Win98 now considered abandonware?
gluino
Win98SE?
MEB
> Is it now (in 2009) legally OK to run unlicensed copies of Win98 /
> Win98SE?
Uhmm, where did you get that idea?
Legally? No. There actually is no software that has been copyrighted
[or held as copyrighted], trademarked, and otherwise [such as marketed]
to be considered as abandonware, unless and until the legal time period
has expired [which due to the numerous legal hooks associated with
Windows 98 will be far in the future and only if Microsoft makes no
further legal advancements regarding Windows 98] or has been publicly
released [as in completely without any legal hold, except perhaps that
it remain public [GPL or the like] (which is prime for another legal
discussion regarding those ramifications)].
The claim by some, that if the producer no longer exists there must be
abandonment is legally unfounded. The same holds true for end of
life/lack of further support issues.
All nations have their own Laws related to this activity which might
have an effect on what is held by the courts when confronted.
--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______
98 Guy
> Is it now (in 2009) legally OK to run unlicensed copies of Win98 /
> Win98SE?
Glad you asked.
Yes, it is perfectly legal.
A windows 98/se CD image can be obtained via torrent. Some come with a
list of product activation keys (no keygens required).
If you need a win98/se product activation key, let me know. I'll post
it here.
Remember that unlike Windows XP, Windows 98 does not perform on-line
product activation.
So there are no hacks or cracks required to install and use windows 98.
MEB
> On 07/29/2009 12:28 AM, gluino wrote:
>> Is it now (in 2009) legally OK to run unlicensed copies of Win98 /
>> Win98SE?
>
> Uhmm, where did you get that idea?
>
> Legally? No. There actually is no software that has been copyrighted [or
> held as copyrighted], trademarked, and otherwise [such as marketed] to
> be considered as abandonware, unless and until the legal time period has
> expired [which due to the numerous legal hooks associated with Windows
> 98 will be far in the future and only if Microsoft makes no further
> legal advancements regarding Windows 98] or has been publicly released
> [as in completely without any legal hold, except perhaps that it remain
> public [GPL or the like] (which is prime for another legal discussion
> regarding those ramifications)].
> The claim by some, that if the producer no longer exists there must be
> abandonment is legally unfounded. The same holds true for end of
> life/lack of further support issues.
> All nations have their own Laws related to this activity which might
> have an effect on what is held by the courts when confronted.
>
Opps, sent that before it was finished...
Since you ask specifically about Windows 98, you should first take
note of its User Licensing Agreement. Note specifically that *no one*
has ever actually "owned" their copy of Windows 98, Microsoft does. ANY
copies in existence therefore are Microsoft's property, which brings in
to play another area of Law, and I'm not sure how adverse possession
would play in the myriad of Laws that bind the program, but it would
appear rather pointless to attempt that method.
philo
> gluino wrote:
>
>> Is it now (in 2009) legally OK to run unlicensed copies of Win98 /
>> Win98SE?
>
> Glad you asked.
>
> Yes, it is perfectly legal.
Total BS
all Microsoft OS's legally must be licensed
98 Guy
> >> Is it now (in 2009) legally OK to run unlicensed copies of
> >> Win98 / Win98SE?
> >
> > Yes, it is perfectly legal.
>
> Total BS
>
> all Microsoft OS's legally must be licensed
When you type in a Win-98 product key during installation, you have
effectively, legally, endowed the system with a valid, legal license.
But also keep in mind that Microsoft has no mechanism to track the
installation and use of Windows 98.
But it doesn't matter.
As long as the total number of systems running windows 98 at any given
time does not exceed the total number of win-98 licenses sold by
Micro$haft, then they have no basis to claim any sort of financial harm.
If a computer running win-98 is up and running, then it's effectively
licensed.
Jeff Richards
won't be until Microsoft officially places the software in the public
domain, which is not likely to happen any time soon.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"gluino" <glu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:34239191-dce1-4956...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
98 Guy
> No. It is not legally OK to run an unlicensed copy of Windows 98
What exactly is an unlicensed copy?
A product key represents the license.
