Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hello everyone, I continue to read the novel " To Kill a Mockingbird ". I met a question in a sentence.
229 views
Skip to first unread message
李曉冬
Jan 21, 2016, 3:40:02 AM1/21/16
to
Hello everyone, I continue to read the novel " To Kill a Mockingbird ". I met a question in a sentence of the paragraph below.
Being Southerners, it was a source of shame to some members of the family that
we had no recorded ancestors on either side of the Battle of Hastings. All we had was Simon Finch, a fur-trapping apothecary from Cornwall whose piety was
exceeded only by his stinginess. In England, Simon was irritated by the
persecution of those who called themselves Methodists at the hands of their more
liberal brethren, and as Simon called himself a Methodist, he worked his way
across the Atlantic to Philadelphia, thence to Jamaica, thence to Mobile, and up
the Saint Stephens. Mindful of John Wesley's strictures on the use of many words
in buying and selling, Simon made a pile practicing medicine, but in this pursuit he was unhappy lest he be tempted into doing what he knew was not for the glory of God, as the putting on of gold and costly apparel. So Simon, having forgotten his teacher's dictum on the possession of human chattels, bought three slaves and with their aid established a homestead on the banks of the Alabama River some forty miles above Saint Stephens. He returned to Saint Stephens only once, to find a wife, and with her established a line that ran high to daughters. Simon lived to an impressive age and died rich.
Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who often catches the animals in order to get their fur " in the sentence " All we had
was Simon Finch, a fur-trapping apothecary from Cornwall whose piety was
exceeded only by his stinginess "?
Thank you very much in advance for your help. I really appreciate it.
http://www.penfield.edu/webpages/jgarbarino/files/to_kill_a_mockingbird_text.pdf
Being Southerners, it was a source of shame to some members of the family that
we had no recorded ancestors on either side of the Battle of Hastings. All we had was Simon Finch, a fur-trapping apothecary from Cornwall whose piety was
exceeded only by his stinginess. In England, Simon was irritated by the
persecution of those who called themselves Methodists at the hands of their more
liberal brethren, and as Simon called himself a Methodist, he worked his way
across the Atlantic to Philadelphia, thence to Jamaica, thence to Mobile, and up
the Saint Stephens. Mindful of John Wesley's strictures on the use of many words
in buying and selling, Simon made a pile practicing medicine, but in this pursuit he was unhappy lest he be tempted into doing what he knew was not for the glory of God, as the putting on of gold and costly apparel. So Simon, having forgotten his teacher's dictum on the possession of human chattels, bought three slaves and with their aid established a homestead on the banks of the Alabama River some forty miles above Saint Stephens. He returned to Saint Stephens only once, to find a wife, and with her established a line that ran high to daughters. Simon lived to an impressive age and died rich.
Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who often catches the animals in order to get their fur " in the sentence " All we had
was Simon Finch, a fur-trapping apothecary from Cornwall whose piety was
exceeded only by his stinginess "?
Thank you very much in advance for your help. I really appreciate it.
http://www.penfield.edu/webpages/jgarbarino/files/to_kill_a_mockingbird_text.pdf
Peter Moylan
Jan 21, 2016, 4:16:08 AM1/21/16
to
their fur.
As I read the passage, those two things probably happened at different
times. He probably trained as an apothecary in Cornwall, then practiced
medicine in various parts of America, then settled down on the Alabama
River. It was probably after settling down that he gave up medicine and
became a fur-trapper. This is not stated explicitly, but it's a pretty
good guess.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
John Ritson
Jan 21, 2016, 4:35:27 AM1/21/16
to
In article <dae1d7b7-da98-4350...@googlegroups.com>,
=?UTF-8?B?5p2O5puJ5Yas?= <lixiao...@gmail.com> writes
animals for their fur.
Although it could also mean an apothecary who made a living selling
medicines to fur-trappers.
--
John Ritson
=?UTF-8?B?5p2O5puJ5Yas?= <lixiao...@gmail.com> writes
>Hello everyone, I continue to read the novel " To Kill a Mockingbird ". I met a
>question in a sentence of the paragraph below.
[snip]
>question in a sentence of the paragraph below.
>Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who often catches the
>animals in order to get their fur " in the sentence " All we had
>was Simon Finch, a fur-trapping apothecary from Cornwall whose piety was
>exceeded only by his stinginess "?
>
>Thank you very much in advance for your help. I really appreciate it.
