hawker or hocker?

[Johnny Hartner]

Is Pittsburgh the only region to use that slang term "hawker" or "hocker,"
meaning phlegm? I've never heard anyone anywhere else say this. Any
feedback, slang fans?

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode <zane-21049...@zane.slip.lm.com>,
Broadcast on alt.usage.english

"To hock up" is the verb I have always heard. I assume it is
onomatopoeic. The noun is a new one on me.

--
=Lars Eighner===4103 Ave D (512)459-6693==Pawn to Queen Four==QSFx2==BMOC==
=eig...@io.com=Austin TX 78751-4617 ==Travels with Lizbeth==Bayou Boy==
= http://www.io.com/~eighner/ =====American Prelude==Gay Cosmos==
="Yes, Lizbeth is well."=======Whispered in the Dark==Elements of Arousal==

[Geoff Butler]

In article <zane-21049...@zane.slip.lm.com>
za...@telerama.lm.com "Johnny Hartner" writes:

> Is Pittsburgh the only region to use that slang term "hawker" or "hocker,"
> meaning phlegm? I've never heard anyone anywhere else say this. Any
> feedback, slang fans?

It's not slang at all, it's a Real Word. Chambers: 'Hawk v.t. to force
up from the throat - v.i. to clear the throat noisily'.

Geoff Butler

[Richard M. Alderson III]

In article <x1zexAwZ...@io.com> eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) writes:

>"To hock up" is the verb I have always heard. I assume it is onomatopoeic.
>The noun is a new one on me.

I can't believe that I'm going to follow-up to this*.

Where I grew up, the verb in question was *clearly* "hawk"--and just as likely
onomatopoeic.

{* Puts me entirely in mind of a George Carlin comment, from the _Toledo Window
Box_ album: If you're ever in a conversation, and find yourself talking about
snot: Back up! You've missed [another topic for conversation]!)
--
Rich Alderson You know the sort of thing that you can find in any dictionary
of a strange language, and which so excites the amateur philo-
logists, itching to derive one tongue from another that they
know better: a word that is nearly the same in form and meaning
as the corresponding word in English, or Latin, or Hebrew, or
what not.
--J. R. R. Tolkien,
alde...@netcom.com _The Notion Club Papers_

[Roy Lakin]

In article <aldersonD...@netcom.com>,

Richard M. Alderson III <alde...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <x1zexAwZ...@io.com> eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) writes:
>
>>"To hock up" is the verb I have always heard. I assume it is onomatopoeic.
>>The noun is a new one on me.
>
>I can't believe that I'm going to follow-up to this*.
>
>Where I grew up, the verb in question was *clearly* "hawk"--and just as likely
>onomatopoeic.

Certainly in the running fraternity (in the UK).

Makes me laugh when I see one of the old notices on a house:

No hawkers
No circulars

Roy

[John Bailin]

In article <zane-21049...@zane.slip.lm.com>
za...@telerama.lm.com "Johnny Hartner" writes:

> Is Pittsburgh the only region to use that slang term "hawker" or "hocker,"
> meaning phlegm? I've never heard anyone anywhere else say this. Any
> feedback, slang fans?

As others must have pointed out, 'hawk', meaning "to raise up phlegm
from the throat", appears in any dictionary worth its salt. In
_Huckleberry Finn_, Mark Twain has fun with the word; when Huck is
describing the luxuries of royal life, he rhapsodizes how you get to
go out, hunting, hawking, and sp... (at which point Jim cuts off his
speech).

John Bailin | "Anyone who isn't confused here doesn't
email: jba...@cnct.com | really understand what is going on."

[John Seal]

In article <zane-21049...@zane.slip.lm.com>, za...@telerama.lm.com
(Johnny Hartner) wrote:

> Is Pittsburgh the only region to use that slang term "hawker" or "hocker,"

It was fairly common in grade school in central Indiana, but I haven't
heard it much recently.

--
John Seal _|_
john...@indy.net (Finger for PGP key) |
se...@tlinks.nawc-ad-indy.navy.mil | Caveat Temptor

[Donald Martinich]

Johnny Hartner (za...@telerama.lm.com) wrote:
: Is Pittsburgh the only region to use that slang term "hawker" or "hocker,"

: meaning phlegm? I've never heard anyone anywhere else say this. Any
: feedback, slang fans?

When I was in high school, in the 1950's, I heard both "hock" and "hawk"
used as verbs. The object was usually called a "lunger".

D.M.

