Usenet archives (was) Re: HP Laserjet 2100 install

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> i recommend that you create subjects in the conventional way, instead of
>> the way that you do, long rambling new topic subjects on a message
>> posted 'recklessly' to numerous groups.
>
>
> *I created a REFERENCE that I want ARCHIVED so that it will be FOUND.*

Historically, once upon a time there was no search tool for usenet that
was useful to users. Then Deja News began archiving and providing
search functions.

Next, Google took over the archives of Deja and provided a much stronger
and better archive and better search function.

Then, the google search function became much deprecated and other
adverse google effects impacted usenet quite badly.

Nowadays, usenet is but a shadow of its former self, both from a
participatory perspective and from a search perspective,

BUT...

At no time was the *subject* of the articles, the crux or linchpin of
searching for usenet content. At all times usenet message content was
searchable not by the number of groups a message was posted to nor by
subject content alone.

Through those years I have used search tools on usenet to a significant
extent. At no time was the content of the subject or the number of
groups significant at all to my ability to find something.

I still sometimes use google groups to search for something, and during
the heyday of google's usenet search function and during Deja's time,
the subject never functioned in the way you imagine.

Today, there is still a big archive of usenet messages at Howard
Knight's, but his archive is only searchable by MID. I suppose that if
google 'wanted to' it could restore the value of its previous search
tool to its archive of usenet, but that isn't going to happen.

Since this thread is no longer about win-10, I'm changing its subject
again and the group for f/ups also needs to be changed, but the message
is no longer on-topic for ANY of the groups where it was originally
posted. That also emphasizes my point about how crossposting to
numerous groups leads to off-topicality if the content of the thread
changes from the original message, which is very common and not just
because of 'chit chat', but because respondents can select any part of a
usenet message and reply to that one specific little element.

The meta discussion of how to create usenet messages is not (implied
'idle') chit chat but actually more important than your particular
strategy of making the printer driver for Win10.

Back on that theme:

Historically, the problem of available hardware drivers was more the
problem for linux than with windows. The OEMs of hardware such as
printers 'got in bed with' MS code developers and released 'proprietary'
drivers for Win but not for linux. What is worse is that they also
didn't provide sufficient disclosure about the hardware to enable open
source developers to develop linux drivers easily.

Nowadays the linux problem is greatly diminished almost to the point of
being eliminated, while such as problems with 'legacy' hardware is very
much a problem for Win users.

Your specific issue with the specific printer HP Lj 2100 and current
Win10 has been solved by other people in webforum discussions elsewhere
in a different manner than you did, but that isn't the issue of my
current content.

Since my thread diversion is now about the meta topic of usenet message
structure and driver issues, such as printer, between linux and windows,
I'm replacing the group a.o.l, so it is posted to both groups and the
meta part is actually off-topic in both of those.

Today, the HPLIP driver for that printer and numerous others is
available from HP, and perfectly fine drivers for that printer are also
available from open source developers.

--
Mike Easter

[Watcher]

On 04/08/2019 12:34 AM, Mike Easter wrote:
> arlen holder wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>
>>> i recommend that you create subjects in the conventional way,
>>> instead of the way that you do, long rambling new topic subjects
>>> on a message posted 'recklessly' to numerous groups.
>>
>> *I created a REFERENCE that I want ARCHIVED so that it will be
>> FOUND.*
>
> Historically, once upon a time there was no search tool for usenet
> that was useful to users. Then Deja News began archiving and
> providing search functions.

arlen can't even find his own tutorials, but he suggests that by being
"out there" they provide enduring value.

arlen thinks that the Piece-'O-Shit win10 is a "keeper" and the
blueprint for his must not be lost, ever.

We need arlens. Don't melt down and recast him from a generic mold.

[Rene Lamontagne]

He's just another mental case, no help for him

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 00:34:08 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:

>> *I created a REFERENCE that I want ARCHIVED so that it will be FOUND.*
>
> Historically, once upon a time there was no search tool for usenet that
> was useful to users. Then Deja News began archiving and providing
> search functions.

Hi Mike,
We're (almost) all old men, where we lived through the deja news days. :)

I've been contributing value to Usenet since those days, but in those days,
we used our real names and our real email addresses, and we actually tried
to do something about spam (e.g., procmail & sending complaint letters to
the system administrator of the domain where the spam originated, etc.).

There is also Howard Knight, but it's a different type of search engine (as
I'm sure you're aware).

The MAIN point is that I agree with your logic that Windows 10 was the best
newsgroup for the information today, but Windows 10 turns out to be the
WORST newsgroup if you want a one-shot tutorial reference archived such
that people can _find_ it using subject-line-based keywords in the future.

If I write a tutorial, and, everyone but Cybe(r) Wizard knows I've written
so many that I can't count them, I want it to be archived so that OTHERS
benefit from the immense effort it takes to test every line and add links
for every suggested product and to show every important setting, etc.

All my tutorials are of 'cut and paste' design (which, I admit, goes stale
over time, but you have to pick a use model, where, for example, I never
say "search using cortana to start up X", since that's a cop out.

I _find_ how to unambiguously start up X and then give a cut-and-paste line
that will work on any similar system.

> Next, Google took over the archives of Deja and provided a much stronger
> and better archive and better search function.

The funny thing about the Google Usenet search is that it sucks (IMHO),
compared to the Google web search. I can't find stuff that I KNOW I posted
ten years ago sometimes, using the Google search.

I toyed with the idea of injecting a unique keyword into all my posts, so
that I could find them with a Google search, where I wonder if I should
implement that, since I have so many tutorials that I sometimes reference
myself that I can't count them.

> Then, the google search function became much deprecated and other
> adverse google effects impacted usenet quite badly.

Yup. The Usenet search for, say, the linux ng, sucks.
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-os-linux>

But, you should see how horrid the Windows 10 tinyurl search is:
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-10>

And, even more horrid, the Narkive search engine:
<http://alt.os.linux.narkive.com>
<http://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com>

The sad fact is that, if you want a tutorial reference archived, the
Windows 10 ng is one of the WORST ways to archive it (so I generally add
alt.comp.freeware or, if applicable, the WinXP ng, both of which are
archived)
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-freeware>
<http://tinyurlcom/windowsxp-general> (there's a 30-char limit)

BTW, who do you think _created_ those tinyurl links?
o HINT: I did.

Why?
o Because I'm all about accessing our tribal knowledge for the general user.

> Nowadays, usenet is but a shadow of its former self, both from a
> participatory perspective and from a search perspective,

Yeah, but, not for us old men. :)

Someday, they'll be saying the same thing about twitter & reddit. :)

> BUT...
>
> At no time was the *subject* of the articles, the crux or linchpin of
> searching for usenet content. At all times usenet message content was
> searchable not by the number of groups a message was posted to nor by
> subject content alone.

Wrong. But I understand everything you say Mike.
o I'm of at least average intelligence (if that), which means there's
nothing you can say of general knowledge that we both don't completely
understand.

Remember Mike, I'm one of the most logical people you'll ever meet in your
entire life.

Nothing is by accident.
o If I say the Subject line is useful for search, then it is.

You might not KNOW why I say that, but I can explain why I say that.
o And then it's up to you whether you comprehend what I said
o And then it's up to you whether you agree or disagree (or even believe)

Let's first agree on the facts, which is that there likely isn't a formal
"search" that either of us knows of that ONLY looks at the Subject line,
right?

But wait... what about the "narkive".
And what about scrolling through pages of the google archive?

Hmmmmm... what about "control + F" Mike?
o Hint: I use it _all_ the time, Mike.

Particularly a subject-line control-F search is useful for key use models.
1. It's often the best way to search through NARKIVE archives, Mike.
2. It's often the _only_ good way to search through Win10 archives, Mike.
3. It's often the best way to search through dated GOOGLE archives, Mike.

Let's take the simple example of this archive, Mike:
<https://alt.os.linux.narkive.com/>

Let's say, you want to search for a known keyword.
o Just try it Mike. It will almost always fail. Right?

But wait. If you know it was recent, you just scroll & hit <control+F>
o You search the subject lines ('cuz that's all you've got to search on).

If you know the date, if it was years ago, like when Ubuntu 10.04 released,
you can scroll to _that_ approximate date, and then do your <control-F> on
the subject lines.

This works the same with Google and with the PCBanter site.

The Google archives are the best, and the PC banter & narkive sites the
worst, so I find myself using the subject-line keyword search FAR more
often on PCBanter & narkive than on Google though.

But I often use it on Google too (maybe only a score of times per week but
still, often enough that a subject line with keywords is a useful thing).

Having said that the subject-ine keywords are important for this class of
search, I agree some keywords aren't useful, of course, like conjunctions
or even abbreviations (such as VPN), where you need MORE keywords put in
the subject line than most people do (like "tutorial" or "OpenVPN", etc.).

The point is, Mike, that a good subject line is USEFUL.
o It's not just extraneous fluff, Mike.

