What is sorty?

[Matti Lamprhey]

James Parker <ta...@rt66.com> wrote in message
news:7gf063$2l6$1...@news.rt66.com...
> I am wondering what is the definition of a sorty.
> Does 600 sorties in a day mean 600 bombers or fighters in action during 24
> hours?
> I would like to hear from an air force general:-)

Well, jp, the singular is "sortie" 'cos it's a French word -- look it up in
a French dictionary.

You'll find that a sortie is used in the air forces to mean one or more
aircraft going off for a mission. No time period is implied.

HTH

Air Force General Lamphrey, one off, Usenet for the use of.

[Jack Gavin]

Matti Lamprhey wrote in message <372b1...@news.netdirect.net.uk>...

>
>You'll find that a sortie is used in the air forces to mean one or more
>aircraft going off for a mission. No time period is implied.
>

I understand that a sortie (singular) is necessarily by one aircraft. This
is how American military spokespersons used the term during the Gulf War.

It was explained (by Wolf Blitzer, or someone of that ilk) that "sortie"
means "departure". Therefore, one mission involving three aircraft taking
off would account for three sorties.

I don't know of any complementary special term for landings.

--Jack Gavin

[N.Mitchum]

James Parker wrote:
-----

> I am wondering what is the definition of a sorty.
> Does 600 sorties in a day mean 600 bombers or fighters in action during 24
> hours?

>.....

The singular is "sortie."

"Six hundred sorties" can mean either of two things: that one
bomber flew 600 missions, or that a group of bombers flew 600
missions. The expression can apply to a thousand bombers going
out together 600 times, or it can apply to the number of missions
flown by one bomber among that one thousand.

------

> I would like to hear from an air force general:-)

>.....

For that, you'll have to go where the generals hang out.

----NM

[Drgnwng]

In article <ijGW2.658$Il2...@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Jack wrote:

>I understand that a sortie (singular) is necessarily by one aircraft. This
>is how American military spokespersons used the term during the Gulf War.
>
>It was explained (by Wolf Blitzer, or someone of that ilk) that "sortie"
>means "departure". Therefore, one mission involving three aircraft taking
>off would account for three sorties.
>
>I don't know of any complementary special term for landings.

Actually, a simple look in Merriam-Webster answers this one. A sortie is "1a) A
sudden rushing forth; sally; specif., a quick rain on besiegers by those
besieged. b) The forces making such a raid. 2) One mission by a single military
plane." Depending on the context, the news may be referring to either 1b or 2.
A military spokesperson would be more likely to be referring to 2.

tas

[Bun Mui]

>
> Re: What is sorty?
>
> From: drg...@aol.comtas (Drgnwng)
> Reply to: [1]Drgnwng
> Date: 01 May 1999 19:55:55 GMT
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.usage.english
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<ijGW2.658$Il2...@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>

>In article [5]<ijGW2.658$Il2...@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Jack wrote:
>
>>I understand that a sortie (singular) is necessarily by one aircraft. This
>>is how American military spokespersons used the term during the Gulf War.
>>
>>It was explained (by Wolf Blitzer, or someone of that ilk) that "sortie"
>>means "departure". Therefore, one mission involving three aircraft taking
>>off would account for three sorties.

It also mean "exit" in French.
Well I certainly hope that these aircraft will come back.

Bun Mui

[James Parker]

On one of those days, a bomber/fighther could not perform its misssion
because of bad weather.
In this case, I wonder whether this flight is included as a sortie? I am
just curious. jp

[M.J.Powell]

In article <372B48...@lafn.org>, N.Mitchum <aj...@lafn.org> writes

>James Parker wrote:
>-----
>> I am wondering what is the definition of a sorty.
>> Does 600 sorties in a day mean 600 bombers or fighters in action during 24
>> hours?
>>.....
>

>The singular is "sortie."
>
>"Six hundred sorties" can mean either of two things: that one
>bomber flew 600 missions, or that a group of bombers flew 600
>missions. The expression can apply to a thousand bombers going
>out together 600 times, or it can apply to the number of missions
>flown by one bomber among that one thousand.
>

>------
>> I would like to hear from an air force general:-)
>>.....
>
>For that, you'll have to go where the generals hang out.

RAF WW II expression. 1 sortie is 1 a/c going out once.

--
Mike The life that I have
Is all that I have
And the life that I have
Is yours.

[Matti Lamprhey]

James Parker <ta...@rt66.com> wrote in message

news:7gg209$3ep$1...@news.rt66.com...

> On one of those days, a bomber/fighther could not perform its misssion
> because of bad weather.
> In this case, I wonder whether this flight is included as a sortie? I am
> just curious. jp

If it got as far as take-off then yes, otherwise no. (But I'm just
guessing.)

Matti

[M.J.Powell]

In article <4AKW2.1601$Hz1....@typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca>, Bun Mui
<Bun...@my-dejanews.com> writes

>>
>> Re: What is sorty?
>>
>> From: drg...@aol.comtas (Drgnwng)
>> Reply to: [1]Drgnwng
>> Date: 01 May 1999 19:55:55 GMT
>> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>> Newsgroups:
>> [2]alt.usage.english
>> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
>> References:
>> [4]<ijGW2.658$Il2...@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>
>>In article [5]<ijGW2.658$Il2...@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Jack wrote:
>>
>>>I understand that a sortie (singular) is necessarily by one aircraft. This
>>>is how American military spokespersons used the term during the Gulf War.
>>>
>>>It was explained (by Wolf Blitzer, or someone of that ilk) that "sortie"
>>>means "departure". Therefore, one mission involving three aircraft taking
>>>off would account for three sorties.
>
>It also mean "exit" in French.
>Well I certainly hope that these aircraft will come back.
>
>Bun Mui
>
>
>>>
>>>I don't know of any complementary special term for landings.