[Lauren]

On 22 Apr 1996, Johnny Hartner wrote:

> Date: 22 APR 1996 04:45:31 GMT
> From: Johnny Hartner <za...@telerama.lm.com>
> Newgroups: alt.usage.english
> Subject: hawker or hocker?

>
> Is Pittsburgh the only region to use that slang term "hawker" or "hocker,"
> meaning phlegm? I've never heard anyone anywhere else say this. Any
> feedback, slang fans?
>
>

In New York, we also use the phrase--at least, in Westchester we do.
Actually, my mother and I split on this issue. I say to "hock a loogie
(phlegm), and she claims it's "hawk a loogie". Either way, this
expression is alive and well in New York.

--Binky

[ronh]

In article <4liele$i...@eccles.dsbc.icl.co.uk>,
r...@dsbc.icl.co.uk (Roy Lakin) wrote:

(snip)

>
>Makes me laugh when I see one of the old notices on a house:
>
>No hawkers
>No circulars
>
>Roy

Wash your mouth out Roy.

In the true tradtion of Mrs Bucket in that pommy TV show (who
pronounced her name Bouqet) our family has always claimed our
name comes from the occupation of hawker, the person who looked
after the kings hawks. (The Falconers looked after the falcons).

When I meet a family called Circular I must ask whether they
also feel persecuted when seeing signs prohibiting them from
being somewhere.

Incidentally, the number plate on my car spells HAWKER. I must
park it under one of those "No Hawkers" signs and get a pic
one day.

ron hawker

[Mike Elliott]

"Hock a loogie" - Napa, Calif, CA 1963

--
Mike Elliott tel: 619 431 5050 x 106
Counterpoint Electronics fax: 619 431 5986
2281 Las Palmas Drive email: mi...@attmail.com
Carlsbad, CA 92009 http://www.counter-point.com/~cpoint

[Patrick Gillard]

In article <4lhut0$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, Donald Martinich
<dut...@wheel.ucdavis.edu> writes
>Johnny Hartner (za...@telerama.lm.com) wrote:
>: Is Pittsburgh the only region to use that slang term "hawker" or "hocker,"

>: meaning phlegm? I've never heard anyone anywhere else say this. Any
>: feedback, slang fans?
>

>When I was in high school, in the 1950's, I heard both "hock" and "hawk"
>used as verbs. The object was usually called a "lunger".
>
>D.M.

lunger?

Was that a hard 'g' or a soft 'g'?

Does it rhyme with 'plunger' or 'cowabunga'?

I'm just trying to reconstruct in my mind the full graphic effect of the
utterance
--
Patrick Gillard

[kathy cox]

Here in Australia I have heard the term hawking for spitting.
Yours, Kathy Cox

[Max Crittenden]

In article <4lhut0$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, Donald Martinich
<dut...@wheel.ucdavis.edu> writes

>When I was in high school, in the 1950's, I heard both "hock" and "hawk"

>used as verbs. The object was usually called a "lunger".

In the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1960's, it was a 'loogy'. The verb
'hock'/'hawk' was rarely used and the noun 'hocker'/'hawker' never; the
pronunciation would have been nearly indistinguishable anyway.

Max Crittenden It's a good thing that icebergs don't come out
STRIKE SLIP, Merit 25 at night, because you sure can't see them.
Menlo Park, Calif. ‹ Chris Dickson

[mgi...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, April 22, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Johnny Hartner wrote:
> Is Pittsburgh the only region to use that slang term "hawker" or "hocker,"
> meaning phlegm? I've never heard anyone anywhere else say this. Any
> feedback, slang fans?

N.C. you hawk snot verb. the snot is called hawker snot adjective . also used as if u wanted to call a buddy a prick. one might say u damn hawker snot adv. ? one who hawks snot . . i see this is an old post and my grammer sux cause this while factual for my area. does appear as thou we are the only two people give a shit and it took 20 yrs for a reply

[Jerry Friedman]

Some here have been wondering whether the people responding to old posts
notice how old they are. Maybe email domains, such as gmail versus
yahoo, have something to do with whether you notice--but maybe not.