> Through those years I have used search tools on usenet to a significant
> extent. At no time was the content of the subject or the number of
> groups significant at all to my ability to find something.

Hi Mike,
I use the subject line keyword search _all_ the time.
For example, if you search for "privacy" you won't get this canonical
thread that details the TRUE factual implications of privacy on Android &
iOS.
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities
between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/pZqLQwyh/what-is-the-factual-truth-about-privacy-differences-or-similarities-between-the-android-ios-mobile>

BTW, I FOUND that URL by doing a "control-F" search at:
>https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/>

But if you search for "PRIVACY" (all caps), you'll get it.
(Of course, you have to _know_ that it's in all caps though, I agree.)

> I still sometimes use google groups to search for something, and during
> the heyday of google's usenet search function and during Deja's time,
> the subject never functioned in the way you imagine.

Hi Mike,
Please realize a few things about me which are different, perhaps, from
your average Usenet poster.

1. I'm of at least average intelligence, if that.
2. That means I instantly comprehend almost EVERYTHING you can possibly say.
3. It means I can comprehend FACTS - the same facts you comprehend.
4. It means I don't argue facts since facts are facts.
5. What it means is that I use LOGIC deduced from those facts.
6. Also, EVERYTHING I do is intended to be PURPOSEFULLY HELPFUL
7. When I post, I want that post to stick in the archives forever
8. And I want others to FIND it in the FUTURE using KEYWORDs.

Please realize that I deduce facts from logic.
o Like most adults (other than Apple Apologists, for some odd reason)
[Actually, the odd reason is that they are influenced more by marketing
than by facts, so they dispute facts, because their minds gravitate to
marketing messages - but that's an aside since they're not like normal
adults.]

Me?
o All all about FACT & Logic.

HINT: Aspergers.

And my credibility, MIke, is 100% stellar.
o I don't state a fact that isn't a fact(1)

Someone, just last week (I think it may have been you?) said that they
didn't really see any use for Panopticlick. And I gave a pretty good use
for it (it helped me realize I needed to zip up my roadside fonts).

Notice two things, Mike:
1. Fact
2. Logic

The fact is a fact.
o Unless we're Apple Apologists, we don't endlessly argue about facts.

We simply agree on those facts.
o Because we're adults.

But there's a LOGICAL REASON to use keywords in a subject line Mike.
o I just gave you an example where I use it all the time, Mike.

The facts are:
1. Most Usenet search engines suck (I think we agree on that, right?)
2. Sometimes (often actually), a Control+F is _better_ than a search

My best example of that situation is PC Banter's horrible archives of the
Windows 10 newsgroup Mike. Just _try_ searching for something without
logging in. The challenges will drive you nuts.

But you can scroll until the beginning of time with a Control_F and then
F3, F3, F3, F3, F3, etc., rather easily, Mike.

Without a subject-line-based keyword search, you're dead, Mike.

> Today, there is still a big archive of usenet messages at Howard
> Knight's, but his archive is only searchable by MID. I suppose that if
> google 'wanted to' it could restore the value of its previous search
> tool to its archive of usenet, but that isn't going to happen.

Yup. You have to already have the article's headers, which you won't have
in 99.9999% of cases.

> Since this thread is no longer about win-10, I'm changing its subject
> again and the group for f/ups also needs to be changed, but the message
> is no longer on-topic for ANY of the groups where it was originally
> posted.

I respected _all_ your fup changes, Mike.
o I'm an adult.

We may deduce different logic from the same facts
o But, as adults, we should never disagree long on facts

Adults are funny that way.
o It's mainly the Apologists & Cybe(r)-Wizard-like trolls who differ.

> That also emphasizes my point about how crossposting to
> numerous groups leads to off-topicality if the content of the thread
> changes from the original message, which is very common and not just
> because of 'chit chat', but because respondents can select any part of a
> usenet message and reply to that one specific little element.

Wrong Mike - but right if you *generalize* Mike.

Here's where you're right, Mike:
o In general, any topic can have tangential offshoots, and, in general, the
more groups, perhaps the more tangential offshoots, which, I may say, may
or may not be a bad thing, but I would say, in general, most offshoots are
of the chit-chat type (but not always).

Here's where you're wrong, Mike:
o Specifically, for a TUTORIAL that is meant to be a one-shot for people
who see it to save today and for everyone to reference tomorrow, there is
no chit chat.

Proof?
o Look at the original thread.
o Even _you_ didn't chit chat on that original thread! :)

Nobody is going to chit chat.
o What you'll find, mostly, is the Dan Purgert type trolls trolling it.

But those Rene Lamantagne type trolls can't possible add any value
o People like Diesel may troll it; but they can't add any value

If I ignored these Char Jackson-like trolls, the thread would contain only
the ORIGINAL POST and the trolls from the likes of "joe".

In reality, I've been taught to confront the cowardly bullies, to make
their bullying "less pleasant" for them, so you _do_ often see me confront
them on any new nym changes (which are periodic for privacy reasons).

Then I have to "teach" the mindless trolls like Jasen Betts that their
trolling will be _less pleasant_ (which is my tactic to implement the
strategy of leeting them troll some other thread).

For the most part, this strategy works in so much as the mindless trolls
realize that there is almost 100% certainty I will make their trolling less
pleasant.

Most, like Frank Slootweg, still have a shred of decency left, so they tuck
their tail between their legs and go off to troll elsewhere. Notice I don't
stop them from trolling any other threads - so the general rule of not
feeding them applies.

This works for some trolls, like Ken Hart, but not for the rare few like
GoodGuy or Snit, whom you just have to plonk.

In fact, Mike, it worked on you, although I realize you're different in
that you're generally purposefully helpful - but over the years, I've
noticed that you, and others, have this "keyword troll" tendency, which I
have too, which is that specific keywords spark predicable pre-determined
tirades, such as "vpn trolls" do.

You went on a roll with "proxy", which, by the way Mike, I _instantly_ knew
to be a fallacious logical argument, because, well, because I'm of at least
average intelligence (if that). I _instantly_ knew that a proxy wouldn't
work, where I'd _love_ for it to work - but it just can't.

You can _make_ a proxy work, of course, (on Linux anyway), but it's a
bitch. VPN, on the other hand, is trivially simple, and, you must bear in
mind, the SUBJECT line of that thread was about simple setup.

My point is that the offshoots generally happen mostly from trolls on the
REFERENCE style threads since almost nobody knows more than I do about the
topics that I write tutorials on (e.g., Diesel imagined the cross-platform
tutorial was "obvious" but even today, he doesn't know the step I
accidentally omitted - without which - iOS is not read & write).

While I just said almost never does anyone know more than I do on certain
topics, SOMETIMES people know a LOT more than I do, which is GREAT.

I'm never afraid to admit ignorance of a topic. I LOVE facts.
o When people supply facts, I LOVE it, as I did over hear just last week.

o Does a clock app exist that has ClocX functionality, but digital output?
<https://alt.comp.freeware.narkive.com/djBbCvT0/does-a-clock-app-exist-that-has-clocx-functionality-but-digital-output>

HINT: I found that with a keyword subject search using "control+F" F3 Mike.

> The meta discussion of how to create usenet messages is not (implied
> 'idle') chit chat but actually more important than your particular
> strategy of making the printer driver for Win10.

Hi Mike,
That's a value judgment, which I grant you as an adult.

The facts we shouldn't disagree with, but we both can agree or disagree on
what value we attribute to those facts.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by idle chit chat, Mike.
But I completely understand WHY you misunderstood.

I must clarify what I meant about idle chit chat, Mike.

First, I AGREE wholeheartedly with you, Mike, that THIS meta-data
discussion is NOT idle chit chat. I apologize if what I said made you infer
that I implied that Mike.

In fact, you appropriately CHANGED THE SUBJECT Mike, which is the right
thing to do, as the topic of THIS thread is whatever YOU wanted the topic
to be.

That's NOT idle chit chat.
o If I thought it was, I'd ignore it in someone else's thread (yours in
this case).

If it was MY reference thread, then I might come down hard on you if I
thought it was idle chit chat that detracted from the technical purpose of
the thread (depending on how chittchatty your response would have been).

For example, almost anything from Diesel or Snit or "joe" or most anything
from Dan Purgert or Cybe(r) Wizard, etc., would be worthless chit chat, so
I would likely come down HARD on them (my tactic is to confront cowardly
bullies in MY threads so that they find somewhere else to shit on the
picnic table that is the Potluck Usenet contribution from everyone).

Except for your VPN trolling episode, Mike, you have almost always been
extremely reasonable and an adult in every way, and more to the point, you,
like Paul and like I am, are always PURPOSEFULLY HELPFUL.

You and Paul don't have the same strategy of handling the trolls as I do,
but we're all PURPOSEFULLY HELPFUL, which is the main thing.

By way of contrast, someone like Diesel or Snit or nospam, are rarely
(IMHO), purposefully helpful.