Prang.

[a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca]

On Sat, 1 May 1999 23:31:45 +0100, "M.J.Powell"
<mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>RAF WW II expression. 1 sortie is 1 a/c going out once.

>Mike

Most English war-tech vocabulary is French. It is a rejection
thing perhaps. Lou the 14th had a lasting effect. And Vauban.

The longbow -- a Marcher, not a Welsh, invention, I believe --
has not been translated though.

[N.Mitchum]

James Parker wrote:
-----

> On one of those days, a bomber/fighther could not perform its misssion
> because of bad weather.

> In this case, I wonder whether this flight is included as a sortie? I am
> just curious.

>......

In case you're serious as well as curious, I'll give you my best
guess: it's a sortie if the aircraft leaves its base, even if the
pilot has to scrub the mission a few minutes later. I suppose the
military would qualify this an "aborted sortie," however,
reserving "sortie" for missions that reach the area of the target.

----NM

[M.J.Powell]

In article <372c64aa...@news.bctel.ca>, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
writes

>On Sat, 1 May 1999 23:31:45 +0100, "M.J.Powell"
><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>RAF WW II expression. 1 sortie is 1 a/c going out once.
>>Mike
>
>Most English war-tech vocabulary is French. It is a rejection
>thing perhaps. Lou the 14th had a lasting effect. And Vauban.

Fuselage, aileron, empenage, nacelle, bayonet...

Don't know about castles, fortresses though. Oh! 'glacis' came to mind.

>
>The longbow -- a Marcher, not a Welsh, invention, I believe --
>has not been translated though.

Southern Marches, Welsh side of border.

[Gary Tahl]

On Sun, 2 May 1999 15:09:15 +0100, "M.J.Powell" wrote:

>>>>I don't know of any complementary special term for landings.
>
>Prang.

I'm reminded of a film clip in the World At War series (in the
episode about the bombing campaign against Germany)

A British bomber crew was being interviewed after a sortie, and one of
them said "..it was a wizard prang".

I'd assumed that prang meant "hit"...and that "wizard" meant
"excellent"...that is, that the bombs had hit their target well.
Prang is also used in such a way if one states "I pranged my
fingernail with the hammer."

But do you suppose the crewman was really saying that it was a good
safe landing?

Gary

[Skitt]

Gary Tahl <gst...@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:372f3502...@news.interchange.ubc.ca...

From MWCD10:

Main Entry: prang
Pronunciation: 'pra[ng]
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1941
chiefly British : to have an accident with : cause to crash
- prang noun, chiefly British

--
Skitt http://i.am/skitt/
Central Florida CAUTION: My veracity is under limited warranty

[khann]

Gary Tahl wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 May 1999 15:09:15 +0100, "M.J.Powell" wrote:

[...]

> >Prang.
>
> I'm reminded of a film clip in the World At War series (in the
> episode about the bombing campaign against Germany)
>
> A British bomber crew was being interviewed after a sortie, and one of
> them said "..it was a wizard prang".
>
> I'd assumed that prang meant "hit"...and that "wizard" meant

> "excellent"...that is, that the bombs had hit their target well.[...]

>
> But do you suppose the crewman was really saying that it was a good
> safe landing?

From the Canadian Oxford:
prang [...] v. & n. Brit. slang v.tr. 1 crash or damage (an aircraft or
vehicle). 2 bomb (a target) successfully. n. an act or an instance of
pranging. [imitative]

Take your pick of a successful bombing mission, a walk-away crash
landing (1) following the mission, or a humourous aircrew term for a
good landing following the mission.

(1) Usually a very happy event.

[John Nurick]

On Tue, 04 May 1999 18:03:31 GMT, gst...@interchange.ubc.ca (Gary
Tahl) wrote:

>I'm reminded of a film clip in the World At War series (in the
>episode about the bombing campaign against Germany)
>
>A British bomber crew was being interviewed after a sortie, and one of
>them said "..it was a wizard prang".
>
>I'd assumed that prang meant "hit"...and that "wizard" meant
>"excellent"...that is, that the bombs had hit their target well.

>Prang is also used in such a way if one states "I pranged my
>fingernail with the hammer."

A "prang" is a crash where Pilot Officer Prune and I come from, and
the verb means to crash or damage, not to hit: "I pranged my car last
week." And if my memories of Prune are correct, a wizard prang was a
crash in which the aircraft was damaged but the crew wasn't.

--
John

[David McMurray]

khann <khann....@hitchhhiker.ca> wrote:

[...]

> From the Canadian Oxford:
> prang [...] v. & n. Brit. slang v.tr. 1 crash or damage (an aircraft or
> vehicle). 2 bomb (a target) successfully. n. an act or an instance of
> pranging. [imitative]

Given the Canadian Oxford's annoying (in my view) habit of regurgitating
verbatim many entries from its UK parent, as it has done in this case, I
checked "prang" in Gage.