>
>http://www.penfield.edu/webpages/jgarbarino/files/to_kill_a_mockingbird_text.pdf
>
It probably means an apothecary who supplemented his income by trapping
>animals in order to get their fur " in the sentence " All we had
>was Simon Finch, a fur-trapping apothecary from Cornwall whose piety was
>exceeded only by his stinginess "?
>
>Thank you very much in advance for your help. I really appreciate it.
>
>http://www.penfield.edu/webpages/jgarbarino/files/to_kill_a_mockingbird_text.pdf
>
animals for their fur.
Although it could also mean an apothecary who made a living selling
medicines to fur-trappers.
--
John Ritson
Don Phillipson
Jan 21, 2016, 9:10:32 AM1/21/16
to
<lixiao...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae1d7b7-da98-4350...@googlegroups.com...
> , , , the novel " To Kill a Mockingbird ". I met a question in a sentence
> http://www.penfield.edu/webpages/jgarbarino/files/to_kill_a_mockingbird_text.pdf
Yes. The social environment here is that Americans (especially
Southerners) were at that date very conscious of their own history
(of the family and of the place where they lived.) In this case, the
first known family ancestor was an apothecary who left England
to escape religious discrimination (common in the 17th and 18th
centuries) and in America lived by hunting animal skins instead
of by medicine or chemistry.
The Battle of Hastings (Norman conquest of the Anglosaxons) was
an important milestone in English history, and some English families
claimed to know their ancestors as early as that date (1066) or even
earlier -- but not the Finch family in America.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:dae1d7b7-da98-4350...@googlegroups.com...
> , , , the novel " To Kill a Mockingbird ". I met a question in a sentence
> of the paragraph below.
>
> Being Southerners, it was a source of shame to some members of the
> family that we had no recorded ancestors on either side of the Battle of
> Hastings. All we had was Simon Finch, a fur-trapping apothecary from
> Cornwall whose piety was exceeded only by his stinginess. In England,
> Simon was irritated by the persecution of those who called themselves
> Methodists . . . and as Simon called himself a Methodist, he worked his
>
> Being Southerners, it was a source of shame to some members of the
> family that we had no recorded ancestors on either side of the Battle of
> Hastings. All we had was Simon Finch, a fur-trapping apothecary from
> Cornwall whose piety was exceeded only by his stinginess. In England,
> Simon was irritated by the persecution of those who called themselves
> way across the Atlantic to Philadelphia,
>
>
> Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who often
> catches the animals in order to get their fur . . . ?
> http://www.penfield.edu/webpages/jgarbarino/files/to_kill_a_mockingbird_text.pdf
Yes. The social environment here is that Americans (especially
Southerners) were at that date very conscious of their own history
(of the family and of the place where they lived.) In this case, the
first known family ancestor was an apothecary who left England
to escape religious discrimination (common in the 17th and 18th
centuries) and in America lived by hunting animal skins instead
of by medicine or chemistry.
The Battle of Hastings (Norman conquest of the Anglosaxons) was
an important milestone in English history, and some English families
claimed to know their ancestors as early as that date (1066) or even
earlier -- but not the Finch family in America.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
李曉冬
Jan 22, 2016, 5:01:50 AM1/22/16
to
Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who makes a living by hunting animals for their fur "? Thanks a lot for everyone's help. I really appreciate it.
Peter Moylan
Jan 22, 2016, 6:01:58 AM1/22/16
to
On 2016-Jan-22 21:01, 李曉冬 wrote:
> Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who makes a living by hunting animals for their fur "? Thanks a lot for everyone's help. I really appreciate it.
You seem to be posting the question even after you have had answers.
> Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who makes a living by hunting animals for their fur "? Thanks a lot for everyone's help. I really appreciate it.
Usenet is not like that. Most people don't live in your time zone, so it
is perfectly normal to get no responses for a day or two.
In addition, it is important to understand that Google Groups is not
Usenet. Most of the people in this group do not use Google Groups.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 22, 2016, 8:44:34 AM1/22/16
to
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:01:58 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2016-Jan-22 21:01, 李曉冬 wrote:
> > Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who makes a living by hunting animals for their fur "? Thanks a lot for everyone's help. I really appreciate it.
>
> You seem to be posting the question even after you have had answers.
> Usenet is not like that. Most people don't live in your time zone, so it
> is perfectly normal to get no responses for a day or two.
>
> In addition, it is important to understand that Google Groups is not
> Usenet. Most of the people in this group do not use Google Groups.
What in OP's questions led you to yet another diatribe against GG?
> On 2016-Jan-22 21:01, 李曉冬 wrote:
> > Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who makes a living by hunting animals for their fur "? Thanks a lot for everyone's help. I really appreciate it.
