Anyone Order Anything from Cheaper-than-Tuition.com?

[crobin...@gmail.com]

I have been considering purchasing a novelty diploma recently (to hang
on my office wall of course) and came across a really good looking
website called Cheaper-than-Tuition (http://Cheaper-than-Tuition.com),
but have been unable to learn much more about them or find any reviews
online. Has anyone ordered from them before?

[chrisya...@gmail.com]

在 2008年9月15日星期一 UTC+8上午6:12:52，crobin...@gmail.com写道：

Maybe diplomascenters.com is a better choice. they have rich experience in fake diplomas development, production and sales.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Only six or so years old this time, so maybe chrisyang66660 is still
around hoping for advice. A GoogleGroper, of course (not just because
it's coming from gmail, but because the full headers say so).


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

The "Google Grouping," of course, being irrelevant to the six-years-oldness.

Is Google now allowed to operate in China? (Some of the characters in the
address lines are indisputably Simplified, so the message does not come from
Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Singapore.)

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:3b5ace66-0db6-463e...@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 5:49:37 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> wrote:
>> On 2015-05-16 08:03:08 +0000, chrisya...@gmail.com said:
>> > 在 2008年9月15日星期一
> UTC+8上午6:12:52，crobin...@gmail.com写道：
>
>> >> I have been considering purchasing a novelty diploma recently (to
>> >> hang on my office wall of course) and came across a really good
>> >> looking website called Cheaper-than-Tuition
>> >> (http://Cheaper-than-Tuition.com), but have been unable to learn
>> >> much more about them or find any reviews online. Has anyone
>> >> ordered from them before?
>> > Maybe diplomascenters.com is a better choice. they have rich
>> > experience in fake diplomas development, production and sales.
>>
>> Only six or so years old this time, so maybe chrisyang66660 is still
>> around hoping for advice. A GoogleGroper, of course (not just because
>> it's coming from gmail, but because the full headers say so).
>
> The "Google Grouping," of course, being irrelevant to the
> six-years-oldness.

Really? What other service enables users to find and respond to six-year-
old posts? Gmail certainly doesn't.
--
S.O.P.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-05-16 16:48:57 +0000, Sneaky O. Possum said:

> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:3b5ace66-0db6-463e...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 5:49:37 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> wrote:
>>> On 2015-05-16 08:03:08 +0000, chrisya...@gmail.com said:

>>>> 在 2008年9月15日星期一
>> UTC+8ä¸Šå ˆ6:12:52，crobin...@gmail.comå†™é “ï¼š

>>
>>>>> I have been considering purchasing a novelty diploma recently (to
>>>>> hang on my office wall of course) and came across a really good
>>>>> looking website called Cheaper-than-Tuition
>>>>> (http://Cheaper-than-Tuition.com), but have been unable to learn
>>>>> much more about them or find any reviews online. Has anyone
>>>>> ordered from them before?
>>>> Maybe diplomascenters.com is a better choice. they have rich
>>>> experience in fake diplomas development, production and sales.
>>>
>>> Only six or so years old this time, so maybe chrisyang66660 is still
>>> around hoping for advice. A GoogleGroper, of course (not just because
>>> it's coming from gmail, but because the full headers say so).
>>
>> The "Google Grouping," of course, being irrelevant to the
>> six-years-oldness.
>
> Really? What other service enables users to find and respond to six-year-
> old posts? Gmail certainly doesn't.

So he still hasn't got it: four out of four such messages today come
from Google Groups users (not to mention all those on other days) and
he still thinks it's just a coincidence.


--
athel

[semir...@my-deja.com]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 1:58:39 PM UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 5:49:37 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

>>On 2015-05-16 08:03:08 +0000, chrisyang66660 @gmail.com said:
>>> 在 2008年9月15日星期一 UTC+8上午6:12:52，crobin...@gmail.com写道：

>Is Google now allowed to operate in China? (Some of the characters in the
>address lines are indisputably Simplified, so the message does not come from
>Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Singapore.)

Singapore adopted the simplified characters in 1976,
according to Wikipedia

[Peter T. Daniels]

And it's sheer coincidence that _every_ _person_ who does that is a user of gmail?