It also lists the word as "British slang". I wonder how long and by how
many Canadians a word has to be used before the "British" is dropped. I
would have thought "prang" qualified by now.

In case anyone is wondering:

The Canadian Oxford uses the label "British" to "[indicate] that the use
is found chiefly in British English (and often also [...] in other parts
of the Commonwealth except Canada) but not in North American English."

(Skitt advises that MWCD10 also considers the word to be "chiefly
British".)

Gage uses national labels "to distinguish words [...] that are used
chiefly or solely in some particular part of the English-speaking
world."

Perhaps my experience is atypical, but I hear "prang" a lot. And
"smuck". Perhaps Kingstonians are unusually lousy drivers.

[...]

--
David

[marten...@gmail.com]

Seek Out Report Target Engage

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 19:58:36 -0700 (PDT), marten...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Seek Out Report Target Engage

The word used in the military sense is "sortie". It's from the French
for "exit" and not an acronym.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Sep-21 12:58, marten...@gmail.com wrote:

> Seek Out Report Target Engage

Port Out Starboard Home.
Fornication under consent of the King.

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

[Lewis]

In message <nrtc51$79v$3...@dont-email.me>

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-Sep-21 12:58, marten...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Seek Out Report Target Engage

> Port Out Starboard Home.
> Fornication under consent of the King.

Are we doing "Things that aren't acronyms"?

--
In the velvet darkness of the blackest night Burning bright
There's a guiding star

[Don Phillipson]

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 19:58:36 -0700 (PDT), marten...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>>Seek Out Report Target Engage

"Tony Cooper" <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0i14ub5ntagfoccju...@4ax.com...

> The word used in the military sense is "sortie". It's from the French
> for "exit" and not an acronym.

Not quite. The English word sortie is just one of several nouns
identifying soldierly activities (like reconaissance, camouflage,
echelon and so on) borrowed from French because this was
200 years ago the most common language of modern scholarship.

French has two distinct verbs for going out or away, sortir and
partir, and has formed various nouns from these verbs. E.g.
the French call a picnic a partie de campagne, and the exit
door or gate of any premises is called sortie in French. English
uses both (Latin) Exit and (English) Way Out indifferently; (cf.
also the joke about Barnum's "This way to the Egress.")

During the Second World War English-speaking commanders
needed to count attempts to obey orders (e.g. bomb a certain
target) whether those attempts were successful or not: and
found sortie the most convenient, so it is commonly used for
this purpose by both air force and army commanders (but
not by naval commanders, it seems, or perhaps seldom.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Sep-21 21:30, Lewis wrote:
> In message <nrtc51$79v$3...@dont-email.me>
> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2016-Sep-21 12:58, marten...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Seek Out Report Target Engage
>
>> Port Out Starboard Home.
>> Fornication under consent of the King.
>
> Are we doing "Things that aren't acronyms"?
>

I was just following the lead of the OP.

Or perhaps not. I've just looked at the Subject line, and noticed that
"Engage" does not start with a Y.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 8:47:09 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2016-Sep-21 21:30, Lewis wrote:
> > In message <nrtc51$79v$3...@dont-email.me>
> > Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2016-Sep-21 12:58, marten...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>> Seek Out Report Target Engage
> >
> >> Port Out Starboard Home.
> >> Fornication under consent of the King.
> >
> > Are we doing "Things that aren't acronyms"?
> >
> I was just following the lead of the OP.
>
> Or perhaps not. I've just looked at the Subject line, and noticed that
> "Engage" does not start with a Y.

Did you notice that it was posted on May 1, 1999?

None of the 13 participants in the original thread still posts to aue.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2016-09-21 13:30:31 +0200, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

> In message <nrtc51$79v$3...@dont-email.me>
> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2016-Sep-21 12:58, marten...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Seek Out Report Target Engage
>
>> Port Out Starboard Home.
>> Fornication under consent of the King.
>
> Are we doing "Things that aren't acronyms"?

No, we're doing "Dead threads revived by Google Gropers".


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

> No, we're doing "Dead threads revived by Google Gro[u]pers".

Ethel apparently has some amount of reputation as a scientist.

How can Ethel be any sort of scientist at all when he continually repeats
a falsehood the falseness of which has been explained to him many, many times?

The revivalists ARE NOT users of Google Groups. They are users of some
sort of search engine, probably Google, to which they are probably led
by gmail.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <c9b89572-48d8-4ae1...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>The revivalists ARE NOT users of Google Groups. They are users of some
>sort of search engine, probably Google, to which they are probably led
>by gmail.

I don't think Gmail leads them anywhere. If they're not using Google
Groups search explicitly, they're probably doing an ordinary Google
search, which includes Google Groups in its results; and anyone logged
in to Google - and almost all such people have a Gmail address - is
automatically logged in to Google Groups and can therefore use it to
reply.

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

They are not, however, GG users; they are blissfully unaware that they
have posted to something called a "newsgroup."

[Peter Moylan]

There's one thing about this whole situation that still has me puzzled.
How do such people expect to get a reply?