>
> You seem to be posting the question even after you have had answers.
> Usenet is not like that. Most people don't live in your time zone, so it
> is perfectly normal to get no responses for a day or two.
>
> In addition, it is important to understand that Google Groups is not
> Usenet. Most of the people in this group do not use Google Groups.
A survey someone posted a few months ago revealed that of all the means
of access to AUE, GG is the one used by the most posters -- about 25%.
(That is, it has the plurality, and in some elections that would make
it the winner.)
Janet
Jan 22, 2016, 10:10:53 AM1/22/16
to
In article <38cd45d0-6c1f-4f52...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...
That strongly suggests he is not seeing the answers. Possibly because
GG does not display them.
AUE already discussed why that happens *
IOW, the majority use a newsreader, and newsreaders offer editorial
options. See *.
Janet.
gram...@verizon.net says...
>
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:01:58 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:01:58 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 2016-Jan-22 21:01, ??? wrote:
>
> > > Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who makes a living by hunting animals for their fur "? Thanks a lot for everyone's help. I really appreciate it.
> >
> > You seem to be posting the question even after you have had answers.
> > Usenet is not like that. Most people don't live in your time zone, so it
> > is perfectly normal to get no responses for a day or two.
> >
> > In addition, it is important to understand that Google Groups is not
> > Usenet. Most of the people in this group do not use Google Groups.
>
> What in OP's questions led you to yet another diatribe against GG?
He keeps posting the question even after having had answers.
>
> > > Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who makes a living by hunting animals for their fur "? Thanks a lot for everyone's help. I really appreciate it.
> >
> > You seem to be posting the question even after you have had answers.
> > Usenet is not like that. Most people don't live in your time zone, so it
> > is perfectly normal to get no responses for a day or two.
> >
> > In addition, it is important to understand that Google Groups is not
> > Usenet. Most of the people in this group do not use Google Groups.
>
> What in OP's questions led you to yet another diatribe against GG?
That strongly suggests he is not seeing the answers. Possibly because
GG does not display them.
AUE already discussed why that happens *
>
> A survey someone posted a few months ago revealed that of all the means
> of access to AUE, GG is the one used by the most posters -- about 25%.
Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
> A survey someone posted a few months ago revealed that of all the means
> of access to AUE, GG is the one used by the most posters -- about 25%.
IOW, the majority use a newsreader, and newsreaders offer editorial
options. See *.
Janet.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 22, 2016, 11:10:50 AM1/22/16
to
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:10:53 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> In article <38cd45d0-6c1f-4f52...@googlegroups.com>,
> gram...@verizon.net says...
> >
> > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:01:58 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > On 2016-Jan-22 21:01, ??? wrote:
> >
> > > > Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who makes a living by hunting animals for their fur "? Thanks a lot for everyone's help. I really appreciate it.
> > >
> > > You seem to be posting the question even after you have had answers.
> > > Usenet is not like that. Most people don't live in your time zone, so it
> > > is perfectly normal to get no responses for a day or two.
> > >
> > > In addition, it is important to understand that Google Groups is not
> > > Usenet. Most of the people in this group do not use Google Groups.
> >
> > What in OP's questions led you to yet another diatribe against GG?
>
> He keeps posting the question even after having had answers.
That accounts for Peter M's first paragraph, not for his second. OP _has_responded to replies.
> In article <38cd45d0-6c1f-4f52...@googlegroups.com>,
> gram...@verizon.net says...
> >
> > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:01:58 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > On 2016-Jan-22 21:01, ??? wrote:
> >
> > > > Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who makes a living by hunting animals for their fur "? Thanks a lot for everyone's help. I really appreciate it.
> > >
> > > You seem to be posting the question even after you have had answers.
> > > Usenet is not like that. Most people don't live in your time zone, so it
> > > is perfectly normal to get no responses for a day or two.
> > >
> > > In addition, it is important to understand that Google Groups is not
> > > Usenet. Most of the people in this group do not use Google Groups.
> >
> > What in OP's questions led you to yet another diatribe against GG?
>
> He keeps posting the question even after having had answers.
> That strongly suggests he is not seeing the answers. Possibly because
> GG does not display them.
>
> AUE already discussed why that happens *
> >
> > A survey someone posted a few months ago revealed that of all the means
> > of access to AUE, GG is the one used by the most posters -- about 25%.
>
> Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
that he himself uses equipment and software that are far from modern.