[Peter T. Daniels]

NO SUCH MESSAGES, over however many months or even years they have been
appearing, COME FROM ANYONE BUT GMAIL USERS. Not from any other users of GG.

"Athel" claims to be a scientist, yet lets his prejudice affect his reasoning
to so great an extent?

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
news:959729a4-fc3f-486d...@googlegroups.com...

Yes, and I've given a possible explanation at least twice now; that people
signing up to GG for the first time are far more likely to use gmail
addresses, because Google encourages it. Is that so implausible?

--
Guy Barry

[Richard Tobin]

In article <959729a4-fc3f-486d...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>NO SUCH MESSAGES, over however many months or even years they have been
>appearing, COME FROM ANYONE BUT GMAIL USERS. Not from any other users of GG.

There are about 100,000 articles on my server posted through Google
Groups[1]. These are from about 9,000 different users[2]. 71% of
these users use gmail addresses[3].

To post through the Google Groups web interface you have to log on
with a Google ID - which is normally a gmail address. To post with a
different address, you have to deliberately configure it. It seems
very likely therefore that the vast majority of inexperienced Google
Groups users will post with a gmail address, and that those posting
with a non-gmail address will be more sophisticated users.

So it seems very plausible that the explanation for these odd posts
being from gmail users is that the only common way to encouter very
old articles is through Google Groups, and that the people who respond
to them are inexperienced users and therefore likely to use a gmail
address.

[1] Ones having "googlegroups" in the Message-ID.
[2] Unique From: lines.
[3] From: line contains "gmail".

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

Then could you persuade the GG-haters to stop claiming it's GG that causes the problem?

[Peter T. Daniels]

You still have it backwards. Nothing about GG itself makes it easy to see long-
dead threads. At the moment the general heading for AUE notes that it is
currently hosting 105,803 threads. The only way to access early ones would be
to wait, or wade, through hours and hours of scrolling down to the bottom.
Arranging Search results "by date" also puts the most recent first, so there
would also probably be considerable scrolling to get to 20-year-old results.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <ef4a384f-1695-4574...@googlegroups.com>,

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

>Nothing about GG itself makes it easy to see long-dead threads.

On the contrary, Google Groups has a unique feature which does exactly
that: a search interface that is not limited to current articles.

>At the moment the general heading for AUE notes that it is
>currently hosting 105,803 threads. The only way to access early ones would be
>to wait, or wade, through hours and hours of scrolling down to the bottom.

You're assuming that people *browse* a group. But all you have to do
is search for some subject you're interested in and you'll get
articles from the whole history of Usenet. If you happen to search
for an uncommon string, there may well be old articles near the top.

-- Richard

[Charles Bishop]

In article <mj88la$f0e$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,

An excellent synopsis and explanation. Unfortunately, PTD is likely to
ignore it, since YOU DIDN'T SHOUT, when you explained it. I'm given to
understand from his posts that it's the way to convince other's of the
correctness of your explanations.

--
charles

[David Kleinecke]

Well I finally got unconfused - my complaints about stll being confused
can be ignored. By "gmail user" is meant a peson whose email address is
at gmail. That would be independent of how that person addresses Usenet.

If you do a simple Google search on some topics you get GG posts - you
need not have ever heard of GG. Looking at that post in GG you can see
that a reply is easy. You reply. You don't even have to know where any
responses are to be found.

I hope the teapot survives.

[Peter Moylan]

Did you actually read what Guy wrote?

Several people have given reasons why such behaviour is possible in
Google Groups. Nobody has come up with a way that it can be done in GMail.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter Moylan]

On 17/05/15 11:13, David Kleinecke wrote:

> If you do a simple Google search on some topics you get GG posts - you
> need not have ever heard of GG. Looking at that post in GG you can see
> that a reply is easy. You reply. You don't even have to know where any
> responses are to be found.

I didn't know that last bit. That would explain why the OP never comes back.

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:ef4a384f-1695-4574...@googlegroups.com...

>You still have it backwards. Nothing about GG itself makes it easy to see
>long-
>dead threads. At the moment the general heading for AUE notes that it is
>currently hosting 105,803 threads. The only way to access early ones would
>be
>to wait, or wade, through hours and hours of scrolling down to the bottom.
>Arranging Search results "by date" also puts the most recent first, so
>there
>would also probably be considerable scrolling to get to 20-year-old
>results.