You must provide a product key and agree to the EULA in order to install
and operate the product.
Microsoft has no way of knowing that you have installed and are running
any copy of windows 98.
gluino
Might it be "OK" in weaker sense?
Perhaps due to its EOL status, Win98 is entirely off the radar of
enforcement?
Not OK in principle, but OK in practice?
On Jul 30, 8:42 am, "Jeff Richards" <JRicha...@msn.com.au> wrote:
> No. It is not legally OK to run anunlicensedcopy of Windows 98, and it
Jeff Richards
An unlicensed copy is a copy of the software for which the user does not
have a valid license provided by Microsoft, either through purchase of a
Microsoft or OEM product, or obtained through transfer from the previous
licensee.
The process by which the license can be transferred from the previous
licensee is defined in the license terms.
A product key is not a license - it's simply a mechanism by which you
confirm your acceptance of the license that you have acquired. Entering a
product key does not create a license if it doesn't already exist (as has
been discussed here in detail in the past).
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4A7100AD...@Guy.com...
Jeff Richards
which it would be proper to offer advice in a public forum.
It is not reasonable to assume that illegal use of W98 is entirely off the
radar, as there is a lot that is common between W98 and later versions of
Windows, and MS has legal reasons for not wanting to appear to condone
licensing infringements, however old the product. It's probable that there
is not much active enforcement happening outside those areas where serious
commercial copying is occurring, but there are probably very few people who
really know. We do know that MS monitors eBay offerings and will make
enquiries with sellers who appear to have unlimited supplies.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"gluino" <glu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7292f3fb-6abb-4a8b...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
98 Guy
> Thanks for the input.
>
> Might it be "OK" in weaker sense?
> Perhaps due to its EOL status, Win98 is entirely off the radar of
> enforcement?
> Not OK in principle, but OK in practice?
It's almost always the case that people that worry about using software
in a "legal" manner are those that are going to use it in a corporate
environment where they believe that they would expose their company to
some liability or suffer some non-trivial penalty if they get caught
using software for which they can't show they posess a "proper" license.
Given that we are talking about windows 98, it's highly *unlikely* that
gluino is considering using windows 98 in a corporate setting.
In a home or small-office environment, the likelyhood is reduced to
close to zero that an angry employee (or ex-employee) or friend or
family member would inform the authorities (or Micro$haft) that there
might be improper use of software at that location, and it is much more
likely that gluino is considering using windows 98 in a home or soho
setting.
The only other possibility is that gluino is building or offering
computers for sale to others, or he is refurbishing computers in or for
a charitable environment, and he has a request for a PC with windows 98
installed on it, and hence since he can't buy windows 98 from Microsoft
or an OEM/VAR channel partner, he's wondering what exactly is the
(enforcement?) status is of the product.
Again I repeat what I've already said, which is that Milkro$oft has no
way of knowing if, when, where or how any copy of Windows 98 is
installed on any PC anywhere in the world. They have no way of knowing
(remotely or directly) if any given windows 98 product key corresponds
to a valid or invalid license or if the owner/operator of the machine is
the valid license holder for the corresponding product key.
My opinion is that if Macro$oft had an expectation of financial gain or
loss with respect to the Windows 98 product that they would still be
selling that product today. If any company no longer sells a product,
then they can no longer expect revenue from that product and hence they
suffer no loss through the transferrence or duplication or any other use
of that product that the marketplace desires of or for it.
Microsoft has sold millions of Windows 98 licenses. Several hundred
million most likely. There is no time limit on those licenses. They
are perpetual licenses. Unless there are more PC's running windows 98
at any given time than there are licenses that were sold, then Microsoft
can't claim (in general) that they have suffered any loss.
Each license gives the license holder the ability to install and/or
operate windows 98 on a single PC. Licenses are transferable.
Microsoft does not register or keep records of who has been assigned the
ownership or possession of which license, nor are they involved in any
documentary or proceedural way when a license-holder gives or sells
their license to someone else, or when a license becomes abandoned by
it's holder and is acquired by someone who discovers it.