Big difference.

> Back on that theme:
>
> Historically, the problem of available hardware drivers was more the
> problem for linux than with windows.

Yup. I think it was Jonathan who first mentioned that installing the
(CUPS?) printer driver on Ubuntu for this _same_ printer, was vastly easier
on Ubuntu than it was on Windows.

That has been my experience also, that Linux is EASIER than Windows for
legacy printer setup.

> The OEMs of hardware such as
> printers 'got in bed with' MS code developers and released 'proprietary'
> drivers for Win but not for linux. What is worse is that they also
> didn't provide sufficient disclosure about the hardware to enable open
> source developers to develop linux drivers easily.

Yup. In the olden days, we would have to buy hardware like a wifi card with
the hope that there was a driver for Linux that we could find listed on the
box, and, if not, at least we could find a generic driver on the net for
the hardware.

My first WONDERFUL experience with Linux otherwise, was Knoppix, in the
early days, maybe Knoppix 1.0 or whatever, but I was SHOCKED that Knoppix
recognized _all_ my peripheral hardware!

> Nowadays the linux problem is greatly diminished almost to the point of
> being eliminated, while such as problems with 'legacy' hardware is very
> much a problem for Win users.

Yup.

This printer is EASIER to set up on Ubuntu 18.04 than on Windows 10.

> Your specific issue with the specific printer HP Lj 2100 and current
> Win10 has been solved by other people in webforum discussions elsewhere
> in a different manner than you did, but that isn't the issue of my
> current content.

OMG Mike. :) [I say this in a nice way - but in a strong way!]
o You don't even KNOW how dead wrong your assumptions (likely) are.

As proof, I believe you will FAIL MISERABLY to pass this simple test:
o Name just one

Your statement above is EXACTELY the kind of statement from
WOlf K, or Diesel, or Snit, or nospam, or any of a host of (idiots).

I don't think you're an idiot Mike, but I think your statement has ZERO
BASIS in FACT ... so what does that make your belief system, Mike?

HINT: If your belief system is based on facts, then you can pass this test:
o Name just one

Hi Mike,
You're pissing me off a bit because you don't value my insight.
o You're kind of being like Diesel, who denigrated the cross platform
solution because HE was stupid, not me. Where HE thought that the solution
I proposed was documented everywhere - but it's not.

Specifically the tricks to make iOS writeable, Diesel didn't get.

The problem is that Diesel was too stupid to realize that what I wrote
contained hints that were NOT in _any_ reference on the net. Nowhere.

You're doing the same thing, Mike, out of ignorance perhaps.

I don't mean this as an attack; I mean that you THINK, like Diesel thought,
that the information was generally available.

But is it?


While I knew instantly that Diesel was ignorant of the tricks to make iOS
writeable, so I knew Diesel was full of shit when he claimed the cross
platform solution was all over the net, I can't tell if you are ignorant or
not on this printer issue because the one thing you don't mention is
whether you're aware of how many WRONG answers you have to wade through in
those printer references to get to the only RIGHT answer that exists.

Please bear in mind Mike that I've had this same printer for something like
a decade or so, where it used to be on Windows, then you could get it on
the Windows update specific for printers, and it used to have the drives on
the HP web site, but then it didn't.

If you ask the question (and I have), and you don't tell people that all
the obvious answers fail, then all you'll get is a shit ton of bad answers
from people who haven't TRIED the answers they give.

People like PAUL, will NOT give you an answer they haven't tried (or, if
they do, they say they haven't tried it); but people like Wolf K or Goodguy
will tell you answers that they haven't even tested themselves.

They're wrong far more often than they're right Mike.
o Some people even tell you to use the PARK method, which is just crazy Mike.

Did you NOTICE that my method SAYS that you will fail if you use those
other methods? There's a REASON I said all that, since I've SEARCHED
EVERTYHING POSSIBLE on the net to find the solution that works best, Mike.

So while my reference lists all the known solutions that will fail, MOST
people don't think like I do, Mike. People like Wolf K. or nospam just
spout untested bullshit Mike.

Me?
o My credibility is 100% stellar.

If I say something, in general, if it's something like "you will fail if
you try the obvious method", then you will fail.

Remember Diesel said my cross-platform solution was obvious, but Diesel was
too stupid to realize that it was not.

I don't know if you realize, Mike, that all the obvious printer solutions
do NOT work, Mike. Where if you look on the net, you may find ZERO
reference articles that say what my reference says, which is that all the
obvious methods WILL FAIL.

Since getting a CAB file is generally one of the LAST of the methods, it's
not obvious that the CAB file is the ONLY method that actually works.

At least I think it's not obvious.
o Is it?

As an example on how my tutorial contains hints that aren't obvious in all
references, as part of my Windows setup, I use the "send to" menu to easily
populate the WinXP style menus. Is that obvious? Is that in all the
reference menus?

Idiots like Diesel _think_ that this is obvious - but, IMHO, all they can
comprehend is the fact that I'm creating a WinXP style menu which was
ALWAYS on Windows 10. Is that obvious? I think some people use the Classic
Shell because they mistakenly _think_ WinXP menus aren't on Win10 but they
were ALWAYS there.

As another example, idiots thought that you couldn't "mount" using both
WebDAV and FTP, but you _can_ use the "net use X:" command with WebDAV (but
not as easily with FTP).

Those things aren't always obvious Mike - and those are the things I put in
my tutorials because I have TESTED all lines of my tutorials Mike.

In short, I think YOU think that the printer setup for legacy printers is
obvious, and, while I agree that it's certainly more obvious than are some
of those examples above, I still wonder if YOU can find a SINGLE article on
the net that backs up your opinion.

Can you, Mike, find a _single_ reference on the net which explains what my
tutorial explains, which is that all the obvious methods will fail?

If your belief that my tutorial was obvious is a fact, then you'll pass
this test:
o Name just one

NOTE: If you fail that test, then your statement is likely dead wrong, Mike
(although it could be that the reference exists, but you can't find it,
which is another part of my point, Mike).

> Since my thread diversion is now about the meta topic of usenet message
> structure and driver issues, such as printer, between linux and windows,
> I'm replacing the group a.o.l, so it is posted to both groups and the
> meta part is actually off-topic in both of those.

Hi Mike,
I agree with you on your thread diversion.

I completely and instantly understand EVERYTHING you write.

If you understand what I write in response, you have to LET ME KNOW,
because we're looking at (and agreeing to) the same facts.

Where we differ is in the logical deduction from those facts.
o We're both intelligent, well educated, and reasonable Mike.

My points to you are that I'm not sure you comprehend yet:
1. Subject line keyword searches _do_ have a use, Mike.
2. Chit chat isn't expected (nor desired) in a REFERENCE thread, Mike.
3. The tutorials I write aren't OBVIOUS (although idiots think they are).
4. If you think it's obvious, then you'll pass the "name just one" test.
5. If you fail the "name just one" test, then your belief system may need adjustment. :)

In short, Mike, I argue that you make the mistake of thinking that your use
model is the ONLY use model, which is not the case (neither is mine).

> Today, the HPLIP driver for that printer and numerous others is
> available from HP, and perfectly fine drivers for that printer are also
> available from open source developers.

Hi Mike,
In general, we're both purposefully helpful, and in general, that means we
supply URLs for new acronyms that aren't of general knowledge.

I don't ever mind admitting when I'm ignorant (it's why I learn because I
know I don't know everything yet); so I admit HPLIP is meaningless to me.

Googling... I first search here for tutorials with HPLIP in the Usenet
archives:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.os.linux>
Then I hit Control+F F3 to _find_ a SUBJECT line with HPLLIP in it

Of the 14 a.o.l threads with the HPLIP acronym, ZERO had it in the SUBJECT
line, so, it's not the main topic of anything, AFAIK at this point.

Unfortunately, I can't do the same for the Google Win10 archives since they
don't exist, nor can I easily do it with the PC Banter archives which suck
like you can't believe where I'd only search there if I had to, but I can
try the subject line keyword search with the narkive.
<http://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com>

I scrolled for more than 2 years, and I can tell you, Mike, there isn't a
_single_ subject line with HPLIP in it on the Windows 10 newsgroup.

That's pretty bad.

I did the same search on the Windows XP group, and I can tell you the same
information - there isn't a single USENET post with HPLIP in the subject.

By way of contrast, if I search using the same method for the 2100tn, I
will find it in the SUBJECT line (which is important information, as, if it
wasn't important, we wouldn't NEED subject lines, Mike).

Obviously this HPLIP stuff is not common on those Usenet newsgroups, so I'm
forced to go off of Usenet (which is a different topic altogether in terms
of search engines), where certainly I can find stuff OFF of Usenet.
o HPLIP
<https://developers.hp.com/hp-linux-imaging-and-printing>

But the point is Usenet searches, not Internet searches (which are
completely different beasts).