This has already been explained by Sneaky O. Possum (and probably others as
well). Let's suppose I'm new to Google Groups and want to find a thread
about the pronunciation of "tomato". I don't know anything about the names
of individual groups. I simply go to the search box on the home page and
type in "tomato pronunciation". I get the following list of threads:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/tomato$20pronunciation

Note that the default is "sort by relevance", not "sort by date". Ignoring
the first result (which is the thread where Sneaky O. Possum mentioned
"tomato pronunciation" by way of example), the threads are dated 1997, 2006,
2013, 2005, 2003, 1997 and so on. They don't all come from this group, but
the first few do, which is to be expected given the subject-matter. So it's
very likely that I'm going to dredge up an ancient thread from this group.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:4f95534c-0751-47bb...@googlegroups.com...

Has anyone claimed that? The problem lies with inexperienced users of GG,
not GG itself.

However, I'm pretty sure that on the old GG the "reply" feature was
time-limited, and you couldn't reply to posts that were older than a certain
period. For some reason this restriction was removed on the new GG. So you
could argue that GG have caused the problem themselves by removing this
restriction (if you regard it as a problem, that is).

--
Guy Barry

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 6:27:26 PM UTC-4, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <mj88la$f0e$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
> ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>
> > In article <959729a4-fc3f-486d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >NO SUCH MESSAGES, over however many months or even years they have been
> > >appearing, COME FROM ANYONE BUT GMAIL USERS. Not from any other users of GG.
> >
> > There are about 100,000 articles on my server posted through Google
> > Groups[1]. These are from about 9,000 different users[2]. 71% of
> > these users use gmail addresses[3].
> >
> > To post through the Google Groups web interface you have to log on
> > with a Google ID - which is normally a gmail address. To post with a
> > different address, you have to deliberately configure it. It seems
> > very likely therefore that the vast majority of inexperienced Google
> > Groups users will post with a gmail address, and that those posting
> > with a non-gmail address will be more sophisticated users.
> >
> > So it seems very plausible that the explanation for these odd posts
> > being from gmail users is that the only common way to encouter very
> > old articles is through Google Groups, and that the people who respond
> > to them are inexperienced users and therefore likely to use a gmail
> > address.
> >
> > [1] Ones having "googlegroups" in the Message-ID.
> > [2] Unique From: lines.
> > [3] From: line contains "gmail".
>

> An excellent synopsis and explanation. Unfortunately, PTD is likely to
> ignore it, since YOU DIDN'T SHOUT, when you explained it. I'm given to
> understand from his posts that it's the way to convince other's of the
> correctness of your explanations.

No; it is a means of expressing frustration over having to explain the same
facts over and over and over again.

And it ignores the fact that even when searching what in a subsequent message
he called "an uncommon string," the results are _still_ presented in chronological
order, most recent first. (Or by order of "relevance," which is some sort of
nonsense.)

But it doesn't seem likely that all the revivalists are _searching_ for the
things they append comments to. It is more likely that some sort of browsing
function provided through gmail, not through GG, gives oldest-first.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Who using gmail has addressed the question at all, giving either a definitive
yes or no?

I have given reasons why it is quite unlikely from GG-alone users.

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Moylan" wrote in message news:mj8tu7$3ge$3...@dont-email.me...

>
>On 17/05/15 11:13, David Kleinecke wrote:
>
>> If you do a simple Google search on some topics you get GG posts - you
>> need not have ever heard of GG. Looking at that post in GG you can see
>> that a reply is easy. You reply. You don't even have to know where any
>> responses are to be found.
>
>I didn't know that last bit. That would explain why the OP never comes
>back.

Surely that's wrong? You can't reply to posts in GG without a GG account
(which is more likely to use a gmail address, for reasons already given).
If David's explanation were right then you wouldn't get this preponderance
of gmail addresses.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:787bc38c-9f71-4637...@googlegroups.com...