So gluino, it all comes down to practicality. Windows 98 is like a book
that is no longer in print. There are a finite number of copies in
circulation. But even books that aren't being printed - they can be
printed at some point in the future by the copyright owner. Windows 98
will never again be "printed" by Microsoft.
There is nothing that is legally preventing you from obtaining one of
those windows 98 licenses that are no longer in use and using it for
yourself, just as if you went to a used book store and obtained a copy
of a book that is no longer in print. What does it mean when you obtain
a windows 98 license? It means that you are in possession of a windows
98 product key. The key is the practical and effective "embodiment" or
representation of the license. The license is just a boilerplate
document that is not even signed by anyone.
Gluino, you will be and are being told here in this forum that
practically speaking, if you don't already own or hold a windows 98
license, then at this point you really can't "legally" acquire or
purchase or obtain one or that your options are severely limited.
There are Microsoft appologists and phsycophants who are paranoidly
devoted to or owe their living and their reputation to Meekro$oft and
will act as Micro$haft's guard dogs and staunchly defend what they
perceive to be Microsoft's best interests, and they are posting replies
to you in this thread.
You will not find ANY actual Microsoft employee post anything in these
windows-98 newsgroups to answer your question or guide or otherwise help
you in this regard.
So, in summary, unless there is anyone close to you that is or could
become your enemy and inform Microsoft or any other authority that you
are operating a questionable copy of windows 98, then there is no other
way that Microsoft could ever or would ever know anything about what
you've done. And to go one step further, Microsoft has NEVER taken
action against individuals in this regard even if they are informed -
only corporations and computer shops that sell computers.
If it was ever put to a test, it's up to Microsoft to prove that you are
not the legitamate owner of a windows 98 license for which you have a
product key for. And it's a virtual impossibility for Microsoft to be
able to do this for Windows 98. Microsoft knows this, and it's the
fundamental reason why they created the on-line product activation for
Windows XP and other software products starting in 2002.
MEB
As usual 98 Guy's arguments have no basis except in that entities own
limited mind...
IF this querier is thinking about using improperly obtained copies for
ANY use, the party might want to review the prosecutions of such
organizations as the Salvation Army... who also thought they could use
and transfer OS and other software products... they could not. Might
also want to look at other prosecutions... such as for illegal music
downloads in which it is discovered that even the operating system was
pirated. No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law...
So per usual, ignore 98 Guy.
98 Guy
> IF this querier is thinking about (...)
Is there a reason you don't simply say - "If the OP is thinking about
(...)" ?
Do you have to use the word "querier" ?
Do you always have to be so obtuse?
> using improperly obtained copies for ANY use, the party might want
The party?
Yea? Where's the party? I am so there. Party on!
> to review the prosecutions of such organizations as the
> Salvation Army...
>
> No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law...
Don't you mean:
"No links are posted even though I go out of my way to full-quote all my
responses so that future usenet readers will be overloaded with my
verbosity and poor usenet message composition style but not any real
information or knowledge" ?
If Microsoft took the Salvation Army to court over software licenses,
then prove it by posting a URL.
You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in this
newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against anyone for
license violation.
Where is that other Bozo who claims that microsoft lawyers have posted
here in the past?
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009, No Alternative wrote:
> Nobody said anything about whether they can censor it, but their
> lawyers often threaten people in these group,
Where is your sorry ass? I asked you to post examples of "lawyers often
threaten people in these group". Where did you go, you coward?
Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers? I
don't see them here.
MEB
> Bozo the clown full-quoted:
>
>> IF this querier is thinking about (...)
>
> Is there a reason you don't simply say - "If the OP is thinking about
> (...)" ?
>
> Do you have to use the word "querier" ?
>
> Do you always have to be so obtuse?
Do you have a clue what OP stands for? No you don't....
Any idea what query means???
>
>> using improperly obtained copies for ANY use, the party might want
>
> The party?
>
> Yea? Where's the party? I am so there. Party on!
>
>> to review the prosecutions of such organizations as the
>> Salvation Army...
>>
>> No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law...