Anyway, "hocker" was the term in suburban Cleveland too. Unlike
Pittsburghers, we pronounced "hock" differently from "hawk". The word
was "hock", but it probably shouldn't have been.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-12-17 05:20:41 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:

> On 12/16/15 5:38 PM, mgi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Monday, April 22, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Johnny Hartner wrote:
>>> Is Pittsburgh the only region to use that slang term "hawker" or "hocker,"
>>> meaning phlegm? I've never heard anyone anywhere else say this. Any
>>> feedback, slang fans?
>>
>> N.C. you hawk snot verb. the snot is called hawker snot adjective .
>> also used as if u wanted to call a buddy a prick. one might say u damn
>> hawker snot adv. ? one who hawks snot . . i see this is an old post and
>> my grammer sux cause this while factual for my area. does appear as
>> thou we are the only two people give a shit and it took 20 yrs for a
>> reply
>
> Some here have been wondering whether the people responding to old
> posts notice how old they are. Maybe email domains, such as gmail
> versus yahoo, have something to do with whether you notice--but maybe
> not.

OK, this is yahoo, not gmail, but it's still Google Groups: are there
any examples yet of such posts that don't come via Google Groups?

>
> Anyway, "hocker" was the term in suburban Cleveland too. Unlike
> Pittsburghers, we pronounced "hock" differently from "hawk". The word
> was "hock", but it probably shouldn't have been.


--

athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 1:54:08 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> OK, this is yahoo, not gmail, but it's still Google Groups: are there
> any examples yet of such posts that don't come via Google Groups?

FINALLY. He's changed the preposition.

[David Kleinecke]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 10:54:08 PM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> OK, this is yahoo, not gmail, but it's still Google Groups: are there
> any examples yet of such posts that don't come via Google Groups?

No - we have had another sporadic also via Google Groups.

I wonder how someone who is not already a Usenet user would discover
any Usenet group except via Google Groups.

[Rich Ulrich]

Is "Google Groups" here a think-o?

The ordinary use of Google, not Google-Groups, is how some
old-note-reply posters have found us. A search that is
specific enough may find an old post, and (in fact) I have
learned that I can sometime find the old thread by doing
my own search and putting the Subject line in quotes.

Today, when Googlers read an old Usenet-group message,
they are offered the option of "Reply" - with no hint that this
message is not in, say, some current blog. Does that Reply ever
come to us with the appearance of coming from Google-Groups?
Does it look the same for a person who is logged-in to Google
Groups as it does to someone who is not logged in or who has
no Google logname?

--
Rich Ulrich

[David Kleinecke]

If you look in the header between references and MIME-version you will
see
User-Agent: G2/1.0
if the poster used Google Groups.

A newsreader will have something like
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186

If, as seems likely. the OP found a reference in Google search it
appears that Google sends the reference to Usenet via GG.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <dml67b99mi1sdub79...@4ax.com>,

A search in Google, just now on "hocker or hawker", without the quotes,
leads to

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.usage.english/ltvmGJEuEck

which is aue in GG, from 1996. A search on "hocker" or "hawker"
individually, again without quotes, doesn't reveal anything from aue
within the first 3 pages.

--
charles

[Whiskers]

It's easy to overlook the posting date of a Google Groups message,
whether usenet or otherwise.

I know of no way to reply to a Google Groups message without being
logged in to Google Groups. Doubtless many of the people who use the
Google web search service are already logged in when they do so, in
which case if the search produces a Google Groups page they'll see an
icon which offers 'reply'; if they aren't logged in the icon offers
'Sign in to reply' and no matter what the do they can't reply without
'signing in'. Inevitably some Google users won't know that their
'signing in' to their Google account gives them posting access to Google
Groups and thus to usenet. Some (many? most?) won't know that usenet
exists.

Any reply to a usenet article made using the Google Groups web interface
will be posted to usenet with Google at the start of the Path header (ie
the right-hand end of it) and the user agent as 'G2' and with a Google
Message-ID.

Other web search services might return Google Groups pages. In this
case it's less likely (but by no means unlikely) that the user is
already logged in to Google; logging in to any Google service logs you
in to all of them willy-nilly.

Many people have Google accounts set up to use an email address not
provided by Google. Once upon a time Google didn't offer an email
service, and even now the option to use a non-Google email address
remains for new accounts. Gmail accounts can also be used of course
with other non-Google services. Articles From gmail addresses don't
have to come via Google Groups, and articles via Google Groups don't
have to have gmail From addresses.

There are other web sites which offer reading and posting access to
usenet or to some selection of newsgroups. Some make it clear that
you're looking at a usenet newsgroup, many don't and some hide it very
deliberately. I've never found one that doesn't require logging in
before posting. Some of these other services are identifiable from the
posting headers, some of them look like normal usenet posts via
well-known NSPs (as indeed they may be; some NSPs include web access),
but none of them look as if they came from Google Groups. These other
web-to-usenet interfaces seldom appear near the top of web search
results - if for no other reason than the much higher status of any
Google page.