Or do they just cast their pearls into the ether, without any interest
in whether anyone is likely to receive them?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:20:34 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-Sep-22 05:33, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 3:00:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> In article <c9b89572-48d8-4ae1...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> The revivalists ARE NOT users of Google Groups. They are users of some
>>>> sort of search engine, probably Google, to which they are probably led
>>>> by gmail.
>>>
>>> I don't think Gmail leads them anywhere. If they're not using Google
>>> Groups search explicitly, they're probably doing an ordinary Google
>>> search, which includes Google Groups in its results; and anyone logged
>>> in to Google - and almost all such people have a Gmail address - is
>>> automatically logged in to Google Groups and can therefore use it to
>>> reply.
>>
>> They are not, however, GG users; they are blissfully unaware that they
>> have posted to something called a "newsgroup."
>
>There's one thing about this whole situation that still has me puzzled.
>How do such people expect to get a reply?

Preumably, on their smartphones using the number they have given.

>
>Or do they just cast their pearls into the ether, without any interest
>in whether anyone is likely to receive them?

--

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

[Whiskers]

Hence, I suspect, the use of the word 'gropers'; these people are in the
dark - that is to say, they lack the knowledge required to understand
what they are actually doing. Such posters seldom if ever return to the
forums they disturb in passing. They probably don't know how to even if
they think of doing it.

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

[Whiskers]

Perhaps they're used to the way some 'social networking' thingies
operate; stuff they type into their web browser turns up on other
people's web browsers somehow and those other people click an icon or
type something which then makes a message appear somehow in the web
browser (&/or email inbox) of the original poster.

I suspect that some of these people don't actually know they're using a
web browser; they are simply 'on line' or 'using my tablet' and expect
everything they do to be linked up and sorted out and responded to by
someone, somehow. Alarmingly it often is. Some people actually like to
get messages on their gadget about things they might like to buy from
that shop over there relating to things mentioned in what they typed or
clicked on just now.

They are 'Google Groups users' in much the same way as they are
'electricity distribution grid users'; they are, but don't need to be
aware of it.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2016-09-22 12:42:11 +0000, Whiskers said:

> On 2016-09-21, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 10:11:24 AM UTC-4, athel...@yahoo
>> wrote:
>>> On 2016-09-21 13:30:31 +0200, Lewis
>>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:
>>>> In message <nrtc51$79v$3...@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
>>>> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-Sep-21 12:58, marten...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Seek Out Report Target Engage
>>>>> Port Out Starboard Home. Fornication under consent of the King.
>>>> Are we doing "Things that aren't acronyms"?
>>>
>>> No, we're doing "Dead threads revived by Google Gro[u]pers".

That's not what I wrote. Is it considered acceptable in the linguistics
community to "quote" things that are different from what is "quoted"?
OK, maybe the square brackets give him a let-out.

>>
>> Ethel apparently has some amount of reputation as a scientist.
>>
>> How can Ethel be any sort of scientist at all when he continually
>> repeats a falsehood the falseness of which has been explained to him
>> many, many times?

He needs to learn what "explained" means. As a hint, it doesn't mean
"repeated numerous times without giving any supporting evidence". I
have given evidence for the clear fact that these posts come from
Google Groups. All he has done is to his express his opinion that
Google Groupers do not do such things. It's basically the No True
Scotsman fallacy: if you send a silly message via Google Groups but
don't know that that is what it is then you're not a True Google Groups
user.

>>
>> The revivalists ARE NOT users of Google Groups. They are users of some
>> sort of search engine, probably Google, to which they are probably led
>> by gmail.
>
> Hence, I suspect, the use of the word 'gropers'; these people are in the
> dark - that is to say, they lack the knowledge required to understand
> what they are actually doing.

That may well be what they're doing, but it doesn't alter the fact that
they're using Google Groups to do it, even if they don't know that. If
I get arrested for throwing a stone (American English "rock") at a
police car, would it be an acceptable defence to say that I didn't
realize that the word "Police" on it meant that it was a police car?

> Such posters seldom if ever return to the
> forums they disturb in passing. They probably don't know how to even if
> they think of doing it.


--

athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 9:47:44 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2016-09-22 12:42:11 +0000, Whiskers said:
> > On 2016-09-21, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 10:11:24 AM UTC-4, athel...@yahoo
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 2016-09-21 13:30:31 +0200, Lewis
> >>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:
> >>>> In message <nrtc51$79v$3...@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
> >>>> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>> On 2016-Sep-21 12:58, marten...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>>>>> Seek Out Report Target Engage
> >>>>> Port Out Starboard Home. Fornication under consent of the King.
> >>>> Are we doing "Things that aren't acronyms"?
> >>> No, we're doing "Dead threads revived by Google Gro[u]pers".
>
> That's not what I wrote. Is it considered acceptable in the linguistics
> community to "quote" things that are different from what is "quoted"?
> OK, maybe the square brackets give him a let-out.

If Ethel has difficulty with the use of square brackets, then his undergraduate,
or elementary, education is at fault.

> >> Ethel apparently has some amount of reputation as a scientist.
> >> How can Ethel be any sort of scientist at all when he continually
> >> repeats a falsehood the falseness of which has been explained to him
> >> many, many times?
>
> He needs to learn what "explained" means. As a hint, it doesn't mean
> "repeated numerous times without giving any supporting evidence". I
> have given evidence for the clear fact that these posts come from
> Google Groups. All he has done is to his express his opinion that
> Google Groupers do not do such things.

Then it must be Ethel's comprehension of the verb "use," or maybe just
its derivative "user," that's at fault.

