do not post on the Internet.
What do you mean "post on the Internet"? It is like saying 'sending it in
the mail' - but who the f*** are you sending it to? Addressee? Or just out
on the web hoping someone will pick it up?`It must reach a destination, and
that destination better be a working server accessible on the Internet - if
you connect to its adress, i.e. URL. See, the Internet is to the web what
the 'aether' is to radio communications.
Anthony Williams
[IS T.O. down again? I guess my other reply to this was lost.]
I don't know what makes you think that TCP&IP are not protocols. I am no
expert but this is how I understand it:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/internet/tcp-ip/tcp-ip-faq/part2/
Or maybe you were just being pedantic? I wouldn't ask if it wasn't so
common around here, IMO. BTW, it's also an American(I don't mean Mexican
or Canadian either)invention. Take a look at this list!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_inventions
Richard Clayton
> On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
>> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
>> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
>> to show up eventually?
>
> "Well, if you'd just get yourself a newsreader this wouldn't happen."
> That's what computer nerd has always told me.
>
> Obviously I am correct: when the Group is down, for whatever reason,
> on your private newsreader circuit does not mean that they are seen on
> the Internet.
The "private newsreader circuit" is, in fact, ALL OF USENET. Google
Groups is just another newsreader, and not a particularly good one. You
might as well claim that the internet ceases to exist when Internet
Explorer crashes.
> I am vindicated by this present incident of down time: no messages
> posted, from Google Groups or newsreader.
To my knowledge, Darwin has had a few hours of downtime, total, in the
last two years.
Google's t.o archive has been down for DAYS.
Usenet NEVER goes down. EVER.
> Computer nerd can say anything but reality says the public cannot read
> messages when the Group is down via Google whether its Google's fault
> or not.
Why are you so proud of your ignorance, Ray? Are you afraid that if you
learn one single thing from talk.origins, you'll open the floodgates and
wind up learning stuff all the time?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." — Optimus Prime
David Iain Greig
> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
> to show up eventually?
>
Someoen decided to set an email account on darwin as the 'from:' line for a
sizeable email spam.
I think I fixed it.
--D.
Robert Carnegie
> On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>
> > There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
> > nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
> > everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
> > to show up eventually?
>
> That's what computer nerd has always told me.
>
> Obviously I am correct: when the Group is down, for whatever reason,
> messages do not post on the Internet. Just because some might show up
> on your private newsreader circuit does not mean that they are seen on
> the Internet.
>
> posted, from Google Groups or newsreader.
>
> messages when the Group is down via Google whether its Google's fault
> or not.
Google Groups /is/ a newsreader, tied to its internal newsgroup
service. You compose articles in a newsreader program, send them to
your local newsgroup server, and they are distributed from there to
other news servers on the internet. You /may/ also be able to run it
by sending e-mail to Google which is treated as a news article, and by
receiving e-mail similarly.
For a moderated newsgroup like talk.origins there is an intermediate
step: no one gets to read the message, not even on Google Groups,
until it is sent to the computer called "Darwin" operated by DIG and
approved. I presume this process is managed by the newsgroup server
that received your post, i.e. Google Groups.
Currently switched /off/, I think, is the mechanism that DIG put into
his own program so that messages /from/ Google Groups and not a known
author would be held back for manual checking. The stated purpose of
this is that such messages are disproportionately likely to be
irrelevant advertisements - quite often for running shoes, for some
reason.
Google Groups also includes groups that are not part of Usenet, but
are exclusive to Google. These may have their own moderation rules, I
don't know about it.
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
>*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 19, 8:58 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Inez
>> >
>> > <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> > >wrote:
>> > >> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
>> > >> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
>> > >> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
>> > >> to show up eventually?
>> >
>> > >My stuff hasn't shown up yet either, which is a pity because I
>> > >provided a perfect and incontrovertible refutation of ID, television
>> > >evangelists, and unwaxed dental floss.