>
> Don't you mean:
>
> "No links are posted even though I go out of my way to full-quote all my
> responses so that future usenet readers will be overloaded with my
> verbosity and poor usenet message composition style but not any real
> information or knowledge" ?
No. So they are sure to have YOUR completely idiotic responses
preserved INTACT. Do you understand how you are received world-wide???
We have dealt with your kind since the BBS days, you are nothing new,,,
>
> If Microsoft took the Salvation Army to court over software licenses,
> then prove it by posting a URL.
>
> You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in this
> newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against anyone for
> license violation.
You are such a limp brained individual, you have forgotten I HAVE
directed you with links to prior proceedings, this is, after all, the
fourth or fifth time you've done this very same spiel,, you're like a
broken record playing the same old tune over and over again; AND that
YOU were specifically apprised that Microsoft does NOT have to or need
to prosecute, the local, state and/or federal prosecutors do... or the
solicitors or what ever is applicable in whatever nation applicable...
software piracy is a *crime* dimwit, its not necessary for Microsoft to
start *civil* proceedings, the corp doesn't have to appear, doesn't need
to send lawyers or anything else, and more importantly may never appear
in the record or judgment, its listed as software piracy and prosecuted
as the CRIME it is against the INDIVIDUAL...
>
> Where is that other Bozo who claims that microsoft lawyers have posted
> here in the past?
>
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009, No Alternative wrote:
>
>> Nobody said anything about whether they can censor it, but their
>> lawyers often threaten people in these group,
>
> Where is your sorry ass? I asked you to post examples of "lawyers often
> threaten people in these group". Where did you go, you coward?
>
> Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers? I
> don't see them here.
They don't need to be... you make a fool out of yourself EVERY time
you post... do you think ANYONE with half a brain is impressed with
you??? Or cares about you???
We can't wait for the day when all this comes to rest in your own
lap,, believe me, we WILL laugh out loud.... heck, I am now....
98 Guy
> > Do you have to use the word "querier" ?
> > Do you always have to be so obtuse?
>
> Do you have a clue what OP stands for? No you don't....
And naturally you won't venture your own interpretation of OP for fear
of exposing yourself in some way, just as you expose very little real
information or knowledge in any of your posts.
OP can me "Original Post" or "Original Poster" depending on the context.
Now was that so hard to state?
What did you hope to gain by having me state it, instead of yourself?
>> IF this querier is thinking about (...)
You could have also said:
"IF gluino is thinking about (...)"
> Any idea what query means???
A query is a question. You were refering to the person asking the
question when you wrote:
>> IF this querier is thinking about (...)
Which means you had to convert it to the rarely-used (and
clumsy-sounding) noun form, for reasons known only to you, and for which
in your next reply you will not elaborate why.
> No. So they are sure to have YOUR completely idiotic responses
> preserved INTACT.
Why would anyone not be able to see my full and intact posts? My posts
are a part of this or any thread just as yours are. If someone can find
your posts, they will also find mine, hence there is no reason why you
need to full-quote my material (or anyone elses) in your reply.
You also have never acknowledged that when viewing old threads in google
groups, that google by default does not display quoted material because
they realize that people often (and lazily) do not edit their replies
and include vast amounts of quoted material for no purpose which makes
reading a thread a tedious task.
> Do you understand how you are received world-wide???
Tell me how, and include references in your answer. Otherwise you've
just asked a vacuous question.
> We have dealt with your kind since the BBS days,
> you are nothing new,,,
Who is we?
And what is my kind?
> > You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in
> > this newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against
> > anyone for license violation.
>
> You are such a limp brained individual, you have forgotten I
> HAVE directed you with links to prior proceedings,
I can't recall that you've ever posted a URL containing information on a
court case or law suit that actually pertained to a case that was
discussed here.
Again we see your standard response to a direct question, which is "I've
already posted it once before", which is naturally a diversion designed
to mask either your laziness or your inability to find a relavent URL.