> It's basically the No True
> Scotsman fallacy: if you send a silly message via Google Groups but
> don't know that that is what it is then you're not a True Google Groups
> user.

Of course Ethel hasn't defined his neologism "Google Groper" or "Google
Grouper." Maybe he was using it to mean 'someone who doesn't use Google
Groups but was directed to make a posting to a newsgroup via Google Groups
by some yet-mysterious process'.

If that were what he meant, he could have avoided creating a great deal
of animosity by defining his terms.

But since he uses it interchangeably with "GG User," it probably isn't
what he meant.

> >> The revivalists ARE NOT users of Google Groups. They are users of some
> >> sort of search engine, probably Google, to which they are probably led
> >> by gmail.
> > Hence, I suspect, the use of the word 'gropers'; these people are in the
> > dark - that is to say, they lack the knowledge required to understand
> > what they are actually doing.
>
> That may well be what they're doing, but it doesn't alter the fact that
> they're using Google Groups to do it, even if they don't know that. If
> I get arrested for throwing a stone (American English "rock") at a
> police car, would it be an acceptable defence to say that I didn't
> realize that the word "Police" on it meant that it was a police car?

I defy Ethel to explain how that "analogy" is to the slightest degree analogous.

And to explain his misapplication of "rock" vs. "stone."

And again, his misuse of "using."

When I turn on the water at my sink, am I "using" the filtration plant
miles away? Am I even "using" the water meter in my house that measures
the usage?

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 6:47:44 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> He needs to learn what "explained" means. As a hint, it doesn't mean
> "repeated numerous times without giving any supporting evidence". I
> have given evidence for the clear fact that these posts come from
> Google Groups. All he has done is to his express his opinion that
> Google Groupers do not do such things.

And I have given evidence that the Revivalist Posters
have no posting history other than the post in question.

> It's basically the No True
> Scotsman fallacy: if you send a silly message via Google Groups but
> don't know that that is what it is then you're not a True Google Groups
> user.

If you send one message in your lifetime via GG,
are you a Google Groups User?

If you ride the bus to Marseille once in your lifetime,
are you a transit user?


I, too, am tired of your ranting about these posts being by Google Gropers.
A more useful comment about these posts would be "drive-by postings".


/dps

[Robert Bannister]

Google could be what is misleading them. Yesterday, I googled for some
technical computer help and I found what appeared to be a perfect fit,
but I had to submit my question and wait for the answer. Today, the
answer arrived: it went something like "Sorry, but you seem to have
reached the wrong place. This is the XXX department of YYY university,
USA and you have to be a student here...".
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Sep-23 06:16, snide...@gmail.com wrote:

> I, too, am tired of your ranting about these posts being by Google Gropers.
> A more useful comment about these posts would be "drive-by postings".

It's a good label, but consider this: these zombie revivals didn't start
happening until moderately recently. Apparently Google Groups used to
give a warning of the form "you are trying to respond to an ancient
posting". The trouble didn't start until that warning was removed.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2016-09-22 20:16:14 +0000, snide...@gmail.com said:

> On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 6:47:44 AM UTC-7, Athel
> Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> He needs to learn what "explained" means. As a hint, it doesn't mean
>> "repeated numerous times without giving any supporting evidence". I
>> have given evidence for the clear fact that these posts come from
>> Google Groups. All he has done is to his express his opinion that
>> Google Groupers do not do such things.
>
> And I have given evidence that the Revivalist Posters
> have no posting history other than the post in question.

So? If you do something just once does that mean you haven't done it at all?

>
>> It's basically the No True
>> Scotsman fallacy: if you send a silly message via Google Groups but
>> don't know that that is what it is then you're not a True Google Groups
>> user.
>
> If you send one message in your lifetime via GG,
> are you a Google Groups User?

Of course. Why would you think otherwise?

>
> If you ride the bus to Marseille once in your lifetime,
> are you a transit user?

Of course.

>
> I, too, am tired of your ranting about these posts being by Google Gropers.

Yes, but you appear to be PTD's only friend in this group, so you have
to defend him.

> A more useful comment about these posts would be "drive-by postings".

OK, but that's a difference without a difference.

--
athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2016-09-22 20:16:14 +0000, snide...@gmail.com said:
>

> I, too, am tired of your ranting about these posts being by Google Gropers.

So, to you a post of a few words ("No, we're doing 'Dead threads
revived by Google Gropers'") constitutes a rant. How short can a post
be and still be a rant. If I'd answered Lewis just with "No", would
that have been a rant?


--
athel

[Snidely]

Athel Cornish-Bowden is guilty of <e4k55a...@mid.individual.net> as
of 9/23/2016 12:50:02 AM

You are full of shit this time.

/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

[Snidely]

It is a rant not because of word count, but because of choice of words.
Please go offend T-bird users for a change.

[Whiskers]

So that was an abortive cyber-sortie.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <mn.b8587e096af7b2f4.127094@snitoo>,

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It is a rant not because of word count, but because of choice of words.

I think "rant" implies length.

-- Richard

[Snidely]

Richard Tobin presented the following explanation :

Does a broken record count?

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Thank you for your carefully thought-out response. When you have no
arguments, abuse is always convincing.




--
athel

[Richard Heathfield]

!

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Richard Heathfield]

He definitely convinced me. It was the elegant progression from premise
to conclusion via a series of impeccably reasoned steps that did it.