Richard Tobin
Jan 22, 2016, 11:30:06 AM1/22/16
to
In article <7cad019a-d7dd-4f77...@googlegroups.com>,
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
>It means that continual complaining about it offends 25% of the readers.
Why would you be offended by criticism of the software you use?
>> Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
>It means that continual complaining about it offends 25% of the readers.
-- Richard
John Ritson
Jan 22, 2016, 12:39:09 PM1/22/16
to
In article <MPG.310c56d...@news.individual.net>, Janet
<nob...@home.org> writes
to my e-mail address thanking me.
John Ritson
<nob...@home.org> writes
>In article <38cd45d0-6c1f-4f52...@googlegroups.com>,
>gram...@verizon.net says...
>>
>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:01:58 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> > On 2016-Jan-22 21:01, ??? wrote:
>>
>> > > Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who makes a living
>by hunting animals for their fur "? Thanks a lot for everyone's help. I really
>appreciate it.
>> >
>> > You seem to be posting the question even after you have had answers.
>> > Usenet is not like that. Most people don't live in your time zone, so it
>> > is perfectly normal to get no responses for a day or two.
>> >
>> > In addition, it is important to understand that Google Groups is not
>> > Usenet. Most of the people in this group do not use Google Groups.
>>
>> What in OP's questions led you to yet another diatribe against GG?
>
> He keeps posting the question even after having had answers.
>
> That strongly suggests he is not seeing the answers. Possibly because
>GG does not display them.
He must be seeing some of the answers, because I answered and he replied
>gram...@verizon.net says...
>>
>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:01:58 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> > On 2016-Jan-22 21:01, ??? wrote:
>>
>> > > Does " a fur-trapping apothecary " mean " an apothecary who makes a living
>by hunting animals for their fur "? Thanks a lot for everyone's help. I really
>appreciate it.
>> >
>> > You seem to be posting the question even after you have had answers.
>> > Usenet is not like that. Most people don't live in your time zone, so it
>> > is perfectly normal to get no responses for a day or two.
>> >
>> > In addition, it is important to understand that Google Groups is not
>> > Usenet. Most of the people in this group do not use Google Groups.
>>
>> What in OP's questions led you to yet another diatribe against GG?
>
> He keeps posting the question even after having had answers.
>
> That strongly suggests he is not seeing the answers. Possibly because
>GG does not display them.
to my e-mail address thanking me.
>
> AUE already discussed why that happens *
>>
>> A survey someone posted a few months ago revealed that of all the means
>> of access to AUE, GG is the one used by the most posters -- about 25%.
>
> Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
>
> IOW, the majority use a newsreader, and newsreaders offer editorial
>options. See *.
>
> Janet.
--
> AUE already discussed why that happens *
>>
>> A survey someone posted a few months ago revealed that of all the means
>> of access to AUE, GG is the one used by the most posters -- about 25%.
>
> Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
>
> IOW, the majority use a newsreader, and newsreaders offer editorial
>options. See *.
>
> Janet.
John Ritson
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 22, 2016, 1:42:05 PM1/22/16
to
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 11:30:06 AM UTC-5, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <7cad019a-d7dd-4f77...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
[no, he did not]
> In article <7cad019a-d7dd-4f77...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
> >It means that continual complaining about it offends 25% of the readers.
>
> Why would you be offended by criticism of the software you use?
Either I chose to use that software, or else I had no alternative.
The criticism impugns my activity, whether voluntary or involuntary.
Richard Tobin
Jan 22, 2016, 4:05:04 PM1/22/16
to
In article <c02220a3-86b6-4c7a...@googlegroups.com>,
needs, which aren't the same as other people's. It might have obvious
flaws which are unimportant to you, or which are outweighed by other
considerations. Taking criticism of those flaws as criticisms of
you is unwarranted - you are identifying with something which you
should treat simply as a tool.
Hmm, this may explain many of the arguments that you are involved with
here. Not just with respect to software, but also your reactions to
criticisms of the US and your frequent assumption that people from
other countries are defending them when they are merely explaining
how things are there.
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
>> >It means that continual complaining about it offends 25% of the readers.
>> Why would you be offended by criticism of the software you use?
>What a strange question.
>
>Either I chose to use that software, or else I had no alternative.
>
>The criticism impugns my activity, whether voluntary or involuntary.
You presumably chose the software because it met your particular
>> >> Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
>> >It means that continual complaining about it offends 25% of the readers.
>> Why would you be offended by criticism of the software you use?
>What a strange question.
>
>Either I chose to use that software, or else I had no alternative.