>And it ignores the fact that even when searching what in a subsequent
>message
>he called "an uncommon string," the results are _still_ presented in
>chronological
>order, most recent first. (Or by order of "relevance," which is some sort
>of
>nonsense.)

Not when I use Google Groups to search; it defaults to "sort by relevance".
If I want "sort by date" I have to select it explicitly.

>But it doesn't seem likely that all the revivalists are _searching_ for the
>things they append comments to. It is more likely that some sort of
>browsing
>function provided through gmail, not through GG, gives oldest-first.

What rubbish. Gmail doesn't have a function for browsing newsgroups. I've
got a gmail account (though I rarely use it). The "sort by relevance"
feature comes from Google Groups, and as far as I know is the default for
all users, not just those with gmail addresses. Maybe you've got GG
configured differently.

--
Guy Barry

[Richard Tobin]

In article <mj8elo$hcm$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>, I wrote:

>But all you have to do
>is search for some subject you're interested in and you'll get
>articles from the whole history of Usenet. If you happen to search
>for an uncommon string, there may well be old articles near the top.

To test this, I tried searching for "plural of sheep" (without the
quotes).

The results are not ordered by date. The first result is a thread
from this group in 2006.

I also tried "plural of octopus". The first result is from 2000, the
second and third from 1999, and the fourth is a thread from this group
from 1993.

Does it not seem likely that this is what is happening?

-- Richard

[Richard Tobin]

In article <787bc38c-9f71-4637...@googlegroups.com>,

I can't find anything in gmail that provides access to Usenet at all.

And the articles they are replying to *aren't* the oldest in the
group.

-- Richard

[Guy Barry]

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message news:mj9mkm$154d$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk...

It seems practically certain to me. I haven't seen anyone come up with a
better explanation.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message news:mj9n8b$154d$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk...

>
>In article <787bc38c-9f71-4637...@googlegroups.com>,
>Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>But it doesn't seem likely that all the revivalists are _searching_ for
>>the
>>things they append comments to. It is more likely that some sort of
>>browsing
>>function provided through gmail, not through GG, gives oldest-first.
>
>I can't find anything in gmail that provides access to Usenet at all.

Nor can I. It's a webmail interface - not a newsreader.

--
Guy Barry

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I thought your test of the hypothesis very nice, and it should convince
anyone but the most stubborn. I tried the same thing, searching Google
Groups for "Cheaper-than-Tuition.com", and the top hit is the one that
the first post in this thread was quoting.


--
athel

[CDB]

On 17/05/2015 2:15 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Charles Bishop wrote:

I have posted some of this before; watch as I repeat myself, in what I
hope will pass for even tones, before your astonished eyes.

I am a "gmail user". I send my email from an address that ends
"@gmail.com". I do not use net-access to GoogleGroups in order to read
and post to this group, but use Thunderbird to go through the best
newsclient I can get, aioe.

I do not pick up old messages and reply to them, because I do not see
them. Decent newsclients do not archive old messages for years, even as
haphazardly as GooGoo does it, but allow you to see only postings of the
last few months at most. Only users who go to GooGroo for their daily
read ever see such messages, unless someone who does go there reposts
them in the present day. Therefore it is only they who have the
opportunity to revive them.

Many, perhaps most, of those users are also "gmail users", because that
is promoted by many sellers who sell preloaded laptops, and because they
are lazy and naive like me, but that has nothing to do with their access
to old messages, and therefore nothing to do with their ability to
revive them. Some years ago, when my email address ended
in "@sprint.ca", I could still find and read old messages by, and only
by, opening GoogleGroups.

There is no reason for your habit of last-ditch defence. To err is
human. No one here but you wil ever be surprised or offended to find
that you (or they) have been wrong about something. To disagree with
your position on some point is not to attack you personally. You face
no existential threat when that happens; still less when someone
disparages Google Inc.

Personal attcks on you, which are indeed made, are made primarily in
response to your posting style, not to your assertions of opinion: many
of your opinions are correct (which is to say that I agree with them);
some are not. Please try to abandon insistent ownership of these
positions when it becomes obvious that agreement will not be reached, if
only to avoid the kind of frustration that leads to unseemly virtual
screaming. Meditate on the mantra "agree to disagree".