Oh, wait. That was Euclid.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 3:50:06 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2016-09-22 20:16:14 +0000, snide...@gmail.com said:
> > On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 6:47:44 AM UTC-7, Athel
> > Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> >> He needs to learn what "explained" means. As a hint, it doesn't mean
> >> "repeated numerous times without giving any supporting evidence". I
> >> have given evidence for the clear fact that these posts come from
> >> Google Groups. All he has done is to his express his opinion that
> >> Google Groupers do not do such things.
> > And I have given evidence that the Revivalist Posters
> > have no posting history other than the post in question.
>
> So? If you do something just once does that mean you haven't done it at all?
>
> >> It's basically the No True
> >> Scotsman fallacy: if you send a silly message via Google Groups but
> >> don't know that that is what it is then you're not a True Google Groups
> >> user.
> > If you send one message in your lifetime via GG,
> > are you a Google Groups User?
>
> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?

Proof that it's the word "user" that is too difficult for Ethel.

> > If you ride the bus to Marseille once in your lifetime,
> > are you a transit user?
>
> Of course.
>
> > I, too, am tired of your ranting about these posts being by Google Gropers.
>
> Yes, but you appear to be PTD's only friend in this group, so you have
> to defend him.

Ethel is a pathological liar.

> > A more useful comment about these posts would be "drive-by postings".
>
> OK, but that's a difference without a difference.

Only to those with little to no understanding of the English language.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Ethel is too stupid, or too demented, to comprehend the use of the
"continuous tense."

[Peter T. Daniels]

Consider the "length" of all of Ethel's rants.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Your credo does not apply to normal people.

[Janet]

In article <ns2tk9$2ge3$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>, ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
says...

I refer you to Mrs Thatcher, "No, NO, NO"

Janet.

[Helen Lacedaemonian]

Nonsense. There are a lot of people here who like and/or respect PTD, including
me. However, I don't defend people based on how I feel about them, I try to respond
to the content of their postings. And my impression is that David does the same.

I am also tired of the knee-jerk ridicule of Google Groups users. We have all heard
it before, we know your opinion, we don't care, get over it. I use Google Groups to
post here and I personally find it vastly superior to your pathetic antiquated
newsreaders. But why should I harass you about your irrational attachment to
obsolete technologies? It means nothing to me.

I say this as a friend.

Rantingly,
Helen

[David Kleinecke]

At least one AUE-r uses killfiling.

[David Kleinecke]

Three cheers and a tiger!

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Helen Lacedaemonian japed:

>
> There are a lot of people here who like and/or respect PTD,
> including me.
>

<PeteY>
Define "a lot".
</PeteY>

Greeks have a kinky sense of humor.
Thanks for a good laugh.

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Jesus! All this about a few words in answer to an even shorter post from Lewis.


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

Is she a Princetonian?

[Dr. HotSalt]

An alarming number of your posts are all about your bigotry toward Google Groups users. Together they constitute a rant.

You have taken the older antipathy toward AOL users ("AOLamers") and rebranded it for use against a different group of people WHO ARE NOT GUILTY OF THE "CRIME" YOU CHARGE THEM WITH.

That's either intellectual laziness or mendaciousness.

TL;DR:

You're being an asshole.


Dr. HotSalt

[bill van]

In article <21a6d2cc-558d-4ebb...@googlegroups.com>,

"Dr. HotSalt" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's either intellectual laziness or mendaciousness.
>

Is there a meaningful difference between mendacity and mendaciousness?
--
bill

[Lesmond]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:42:15 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:

>On 2016-Sep-23 06:16, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I, too, am tired of your ranting about these posts being by Google Gropers.
>> A more useful comment about these posts would be "drive-by postings".
>
>It's a good label, but consider this: these zombie revivals didn't start
>happening until moderately recently. Apparently Google Groups used to
>give a warning of the form "you are trying to respond to an ancient
>posting". The trouble didn't start until that warning was removed.

I'm not sure that is true. It seems I have been seeing "zombie revivals"
(thank you, I like that) since I first started posting in Usenet nearly 20
years ago. I suppose some of them were Deja based. They do seem to come in
waves lately, usually when Google changes something.

--
She may contain the urge to run away
But hold her down with soggy clothes and breeze blocks

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2016-09-23 21:04:26 +0000, Dr. HotSalt said:

> [ … ]

> An alarming number of your posts are all about your bigotry toward
> Google Groups users. Together they constitute a rant.

Hmm. I count 234 posts made by me in September, of which 9 could (with
some exaggeration) be considered as "bigotry toward Google Groups
users". That makes about 4%. If you are alarmed by a proportion as low
as that you need to take something stronger. Hot salt is obviously not
enough. A lot of people seem to use Prozac: I've never tried it, and
none of the people close to me have, but it may help.

>
> You have taken the older antipathy toward AOL users ("AOLamers")

I have no recollection of _ever_ using that term.

In addition to the nine I made one post that PTD would call
"netcopping" (Dingbat made one of his posts that had no obvious point,
and I asked "What's your point?"). PTD once, not long ago, accused me
of make mainly netcopping posts, but I do it far less often than he
does himself.

--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

Ethel has no way of knowing how often I do or do not do _anything_ in
this newsgroup, because he is afraid to read what I write about anything
(for fear he might find one of his multitudinous mistakes pointed out).

He is not, of course, able to cite any "netcopping" posts I have made.