>
>The criticism impugns my activity, whether voluntary or involuntary.
needs, which aren't the same as other people's. It might have obvious
flaws which are unimportant to you, or which are outweighed by other
considerations. Taking criticism of those flaws as criticisms of
you is unwarranted - you are identifying with something which you
should treat simply as a tool.
Hmm, this may explain many of the arguments that you are involved with
here. Not just with respect to software, but also your reactions to
criticisms of the US and your frequent assumption that people from
other countries are defending them when they are merely explaining
how things are there.
-- Richard
David Kleinecke
Jan 22, 2016, 5:15:09 PM1/22/16
to
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 22, 2016, 11:08:48 PM1/22/16
to
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 4:05:04 PM UTC-5, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <c02220a3-86b6-4c7a...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
>
> >> >It means that continual complaining about it offends 25% of the readers.
>
> >> Why would you be offended by criticism of the software you use?
>
> >What a strange question.
> >
> >Either I chose to use that software, or else I had no alternative.
> >
> >The criticism impugns my activity, whether voluntary or involuntary.
>
> You presumably chose the software because it met your particular
> needs,
I did not choose it. I was told it was my only option when I switched
> In article <c02220a3-86b6-4c7a...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
>
> >> >It means that continual complaining about it offends 25% of the readers.
>
> >> Why would you be offended by criticism of the software you use?
>
> >What a strange question.
> >
> >Either I chose to use that software, or else I had no alternative.
> >
> >The criticism impugns my activity, whether voluntary or involuntary.
>
> You presumably chose the software because it met your particular
> needs,
from Mac to PC, and dial-up Netscape to Verizon Yahoo, which had no
provision for newsgroups.
A decade later, here, I am attacked for using a system whose only
evident flaw is that it did away with crossposting a while ago.
Janet
Jan 23, 2016, 11:31:57 AM1/23/16
to
In article <7b55c13c-0e45-43b3...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...
Surely you can just use a different news server and a newsreader,
like I do.
Janet.
gram...@verizon.net says...
>
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 4:05:04 PM UTC-5, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <c02220a3-86b6-4c7a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> >> Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
> >
> > >> >It means that continual complaining about it offends 25% of the readers.
> >
> > >> Why would you be offended by criticism of the software you use?
> >
> > >What a strange question.
> > >
> > >Either I chose to use that software, or else I had no alternative.
> > >
> > >The criticism impugns my activity, whether voluntary or involuntary.
> >
> > You presumably chose the software because it met your particular
> > needs,
>
> I did not choose it. I was told it was my only option when I switched
> from Mac to PC, and dial-up Netscape to Verizon Yahoo, which had no
> provision for newsgroups.
Lots of ISP's don't provide newsgroups; mine doesn't.
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 4:05:04 PM UTC-5, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <c02220a3-86b6-4c7a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> >> Which means that 75 % of AUE posters do NOT use GG
> >
> > >> >It means that continual complaining about it offends 25% of the readers.
> >
> > >> Why would you be offended by criticism of the software you use?
> >
> > >What a strange question.
> > >
> > >Either I chose to use that software, or else I had no alternative.
> > >
> > >The criticism impugns my activity, whether voluntary or involuntary.
> >
> > You presumably chose the software because it met your particular
> > needs,
>
> I did not choose it. I was told it was my only option when I switched
> from Mac to PC, and dial-up Netscape to Verizon Yahoo, which had no
> provision for newsgroups.
Surely you can just use a different news server and a newsreader,
like I do.
Janet.
Default User
Jan 23, 2016, 12:00:00 PM1/23/16
to
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 4:05:04 PM UTC-5, Richard Tobin wrote:
[Google Groups]
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 4:05:04 PM UTC-5, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > You presumably chose the software because it met your particular
> > needs,
>
> I did not choose it. I was told it was my only option when I switched
> from Mac to PC, and dial-up Netscape to Verizon Yahoo, which had no
> provision for newsgroups.
there were other alternatives. Naturally, that doesn't mean that your
statement about what you were told is in any way incorrect. It would
mean that those who told you that were wrong.
It also wouldn't prevent you from choosing something else now, but
being used to a particular system is a fairly good reason for
continuing to use it.
> A decade later, here, I am attacked for using a system whose only
> evident flaw is that it did away with crossposting a while ago.
concern for you, as I don't see you using them.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 23, 2016, 12:36:08 PM1/23/16
to
David Kleinecke
Jan 23, 2016, 12:58:32 PM1/23/16
to
looks ridiculously complicated compared to Google Groups.