> this is, after all, the fourth or fifth time you've done this
> very same spiel,, you're like a broken record playing the same
> old tune over and over again;
The same broken spiel is yours. You keep bringing up fictional legal
cases and I keep asking for URL's, and you obfuscate and divert.
> AND that YOU were specifically apprised that Microsoft does
> NOT have to or need to prosecute, the local, state and/or
> federal prosecutors do...
Why don't you give an example where a gov't agency or police dept. has
prosecuted someone for software copyright or license violation without
the copyright holder's involvement or initiation of the case?
The truth is that the copyright holder must be involved, and must have
practically initiated the court action (civil or criminal) because the
gov't has no case unless the copyright holder provides evidence of a
copyright or license violation. Only the copyright holder has that
evidence - not the state.
> software piracy is a *crime* dimwit, its not necessary for
> Microsoft to start *civil* proceedings,
What are you smoking?
If Microsoft wants remedy for civil dammages, then they must certainly
start a civil case.
The only time that gov't law enforcement will start a criminal case is
when they stumble upon a CD duplication operation or a large cache of
boxed disks.
Law enforcement does not seek out or monitor individuals (either on the
street, in their homes, or on the net) and intiate copyright violation
or software piracy proceedings against them.
> the corp doesn't have to appear, doesn't need to send lawyers
> or anything else,
A law enforcement agency will not intiate a case of software piracy
against an individual without the cooperation of the copyright holder,
and almost certainly without the initiation of the copyright holder.
A law enforcement agency will not, on it's own, possess the evidence
necessary to convict an individul of software piracy / copyright or
license violation. If the copyright holder does not come forward and
provide evidence of copyright violation, the case will be thrown out.
> and more importantly may never appear in the record or
> judgment, its listed as software piracy and prosecuted
> as the CRIME it is against the INDIVIDUAL...
Are you saying that their may never be a public record of a criminal
judgement against an individual?
So we now have secret courts?
> > Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers?
> > I don't see them here.
>
> They don't need to be...
I never said they "need to be". A statement was made by someone else
that they once *were* here. I asked for evidence of their posts,
nothing more. Why are you such a dolt?
> do you think ANYONE with half a brain is impressed with you???
> Or cares about you???
Your questions say a lot about you and your state of mind.
You are attempting to strike some sort of emotional nerve by asking
those questions.
Obviously, the need to impress or be cared for by others is very
important to you. You feel that you do impress others and that those
others care about you, and you want me to believe that for me it is the
opposite.
Once again, I suggest you seek out psychiatric care.
> We can't wait for the day when all this comes to rest in
> your own lap,,
And what, exactly, is "this" ?
> believe me, we WILL laugh out loud....
> heck, I am now....
I think there's medication that can help with that.
98 Guy
Meb full-quotes his responses because:
> So they are sure to have YOUR completely idiotic responses
> preserved INTACT.
I will say this regarding your habbit of full-quoting:
It serves to provide a copy of my material in readable form to those
fools who read these posts directly from the microsoft news server when
my original post has been censored (deleted) at the insistence of the
MVP psycophants who make it their purpose in life to be good little
drones to the Micro$haft borg-like collective hive mind.
If that was your motive all along (to counter the the active censorship
on the Micro$loth usenet server) then you should have stated that more
clearly.
MEB
That's habit not habbit, so if you're intending to prove something at
least be CLEAR in your points...
Now why don't you spend some time actually attempting to LEARN
something rather than mouthing what others have presented elsewhere, as
if this is your own....
Your the fool by the way... here you are posting nonsense as if it
will make any difference to anything or anyone.
You want to change something, then turn your self in for pirating
software and music to the local authorities and fight your case. Surely
with these wonderful arguments you seem to have you will win and change
the attitude of the world.... tsk tsk..
I have already explained I could give a rat's butt what USENET users
like you think..
98 Guy
> I have already explained I could give a rat's butt what USENET
> users like you think..
Go and check your posts on google groups.
Welcome to usenet MEB.
MEB
You still don't get it do you,,, USENET *MIRRORS* this forum...