I allow myself a moment of extreme patriotic* emotion:

HAPPY VIRTUAL BIRTHDAY, DEAR DEAD QUEEN VICTORIA. WE WILL SET OFF
FIREWORKS TONIGHT IN YOUR HONOUR, AND I PERSONALLY WILL CONSIDER MAKING
AND EATING A DISH OF TOAD-IN-THE-HOLE. HIPHIP ...

*(perhaps the wrong word)

[Richard Tobin]

In article <mj9r09$ecm$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:

>HAPPY VIRTUAL BIRTHDAY, DEAR DEAD QUEEN VICTORIA. WE WILL SET OFF
>FIREWORKS TONIGHT IN YOUR HONOUR, AND I PERSONALLY WILL CONSIDER MAKING
>AND EATING A DISH OF TOAD-IN-THE-HOLE. HIPHIP ...

Edinburgh schoolchildren are similarly enthusiastic, because they
get tomorrow off school for her.

-- Richard

[CDB]

On 17/05/2015 7:35 AM, Richard Tobin wrote:
> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> HAPPY VIRTUAL BIRTHDAY, DEAR DEAD QUEEN VICTORIA. WE WILL SET OFF
>> FIREWORKS TONIGHT IN YOUR HONOUR, AND I PERSONALLY WILL CONSIDER
>> MAKING AND EATING A DISH OF TOAD-IN-THE-HOLE. HIPHIP ...

> Edinburgh schoolchildren are similarly enthusiastic, because they get
> tomorrow off school for her.

Here too, but my joy at that prospect is no longer what it was.

[GordonD]

Indeed. A local holiday here, instead of Easter Monday. My former boss,
who hailed from Glasgow, said we were a bunch of heathens.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[John Dawkins]

In article <3b5ace66-0db6-463e...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 5:49:37 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2015-05-16 08:03:08 +0000, chrisya...@gmail.com said:

> > > 在 2008年9月15日星期一 UTC+8上午6:12:52，crobin...@gmail.com写道：

>
> > >> I have been considering purchasing a novelty diploma recently (to hang
> > >> on my office wall of course) and came across a really good looking
> > >> website called Cheaper-than-Tuition (http://Cheaper-than-Tuition.com),
> > >> but have been unable to learn much more about them or find any reviews
> > >> online. Has anyone ordered from them before?
> > > Maybe diplomascenters.com is a better choice. they have rich experience
> > > in fake diplomas development, production and sales.
> >
> > Only six or so years old this time, so maybe chrisyang66660 is still
> > around hoping for advice. A GoogleGroper, of course (not just because
> > it's coming from gmail, but because the full headers say so).
>
> The "Google Grouping," of course, being irrelevant to the six-years-oldness.
>

> Is Google now allowed to operate in China? (Some of the characters in the
> address lines are indisputably Simplified, so the message does not come from
> Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Singapore.)

The message from chrisyang66660 appears to come from The Netherlands.

--
J.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sun, 17 May 2015 06:36:59 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>I do not pick up old messages and reply to them, because I do not see
>them. Decent newsclients do not archive old messages for years, even as
>haphazardly as GooGoo does it, but allow you to see only postings of the
>last few months at most.

Newsclients? - is that "Newsreaders?" Newsproviders?
It seems to me that you are confusing things here.

Giga-<whatever> keeps years, not months.

My provider has available many years of text messages (and,
rather fewer binary messages). When I subscribed, I used
my Forte Agent to mark all the old stuff as "read" and not
interesting. My newsreader also allows me to keep on my
own computer whatever old messages I want, without
displaying them every day, if I prefer to label them "Read"
and ask for display of only Unread headings.

If a message is posted that Replies to an old message, I
can click on the address and it will be pulled up from archive
if it is not one of the relatively few that I have preserved.

If I start to read in a group I have never seen, I can ask
for that last 100 or 1000 messages, or by date (I think), or ALL.

> Only users who go to GooGroo for their daily
>read ever see such messages, unless someone who does go there reposts
>them in the present day. Therefore it is only they who have the
>opportunity to revive them.

I have had ordinary Google searches give me hits on messages
that were originally posted to Usenet groups; and it looked rather
like it actually was hitting a Post and not someone else's archive
of the post.