--
(1) I'm human, so, I may have once or twice in tens of thousands of posts,
misstated a material fact, especially as Usenet is casual, but nobody can
find any material fact I've stated that was wrong, which you have to admit
is pretty incredible for credibility on Usenet, Mike.

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> Windows 10 turns out to be the WORST newsgroup if you want a one-shot

> tutorial reference archived such that people can_find_ it using

> subject-line-based keywords in the future.

Explain to me how you 'see' someone searching usenet. Are you thinking
they use google groups or some other strategy?

If GG, GG doesn't care where the keyword is, subject or body, and it
also doesn't care which group it is in, *except* for those groups which
GG doesn't carry.

In the case of alt.comp.os.windows-10, GG does NOT carry that group,
while it DOES carry alt.os.linux.

That is, exactly how/ by what method/ do you see someone using
'subject-line-based keyword/s'? I certainly don't do that.




--
Mike Easter

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>

>> Next, Google took over the archives of Deja and provided a much stronger
>> and better archive and better search function.
>
> The funny thing about the Google Usenet search is that it sucks (IMHO),
> compared to the Google web search. I can't find stuff that I KNOW I posted
> ten years ago sometimes, using the Google search.

Correct; GG search now sucks. But there was a period after google
acquired deja's archives that the GG usenet search tool was excellent.
See below.

> Yup. The Usenet search for, say, the linux ng, sucks.
> <http://tinyurl.com/alt-os-linux>

I don't see anything wrong with that expected result of simply searching
for the group. I don't normally search for a group. I search for a
topic. But, I don't use GG search much at all since its deterioration.

Also, depending on what I'm seeking, I also don't use general search
engines *first*. Usually I start by increasing my general knowledge of
a topic someplace like wikipedia before I choose a search term.

In the case of searching for printer drivers for the HP Lj 2100 for both
win10 and linux, I started with a general search engine and had no
trouble finding linux driver solutions and several solutions other than
yours for solving the legacy printer on win10 problem.

> Nothing is by accident.
> o If I say the Subject line is useful for search, then it is.

You are going to have to explain how that is so. It is NOT so by the
way I search. So, your subject content is NOT of use to me for searching.

Perhaps there is something very unusual about how you search.

If there is something unusual about the individual strategy, such as the
unusual way that you feel a need to read and post to usenet using 5
different platforms, Win, Linux, Mac, Android, iOS and while using proxy
or vpn connectivity, that combination is unusual.

So, a tutorial on how to do something very unusual - an unusual
combination - is not as valuable as a tutorial more compatible with the
typical user.

> You went on a roll with "proxy",

No, YOU went on a roll with proxy because I cited a someplace that
compared VPN to proxy and you misinterpreted the meaning of what I had
posted or rather what I was suggesting by the citation which contained
proxy comparison to vpn.

Because the term proxy was mentioned in the citation you believed that I
was recommending a proxy solution. I didn't even mention the word proxy
in my message.

I posted this message:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=155474596800
From: Mike Easter
Subject: Re: How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes
on Android or iOS
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 10:31:45 -0800
Message-ID: <gctnkh...@mid.individual.net>

which I said:

> The vast majority of people do not need a VPN service and shouldn't be
> using one.
>
> There is a lot more popular interest in VPN than there should be.
>
> Here's an article with a 'contrary' POV.
>
> https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29 Don't use VPN
> services.

<end me>
-------------------

> Can you, Mike, find a _single_ reference on the net which explains what my
> tutorial explains, which is that all the obvious methods will fail?

Yes; I found solutions which I think would work; but I don't want to
debate those solutions against your solution because -1- I don't have
win10 -2- I don't have that printer




--
Mike Easter

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:25:01 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:

> Explain to me how you 'see' someone searching usenet. Are you thinking
> they use google groups or some other strategy?

Hi Mike,
There are _many_ use models, which I think is your main disagreement with
me.

I think you may think that I think that there is only one search use model.
o But I don't think that.

I think there are _many_ use models for searching on Usenet.
o One of those use models is particularly useful with sucky search engines

You have to admit, the search engines we know of for the Win10 ng suck.
Same with the Windows 7 newsgroup.

If you don't know already that they suck, then you must try them.

*Windows 10*
o <http://tinyurl.com/
o <http://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com>
*Windows 7*
o <http://tinyurl.com/alt-windows7-general>
o <http://alt.windows7.general.narkive.com>

Did you _try_ them Mike?
o If you haven't tried them, you won't comprehend how badly they suck.

For example, search for "webdav" or "vpn" in the subject line:
o HINT: If it's in the subject line, it's a key component of the thread

DOUBLEHINT:
o There's a _reason_ that the subject line exists, Mike.

For you to think that it should be pared to almost uselessness, is fine
o But that's a different use model than I use

The REASON I use the keyword based subject line is the SAME as why all
scientific reference articles also use a keyword based subject line.

It's logical.

> If GG, GG doesn't care where the keyword is, subject or body, and it
> also doesn't care which group it is in, *except* for those groups which
> GG doesn't carry.

Mike,

Please realize what I'm going to say is strong, but it's not an attack.
o I think what you said is something an idiot like Rene Lamantagne would say

I don't expect idiots to comprehend the complexity inherent in the real
world, Mike - but I do expect _you_ to comprehend the complexity involved.

If a subject line has a keyword in it, say, oh, I don't know, "PRINTER",
then you can rest assured the bulk of the thread is about a "printer".

But if you search for all things (subject lines & bodies) for the word
printer, I'll wager that a good proportion of the hits will be of stuff
that only incidentally mentions the word 'printer'.

Even more to the point, if you KNOW that a certain keyword is in the
subject line (or at least LIKELY to be in the subject line), then a keyword
search of subject lines works GREAT sometimes, particularly on the sites
like Windows 10 Usenet archives which have super sucky search engines.

Having said that, Mike, I COMPLETELY AND INSTANTLY COMPREHEND your point
that all the known Usenet search engines COMBINE the subject with the body.

What I don't know yet is if you comprehend the logic that
o Finding a keyword in the subject is BETTER than finding it in the body
(most of the time) because it means the TOPIC is about that keyword.
o This works only if people write keyword based subject lines
HINT: All scientific papers, Mike, use keyword-based subject lines
for this exact same reason Mike. (And I've written some and read many.)

I also don't know yet if you comprehend how BAD the existing search engines
are for groups like the Windows 10 and Windows 7 newsgroups.

Are you aware, Mike, how BAD they are?
o If not, you NEED to relieve yourself of that mis awareness.

Let me tell you plainly, and bluntly, that they suck, Mike.
o They suck like you can't believe they suck.

Again, I ask of myself the same "name just one" question I ask of you.

I want you to use these search engines to find a tutorial for how to set up
the HP "2011tn" Mike.
*Windows 10*
o <http://tinyurl.com/
o <http://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com>
*Windows 7*
o <http://tinyurl.com/alt-windows7-general>
o <http://alt.windows7.general.narkive.com>

I don't want you to find articles that are NOT about that specific printer,
Mike.

That means you need to find "2100tn" in the SUBJECT line, Mike.
o Try it & report back

The reason you _need_ to try it is that you're kind of acting like Diesel
or Rene Lamantagne or GoodGuy or Char Jackson or Wolf K, etc., where you
are making claims that are patently false simply becuase you appear to
think that the ONLY use model is the use model that YOU employ.

The difference, I think, between us, is this simple:
o You appear to think that there is only ONE use model.
o I know there are multiple use models.

Given that you appear to think there is only one use model
o You do not appear to comprehend the flaws in that ONE use model you use
o I do very well comprehend the huge flaws in that one use model you use

The way I combat those huge flaws is simple, like all good solutions
o I do keyword searches based solely on the SUBJECT line, Mike.

NOTE: It's not the ONLY model I use - but it's one of them.

> In the case of alt.comp.os.windows-10, GG does NOT carry that group,
> while it DOES carry alt.os.linux.

Hi Mike,

:)
o Do you think I don't _know_ that, Mike?

Fact is, I _created_ that search link for BOTH newsgroups, Mike!
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-os-linux>
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-10>

Mike ... I'm beginning to worry about you not understanding what I said.

Not only did I mention how bad the search engine is for Windows 10 in
response to your request for me to stick stuff ONLY on Windows 10 for
archival purposes, but I said MANY TIMES that the Windows 10 ng archives
suck, and the very fact that I CREATED the links means I'm very much aware
that google groups doesn't archive the win10 newsgroup.

Mike ... you're scaring me.
o On the one hand, you say use Win10 for archives, essentially, and, yet,
o On the other hand, you're apparently completely ignorant of why I can't.

If I _could_ have created the one-time-only tinyurl to POINT to a Google
archive for the Windows 10 newsgroup, don't you THINK I would have done
that?

You scare me in what you say not because you said it, but because it means
that your belief system is based on a lack of facts.