[Whiskers]

On 2016-09-23, Helen Lacedaemonian <helenofs...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> I am also tired of the knee-jerk ridicule of Google Groups users. We
> have all heard it before, we know your opinion, we don't care, get
> over it. I use Google Groups to post here and I personally find it
> vastly superior to your pathetic antiquated newsreaders. But why
> should I harass you about your irrational attachment to obsolete
> technologies? It means nothing to me.
>
> I say this as a friend.
>
> Rantingly, Helen

The irritation originates in defects in the way Google implements its
current posting service to usenet. Those who use that service and are
interested in taking part in usenet discussions and who are
co-operatively inclined, seem to be quite capable of overcoming those
defects fairly reliably insofar as their own posts are concerned, once
the defects have been explained. This reflects well on those posters,
and badly on Google; particularly as Google used to have a much less
defective system.

Whilst it may be amusing to make fun of those who fall into the traps
laid (intentionally or otherwise) by Google's software designs, any ire
should surely be directed at Google. Unfortunately, Google is
impervious to ire or any other feelings directed at it, even if you can
find some way of initiating communication. So we may have to endure the
defects indefinitely.

I'm sure there are more intellectually satisfying disputes that could be
contrived in a group such as this.

[Whiskers]

On 2016-09-24, Lesmond <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:42:15 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>On 2016-Sep-23 06:16, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I, too, am tired of your ranting about these posts being by Google
>>> Gropers. A more useful comment about these posts would be
>>> "drive-by postings".
>>
>>It's a good label, but consider this: these zombie revivals didn't
>>start happening until moderately recently. Apparently Google Groups
>>used to give a warning of the form "you are trying to respond to an
>>ancient posting". The trouble didn't start until that warning was
>>removed.
>
> I'm not sure that is true. It seems I have been seeing "zombie
> revivals" (thank you, I like that) since I first started posting in
> Usenet nearly 20 years ago. I suppose some of them were Deja based.
> They do seem to come in waves lately, usually when Google changes
> something.

Google seemed to respond to user complaints by imposing an age limit of
about six weeks on articles that could be replied to via its web
interface; that happened a few years ago I think. Relatively recently
that restriction vanished. Google's understanding of usenet seems to be
diminishing.

[Whiskers]

Brings to mind Jim Trott's vocal twitch in the TV sitcom 'The Vicar of
Dibley': no no no no no no no YES.

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Sep-27 06:12, Whiskers wrote:

> Unfortunately, Google is impervious to ire or any other feelings
> directed at it, even if you can find some way of initiating
> communication. So we may have to endure the defects indefinitely.

Much of the anger directed at Google is because of one simple flaw:
there appears to be no way to submit bug reports. If it was responsive
to user feedback, we would be having fewer of these discussions.

It has just occurred to me that someone with a Google account is
probably able to create new groups. If so, it should be possible to
create a new group with a name like "Google Groups: Bug Reports". Pretty
soon, it would be found by people who are struggling to find a way to
submit a bug report. And, you never know, a name like that might attract
Google's attention.

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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

The flaw in that argument is that the regular users (i.e. not you and I
or others who go there infrequently) don't think it has any bugs and
would not see the point in reporting them.


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

Is Ethel totally unable to set fingers to keyboard without lying his
ass (BrE arse) off?

Regular GG users routinely complain about at least two things: line
lengths and invisibility of crossposting.

[David Kleinecke]

As in the line-length problem. All Google has to do to solve the
problem is add "format = flowed" to the header in its submissions
to usenet. But everybody at Google is so twenty-first century that
it hasnt occurred to them that some newsreaders that do not
automatically line wrap are still being used.

PS: Adding to the header is not something a user can do

[Charles Bishop]

In article <slrnnu7kd4.a...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:

> On 2016-09-21, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 10:11:24 AM UTC-4, athel...@yahoo
> > wrote:
> >> On 2016-09-21 13:30:31 +0200, Lewis
> >> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:
> >> > In message <nrtc51$79v$3...@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
> >> > <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> On 2016-Sep-21 12:58, marten...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> >>> Seek Out Report Target Engage
> >> >> Port Out Starboard Home. Fornication under consent of the King.
> >> > Are we doing "Things that aren't acronyms"?
> >>
> >> No, we're doing "Dead threads revived by Google Gro[u]pers".
> >
> > Ethel apparently has some amount of reputation as a scientist.
> >
> > How can Ethel be any sort of scientist at all when he continually
> > repeats a falsehood the falseness of which has been explained to him
> > many, many times?
> >
> > The revivalists ARE NOT users of Google Groups. They are users of some
> > sort of search engine, probably Google, to which they are probably led
> > by gmail.
>
> Hence, I suspect, the use of the word 'gropers'; these people are in the
> dark - that is to say, they lack the knowledge required to understand
> what they are actually doing. Such posters seldom if ever return to the
> forums they disturb in passing. They probably don't know how to even if
> they think of doing it.

The e(eks)planation by PTD above "The revivalists. . ." is one we
(others in the group - I didn't develop the theory, only passed it on)
had trouble convincing him of back when he was arguing that all of the
people were gmail users. I see he's finally accepted it.

--
charles

[Peter T. Daniels]

Right back to his old habit of lying.

I wish he would get his damn x key fixed.

[Whiskers]

They'd also have to actually format the posted text as format=flowed.
As they can't manage to format it normally I wouldn't be too optimistic
about them getting format=flowed correct.