Someone has suggested - I think - that when you get that sort
of hit, you might be able to Reply if you are already logged into
Google Groups. Is that the suggestion? I don't think Google
Groups displays all old posts indiscriminantly.

--
Rich Ulrich

[CDB]

On 17/05/2015 2:15 PM, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I do not pick up old messages and reply to them, because I do not
>> see them. Decent newsclients do not archive old messages for
>> years, even as haphazardly as GooGoo does it, but allow you to see
>> only postings of the last few months at most.

> Newsclients? - is that "Newsreaders?" Newsproviders? It seems to me
> that you are confusing things here.

Entirely possible <tugs forelock>. I have picked up what little
terminology I have or think I have from casual conversations here. I
meant servers (?) like aioe, nin, mozzarella.

> Giga-<whatever> keeps years, not months.

> My provider has available many years of text messages (and, rather
> fewer binary messages). When I subscribed, I used my Forte Agent to
> mark all the old stuff as "read" and not interesting. My newsreader
> also allows me to keep on my own computer whatever old messages I
> want, without displaying them every day, if I prefer to label them
> "Read" and ask for display of only Unread headings.

What is your provider called? If "<whatever>" stands for "news", I have
no experience or knowledge of it.

> If a message is posted that Replies to an old message, I can click on
> the address and it will be pulled up from archive if it is not one of
> the relatively few that I have preserved.

> If I start to read in a group I have never seen, I can ask for that
> last 100 or 1000 messages, or by date (I think), or ALL.

>> Only users who go to GooGroo for their daily read ever see such
>> messages, unless someone who does go there reposts them in the
>> present day. Therefore it is only they who have the opportunity to
>> revive them.

> I have had ordinary Google searches give me hits on messages that
> were originally posted to Usenet groups; and it looked rather like it
> actually was hitting a Post and not someone else's archive of the
> post.

Surely GooGoo gets them from its archives. Where else (except possibly
for your gigasomething; are you saying GG can search that archive?) are
they kept?

> Someone has suggested - I think - that when you get that sort of hit,
> you might be able to Reply if you are already logged into Google
> Groups. Is that the suggestion? I don't think Google Groups
> displays all old posts indiscriminantly.

I can't be sure, because I think I am a member of GGG. I registered,
because they required it for something -- maybe looking at the archives
-- and they bothered me a while lobbying for more chumminess, but went
away after being ignored for another while.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:b9477cda-03f8-4e18...@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 12:50:06 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum
> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> news:3b5ace66-0db6-463e...@googlegroups.com:

>> > On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 5:49:37 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 2015-05-16 08:03:08 +0000, chrisya...@gmail.com said:

>> >> > 在 2008年9月15日星期�¸
> €
>> > UTC+8上午6:12:52，crobin...@gmail.com写é
> ��：

>
>> >> >> I have been considering purchasing a novelty diploma recently
>> >> >> (to hang on my office wall of course) and came across a really
>> >> >> good looking website called Cheaper-than-Tuition
>> >> >> (http://Cheaper-than-Tuition.com), but have been unable to
>> >> >> learn much more about them or find any reviews online. Has
>> >> >> anyone ordered from them before?
>> >> > Maybe diplomascenters.com is a better choice. they have rich
>> >> > experience in fake diplomas development, production and sales.
>> >> Only six or so years old this time, so maybe chrisyang66660 is
>> >> still around hoping for advice. A GoogleGroper, of course (not just
>> >> because it's coming from gmail, but because the full headers say
>> >> so).
>> > The "Google Grouping," of course, being irrelevant to the
>> > six-years-oldness.
>>

>> Really? What other service enables users to find and respond to
>> six-year- old posts? Gmail certainly doesn't.
>
> And it's sheer coincidence that _every_ _person_ who does that is a
> user of gmail?