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

[David Kleinecke]

On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:59:21 PM UTC-8, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>
> I know of no way to reply to a Google Groups message without being
> logged in to Google Groups.

Doesn't a standard newsreader allow you to reply?

[Whiskers]

Not via the Google Groups web forum interface. It will allow you to
reply via the usual usenet system to any article you can read on a
news-server to which you have posting access. If you're prepared to do
some copy/paste and jiggering with the usenet headers then you can post
an article that has all the attributes of being a reply to one you've
read from your usual news-server but which isn't because that article
doesn't exist on that server; an obvious place to find such an article
to jigger with would be Google Groups. But you'd have to understand
exactly what you were doing and it wouldn't be accidental.

You can't fake a post to make it look like a post made via Google Groups
when it was in fact made using a normal news server. Google do not
provide normal usenet access to their news server. The only way for a
post to look as though it came from Google Groups is to use Google
Groups to post it.

[David Kleinecke]

I remain confused. Didn't you just reply to my post which I submitted
through Google Groups? And you did not post via GG.

How then can you say "I know of no way to reply to a Google Groups

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:55:08 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke

The Google Groups web site gives access to Google Groups and to Usenet
Groups. The groups that are specifically Google Groups are not Usenet
groups and are not carried by Usenet news servers and therefore cannot
be accessed by news client software.


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

[Whiskers]

An article can be both a usenet article (read and replied to using a
proper newsreader and NSP) and a Google Groups message (accessed using
the Google Groups web forum service). Google Groups is not usenet but
does provide a reading and posting service to newsgroups which are part
of usenet as well as to groups which aren't. Whether something posted
to usenet appears in a Google Group, or something posted to a Google
Group is disseminated to usenet, is entirely at the whim of Google; the
user of usenet or Google has no control over the matter - expectation
and intention yes, but control no.

The Google Groups experience and environment is quite different from any
usenet experience. The only common factor is the text of the messages
that Google duplicates from one to the other (and which Google has
sometimes mangled - they routinely 'munge' things that look like email
addresses for example, but only for people reading via Google).

There have been periods in the past during which Google failed to copy
Google Groups messages to usenet and usenet articles to Google Groups;
this caused confusion in both until Google managed to fix the problem
(or decided to reverse the policy) and 'catch up' in both directions.

There are usenet groups which are not carried by Google Groups (and
whose denizens seem to like it that way). None of the 'binary'
newsgroups exists as a Google Group. Google's archive of usenet
includes defunct newsgroups which are no longer carried by normal NSPs;
I don't know if Google still block new posts to such groups. They used
to stop replies to articles older than six weeks in any group but no
longer do so.

There used to be a way for people posting to usenet to prevent their
articles from being shown in Google Groups (the X-No-Archive: Yes
header) but Google arbitrarily changed that arrangement.

It is technically possible for a usenet user to avoid seeing any
messages posted via Google Groups or sub-threads containing such
messages. Some people do so.

So it makes sense to me to treat Google Groups and usenet as two
entirely separate things which for the time being have some overlap.

[Whiskers]

On 2015-12-20, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-20, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:55:08 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
>> <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 6:57:27 PM UTC-8, Whiskers
>>>Catwheezel wrote:
>>>> On 2015-12-20, David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:59:21 PM UTC-8, Whiskers
>>>> > Catwheezel wrote:

[...]

> There used to be a way for people posting to usenet to prevent their
> articles from being shown in Google Groups (the X-No-Archive: Yes
> header) but Google arbitrarily changed that arrangement.

[...]

Since posting that, it has been confirmed in another group that the
X-No-Archive: Yes header once again stops Google Groups from displaying
the article (but of course it still shows up in usenet proper).

[David Kleinecke]

Ah so. You making a probably fully justified distinction between
Google Groups and Usenet.

I would say that I am using Google Groups as newsreader. Is that
satisfactory?

I realize that most newsreaders have bells and whistles that GG lacks
(such as killfiles) but GG does do the basic newsreader job.

Is there any way to start a new usenet group?

Or get rid of an old Google Group?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 9:23:14 AM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:

> There used to be a way for people posting to usenet to prevent their
> articles from being shown in Google Groups (the X-No-Archive: Yes
> header) but Google arbitrarily changed that arrangement.