> That is, exactly how/ by what method/ do you see someone using
> 'subject-line-based keyword/s'? I certainly don't do that.

Hi Mike,
I think that the problem is pretty simple that we're discussing:
o You appear to think there is only one search use model
o I clearly think that there are more than one search use models

If I _could_ use a decent Google-based search model for the Windows 10 and
Windows 7 newsgroups, I would. (Yes, I know about the -site option to
Google too).

But I can't.
o Neither can you.

The fact is that you're admonishing me to CHANGE my use model
o Which is fine ... if ... if ... if you comprehended it.

But for you to tell me to change my use model at the SAME TIME that you're
clearly ignorant (I don't mean that as an insult) of WHY I use that use
model, is a problem.

Just as you said for me to use a proxy when you didn't (at first)
comprehend that a proxy would fail, it's not me who needs to think harder -
it's you. You needed to comprehend that a proxy would fail BEFORE you tell
me to use a proxy.

Same with Panopticlick - you were only asking a question on what use it is,
which is a valid question, but had you been advising me NOT to use
Panopticlick, you would have needed to know WHY I use it.

*Likewise with a subject-line-based search query Mike.*

If you don't understand HOW it's useful, Mike, then you can't reasonably
tell me not to use it.

As usual with such things:
o I know BOTH models and therefore, I know why both are needed
o You only seem to know ONE model - which is fine - but then ...
o You can't rationally tell me to ONLY use the one model you know of.

In summary, EVERYTHING I do has a logical rationale based on facts, Mike.

If I suggest you NOT to use something (e.g., if I suggest you don't have to
load Classic Shell if all you want is a WinXP style menu), then you can
rest assured I know BOTH sides of that equation.

That is:
o I've used Classic Shell (so I know what it does)
o And, I've used WinXP style menus native on Win10 (so I know what it does)

If I had never used WinXP style menus native on Win10, then I can't
rationally strongly & repeatedly suggest that only Classic Shell gives you
WinXP style menus on XP.

Same with your assumption here, Mike:
o If all you know are the methods that fail
o Then how can you then tell me to use THOSE methods (which fail)?

It's not a logical deduction from the facts.

I hope my strong words are not taken as a slight, but just a point of fact.

I think YOU have to say "yes" to these statements before you tell me what
you think I should do (which I'm fine with if you understand the facts)
1. Do you, Mike, realize there is no good Win10 archive?
2. Do you, Mike, realize that a subject search is useful?
3. Do you, Mike, realize that a Control+F works for Windows 10 archives?
4. Do you, Mike, realize it only works if the subject contains keywords?
etc.

Until YOU understand those facts, you can't rationally make any logical
deductions based on an ignorance of those facts, Mike.

It's like you telling me to use a motorcycle to move a refrigerator,
without you realizing that it's not easy for a motorcycle to move a
refrigerator.

It's not a logical deduction based on facts.
o It's a suggestion (which is fine) based on ignorance of the facts (which
is a problem since it's not logical to do that).

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:02:28 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:

>> Yup. The Usenet search for, say, the linux ng, sucks.
>> <http://tinyurl.com/alt-os-linux>
>
> I don't see anything wrong with that expected result of simply searching
> for the group. I don't normally search for a group. I search for a
> topic. But, I don't use GG search much at all since its deterioration.

Hi Mike,

You need to slow down, and READ what I write, since you're beginning to
scare me with those words above.

You can't logically suggest something if you're ignorant of why I use it.

Let me clarify that when I say to search using:
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-os-linux>
It's simply because I don't want to remember & type THIS!
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.os.linux>

They're BOTH THE SAME THING.
o One is simply an easier-to-remeber pointer to the other

They're EXACTLY THE SAME, Mike.
o They both point to the same Google search engine for a.o.l

The reason I type the tinyurl in Usenet posts is consistent with my
strategy of giving GENERAL use solutions, where it's not only easier for ME
to remember, but it's also easier for EVERYONE to remember.

The syntax is:
tinyurl.com + the name of the newsgroup with dashes instead of dots

HINT: I'd use dots but tinyurl.com doesn't let us use dots.
DOUBLEHINT: There's a 30-character limit (affects windowsxp-general).

> Also, depending on what I'm seeking, I also don't use general search
> engines *first*. Usually I start by increasing my general knowledge of
> a topic someplace like wikipedia before I choose a search term.

Hi Mike,

The topic must be constrained to Usenet searches for two reasons
1. Internet searches are a completely different beast, and,
2. Your suggestions for me to use Win10 & shorter subjects is based on
ignorance of why I can't use Win10 and shorter subjects if I want the
articles to be a REFERNCE article (to be found in the future).

As an example, today I tested these supposed privacy-based search engines
which are not in the normal obvious set (i.e., not startpage, ddg, etc.)

o https://anonymous-gibiru.com
o http://www.gigablast.com
o https://www.lukol.com
o https://metager.org
o https://www.oscobo.com
o https://search.disconnect.me
o https://swisscows.ch
o https://www.wolframalpha.com
o http://yippy.com

As an example of where a subject keyword is useful, this thread will be
archived in the Win10 archives that do exist, right?

But if I created a thread specifically on the topic of the LUKOL search
engine, Mike, I would _put_ "LUKOL" in the subject line, right Mike?

Then (and only then), a subject-line keyword based search on the Windows 10
Usenet archives that do exist, would work, right Mike?

What I'm trying to help you understand Mike, is that a subject line with
keywords is normal in scientific papers for a REASON, where that reason is
so that searches that find those keywords in the subject line are most
likely to be useful.
o If you find LUKOL in the subject line, the thread is likely about that
o If you find LUKOL in the body, you don't know anything more than that

Why you don't comprehend that, which is simple, is getting scary.

I don't expect you to AGREE always with my logic Mike
o But I do expect you to COMPREHEND It.

I certainly comprehend YOUR LOGIC (since I started with your assumptions
long ago, maybe a decade or two, as I don't know when I created the tinyurl
links but it was YEARS ago).

So I'm years (and years and years) ahead of where you seem to be Mike.
o That's not a criticism - it's only a blunt way to ask you to COMPREHEND
why it is that I do what I do.

Bear in mind you don't need to _believe_ that everything I do is logical
o But if you're gonna tell me not to do it - you have to comprehend the
logic behind it.

You can't tell me to do something else (which fails, like a win10 search
will fail, or like a proxy will fail) PURELY because you're ignorant that
it will fail.

It's like telling me to use the HP drivers to install the HP 2100tn printer
on Windows simply because you're ignorant that they don't exist on the HP
site anymore.

You have to UNDERSTAND that I'm logical.
o I know what you know
o ANd I know more than what you know (about this topic).

You logically can't tell me to do what you do - if ... if... if
o If you're completely ignorant of why I already know your approach will
fail

HINT: It's no different than the proxy situation.
I know what you don't know, which is that your suggestion can't work.

I don't say this meanly - but I do say it bluntly.
o You need to understand WHY I do what it is that you tell me not to do.

> In the case of searching for printer drivers for the HP Lj 2100 for both
> win10 and linux, I started with a general search engine and had no
> trouble finding linux driver solutions and several solutions other than
> yours for solving the legacy printer on win10 problem.

Hi Mike,

If your belief system is NOT imaginary, you'll be able to answer this:
o Name just one.

HINT: Give me the URL and I'll likely tell you WHY it will fail.

> You are going to have to explain how that is so. It is NOT so by the
> way I search. So, your subject content is NOT of use to me for searching.

Hi Mike,
I have written OTHER tutorials on the Windows 10 newsgroup on this printer.
Jonathan Little ALSO contributed, as did, as I recall Z Tom (sp?).

How would you FIND the old Windows10 ng tutorial that I wrote, Mike?

HINT: I know how I would find it; and that would be a subject-based keyword
search, but you have to tell me how YOU would find it.

> Perhaps there is something very unusual about how you search.

How would you FIND the old Windows10 ng tutorial that I wrote, Mike?

If you have a BETTER way, I'm all for it.

Once you find it, notice you found it by the SUBJECT line, btw.
o But let's first have you FIND it first, in the Win10 archives.

> If there is something unusual about the individual strategy, such as the
> unusual way that you feel a need to read and post to usenet using 5
> different platforms, Win, Linux, Mac, Android, iOS and while using proxy
> or vpn connectivity, that combination is unusual.

Hi Mike,
OK. Now you're getting like you got in the proxy thread.

I realize logic ruffled your feathers.
o I'm sorry that I refuted your imaginary claims with logic.

But don't get all riled up simply because I pointed out your ill logic.

My search tools are NO DIFFERENT than anyone else's search tools.
o I'm just more successful at finding stuff than they are

The reason is that I use MULTIPLE MODELS
o And you only use one

When you fail, you give up.
o When I fail using the one you know, I switch to the second one

An example is that you only have a flathead screwdriver and I have both a
flathead and a phillips screwdriver.