Sunny
"MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u9a2jCfF...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> On 08/05/2009 09:13 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
>> MEB the reluctant usenet user wrote:
>>
>>> I have already explained I could give a rat's butt what USENET
>>> users like you think..
>>
>> Go and check your posts on google groups.
>>
>> Welcome to usenet MEB.
>
> You still don't get it do you,,, USENET *MIRRORS* this forum...
So? doesn't matter how it gets there, it's still Usenet.
MEB
SO??!!! I don't care how it gets there either.. and duh yeah THAT'S
USENET,,, this isn't...
TRY to remember this forum is actually associated with an OS AND a
commercial entity... I know its difficult, but try...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
> That's habit not habbit, so if you're intending to prove something at
>least be CLEAR in your points...
> Your the fool by the way... here you are posting nonsense as if it
My the fool? Sorry, couldn't resist ... (-:
--
[]
"You know, I'm beginning to think that the Right To Life movement in this
country believes that life officially begins when you agree with *them*."
- Dennis Miller
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>On 08/05/2009 07:15 PM, Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:u9a2jCfF...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> On 08/05/2009 09:13 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
>>>> MEB the reluctant usenet user wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have already explained I could give a rat's butt what USENET
>>>>> users like you think..
>>>> Go and check your posts on google groups.
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to usenet MEB.
>>> You still don't get it do you,,, USENET *MIRRORS* this forum...
>>
>> So? doesn't matter how it gets there, it's still Usenet.
>>
when copied into the MS server, so therefore there are more posts in
usenet than inside the MS server; I wouldn't say that's what most people
mean by "mirror".
>>
>
> SO??!!! I don't care how it gets there either.. and duh yeah THAT'S
>USENET,,, this isn't...
It is where I'm reading it ...
> TRY to remember this forum is actually associated with an OS AND a
>commercial entity... I know its difficult, but try...
>
... and (again, where I'm reading it; YMMV) it isn't a forum, either,
but a newsgroup.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
MEB
> In message <eY#FagiFK...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On 08/05/2009 07:15 PM, Sunny wrote:
>>> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:u9a2jCfF...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> On 08/05/2009 09:13 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
>>>>> MEB the reluctant usenet user wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have already explained I could give a rat's butt what USENET
>>>>>> users like you think..
>>>>> Go and check your posts on google groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome to usenet MEB.
>>>> You still don't get it do you,,, USENET *MIRRORS* this forum...
>>>
>>> So? doesn't matter how it gets there, it's still Usenet.
>>>
> Some here have suggested that some posts on Usenet get actively removed
> when copied into the MS server, so therefore there are more posts in
> usenet than inside the MS server; I wouldn't say that's what most people
> mean by "mirror".
>>>
>>
>> SO??!!! I don't care how it gets there either.. and duh yeah THAT'S
>> USENET,,, this isn't...
>
> It is where I'm reading it ...
>
>> TRY to remember this forum is actually associated with an OS AND a
>> commercial entity... I know its difficult, but try...
>>
> but a newsgroup.
The point of your post was .....????
MEB
> In message <#bx0NDTF...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
> []
>> That's habit not habbit, so if you're intending to prove something at
>> least be CLEAR in your points...
> []
>> Your the fool by the way... here you are posting nonsense as if it
> []
> My the fool? Sorry, couldn't resist ... (-:
Oh so you're claiming the "98 Guy" moniker; we, and in particular I,
will all remember that from now on!
He [or you since you are now claiming so] OWNS the fool class here, or
is it you've missed all the fun... best catch up, or just read the same
from last year or the year before or the year before or... all the same
tripe and garbage, once more through the wash... .. and I couldn't
resist either...
Sunny
"MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eY%23FagiF...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> On 08/05/2009 07:15 PM, Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:u9a2jCfF...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> On 08/05/2009 09:13 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
>>>> MEB the reluctant usenet user wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have already explained I could give a rat's butt what USENET
>>>>> users like you think..
>>>> Go and check your posts on google groups.
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to usenet MEB.
>>> You still don't get it do you,,, USENET *MIRRORS* this forum...
>>
>> So? doesn't matter how it gets there, it's still Usenet.