>> >
>> > You mean you didn't receive Wilkins' complete retraction on emergence?
>> >
>> Yeah...right!
>
>No, it's true. I published it right after Richard announced that he was,
>after all, a hard arsed reductionist.
Darwin crashed so thoroughly that it even erased that one from my Sent
folder.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
>> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
>> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
>> to show up eventually?
>
>"Well, if you'd just get yourself a newsreader this wouldn't happen."
>That's what computer nerd has always told me.
>
>Obviously I am correct: when the Group is down, for whatever reason,
>messages do not post on the Internet. Just because some might show up
>on your private newsreader circuit does not mean that they are seen on
>the Internet.
"...private newsreader circuit..."
Congratulations on demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
You really have *no* idea how any of this works, do you?
>I am vindicated by this present incident of down time: no messages
>posted, from Google Groups or newsreader.
>
>Computer nerd can say anything but reality says the public cannot read
>messages when the Group is down via Google whether its Google's fault
>or not.
"...when the Group is down via Google..."
Sheeesh...
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Dogma Discharge"
<me...@red.co.jp>:
>
>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:d3a17ee9-6c14-4bb0...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> I am vindicated by this present incident of down time: no messages
>> posted, from Google Groups or newsreader.
>>
>> Computer nerd can say anything but reality says the public cannot read
>> messages when the Group is down via Google whether its Google's fault
>> or not.
>I just blew biscuits out my nose.
Ray's pronouncements tend to have that effect...
Ye Old One
Considering the number of times it has been explained to him he cannot
use ignorance as a defense. Since he has repeated statements he has
been corrected on before, I feel justified in calling him a liar.
> It's really no surprise
>that his scientific illiteracy is combined with his
>technological illiteracy; science and technology *are*
>related, after all, and both require the capacity for
>rational thought.
Mmmmm. Rational thought and a creationist do not make good bedmates.
--
Bob.
John Harshman
Thanks. If only internet crime could be successfully prosecuted.
*Hemidactylus*
> *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 8:58 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Inez
>
> > > <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
> > > >> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
> > > >> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
> > > >> to show up eventually?
>
> > > >My stuff hasn't shown up yet either, which is a pity because I
> > > >provided a perfect and incontrovertible refutation of ID, television
> > > >evangelists, and unwaxed dental floss.
>
> > > You mean you didn't receive Wilkins' complete retraction on emergence?
>
> > Yeah...right!
>
> No, it's true. I published it right after Richard announced that he was,
> after all, a hard arsed reductionist.
>
reductionist?
*Hemidactylus*
wrote:
talk.origins and usenet work by reading the responses to Ray's rants
about his issues with access to the Group. Talk.origins is distributed
across many servers on a network thingy and all Darwin does is act as
a bot-filter keeping the barbarians at bay. Sometimes bots like Darwin
get fed up with all the crap they filter and take a momentary mental
health vacation til DIG calls him back to work. My guess is that
Darwin is sick of Chinese cheap sneaker spam and is getting a tad
stressed out.
r norman
I now walk around saying, "G'dye mite".
Friar Broccoli
If/when you have the time I am curious to know exactly what
the consequences were:
- A huge number of angry replies clogging the system?
- Your ISP cut Darwin off from the internet?
Krubozumo Nyankoye
emotion intoned:
news:b176d7de-11cc-4e12...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
Most likely a deluge of bounced messages.
--
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.
David Iain Greig
> Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> eyed the audience and in choked
> emotion intoned:
> news:b176d7de-11cc-4e12...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Aug 21, 11:13 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>>> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> > There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
>>> > nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
>>> > everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we
>>> > expect i
>> t
>>> > to show up eventually?
>>>
>>> Someoen decided to set an email account on darwin as the 'from:' line
>>> for
>> a
>>> sizeable email spam.
>>>
>>> I think I fixed it.
>>
>>
>> If/when you have the time I am curious to know exactly what
>> the consequences were:
>> - A huge number of angry replies clogging the system?