That's backward. Until a few months ago, GG showed such messages until they
"expired" six days later. Now it doesn't show them at all. "Lewis" turned
off that feature (unfortunately), so now I see all his messages, but "Stefan" and "Mikey" still use it, so I see none of their messages and am not aware of
them unless someone responds, quoting a posting of theirs.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
> On 2015-12-20, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:

[please trim attributions to match trimming quotations]

> > There used to be a way for people posting to usenet to prevent their
> > articles from being shown in Google Groups (the X-No-Archive: Yes
> > header) but Google arbitrarily changed that arrangement.
>

> Since posting that, it has been confirmed in another group that the
> X-No-Archive: Yes header once again stops Google Groups from displaying
> the article (but of course it still shows up in usenet proper).

If it used to do that "before," it was more than 8 or 9 years ago.

[Whiskers]

Has it really been that long? Time flies.

[Whiskers]

On 2015-12-20, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

When DejaNews started to archive usenet the XNAY was invented to stop
them from carrying articles whose authors wanted to preserve the
ephemeral nature of usenet. Such articles never showed up in DejaNews
at all. Google took on that agreement when they took over the archive -
then suddenly one day they didn't, then after a lot of complaints they
'compromised' by displaying the articles for a few days then showing a
'placeholder'. That was the situation for some time. Google now seem
to have reverted to what looks like the arrangement they had originally
(although who knows what their archive holds but hides).

[Whiskers]

On 2015-12-20, David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 6:23:14 AM UTC-8, Whiskers Catwheezel
> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-20, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:55:08 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
>> > <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 6:57:27 PM UTC-8, Whiskers
>> >>Catwheezel wrote:
>> >>> On 2015-12-20, David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> > On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:59:21 PM UTC-8, Whiskers
>> >>> > Catwheezel wrote:

[...]

>> So it makes sense to me to treat Google Groups and usenet as two
>> entirely separate things which for the time being have some overlap.
>
> Ah so. You making a probably fully justified distinction between
> Google Groups and Usenet.

Thank you.

> I would say that I am using Google Groups as newsreader. Is that
> satisfactory?

For as long as Google 'mirror' usenet more or less reliably and in
something like real time.

> I realize that most newsreaders have bells and whistles that GG lacks
> (such as killfiles) but GG does do the basic newsreader job.
>
> Is there any way to start a new usenet group?

Yes, there are set procedures for most hierarchies which most NSPs and
users more or less accept. There are procedures for 'removing' defunct
groups too. Some hierarchies, notably alt.*, are more anarchic.
That's how we ended up with both alt.usage.english and
alt.english.usage. But for any new group to propagate it needs to be
implemented and carried by a significant proportion of servers, which
can usually be arranged by users asking the admin concerned. Google are
unpredictable in whether or not they pick up new groups. The users of
some groups like not being carried by Google.

Anyone can set up a news-server of their own and create newsgroups of
their own which do not propagate to any other news-servers but which are
publicly accessible or accessible to eg customers or employees or club
members. This used to be a lot more common than it is now. You can
arrange to 'peer' your own news server with existing public
news-servers, if you can demonstrate enough competence and compliance
with normal good practice and so on.

The public news server admins acting in concert can in principle remove
an errant news-server from the peering pool - effectively taking that
server out of usenet; known as a Usenet Death Penalty (UDP). At various
times various usenetizens have campaigned for Google to be given a UDP.

> Or get rid of an old Google Group?

If it's a Google web forum group, not a usenet group, then Google
probably have a procedure for the 'owner' of a group to close it and
remove it from sight. They probably have ways to remove defunct groups
or possibly 'illegal' ones. If it's a usenet newsgroup then Google are
unlikely to remove the archive of a defunct group but they should (and
originally did) stop people from posting to it. I've never heard of
Google arbitrarily removing a usenet newsgroup from their archive or
posting service - but technically there's nothing to stop them from
doing so at any time (but it wouldn't have any effect on the real usenet
group - only on Google's copy of it).

[Peter Moylan]

I tried to check, but the GG search does not appear to search header
lines. Either that, or it has never archived an article with the
X-No-Archive header.

The Wikipedia article on X-No-Archive says "When DejaNews was purchased
by Google, Google continued to honor the X-No-Archive directive." In the
Talk section of that article, a 2005 comment says that GG Beta displayed
such messages for a few days (and then displays them forever if the
article is quoted in a followup). I couldn't find any indication that
that behaviour has changed since 2005.

The GG help article on how to use X-No-Archive appears to have been
removed from the site.