You keep telling me to use only the flathead, where I keep telling you that
the flathead is fine for some searches, but the phillips works better on
other searches.

If you're completely ignorant of WHY I use a phillips screwdriver on some
searches, you can't THEN claim that my searches are, somehow unique.

Your ignorance of phillips head screws does not make my use of a phillips
head screwdriver unique.

> So, a tutorial on how to do something very unusual - an unusual
> combination - is not as valuable as a tutorial more compatible with the
> typical user.

Mike,

Again, you're getting to the point of ridiculousness just because I
threat4ened your existing belief system, which was based on ignorance of
the facts, with facts.

Please sit back, and THINK about what I'm saying to you.

When it's YOU who are ignorant of the fact that a phillips screwdriver
exists, then you can't rationally tell me to use only flathead
screwdrivers.

I KNOW both types exist
o You seem to beleive that a flathead works for all searches

I'm explaining to you where a flathead search fails
o And then you tell me that the screw itself should be flathead

WTF?
o You are ignorant that phillips screws exist
o And THEN you say Phillips screws are not as valuable as flathead screws

Let's get off the example, and back onto the specific topic.
o Just answer these questions, Mike, based on value.

1. Is a tutorial on how to install legacy printers valuable?
2. Is it valuable when that tutorial has tested a given printer?
3. How would you FIND that tutorial?

HINT: If you can't find the old Win10 tutorials I wrote, you fail.

> No, YOU went on a roll with proxy because I cited a someplace that
> compared VPN to proxy and you misinterpreted the meaning of what I had
> posted or rather what I was suggesting by the citation which contained
> proxy comparison to vpn.

Hi Mike,
There are huge threads on that topic, where, the logical deduction was that
a proxy fails for what a VPN accomplishes, which is to easily encrypt &
geospoof on all five common consumer platforms.

For more details, I refer you to the threads themselves:
o How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/Bv8bwG4ggnc>
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/Tx1xCUJ4/how-to-get-up-running-on-a-free-public-vpn-service-in-minutes-on-android-or-ios>
etc.

o What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/nW_54TSBBEE>
<https://alt.os.linux.narkive.com/GO8OWdfB/what-s-a-free-proxy-for-the-specific-purpose-of-free-usenet-posts>
etc.

HINT: For Windows 10, a subject-line keyword search is USEFUL!
DOUBLEHINT: *Try finding Windows 10 Usenet articles WITHOUT using control-F!*

EXAMPLES:
<https://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com/#slidedown_900>
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-10>


Mike,
Until you comprehend that Windows 10 Usenet searches are DIFFERENT than
alt.os.linux Usenet searches, you can NOT logically suggest people use your
USE model, because your use model will fail.

The only way you can use your use model is to fail.

> Because the term proxy was mentioned in the citation you believed that I
> was recommending a proxy solution. I didn't even mention the word proxy
> in my message.

Hi Mike,

Please do not change the facts.

FACTS:
I posted a reference thread on how to get up & running on VPN in minutes.
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/Tx1xCUJ4/how-to-get-up-running-on-a-free-public-vpn-service-in-minutes-on-android-or-ios#post1>

In post #4, you pointed to an article with a "contrary POV" (those are your exact words, Mike:
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/Tx1xCUJ4/how-to-get-up-running-on-a-free-public-vpn-service-in-minutes-on-android-or-ios#post4>

I thanked you for your "contrary POV" suggestion, at the time you made it.
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/Tx1xCUJ4/how-to-get-up-running-on-a-free-public-vpn-service-in-minutes-on-android-or-ios#post7>

I read and fully comprehended (IMHO) the "contrary POV" article at the time you posted it:
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/Tx1xCUJ4/how-to-get-up-running-on-a-free-public-vpn-service-in-minutes-on-android-or-ios#post7>

You don't deny any of those facts, do you Mike?

As with this thread, since you apparently don't like the facts, you started
throwing in bullshit (you were very wrong in that thread on so many things
that I don't even want to rehash the fact, the netfront is just one of
them).

What you did then, and what you're doing now is very very very very simple.
o Since YOU are ignorant of WHY I do what I do, you THINK your model works
o But your ignorance (which is fine) is why you think there is only 1 model

In that proxy thread, you were wrong about a LOT of basic facts, Mike:
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/Tx1xCUJ4/how-to-get-up-running-on-a-free-public-vpn-service-in-minutes-on-android-or-ios#post16>

I don't wish to belabor what facts you got wrong (there were so many that
the key fact was that you were completely ignorant of the fact that your
suggestion CAN"T POSSIBLY WORK).

What I find with you Mike, in that thread, and on this thread, is that you
get increasingly defensive (I understand) when you are confronted with
logic.

You don't LIKE the fact that your search fails.
o You don't like the fact that the search I suggest works when yours fails

But please, you can't "spar" with me Mike unless you comprehend what I do.
o You can't tell me to use your Win10 search - because that search fails

You can get defensive that your suggestion fails (just as you did with the
proxy "contrary pov" which was total bullshit because it fails).

If your suggestions actually WORKED, they'd be a "contrary pov".
p But they fail Mike.

And, worse, they INSTANTLY fail, Mike.
o It takes only seconds to CPOMPREHEND WHY your suggestions fail, Mike.

HINT: Try to run a search on the Windows 10 archives for "hplj2011tn", Mike
WITHOUT using a subject-line based keyword search.

Really Mike.
o You have to try this before you can tell me a "contrary POV".

I already KNOW that you will fail using YOUR approach.
o You don't know that - because you don't comprehend the problem set.

Just like with the proxy "contrary POV".

>> Can you, Mike, find a _single_ reference on the net which explains what my
>> tutorial explains, which is that all the obvious methods will fail?
>
> Yes; I found solutions which I think would work; but I don't want to
> debate those solutions against your solution because -1- I don't have
> win10 -2- I don't have that printer

Hi Mike,

Please don't act like Diesel where all his solutions are imaginary.
o Name just one

HINT: I will _read_ it, and I will (likely) tell you WHY it fails, Mike.

DOUBLEHINT: I think that's why you didn't "name just one" yet.
(You _know_ that it failed, most likely, but you don't want to admit that).

CAVEAT: Mike. I like you, and I think you're an adult, so please don't
think my logical reasoning is an affront toward you. Logic is a blessing,
but only to those who comprehend logic. The main reason I like you is that
I think your posts are intended to be purposefully helpful (as are mine).

But if I ask you to "name just one", and if you can't or if you won't
simply "name just one", what do you expect me to logically think?

Is your belief system backed up by even a _single_ fact?
o If so, please "name just one" URL.

Likewise with my Windows 10 Usenet archive search question:
o Please find the old hplj2100tn reference using YOUR search method:

I _already_ know the answer... but I need YOU to comprehend FACT & LOGIC.

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 04/08/2019 1:29 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:25:01 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> Explain to me how you 'see' someone searching usenet. Are you thinking
>> they use google groups or some other strategy?
>
> Hi Mike,
> There are _many_ use models, which I think is your main disagreement with
> me.
>
> I think you may think that I think that there is only one search use model.
> o But I don't think that.
>
> I think there are _many_ use models for searching on Usenet.
> o One of those use models is particularly useful with sucky search engines
>
> You have to admit, the search engines we know of for the Win10 ng suck.
> Same with the Windows 7 newsgroup.
>

Chop Chop. garbage

Nice to see your still thinking of me.

Rene

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> What I'm trying to help you understand Mike, is that a subject line with
> keywords is normal in scientific papers for a REASON,

I don't agree with your search strategy at all; and separately, the
business of keywords for scientific papers is a completely different
'subject'. In scientific articles there is a special section for keywords.

And, scientific paper subject writing in general is a completely
different beast than usenet new message subject creation.

A scientific paper subject is conventionally much longer than a usenet
subject should be AND the same scientific paper also has a separate
section for keywords, which are not embraced within a sentence.

I don't have any interest in teaching you how to search properly/
better/ more effectively, which I'm sure I am better at than you. I'm
only making my point that your usenet posting style is quite
unconventional and generally undesirable. Subjects way too long,
crossposted to way too many groups, body content repetitive, too much ad
hominem denigration of those who converse with you.

So it is 'too much' all over the place. But I expect any mission to try
to improve your behavior falls on deaf ears, and, I have no interest in
teaching search to you.

--
Mike Easter

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 14:37:15 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:

> I don't agree with your search strategy at all; and separately, the
> business of keywords for scientific papers is a completely different
> 'subject'. In scientific articles there is a special section for keywords.

Hi Mike,

FACTS & LOGIC.
o That's all I use, Mike.

It appears you're not used to dealing with people who make decisions based
on facts, so I must tell you that my belief system is based on facts.

Whether you comprehend the facts or not, is immaterial to me
o But you making decisions based on pure ignorance, is a problem.

I never once asked you to _agree_ with my eminently reasonable logic.
o I only ask you to comprehend facts.

If adults comprehend facts, then (and only then) can they reasonably differ
on the logical implications of those facts.