>> - Your ISP cut Darwin off from the internet?
>>
>>
>
> Most likely a deluge of bounced messages.
Give this man a kewpie doll.
--D.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
<snip>
>Currently switched /off/, I think, is the mechanism that DIG put into
>his own program so that messages /from/ Google Groups and not a known
>author would be held back for manual checking. The stated purpose of
>this is that such messages are disproportionately likely to be
>irrelevant advertisements - quite often for running shoes, for some
>reason.
Did anyone track this, or field any replies from Google?
<snip>
Bob Casanova
OK, but it's my opinion that he repeats his moronic
statements because he doesn't believe the corrections; this
is certainly true in every post he's ever made involving
science and evolution.
>> It's really no surprise
>>that his scientific illiteracy is combined with his
>>technological illiteracy; science and technology *are*
>>related, after all, and both require the capacity for
>>rational thought.
>
>Mmmmm. Rational thought and a creationist do not make good bedmates.
Not usually, especially if the brand of creationism in
question has actually been refuted by science.
Richard Clayton
Oooh, that's clever. Evil, but clever.
John Wilkins
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:48:23 -0700 (PDT), "*Hemidactylus*"
> <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 20, 8:43 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> >> *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Aug 19, 8:58 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Inez
> >>
> >> > > <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >> > > >wrote:
> >> > > >> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today
> >> > > >> when nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent.
> >> > > >> Is everything posted during that period gone forever, or would
> >> > > >> we expect it to show up eventually?
> >>
> >> > > >My stuff hasn't shown up yet either, which is a pity because I
> >> > > >provided a perfect and incontrovertible refutation of ID, television
> >> > > >evangelists, and unwaxed dental floss.
> >>
> >> > > You mean you didn't receive Wilkins' complete retraction on emergence?
> >>
> >> > Yeah...right!
> >>
> >> No, it's true. I published it right after Richard announced that he was,
> >> after all, a hard arsed reductionist.
> >>
> >So you guys shifted roles where you are emergentist and he is
> >reductionist?
>
> I now walk around saying, "G'dye mite".
I now walk around saying "Damn philosophers who don't know any biology!"
John McKendry
And this happened after a computer named "Darwin" crashed? I'm getting
an idea for a movie here.
I'm seeing... Sean Connery. Yeah. And Harrison Ford.
This is going to be big, I tell you.
John
r norman
wrote:
Which one of us gets the babe in the end?
(Yes, any ambiguous meaning is intentional.)
*Hemidactylus*
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6a4777739ccbe8f0?hl=en
[begin #1 hit] Oh Darwin, Oh Darwin where are you?
Oh Darwin, Oh Darwin no posts are new!
Since Sometime yesterday I think you croaked
Or maybe evil genius computer nerd has you cloaked.
I sit and await the time when you are restored.
Until then I keep checking because I'm bored.
Like someone said "the public cannot read
messages when the Group is down "
And that someone will return to act the clown
Computer nerd, computer nerd, why you taunt us so
What have you done to Darwin to make his fuses blow
There's a paper in the pipeline catcha see
Without access to Group monumental paper will cease to be.
So with this brief ode I wish you and your circuitry well
Because loss of access to Group is a living hell
I know you will be criticized by Scholar but pay that no mind
He posts solely from google, he feels newreaders too unkind.
So eventually DIG will burp you and you will puke
And this ode to you might get caught in the fluke
But I sing it to you nonetheless
Oh Darwin, Oh Darwin I wish you the best. [end #1 hit]
All we need to do is convince Moby to set it to some cutting edge
techno, kinda like he did for the Bourne movies starring Matt Damon.
Which brings me to the perfect "Darwin" crash scene. Matt Damon is
riding with "Darwin" over a bridge in India. A sniper spammer takes
"Darwin" out at long range with a rifle shot and Darwin crashes over
the bridge into the water. Matt Damon tries to revive "Darwin" to no
avail and spends the rest of the movie avenging "Darwin"'s demise,
focusing his attack on Chinese sneaker spammers.