[David Kleinecke]

Since I read Google Groups with a broad all-the-way-across screen
display I rarely see them but I believe that the line wrap has been
correctly handled on all the examples I have come across.

That is what format=flowed means - innit?

[Helen Lacedaemonian]

How does this one look to you? This is what a post looks like when it originates in Google Groups and the poster does not put in any line breaks. It just keeps on going and going all the way across the screen.

Best,
Helen

[David Kleinecke]

And wraps neatly just after "across" on my machine.

[Peter T. Daniels]

For me it wraps before "poster," because my window doesn't extend all the
way to the right (so I can see the Clock, the Calendar, and the CPU Usage
gadgets) and because I always have the zoom set to 125%. When I have the
zoom at 150% in the morning, because it takes a while for my eyes to wake
up, the lines break at a shorter place and I let about three words wrap
before I type the Enter key.

[RH Draney]

For me it breaks after "put" (as quoted above, but after "put in" in the
original)...my configuration is different: two screens, with Thunderbird
maximized in the right-hand one, a portion of that window's width taken
up by the narrow column of folder names....r

[bill van]

In article <nt1bn...@news6.newsguy.com>,

My newsreader also wraps such lines at whatever width I have my window
set. But if I drag the window by one corner to stretch it horizontally,
the lines stretch with it.
--
bill

[RH Draney]

I'll be darned...mine also lets me make the window the full width of
*both* screens, and the text fills whatever part of that very wide
window isn't taken up with the folders list...I've never had occasion to
do that with a window other than the one I use for editing audio files....r

[Robert Bannister]

On the screen that I read, there was an apparent line break after "any
line", but as you can see, not when I send.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Peter Moylan]

A response from one GG user to a post by another GG user proves only
that GG is consistent with itself. That's not a fair test.

Sending the message out from GG using format=flowed would make the
message also readable by non-GG users. It's true that some of us (but
not all) also have software that wraps the lines, but it wraps them at
the window size, which can make for unpleasantly long lines. (I use a
window that's wide enough to let the header pane show things like
timestamps and message size.)

I almost added that it would also make GG compliant with the MIME
standards, but that's not quite right. It won't be properly
MIME-compliant until it fixes its character set bug.

[Whiskers]

On 2016-10-04, David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 6:45:26 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel
> wrote:
>> On 2016-09-27, David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 5:13:39 AM UTC-7, Peter T.
>> > Daniels wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 3:36:08 AM UTC-4, Athel
>> >> Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> >> > On 2016-09-27 07:14:04 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>> >> >
>> >> > > On 2016-Sep-27 06:12, Whiskers wrote:

[...]

>> > As in the line-length problem. All Google has to do to solve the
>> > problem is add "format = flowed" to the header in its submissions
>> > to usenet. But everybody at Google is so twenty-first century that
>> > it hasnt occurred to them that some newsreaders that do not
>> > automatically line wrap are still being used.
>> >
>> > PS: Adding to the header is not something a user can do
>>
>> They'd also have to actually format the posted text as format=flowed.
>> As they can't manage to format it normally I wouldn't be too
>> optimistic about them getting format=flowed correct.
>
> Since I read Google Groups with a broad all-the-way-across screen
> display I rarely see them but I believe that the line wrap has been
> correctly handled on all the examples I have come across.

That's because the software you use to read the messages, is able to
recognise when a line exceeds the width available and 'wrap' it at the
word-break immediately preceding that maximum width.

I can toggle that action in my news-reader if I get a line that is wider
than my 'window'. I can also force my editor to insert CRLF at some
line length of my choosing if I find myself quoting lines that are
longer than the conventional 80 character limit.

> That is what format=flowed means - innit?

No. Format=flowed is a technical specification originating in RFC 2646
(in 1999) prompted originally by the problems people had reading normal
email messages on the Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) of the time,
whose screens couldn't manage even 80 character line lengths.

Essentially, the sending program inserts a space and a CRLF at the
conventional ('slightly fewer than 80') line length, and indicates the
end of a paragraph by not having a space character before the CRLF. The
receiving program if it knows about 'Format=flowed' can choose either to
start the new lines where the space-CRLF combination occurs, or to
ignore them and wrap the lines at its own window width or at some point
set by the user. If the receiving program knows nothing of
Format=flowed then it will simply start a new line whenever it finds a
CRLF whether or not there is a preceding space character - in other
words it will just do the same as it does with normal plain text
messages. The handling of quoted text (lines starting with a >) is a
little more complex than that - which is why some email and usenet
readers display a | or some graphical thing at the start of quoted lines
that have been re-wrapped and re-quoted.

<https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2646.txt>

What Google Groups' sending software is doing at present, is to insert
no CRLF at all other than where the user has hit 'return' manually. So
all paragraphs are on one line as sent, and readers will either show
them as just that or will force a line-wrap or word-wrap according to
their own design or setting.

The newsreader I use, slrn, can handle incoming Format=flowed messages
correctly - by starting a new line when it finds a CRLF with or without
a preceding space. It doesn't send Format=flowed (but I imagine that if
I were sufficiently motivated I could get the text editor I use to
create Format=flowed and to insert the necessary headers).

[Whiskers]

... and my text editor, Vim, can fix that :))

[Robert Bannister]

Now I'm not so sure about the "as you can see".