John Varela
Jan 23, 2016, 3:35:27 PM1/23/16
to
are not very computer savvy. The objection to google groups for
newsgroup reading[1] is that many of the groupies do things in ways
that make life more difficult for the savvier users.
Also, some of us have never forgiven Google for rendering Deja News
useless.
John Varela
[1] I have no objection to googlegroups.com for use in running mail
lists. In fact, I run five such lists for our neighborhood, golf
group, bridge group, etc.
--
John Varela
David Kleinecke
Jan 23, 2016, 4:05:27 PM1/23/16
to
> [1] I have no objection to googlegroups.com for use in running mail
> lists. In fact, I run five such lists for our neighborhood, golf
> group, bridge group, etc.
I can remember when the IBM 704 was introduced. And FORTRAN just a
> lists. In fact, I run five such lists for our neighborhood, golf
> group, bridge group, etc.
little later - those were exciting days.
What, pray tell, do GG users do that makes life harder for you or
any other user? Real GG users not the helpless passer-by who stumbled
over them.
Default User
Jan 23, 2016, 6:43:47 PM1/23/16
to
David Kleinecke wrote:
> I have Thunderbird on my system and I have looked at it newsreader.
> It looks ridiculously complicated compared to Google Groups.
Well, there is perhaps a little bit of a complication in setting up a
> I have Thunderbird on my system and I have looked at it newsreader.
> It looks ridiculously complicated compared to Google Groups.
newsreader initially. After that, use is generally pretty simple. I did
use Thunderbird a few times, but mostly for email rather than
newsgroups, so I can't comment very well on the specifics. I have been
using XanaNews for quite a long time.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 23, 2016, 6:51:01 PM1/23/16
to
> The objection to google groups for
> newsgroup reading[1] is that many of the groupies do things in ways
> that make life more difficult for the savvier users.
> Also, some of us have never forgiven Google for rendering Deja News
> useless.
Richard Tobin
Jan 23, 2016, 8:05:02 PM1/23/16
to
In article <7b55c13c-0e45-43b3...@googlegroups.com>,
>A decade later, here, I am attacked for using a system whose only
>evident flaw is that it did away with crossposting a while ago.
You've switched from "complaining about it" to "I am attacked for
using". The original comment about Google Groups in this thread was
not directed at you, but you jumped in and chose to be offended.
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >It means that continual complaining about it offends 25% of the readers.
>> >> Why would you be offended by criticism of the software you use?
>> >What a strange question.
>> >
>> >Either I chose to use that software, or else I had no alternative.
>> >
>> >The criticism impugns my activity, whether voluntary or involuntary.
>> You presumably chose the software because it met your particular
>> needs,
>I did not choose it.
In that case there is even less reason for you to identify with it.
>> >> >It means that continual complaining about it offends 25% of the readers.
>> >> Why would you be offended by criticism of the software you use?
>> >What a strange question.
>> >
>> >Either I chose to use that software, or else I had no alternative.
>> >
>> >The criticism impugns my activity, whether voluntary or involuntary.
>> You presumably chose the software because it met your particular
>> needs,
>I did not choose it.
>A decade later, here, I am attacked for using a system whose only
>evident flaw is that it did away with crossposting a while ago.
using". The original comment about Google Groups in this thread was
not directed at you, but you jumped in and chose to be offended.
-- Richard
Richard Tobin
Jan 23, 2016, 8:10:03 PM1/23/16
to
In article <671f2781-312c-4b03...@googlegroups.com>,
personal attack on you. As far as I know, you had nothing to
do with it.
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Also, some of us have never forgiven Google for rendering Deja News
>> useless.
>You see? He makes an irrational hatred into an excuse for personal attack.
Google did mess up Deja News, and to be annoyed by that is not a
>> Also, some of us have never forgiven Google for rendering Deja News
>> useless.
>You see? He makes an irrational hatred into an excuse for personal attack.
personal attack on you. As far as I know, you had nothing to
do with it.
-- Richard
David Kleinecke
Jan 23, 2016, 10:32:52 PM1/23/16
to
Google's "help"? Google obviously bought DejuNews to shut them down
("roll them in" would be the polite way of saying it)
Have you ever read:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/old/rant/dejanews.html
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 23, 2016, 11:20:20 PM1/23/16
to
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 23, 2016, 11:21:51 PM1/23/16
to
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 8:10:03 PM UTC-5, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <671f2781-312c-4b03...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
[no, he did not]
> In article <671f2781-312c-4b03...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Also, some of us have never forgiven Google for rendering Deja News
> >> useless.