Matt Damon encounters bureacratic problems from the "howler monkey"
covert program that trained him. They send assassins after him.
Another group catches wind of his presence in China, comprised of two
creationists. One keeps saying that the covert program was started by
atheists and the other keeps saying Matt Damon has crashed and burned.
They send agents to intercept Matt Damon, but because they don't trust
atheist science and technology they never succeed in getting their
agents out of the United States. They instead track Matt Damon's
movements using Google Earth not realizing that it is not a real time
satellite feed until too late, when the one creationist complains that
computer nerd has made it impossible for "the public" to access live
satellite feed.
John Wilkins
I get Connery. I don't want to be played by some old guy...
r norman
Now that we've switched roles, you ARE an old guy!
Rupert Morrish
Harshmann gets the bird.
>
>
John McKendry
<snip pitch of pulse-pounding adventure-techno-thriller with
guns and explosions>
It's possible that I should have mentioned the words "screwball
comedy" somewhere in my original post to avoid this sort of
artistic misunderstanding.
John
John McKendry
I was going to ask if either one of you happens to know Angelina
Jolie?
John
John Wilkins
> flus cwæ› *Hemidactylus*:
> > On Aug 19, 11:24 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Aug 19, 8:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
> >>>> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
> >>>> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we
> >>>> expect it to show up eventually?
> >>
> >>> "Well, if you'd just get yourself a newsreader this wouldn't
> >>> happen." That's what computer nerd has always told me.
> >>
> >>> Obviously I am correct: when the Group is down, for whatever reason,
> >>> messages do not post on the Internet. Just because some might show
> >>> up on your private newsreader circuit does not mean that they are
> >>> seen on the Internet.
> >>
> >>> I am vindicated by this present incident of down time: no messages
> >>> posted, from Google Groups or newsreader.
> >>
> >>> Computer nerd can say anything but reality says the public cannot
> >>> read messages when the Group is down via Google whether its
> >>> Google's fault or not.
> >>
> >> When *Darwin* is down *nobody* can post, idiot. When *Google* is
> >> down, only people who rely on Google to read and post are out of the
> >> picture, you fucktard.
> >>
> > I think he is extrapolating his own experience to "the public".
> > Whether it's Darwin, Google, or somewhere in between, people will have
> > access problems to t.o. in the future I'm sure. And Ray will keep us
> > posted.
> >
> > Google isn't the only web-based usenet access point. I've looked into
> > others recently. Some charge a nominal fee.
> >
> > Computer nerd has set up their computer to read newsgroups via a
> > newsreader configured for their own applications. Crappy WebTV came
> > with a dedicated newsreader, with serious reply limitations. Nontechy
> > people could use this resource to read t.o. when Darwin is working and
> > the problem stems from google or a connection to Darwin. If WebTVers
> > could potentially read t.o. while Ray is it fuming about his lack of
> > access, I don't see what his basic overall gripe is.
> >
> > Stuff happens.
> >>
> >> I trust you used the down-time to write a paragraph or two on your
> >> worthless "paper"....
> >>
> > Shouldn't he, if serious about "the paper", go on a sabbatical and
> > finish the thing?
>
> I hear Patmos is nice this time of year.
Watch out for the magic mushrooms, though. They can cause untold damage
to civilisations...
John Wilkins
> Krubozumo Nyankoye <lib...@vetnet.net> wrote:
> > Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> eyed the audience and in choked
> > emotion intoned:
> > news:b176d7de-11cc-4e12...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> On Aug 21, 11:13 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> >>> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>> > There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
> >>> > nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
> >>> > everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we
> >>> > expect i
> >> t
> >>> > to show up eventually?
> >>>
> >>> Someoen decided to set an email account on darwin as the 'from:' line
> >>> for
> >> a
> >>> sizeable email spam.
