Re: Girls looking men | online casual sex hookups | Women dating near me

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 9:00:41 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 15/12/18 21:37, Liane wrote:

> > I would love to meet a strong sexy man who enjoys spending time
> > together. Family Oriented is a must I am 37 and not into playing mind
> > games.... I want to find someone who is like minded yet solid as an
> > individual. Ideally someone who is the yin to my yang.
>
> I am twice your age, and have no interest at all in meeting a sexy man.
>
> Why are you posting this crap into a newsgroup that has nothing to do
> with on-line dating?

What reason do you have for supposing that she is aware that she is "posting
into a newsgroup" of any kind?

What suggests to you that she is offering to provide you with a sexy man?

[Sam Plusnet]

Posted via google groups, so you are most probably right.


--
Sam Plusnet

[Hailey]

On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 2:55:07 PM UTC+5:30, kristen.j...@gmail.com wrote:
> Women Date to Near Me: Free join, group for Dating Online — Girls Looking Men; casual.hookups, no age limit for sex. Find singles, married or divorced for discreet relationships.
>
> Join With Me: https://adultfriendfinder.com/go/p2043641

So one who i can relate to someosomeone is loving and kind and caring

Hailey
From Evansville, Indiana, United States
19 y.o. woman seeking man 18-25

[Peter T. Daniels]

The poster had nothing whatsoever to do with "google groups." She saw a
solitary message and responded to it.

[Sam Plusnet]

The header suggests otherwise.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

PTD doesn't read headers.


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

Sam and perhaps Athel are following PM down the rabbit-hole of irrational
GG-hatred.

The endless repliers to the dating "threads" are simply being shown a
message (who knows what they search), and no hint is given them that the
message begins or is part of any chain of anything, such as a "thread."
Presumably they think they are texting the OP, or something like that.

[Sam Plusnet]

Indeed they do make this mistake.
It is google groups which makes it so easy for them to stumble over an
ancient thread and assume it is a current discussion.
This is a defect.
It is silly to suggest that pointing out such defects is an expression
of "hatred".




--
Sam Plusnet

[RHDraney]

On 12/17/2018 3:38 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> It is google groups which makes it so easy for them to stumble over an
> ancient thread and assume it is a current discussion.
> This is a defect.
> It is silly to suggest that pointing out such defects is an expression
> of "hatred".

But "thread" and "hatred" being anagrams makes it so compelling to do
so....r

[Peter T. Daniels]

Google GROUPS has nothing to do with it. It is GMAIL you should be
complaining about.

But New Yorkers aren't about to complain about Google, because they are
in the process of a billion-dollar expansion of their HQ in Lower Manhattan
without (like Amazon) demanding $3 billion in givebacks from the state and
city.

[Peter Moylan]

This is where an ability to read headers helps. If you cared to look at
the message headers, you would clearly see that gmail has nothing to do
with it, and Google groups has everything to do with it.

I used "ability" loosely there. In fact no great skill is needed to
understand what is in the message headers. Although they might initially
seem a little cryptic, it becomes clear once you've read a number of
headers, and noticed the pattern. For a complete interpretation you
might need a familiarity with the mail and Usenet RFC standards, but
most of the time you can get the answer without that detailed analysis.

> But New Yorkers aren't about to complain about Google, because they
> are in the process of a billion-dollar expansion of their HQ in Lower
> Manhattan without (like Amazon) demanding $3 billion in givebacks
> from the state and city.

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

[Karen]

On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 2:55:07 PM UTC+5:30, kristen.j...@gmail.com wrote:
> Women Date to Near Me: Free join, group for Dating Online — Girls Looking Men; casual.hookups, no age limit for sex. Find singles, married or divorced for discreet relationships.
>
> Join With Me: https://adultfriendfinder.com/go/p2043641

I don't know what to say about me honestly.. I suggest you say "Hi" and get to know me. I'm new on this site so I'm not willing to give details about my life (for security purposes). I'm living in Las Vegas NV, United States. What I can tell you is: I'm really different than common girls on this site.

Karen
From Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
35 y.o. woman seeking man 35-50

[Peter Moylan]

On 18/12/18 14:51, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Google GROUPS has nothing to do with it. It is GMAIL you should be
> complaining about.

Here's a bit more of the evidence. The message in question was posted
into Google Groups by <onlinex...@gmail.com>. Now, how likely is it
that a "37 y.o. woman seeking man 25-50" happens to have a mail username
of onlinexsingles? In fact the Liane who posted it is more likely to be
a 50 year-old man seeking suckers of any age.

Practically everything in this thread is posted by direct injection into
Google Groups. Very rarely one sees someone who might be a genuine
sucker, but mostly this is advertisers replying to themselves.

They have found a newsgroup that appears to have mostly male
contributors, and they are trying to attract us to their web site. They
haven't yet figured out the age distribution of the regulars.

[Peter T. Daniels]

You willfully refuse to understand that the posters in e.g. the sex threads
KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GOOGLE GROUPS. They are not USING Google Groups. Some-
thing in Google's vast array of servers may be channeling their messages
through Google Groups, but THE WRITERS ARE NOT USING GOOGLE GROUPS.

Even computer jocks should be able to understand the difference between
people and the machines that misserve them.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:44:37 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 18/12/18 14:51, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > Google GROUPS has nothing to do with it. It is GMAIL you should be
> > complaining about.
>
> Here's a bit more of the evidence. The message in question was posted
> into Google Groups by <onlinex...@gmail.com>. Now, how likely is it
> that a "37 y.o. woman seeking man 25-50" happens to have a mail username
> of onlinexsingles? In fact the Liane who posted it is more likely to be
> a 50 year-old man seeking suckers of any age.

What's that got to do with anything?

What sort of suckers, anyway? Is your hypothetical man trying to get
money from some random sex-seeker?

> Practically everything in this thread is posted by direct injection into
> Google Groups. Very rarely one sees someone who might be a genuine
> sucker, but mostly this is advertisers replying to themselves.
>
> They have found a newsgroup that appears to have mostly male
> contributors, and they are trying to attract us to their web site. They
> haven't yet figured out the age distribution of the regulars.

Someone has a "web site"? Do their messages include url's? (Unlike you,
I don't read the messages.)

Why are you obsessing over this, instead of either marking them "ignore"
or ignoring them using your own will power?

[Sam Plusnet]

When you're right you're right.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

When people give reasoned, informed responses to your posts in this
thread, I don't think they can be described as "obsessing".

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter T. Daniels]

Look at what thread PM chose to respond in. I have never done such a thing.
I provided a reasoned, informed response to PM's bizarre intervention, and
then you expressed concordance with his obsession.