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

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 6:55:58 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2015-Dec-21 10:09, Whiskers wrote:
> > On 2015-12-20, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
> >>> On 2015-12-20, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [please trim attributions to match trimming quotations]
> >>
> >>>> There used to be a way for people posting to usenet to prevent their
> >>>> articles from being shown in Google Groups (the X-No-Archive: Yes
> >>>> header) but Google arbitrarily changed that arrangement.
> >>>
> >>> Since posting that, it has been confirmed in another group that the
> >>> X-No-Archive: Yes header once again stops Google Groups from displaying
> >>> the article (but of course it still shows up in usenet proper).
> >>
> >> If it used to do that "before," it was more than 8 or 9 years ago.
> >
> > Has it really been that long? Time flies.
>
> I tried to check, but the GG search does not appear to search header
> lines. Either that, or it has never archived an article with the
> X-No-Archive header.
>
> The Wikipedia article on X-No-Archive says "When DejaNews was purchased
> by Google, Google continued to honor the X-No-Archive directive." In the
> Talk section of that article, a 2005 comment says that GG Beta displayed
> such messages for a few days (and then displays them forever if the
> article is quoted in a followup). I couldn't find any indication that
> that behaviour has changed since 2005.

It changed a few months ago. I never see messages from Stefan Ram or "Mikey."

[Oliver Cromm]

* Peter T. Daniels:

Exactly - before that, they used to be shown in Google Groups for a
limited time period, which may have changed over time, but recently, for
the first time, has been set to 0. I'm rather certain that they archive
all those messages, whether they show them to GG users or not.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

[Adam Funk]

On 2015-12-20, Peter Moylan wrote:

> I tried to check, but the GG search does not appear to search header
> lines. Either that, or it has never archived an article with the
> X-No-Archive header.
>
> The Wikipedia article on X-No-Archive says "When DejaNews was purchased
> by Google, Google continued to honor the X-No-Archive directive." In the
> Talk section of that article, a 2005 comment says that GG Beta displayed
> such messages for a few days (and then displays them forever if the
> article is quoted in a followup). I couldn't find any indication that
> that behaviour has changed since 2005.
>
> The GG help article on how to use X-No-Archive appears to have been
> removed from the site.

Every once in a while, Google Groups burps up old posts with XNA set,
proving that their claim to "honor" the header is a total lie; if they
really honored it, they would not archive such posts (i.e., they would
delete them after a week or so rather than trying to hide them) & it
would be impossible for old ones to show up ever again.



--
You're 100 percent correct --- it's been scientifically proven that
microwaving changes the molecular structure of food. THIS IS CALLED
COOKING, YOU NITWIT. --- Cecil Adams

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 6:45:07 AM UTC-5, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2015-12-20, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> > I tried to check, but the GG search does not appear to search header
> > lines. Either that, or it has never archived an article with the
> > X-No-Archive header.
> >
> > The Wikipedia article on X-No-Archive says "When DejaNews was purchased
> > by Google, Google continued to honor the X-No-Archive directive." In the
> > Talk section of that article, a 2005 comment says that GG Beta displayed
> > such messages for a few days (and then displays them forever if the
> > article is quoted in a followup). I couldn't find any indication that
> > that behaviour has changed since 2005.
> >
> > The GG help article on how to use X-No-Archive appears to have been
> > removed from the site.
>
> Every once in a while, Google Groups burps up old posts with XNA set,

Where/when have you seen that?

[Oliver Cromm]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 6:45:07 AM UTC-5, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2015-12-20, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>> > I tried to check, but the GG search does not appear to search header
>> > lines. Either that, or it has never archived an article with the
>> > X-No-Archive header.
>> >
>> > The Wikipedia article on X-No-Archive says "When DejaNews was
>> > purchased by Google, Google continued to honor the X-No-Archive
>> > directive." In the Talk section of that article, a 2005 comment says
>> > that GG Beta displayed such messages for a few days (and then
>> > displays them forever if the article is quoted in a followup). I
>> > couldn't find any indication that that behaviour has changed since
>> > 2005.
>> >
>> > The GG help article on how to use X-No-Archive appears to have been
>> > removed from the site.
>>
>> Every once in a while, Google Groups burps up old posts with XNA set,
>
> Where/when have you seen that?

It has happened to me once or twice when I did searches. I've heard it
from other people, too. This is anecdotal, I don't think it happens on a
grand scale, like during regular group reading.

I hope nobody believes that Google, of all parties, ever deletes anything
on purpose.