> >>>
> >>> I think I fixed it.
> >>
> >>
> >> If/when you have the time I am curious to know exactly what
> >> the consequences were:
> >> - A huge number of angry replies clogging the system?
> >> - Your ISP cut Darwin off from the internet?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Most likely a deluge of bounced messages.
>
> Give this man a kewpie doll.
>
Why? What's he ever done to you?
John Wilkins
Yeah, but not *that* old...
Besides, I could stomach being played in a Scottish accent, but not an
American one.
Inez
> On Aug 19, 6:51 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Inez wrote:
> > > On Aug 19, 4:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >> There appears to have been a period of several (?) hours today when
> > >> nothing was posted to TO, including a couple things I sent. Is
> > >> everything posted during that period gone forever, or would we expect it
> > >> to show up eventually?
>
> > > My stuff hasn't shown up yet either, which is a pity because I
> > > provided a perfect and incontrovertible refutation of ID, television
> > > evangelists, and unwaxed dental floss.
>
> > eventually. I await your refutation of dental floss.
>
> Well you are not disappointed, but none of the 3 or 4 posts I made
> yesterday during the outage have appeared yet.
That was supposed to read "well I hope you are not..." Perhaps I can
blame Darwin for eating several words from my post, since it has
already feasted so heavily at my expense.
Anthony Williams
> On Aug 20, 7:13 pm, Anthony Williams <TruthSee...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> nmp wrote:
>>> Anthony Williams wrote:
>>>> Caranx latus wrote:
>>> [..]
>>>>> You have no idea what the Internet is. Here's a hint: neither Google
>>>>> nor the World Wide Web are the Internet. There a number of different
>>>>> applications that the Internet is used for, and two of these are the
>>>>> Web (using primarily the HTTP protocol) and Usenet (using the NNTP
>>>>> protocol).
>>>> You sure it's not called tcp/ip?
>>> Learn your OSI layers...
>> Are you saying I am wrong or did I hurt your feelings by not
>> acknowledging a couple of application protocols?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well as TCP/IP is not a protocol.....i'd say yes. You are wrong. As is
> he, the OSI Layer model and the TCP/IP layer model are not the same.
>
> Steve..
>
I don't know where you get that TCP&IP are not protocols. Are you just
being pedantic? I am not claiming to be an expert by no means but this
is how I understood it:
Anthony Williams
FWIW, I boned this one bitch (about a half of dozen times or so) that
looks so much like Angelina Jolie, especially in the face with those
sexy thick lips, I feel like I have screwed her.
Shane
Let me guess, her surname was Palmer, right?
Krubozumo Nyankoye
emotion intoned: news:cabal-slrngarl...@darwin.ediacara.org:
>>> If/when you have the time I am curious to know exactly what
>>> the consequences were:
>>> - A huge number of angry replies clogging the system?
>>> - Your ISP cut Darwin off from the internet?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Most likely a deluge of bounced messages.
>
> Give this man a kewpie doll.
>
> --D.
So the spam was selling Kewpie dolls? I'll take a classic 1919 version
in bisque thank you.
Earle Jones
Anthony Williams <Truth...@swbell.net> wrote:
*
Anthony: Are you going to continue to post here (talk.origins)?
Please let us know, so that we can take the proper action.
Thanks,
earle
*
Anthony Williams
Is that some kind of veiled threat? I hope so, if so, I'll give you my
address. No one is forcing you to read my posts.
John McKendry
I don't think you're quite ready for this newsgroup, Anthony. Please
take your swaggering, belligerent insecurity, your sad chauvinism, your
ostentatious hypermasculinity, your fear of women, your "bitches"
and "pussies", your playground alpha-male posturing, your
testosterone-poisoned tantrums, in short your whole dreary loutish
self, back to the learned discussions of fistfights in alt.ucf,
where they may possibly be impressed by people like you. Come
back when you figure out the difference between self-regard
and self-respect.