But Mike - almost everything you've said seems to indicate you do not
comprehend the basic facts.

So you have absolutely no business agreeing or disagreeing
o Since you're making decisions based on solid ignorance.

Adults can't even get to the stage of agreeing or disagreeing on logic
o Until they comprehend the facts.

You haven't answered a _single_ question, Mike,
o Hence, I have zero indication whether you comprehend _any_ of the facts

The facts, Mike, are simple:
o The Windows 10 newsgroup is NOT archived by Google Groups search methods
o Do you comprehend that fact yet, Mike?

o The _only_ keyword searches we have for the Windows 10 newsgroup, are
o PC Banter & Narkive
o Do you comprehend that fact yet, Mike?

o Both those keyword search archives suck at finding anything, Mike.
o Do you comprehend that fact yet, Mike?

Hence, a keyword search, using "Control+F" & F3, works better than nothing.
o Do you comprehend that fact yet, Mike?

If you don't do a keyword search, you will likely fail, Mike.
o Did you even _try_ to find something in the Windows 10 archives, Mike?

In summary Mike, you have absolutely no business deciding whether my
eminently logical use models are something you agree with or disagree with,
since you seem to be making _all_ your decisions based on an almost total
lack of comprehension of the facts, rather than comprehension of the facts.

> And, scientific paper subject writing in general is a completely
> different beast than usenet new message subject creation.

While true, the point is that a subject/keyword based search is reasonable.
o And it doesn't work unless you put keywords in the subject line, Mike.

It seems, based on your almost complete lack of comprehension of the
problem set, that you're unable to comprehend that a search of the Windows
10 Usenet archive is DIFFERENT than a search of the Linux Usenet archive.

> A scientific paper subject is conventionally much longer than a usenet
> subject should be AND the same scientific paper also has a separate
> section for keywords, which are not embraced within a sentence.

Mike,
The problem set is a search of the Windows 10 Usenet archive.
o Your statements show you do NOT comprehend that problem set.

How are you going to search the Windows 10 Usenet archives, Mike
o If you don't search on the subject line keywords, Mike?

How?

> I don't have any interest in teaching you how to search properly/
> better/ more effectively, which I'm sure I am better at than you.

Hi Mike,
Now you're acting like a child acts, so I'll let that statement die.

> I'm
> only making my point that your usenet posting style is quite
> unconventional and generally undesirable.

Mike,
While I agree I am almost unique on Usenet, I will also emphatically stgate
that you clearly do not comprehend the problem set.

You don't even appear to _care_ to comprehend the problem set, Mike.
o So you have no business stating whether the solution is desirable or not.

It's illogical for you to make all your decisions, Mike
o On such a solid foundation of ignorance

HINT: Try to search using your methods on the Windows 10 newsgroup, Mike.
Then use mine (which include yours, but which I know will likely fail).

Again, your statements are akin to:
o MIKE: Use a flathead screwdriver
o ARLEN: But the screw is a Phillips head!
o MIKE: Use a flathead screwdriver
o ARLEN: But a flathead screwdriver will fail, Mike & a Phillips will work
o MIKE: Use a flathead screwdriver
o ARLEN: But that method fails, Mike.
o MIKE: Use a flathead screwdriver
o ARLEN: I would use a flathead, if it would work, but it won't work, Mike.
o MIKE: Use a flathead screwdriver
... (this goes on for quite a while)... and then...
o MIKE: I don't agree with your methods, Arlen.
o MIKE: Use a flathead screwdriver

> Subjects way too long,
> crossposted to way too many groups, body content repetitive, too much ad
> hominem denigration of those who converse with you.

Hi Mike,
Now you're devolving into your imaginary belief system again.
o I already EXPLAINED the logic of the newsgroups
o You don't seem to comprehend that the Win10 ng isn't well archived
(see above conversation)
o MIKE: Use a flathead screwdriver

> So it is 'too much' all over the place. But I expect any mission to try
> to improve your behavior falls on deaf ears, and, I have no interest in
> teaching search to you.

Hi Mike,
This is the sum total of your "mission' to "improve" behavior:
o MIKE: Use a flathead screwdriver

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 14:37:15 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> I don't agree with your search strategy at all; and separately, the
>> business of keywords for scientific papers is a completely different
>> 'subject'. In scientific articles there is a special section for keywords.
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> FACTS & LOGIC.

Hi Mike, welcome to the "insufferable children" support group. Cookies
and milk are over on the table over there. Enjoy your stay.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlyslw0ACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooEXiwf9Fy3XPK+aciauZQzeKyccXdlosMwt+dzAUzGt2UMArnU+zfiJQuUldO0m
BK7gp/xC2kY0yFdcIzAZlvakKZ6yPo4snX2/5O4aqqdWk8Vp9FZu9Ck7HtwL3dSy
kXGThMrIZkRGMUhz6DL6RVewSvAGxuwMXLiGzXy69qr6uvZd0PAfjKtZqDUs6OMb
ojPK0wC5BaW3Q0huFz1G13Ep2qFbnyDQ7J8TDeudI6JqEZC6jXAU9kZe7BIOap1Q
Be77UvZjuibw4LwHWxnLeQ6ZQcxQVq/NfR2cb+5ereo5mGyQzb0YR+DCP/oJgGtu
WxAg1hjsbw6gGKijzpw3YtjJLoEiuA==
=SEhP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[Carlos E.R.]

On 09/04/2019 14.58, Dan Purgert wrote:
> arlen holder wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 14:37:15 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>> I don't agree with your search strategy at all; and separately, the
>>> business of keywords for scientific papers is a completely different
>>> 'subject'. In scientific articles there is a special section for keywords.
>
>> Hi Mike,
>
>> FACTS & LOGIC.
>
> Hi Mike, welcome to the "insufferable children" support group. Cookies
> and milk are over on the table over there. Enjoy your stay.

Expect now a 300 lines reply! :-D

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:18:40 -0000 (UTC)
arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> If I write a tutorial, and, everyone but Cybe(r) Wizard knows I've
> written so many that I can't count them,

Hi Arrhole,
Can't leave it alone, can you, whereas I haven't even thought about
you for what seems like weeks. Why mention me now once again when I
have sworn to leave you alone as long as it is reciprocal?

Hi Anise,
Ah, well, you dogs always return to your vomit and you've vomited
that vile bile about your TEN THOUSAND tutorials so often before , it
isn't a surprise to find you can't resist.

Hi, Arloo,
Tell us more about those TEN THOUSAND tutorials you've supposedly
written Arless. Point us to them. Why lie and say now that there are
too many to count when you've already made the statement that there are
TEN THOUSAND of them in:
Message-ID: <po4626$vpu$1...@news.mixmin.net> in which:

Arelene Holdout said:
----------
"I have likely written over ten thousand tutorials, where at my last
company, I wrote over five thousand alone. On the Internet, I don't know
how many I have, but if you assume that I write one a day sometimes,
and at least one a week, I have many thousands "
----------

Hi, Adless,
You, Ardline, are a liar. If that isn't enough, you are a BAD liar,
Alice, a poor liar. Anyone capable of doing math and with a sense of
time will tell you so.

(but we all know that you already know that about yourself and are
desperately trying to convince others that, "it ain't so!"

--
Cybe R. Wizard
My other computer is a HOLMES IV with the Mycroft OS

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 00:52:25 -0000 (UTC)
arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> FACTS & LOGIC.
> o That's all I use

Ha ha ha ha. HAHAHA, ha ha ha. HOO-ha! WHEW, hahahahaha.

That was so good, tell us another one Arrhole.

[Rene Lamontagne]

Hey numbnuts holder try a Torx.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 08:35:08 -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:

> Tell us more about those TEN THOUSAND tutorials you've supposedly
> written

10,001

I just found this 2008 post using that subject-line keyword search Mike decries.

o What I learned fixing printheads & refilling ink on HP Officejet d145 printer
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.hp.hardware/GKuOzns5d1Q/STV-rseeZTEJ>

[Cybe R. Wizard]

As usual, I would like to see the linked list. Until that happens I
still decry you for a liar.

Of course, if you do supply it I will be a most courteous and humbly
apologetic man. Wouldn't you just love to see that? It'll happen if
only you supply the linked list of TEN THOUSAND tutorials that you've
supposedly written[1].

Seriously, I've known several actual writers who produce copious
amounts of for-profit text and each and every one keeps a list of, not
only publications, all their written material. Aren't you a
serious writer? Where's your list?

C'mon, an honest man would either pony up that list gladly or accept
and admit to being a liar and having no list or any idea as to the
number written.

Which will it be, or are you also duplicitous and conniving?

My bet is on your being and exposing yourself to be a duplicitous and
conniving liar by once again NOT showing that linked list.

A lie of omission is just as much a lie as one of commission.