>>
>>
>
> SO??!!! I don't care how it gets there either.. and duh yeah THAT'S
> USENET,,, this isn't...
> TRY to remember this forum is actually associated with an OS AND a
> commercial entity... I know its difficult, but try...
Does being a smart arse come naturally, or do you have to work at it ?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
thread. The person I was following-up appeared to be claiming some sort
of "ownership" (not by himself) of the 'group by his "mirroring"
statement - I was just saying that on usenet at least, nobody "owns" a
group which various newsservers carry; and that he referred to it as a
forum.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>On 08/05/2009 09:32 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <#bx0NDTF...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
>> <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> []
>>> That's habit not habbit, so if you're intending to prove something at
>>> least be CLEAR in your points...
>> []
>>> Your the fool by the way... here you are posting nonsense as if it
>> []
>> My the fool? Sorry, couldn't resist ... (-:
>
>Oh so you're claiming the "98 Guy" moniker; we, and in particular I,
>will all remember that from now on!
Oh dear. No, I wasn't claiming anything: I was just pointing out that
someone who corrected someone else's spelling, in what he said was an
attempt at clarity, then went on, in the same post, to use "your" where
he should have used "you're"; a case of being hoised by one's own
petard.
(In the nature of things, _I_ have probably made some silly error in
this post - though "hoised" isn't it, that was the original spelling.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"You know, I'm beginning to think that the Right To Life movement in this
MEB
Then peruse through this group for prior posts regarding this same
style and type of this segment of this ludicrous ramble, and you will
find the links to the EXACT articles in which Microsoft CREATES,
AUTHORIZES, and otherwise provides the METHOD for USENET to MIRROR this
FORUM.
And yes, this also is a *yearly* DAed purported discussion, which was
also previously defined to finality. So, If you purport to be
interested, then do the research necessary [and you need go no further
than through this group, though if you intend to FRESHEN the idea at
least bring NEW information] to support YOUR claims rather than spouting
mindless OPINION which is unsupported by factual reality.
MEB
> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eY%23FagiF...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> On 08/05/2009 07:15 PM, Sunny wrote:
>>> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:u9a2jCfF...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> On 08/05/2009 09:13 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
>>>>> MEB the reluctant usenet user wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have already explained I could give a rat's butt what USENET
>>>>>> users like you think..
>>>>> Go and check your posts on google groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome to usenet MEB.
>>>> You still don't get it do you,,, USENET *MIRRORS* this forum...
>>> So? doesn't matter how it gets there, it's still Usenet.
>>>
>>>
>> SO??!!! I don't care how it gets there either.. and duh yeah THAT'S
>> USENET,,, this isn't...
>> TRY to remember this forum is actually associated with an OS AND a
>> commercial entity... I know its difficult, but try...
>
> Does being a smart arse come naturally, or do you have to work at it ?
>
>
Comes naturally when dealing with parties whom haven't a clue about
what they opine about even AFTER being directed to the physical
materials available.
MEB
> In message <uoSFqMlF...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On 08/05/2009 09:32 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <#bx0NDTF...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
>>> <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> []
>>>> That's habit not habbit, so if you're intending to prove something at
>>>> least be CLEAR in your points...
>>> []
>>>> Your the fool by the way... here you are posting nonsense as if it
>>> []
>>> My the fool? Sorry, couldn't resist ... (-:
>>
>> Oh so you're claiming the "98 Guy" moniker; we, and in particular I,
>> will all remember that from now on!
> []
> Oh dear. No, I wasn't claiming anything: I was just pointing out that
> someone who corrected someone else's spelling, in what he said was an
> attempt at clarity, then went on, in the same post, to use "your" where
> he should have used "you're"; a case of being hoised by one's own petard.
>
> (In the nature of things, _I_ have probably made some silly error in
> this post - though "hoised" isn't it, that was the original spelling.)
And that of course *IS* what occurs, so you can now explain WHY
parties such as yourself and 98 Guy [among numerous other USENETTERS]
seem to believe that you need point out these issues, rather than
posting materials relevant to the actual discussion, and attach these
ridiculous and un-necessary comments into discussions which DO provide
beneficial materials.