> >You see? He makes an irrational hatred into an excuse for personal attack.
>
> Google did mess up Deja News, and to be annoyed by that is not a
> personal attack on you. As far as I know, you had nothing to
> do with it.
Let alone the removal of attributions.
Richard Tobin
Jan 24, 2016, 10:00:04 AM1/24/16
to
In article <02cfd3bf-c217-4992...@googlegroups.com>,
taking over usenet, and have partly succeeded in that, though I'm not
sure that Google Groups is successful enough not to be shut down at
a moment's notice.
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/old/rant/dejanews.html
I generally agree with Charlie: I have always treated usenet as
something like a conversation in the pub, and I certainly didn't
expect that all my posts from the 1980s would suddenly reappear. On
the other hand, now that we expect everything to be indexed we take
account of the fact when posting.
And I expect that all my recent pub conversations have been recorded
by security cameras and will turn up online in a while.
-- Richard
David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Is there any possibility that DejaNews would have survived without
>Google's "help"? Google obviously bought DejuNews to shut them down
>("roll them in" would be the polite way of saying it)
I don't know. Google presumably bought them with the intention of
>Is there any possibility that DejaNews would have survived without
>Google's "help"? Google obviously bought DejuNews to shut them down
>("roll them in" would be the polite way of saying it)
taking over usenet, and have partly succeeded in that, though I'm not
sure that Google Groups is successful enough not to be shut down at
a moment's notice.
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/old/rant/dejanews.html
I generally agree with Charlie: I have always treated usenet as
something like a conversation in the pub, and I certainly didn't
expect that all my posts from the 1980s would suddenly reappear. On
the other hand, now that we expect everything to be indexed we take
account of the fact when posting.
And I expect that all my recent pub conversations have been recorded
by security cameras and will turn up online in a while.
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 24, 2016, 2:02:11 PM1/24/16
to
On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-5, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <02cfd3bf-c217-4992...@googlegroups.com>,
> David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Is there any possibility that DejaNews would have survived without
> >Google's "help"? Google obviously bought DejuNews to shut them down
> >("roll them in" would be the polite way of saying it)
>
> I don't know. Google presumably bought them with the intention of
> taking over usenet, and have partly succeeded in that, though I'm not
> sure that Google Groups is successful enough not to be shut down at
> a moment's notice.
How would you meansure "success"? It doesn't directly generate revenue.
> In article <02cfd3bf-c217-4992...@googlegroups.com>,
> David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Is there any possibility that DejaNews would have survived without
> >Google's "help"? Google obviously bought DejuNews to shut them down
> >("roll them in" would be the polite way of saying it)
>
> I don't know. Google presumably bought them with the intention of
> taking over usenet, and have partly succeeded in that, though I'm not
> sure that Google Groups is successful enough not to be shut down at
> a moment's notice.
David Kleinecke
Jan 24, 2016, 3:28:20 PM1/24/16
to
especially of a cooperation as untraditional as Google. But..
I think Google considers their search ability their crown jewel. They
bought DejaNews to expand their search into a corner of the internet
they couldn't otherwise search. Assuming usenet would continue even
with Google Groups turned off their search would lose a hunk of search
capability.
It doesn't cost them much to run Google Groups. I think they consider
Google Groups a success because it supports their search successfully.
It would be very easy for Google to add advertising to Google Groups
and they haven't tried. Maybe they are waiting until they get gmail
advertising under control - GG appears to be functionally closely
related to gmail.
Robert Bannister
Jan 24, 2016, 6:08:43 PM1/24/16
to
On 24/01/2016 11:32 am, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 5:10:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <671f2781-312c-4b03...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Also, some of us have never forgiven Google for rendering Deja News
>>>> useless.
>>
>>> You see? He makes an irrational hatred into an excuse for personal attack.
>>
>> Google did mess up Deja News, and to be annoyed by that is not a
>> personal attack on you. As far as I know, you had nothing to
>> do with it.
>
> Is there any possibility that DejaNews would have survived without
> Google's "help"? Google obviously bought DejuNews to shut them down
> ("roll them in" would be the polite way of saying it)
No need to worry. I'm sure all your old posts are preserved by various
> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 5:10:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <671f2781-312c-4b03...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Also, some of us have never forgiven Google for rendering Deja News
>>>> useless.
>>
>>> You see? He makes an irrational hatred into an excuse for personal attack.
>>
>> Google did mess up Deja News, and to be annoyed by that is not a
>> personal attack on you. As far as I know, you had nothing to
>> do with it.