Are you under the impression that direct causation and sheer coincidence
are the only possibilities?
--
S.O.P.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 1:20:34 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:b9477cda-03f8-4e18...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 12:50:06 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum
> > wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
> >> news:3b5ace66-0db6-463e...@googlegroups.com:
> >> > On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 5:49:37 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On 2015-05-16 08:03:08 +0000, chrisya...@gmail.com said:
> >> >> > 在 2008年9月15日星期�
> > �

> >> > UTC+8上午6:12:52，crobin...@gmail.com写�

> > ��：

> >> >> >> I have been considering purchasing a novelty diploma recently
> >> >> >> (to hang on my office wall of course) and came across a really
> >> >> >> good looking website called Cheaper-than-Tuition
> >> >> >> (http://Cheaper-than-Tuition.com), but have been unable to
> >> >> >> learn much more about them or find any reviews online. Has
> >> >> >> anyone ordered from them before?
> >> >> > Maybe diplomascenters.com is a better choice. they have rich
> >> >> > experience in fake diplomas development, production and sales.
> >> >> Only six or so years old this time, so maybe chrisyang66660 is
> >> >> still around hoping for advice. A GoogleGroper, of course (not just
> >> >> because it's coming from gmail, but because the full headers say
> >> >> so).
> >> > The "Google Grouping," of course, being irrelevant to the
> >> > six-years-oldness.
> >>
> >> Really? What other service enables users to find and respond to
> >> six-year- old posts? Gmail certainly doesn't.
> >
> > And it's sheer coincidence that _every_ _person_ who does that is a
> > user of gmail?
>
> Are you under the impression that direct causation and sheer coincidence
> are the only possibilities?

How about statistical near-unanimity?

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in

news:c48f0429-dd48-4bef...@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 1:20:34 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> news:b9477cda-03f8-4e18...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 12:50:06 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> >> news:3b5ace66-0db6-463e...@googlegroups.com:

[snip]

>> >> > The "Google Grouping," of course, being irrelevant to the
>> >> > six-years-oldness.
>> >>
>> >> Really? What other service enables users to find and respond to
>> >> six-year- old posts? Gmail certainly doesn't.
>> >
>> > And it's sheer coincidence that _every_ _person_ who does that is a
>> > user of gmail?
>>
>> Are you under the impression that direct causation and sheer
>> coincidence are the only possibilities?
>
> How about statistical near-unanimity?

That doesn't address my question. Most people who come down with the flu
have a higher-than-average body temperature, and that's not a
coincidence. That doesn't mean that a higher-than-average body
temperature causes flu. Every U.S. president to date has been a man, and
that's not a coincidence, but that doesn't mean it was the most important
factor, either. I think the fact that all but one of the posters who have
revived old threads have also been gmail users is no coincidence: I also
think the fact that all of the posters have been Google Groupers is no
coincidence. And I think neither gmail nor Google Groups has been causing
the phenomenon of thread revival.

I ask again: are you under the impression that direct causation and sheer

coincidence are the only possibilities?

--
S.O.P.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Did you suggest any other possibilities?

[Jeff Urs]

On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 9:12:15 PM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> I can't be sure, because I think I am a member of GGG.
> I registered, because they required it for something --
> maybe looking at the archives -- and they bothered me
> a while lobbying for more chumminess, but went away
> after being ignored for another while.

I don't recall Google Groups ever requiring a login to
search its USENET archive. Perhaps you needed access to
one of its non-USENET groups?

In any case, if you are logged into a Google account, such
as your Gmail account, while you are perusing the pages of
Google Groups, Google Groups will consider you one of its
own, with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto.

--
Jeff

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:14:57 PM UTC-7, Jeff Urs wrote:
> On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 9:12:15 PM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> > I can't be sure, because I think I am a member of GGG.
> > I registered, because they required it for something --
> > maybe looking at the archives -- and they bothered me
> > a while lobbying for more chumminess, but went away
> > after being ignored for another while.
>
> I don't recall Google Groups ever requiring a login to
> search its USENET archive.

Not to search, just to post.

> Perhaps you needed access to
> one of its non-USENET groups?

It varies, depending on how the "founder" set up the group.
Some are totally moderated, some are partially moderated,
some are unmoderated, and probably the login requirements
vary similarly.

> In any case, if you are logged into a Google account, such
> as your Gmail account, while you are perusing the pages of
> Google Groups, Google Groups will consider you one of its
> own, with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto.

That it does, and that effects how I can go about testing such things.

/dps