[1] Message-ID: <po4626$vpu$1...@news.mixmin.net>

--
Cybe R. Wizard
I can smell a liar like a fart in a lift!
Robert Rinder

[Carlos E.R.]

On 09/04/2019 20.01, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
> arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 08:35:08 -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>>
>>> Tell us more about those TEN THOUSAND tutorials you've supposedly
>>> written
>>
>> 10,001
>>
>> I just found this 2008 post using that subject-line keyword search
>> Mike decries.
>>
>> o What I learned fixing printheads & refilling ink on HP Officejet
>> d145 printer
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.hp.hardware/GKuOzns5d1Q/STV-rseeZTEJ>
>
> As usual, I would like to see the linked list. Until that happens I
> still decry you for a liar.

I would also like to see that list. Explicit list, not some search term
where I have to do the work.

Of course, counting the versions of a post as different writeups do not
count.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 09/04/2019 14.58, Dan Purgert wrote:

>> [...]

>> Hi Mike, welcome to the "insufferable children" support group. Cookies
>> and milk are over on the table over there. Enjoy your stay.
>
> Expect now a 300 lines reply! :-D
>

Only 300? Arlen's getting lazy :)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlytutcACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooHc0Af/cZewgBuxkWvjAo+MafferyYy0FL8Bvr8ioA46RujoxqjH5HAugaHrBGD
nuftSiBGwJq6T63mKx293lefrRefi1iIn/i30IZC3RDxo/gMGEwFfPxYHwvJgXJH
jwOrunpRBX2mheTcDbQ7oc9pxuZPJlQSDLFW7nhDJJFsKKhtnrOBdyX7QdjtMEQI
yM9ivGclb4kHWf98iAqBYVt4Bx6/EHwWraLUZV/S50mklGvYB55M1JuyJoAziKtt
Jdm29EX0BXrtaARYhCwEwS6idWQjU1Fls0BaR6WR5e6FPTRJqj75leCkWHrbZ1Hm
it72pF3+J/3UhBXTH+p8NM7nk5rJ0g==
=T3l4

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> On 04/08/2019 7:52 PM, arlen holder wrote:

>> [...]

>> Hi Mike,
>> This is the sum total of your "mission' to "improve" behavior:
>> o MIKE: Use a flathead screwdriver
>>
>
> Hey numbnuts holder try a Torx.
>

Personally, I'm more a fan of Robertson (square-drive). Don't seem to
get chewed up as much when being driven with a hammer-drill -- although
hex-head are honestly the best in that regard.

And a curse on Pozidrive and Frearson. Bleh, those ones are a right
pain.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlytvLgACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooGIyggAjXNAV0/rzPo86N2pHCb0CrwEU5ylOWjPh2M5ce55OVMy7ep13LiqLKMj
hNwJFwoS3lTE37Ja6LJ59Y+tVVg51ZK9A4GUJho9C4hVU/fk/i0irMgymekB7p51
ix7JwH28ibJeZH78s3axJLoMF0UnS9PtsDC88k98Q3F/xMOZO039+SOCOPLa8PV5
0xAZtPP9pBTSgjOmbR0ehk48EDWTkK9iiVcSwHzovwjRGbSgITkSQCHpOKdUIHJm
+P9sDzE2xmOhKK2SgfEUIDRA7/g+KqnKdUty+msm5aSiCktilv6a1zfULtfsZNiR
8N4dVzmBeHGI4WwC/Tq4UhP3689+WA==
=zqyK

[Carlos E.R.]

On 10/04/2019 11.43, Dan Purgert wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 09/04/2019 14.58, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Hi Mike, welcome to the "insufferable children" support group. Cookies
>>> and milk are over on the table over there. Enjoy your stay.
>
>> Expect now a 300 lines reply! :-D
>
>
> Only 300? Arlen's getting lazy :)

One of his in this thread has 622 ;-p

22 pages.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Rene Lamontagne]

Yes Robertson is definitely one of the best, They never slip.

Rene

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:52:03 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

> Personally, I'm more a fan of Robertson (square-drive).

Hi Dan,

The main point with the screwdrivers was to use the right tool where Mike
was suggesting a tool that doesn't work, simply because he wasn't aware of
two basic facts.

Facts first; then reasonable logic can follow.

Mike was being purposefully helpful when he suggested:
o Post to the Win10 newsgroup only, and,
o Don't use long subject lines.

Facts first, then logic.

If Mike were discussing a "chit chat" thread, I'd tend to agree since:
o Chit chat isn't specifically intended to be a reference
o And the lack of a decent searchable archive isn't an issue with chitchat.

But Mike was clearly unaware of two very basic facts:
o The article was intended to be a reference (it wasn't for chitchat)
o The search mechanism for the existing Win10 archives is atrocious

Facts come first; then comes logic.

Given Mike's suggest was based on a lack of knowledge of those facts
o I simply apprised Mike of the salient facts & resulting logical deduction

That is...
1. If you intend a Win10 HP Printer reference to be easily found
2. Then you logically need _both_ of what Mike decried.

As always, we take the basic facts & deduce reasonable logical deductions.
o Fact & logic.

--
fup to a.o.l respected

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 23:27:45 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> I would also like to see that list. Explicit list, not some search term
> where I have to do the work.
>
> Of course, counting the versions of a post as different writeups do not
> count.

Hi Carlos,
You're trolling, which is to say you're admitting you lack subject value.

This is the _only_ post I'm going to make further to the common trolls in
this thread, simply because of my strategy & tactics to confront the
cowardly trolls in threads that I care come to a logical or factual
conclusion.

Since this thread was authored by Mike, and since Mike has been apprised of
why his basic facts were off, Mike has realized by now (we hope) that his
logical deductions, which would work for chitchat threads, don't work as
well for reference threads.

That is:
o Mike suggested posting the printer tutorial _only_ to the Win10 ng
o And Mike suggested a less-keyword-rich subject line

I don't disagree with Mike's suggestion if the facts were that the thread
was intended to be a chitchat thread, or even a Q&A thread.

Under _those_ circumstances, Mike's suggestion would have been logical
o Posting only to Win10 gets Win10 answers to a printer question, and,
o The SUBJECT line could reasonably have been "printer" or "HP printer".

That's how chitchat and even Q&A threads are.
o But references are different that Mike was apparently unaware of

Those two differences are:

o The article was intended to be a reference (it wasn't for chitchat)
o The search mechanism for the existing Win10 archives is atrocious

Those are facts.

Note that adults have to agree on facts BEFORE they can agree or disagree
on the logical deductions from those facts.

Mike said he "disagreed" with my logical deductions (which he is entitled
to), but there was zero evidence that Mike agreed on the basic facts.

If adults don't agree on the basic facts, then they can't reasonably
disagree with someone elses' logical deductions based on those facts.

--
This is my last post to this thread as it turned out to be merely a
relatively worthless chitchat thread, which I have no interest in
perpetuating since there is nothing of logical value to be gained.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 10/04/2019 19.35, arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 23:27:45 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> I would also like to see that list. Explicit list, not some search term
>> where I have to do the work.
>>
>> Of course, counting the versions of a post as different writeups do not
>> count.
>
> Hi Carlos,
> You're trolling, which is to say you're admitting you lack subject value.
>
> This is the _only_ post I'm going to make further to the common trolls in
> this thread, simply because of my strategy & tactics to confront the
> cowardly trolls in threads that I care come to a logical or factual
> conclusion.

...

Yet no list? LOL.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Paul]

You know, it occurs to me, that my Sent folder

Sent 126,065,970 bytes

is a concise summary of every tutorial I've written
in the last (10) years. I could Grep the Subject
line of those, and have some idea how many actual
Tutorials I wrote. I don't have to Google search,
because the evidence is already on my disk drive.

For newsreaders with weird internal formats, there
can be utilities like this "Morkdump" to convert to
a more human-friendly form.

https://gist.github.com/piroor/11277290

Paul

[Carlos E.R.]

So could I :-)

I mostly use Thunderbird, but several machines, and several bootable
partitions. Thunderbird stores as mbox format.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hm, wonder if I have that ...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlyuk84ACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooEAOAf+MaVmmCtfnEAiUj8cmwJeN9CvlpL7+eiFOS0sXzwDQEaAUnun/VbIF6AB
cemFnYr/BoXzNMsYm4dtnCZ6atIPov0zDG97PGtMIFGgDdy+8qmapjSxN9/31pSh
Hz36GSRkc6kQmkI/Fw3/lkHCOTlbBMhVbgLgByqbWgyN5RrvKAJcPFDSTrFzKrt4
01XzFiQ49oZlNIVXdUil028XcC1c0jLzSPr3BseZ7nYiz5afgNkoxjlfnYOpUDqf
XAmtA8AvndeISEqaMvcD4mnrN3JWUS2eU9eFlQXrLmbPDesQo+EmaVMtyHjHfP/E
N9B3PobKfZEYox6JLVvcl0+mBWpFeg==
=Kkxv