>
> Is there any possibility that DejaNews would have survived without
> Google's "help"? Google obviously bought DejuNews to shut them down
> ("roll them in" would be the polite way of saying it)
security services around the world as part of the war on tourism.
--
Robert B.
Helen Lacedaemonian
Jan 25, 2016, 12:42:01 AM1/25/16
to
group of enthusiasts at Google. They are allowed to continue as long as
the costs don't swamp the (tiny) benefits.
Google works this way, allowing engineers to pursue their little interests
in the hope that occasionally they will generate paydirt for the corporation.
Best,
Helen
Richard Tobin
Jan 25, 2016, 7:30:03 AM1/25/16
to
In article <25418215-d0dd-402f...@googlegroups.com>,
use the information about what groups you read to refine their
advertising to you elsewhere.
-- Richard
David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It would be very easy for Google to add advertising to Google Groups
>and they haven't tried.
They don't need to display the ads in Google Groups; they can just
>It would be very easy for Google to add advertising to Google Groups
>and they haven't tried.
use the information about what groups you read to refine their
advertising to you elsewhere.
-- Richard
Richard Tobin
Jan 25, 2016, 7:30:03 AM1/25/16
to
In article <d2ef8ae1-44b1-4b3c...@googlegroups.com>,
read alt.usage.english lets them try to sell you dictionaries.
As I understand it pretty well all their projects are aimed at finding
out more about you for this purpose.
-- Richard
>> I don't know. Google presumably bought them with the intention of
>> taking over usenet, and have partly succeeded in that, though I'm not
>> sure that Google Groups is successful enough not to be shut down at
>> a moment's notice.
>How would you meansure "success"? It doesn't directly generate revenue.
Presumably it helps them target advertising. Perhaps knowing that you
>> taking over usenet, and have partly succeeded in that, though I'm not
>> sure that Google Groups is successful enough not to be shut down at
>> a moment's notice.
>How would you meansure "success"? It doesn't directly generate revenue.
read alt.usage.english lets them try to sell you dictionaries.
As I understand it pretty well all their projects are aimed at finding
out more about you for this purpose.
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 25, 2016, 11:42:26 AM1/25/16
to
in my Verizon Yahoo email, and they are almost always for books I've checked
out at Barnes & Noble dot com. It doesn't care whether I've bought them or
not, and it apparently doesn't know when I bought it at a B&N store.
The ads in a Google search pertain only to the search being made, so it doesn't
seem like they're making the cross-app connection.
Peter Moylan
Jan 25, 2016, 8:07:18 PM1/25/16
to
On 2016-Jan-25 23:27, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <d2ef8ae1-44b1-4b3c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> I don't know. Google presumably bought them with the intention of
>>> taking over usenet, and have partly succeeded in that, though I'm not
>>> sure that Google Groups is successful enough not to be shut down at
>>> a moment's notice.
>
>> How would you meansure "success"? It doesn't directly generate revenue.
>
> Presumably it helps them target advertising. Perhaps knowing that you
> read alt.usage.english lets them try to sell you dictionaries.
Or to sell you Haboob training, illegal drugs, and British citizenship
> In article <d2ef8ae1-44b1-4b3c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> I don't know. Google presumably bought them with the intention of
>>> taking over usenet, and have partly succeeded in that, though I'm not
>>> sure that Google Groups is successful enough not to be shut down at
>>> a moment's notice.
>
>> How would you meansure "success"? It doesn't directly generate revenue.
>
> Presumably it helps them target advertising. Perhaps knowing that you
> read alt.usage.english lets them try to sell you dictionaries.
tests.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 25, 2016, 11:44:11 PM1/25/16
to
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 8:07:18 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2016-Jan-25 23:27, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <d2ef8ae1-44b1-4b3c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
[no, he did not]
> On 2016-Jan-25 23:27, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <d2ef8ae1-44b1-4b3c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> I don't know. Google presumably bought them with the intention of
> >>> taking over usenet, and have partly succeeded in that, though I'm not
> >>> sure that Google Groups is successful enough not to be shut down at
> >>> a moment's notice.
> > Presumably it helps them target advertising. Perhaps knowing that you
> > read alt.usage.english lets them try to sell you dictionaries.
>
> Or to sell you Haboob training, illegal drugs, and British citizenship
> tests.
The second of those being very rare, and the third brand new, presumably
> > read alt.usage.english lets them try to sell you dictionaries.
>
> Or to sell you Haboob training, illegal drugs, and British citizenship
> tests.
attracted by the endless, boring thread on the topic.
0 new messages