John
Anthony Williams
All ad hominem. Next.
r norman
<Truth...@swbell.net> wrote:
Ad hominem but true and well deserved.
When discussing the individual responsible for your repellent
comments, what other type of criticism would be expected?
Anthony Williams
By that I'll presume you mean my comments in general; I deny my comments
are "repellent." Though that may certainly be your subjective opinion.
So I guess that leaves us at a Mexican stand off. In case you haven't
guessed I deny objective moral values exist. But, I'd still say a good
place to start would be by being logical and not using such obviously
fallacious reasoning that even I can see it.
Friar Broccoli
> r norman wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:18:04 -0500, Anthony Williams
> > <TruthSee...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> John McKendry wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:04:20 -0500, Anthony Williams wrote:
>
> >>>> Earle Jones wrote:
> >>>>> Anthony Williams <TruthSee...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> John McKendry wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:14:30 -0400, r norman wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 22 Aug 2008 01:50:12 GMT, John McKendry
No one here is attempting to reason with you.
We are just asking you to leave, please.
Anthony Williams
Oh, excuse me, genius. I thought someone (r norman wasn't it) asked me a
question and I have always thought, for some odd reason, an answer was
supposed to come next.
Caranx latus
> r norman wrote:
<snip>
>>> All ad hominem. Next.
>>
>> Ad hominem but true and well deserved.
>>
>> When discussing the individual responsible for your repellent
>> comments, what other type of criticism would be expected?
>>
>
> By that I'll presume you mean my comments in general; I deny my comments
> are "repellent."
Well, they're certainly not intended to charm, are they?
> Though that may certainly be your subjective opinion.
Perhaps not as subjective as you might think.
> So I guess that leaves us at a Mexican stand off. In case you haven't
> guessed I deny objective moral values exist. But, I'd still say a good
> place to start would be by being logical and not using such obviously
> fallacious reasoning that even I can see it.
I see that Shane managed to get through to you. Well done.
Earle Jones
Anthony Williams <Truth...@swbell.net> wrote:
*
Don't get your hopes up!
The "proper action" to which I referred is simple: we delegate all of
your future postings to the 'bit-bucket' in the sky.
You know about the 'killfile'?
Do you know about that?
Bye -- I won't see any more of you.
earle
*
Earle Jones
r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> >All ad hominem....
*
Note to Anthony: It is not an ad hominem attack to call someone an
asshole, if in fact he really is an asshole -- it's just a judgment call.
earle
*
John Wilkins
> In article <oaqua49a6a9lrfkoj...@4ax.com>,
> r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:18:04 -0500, Anthony Williams
> > <Truth...@swbell.net> wrote:
...
> > >All ad hominem....
>
> *
> Note to Anthony: It is not an ad hominem attack to call someone an
> asshole, if in fact he really is an asshole -- it's just a judgment call.
It's still an ad hominem attack. It's just not a *fallacy*, if, indeed,
the character of the person so attacked is relevant to the argument in
play. Since even listening to this guy depends on his personal character
(as shown upthread by his obvious pathetic machismo and misogyny), then
it is relevant.
One may attack ad hominem and not commit a fallacy (it's a fallacy when
it isn't relevant).
Anthony Williams
Note to Whiner;
Kinda like you with you whining?
r norman
Most people recognize a rhetorical question as not requiring an
answer. Furthermore, you didn't answer the question I asked.
John McKendry said " Come back when you figure out the difference
between self-regard and self-respect". You probably don't know the
difference.
Frank J
Nah. I'm seeing Ben Stein. "Expelled II: Darwin Crashed!" should gross
thousands of dollars at the box office.
Robert Carnegie
No, I think we should explain. Anthony: what you said about Angelina
Jolie was not cool. She is a special person to us. Many of us carry
a little picture of her around with us - well, anyway, we try to keep
the standard of discussion higher. Although often the line crossed is
invisible.
You're very welcome to indulge yourself with puns, unfortunately.