Sunny
"MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uXIBwOqF...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> On 08/06/2009 02:46 AM, Sunny wrote:
<snip>
>> Does being a smart arse come naturally, or do you have to work at it ?
>>
>
> Comes naturally when dealing with parties whom haven't a clue about
> what they opine about even AFTER being directed to the physical
> materials available.
Must be difficult for you to learn things in the real World then.
MEB
Perhaps, but obviously less so than you...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
>>> The point of your post was .....????
>>>
>> No more no less "point" than any of the other preceding few posts in the
>> thread. The person I was following-up appeared to be claiming some sort
>> of "ownership" (not by himself) of the 'group by his "mirroring"
>> statement - I was just saying that on usenet at least, nobody "owns" a
>> group which various newsservers carry; and that he referred to it as a
>> forum.
>
> Then peruse through this group for prior posts regarding this same
>style and type of this segment of this ludicrous ramble, and you will
>find the links to the EXACT articles in which Microsoft CREATES,
>AUTHORIZES, and otherwise provides the METHOD for USENET to MIRROR this
>FORUM.
Why ARE you putting odd words IN capitals?
Your use of "AUTHORISES" makes clear the different views you and the
other person have. Any post in the newsgroup, created within usenet,
will proceed on its merry way through usenet, regardless of what
Microsoft may do within its own server. It is only the ones originated
within (i. e. created by users of) the MS news server that MS need to
authorise usenet to copy, and I don't doubt that they do, since we see
them.
>
> And yes, this also is a *yearly* DAed purported discussion, which was
(DAed?)
>also previously defined to finality. So, If you purport to be
>interested, then do the research necessary [and you need go no further
>than through this group, though if you intend to FRESHEN the idea at
>least bring NEW information] to support YOUR claims rather than
>spouting mindless OPINION which is unsupported by factual reality.
>
I'm not making any claims. I'm pretty sure MS did originally instigate
this newsgroup - possibly in the form of a forum - within their own
system; the fact that it starts with "microsoft.public." makes that
fairly likely! However, it has a life outside the Microsoft servers now.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"What did I do to deserve this?" "How long a list would you like?"- Vila & Avon
MEB
> In message <eWV86NqF...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
> []
>>>> The point of your post was .....????
>>>>
>>> No more no less "point" than any of the other preceding few posts in the
>>> thread. The person I was following-up appeared to be claiming some sort
>>> of "ownership" (not by himself) of the 'group by his "mirroring"
>>> statement - I was just saying that on usenet at least, nobody "owns" a
>>> group which various newsservers carry; and that he referred to it as a
>>> forum.
>>
>> Then peruse through this group for prior posts regarding this same
>> style and type of this segment of this ludicrous ramble, and you will
>> find the links to the EXACT articles in which Microsoft CREATES,
>> AUTHORIZES, and otherwise provides the METHOD for USENET to MIRROR
>> this FORUM.
>
> Why ARE you putting odd words IN capitals?
What is it YOU would prefer, quotation marks??? underlines? asterisks?
Is serves to denote a place where attention should be drawn... to
place EMPHASIS...
>
> Your use of "AUTHORISES" makes clear the different views you and the
> other person have. Any post in the newsgroup, created within usenet,
> will proceed on its merry way through usenet, regardless of what
> Microsoft may do within its own server. It is only the ones originated
> within (i. e. created by users of) the MS news server that MS need to
> authorise usenet to copy, and I don't doubt that they do, since we see
> them.
Authorizes. What other person?
And what relevance does what goes on OUTSIDE of this forum have to do
with anything UNLESS it makes it to the master distribution? Anything
NOT making to the master distibution is merely prattle among USENETTERS
[or has been filtered out by Microsoft, or another secondary server
prior to being sent to Microsoft for MASTER DISTRIBUTION, as is defined
in the original Microsoft articles and agreements pursuant the mirroring
of this forum].
>>
>> And yes, this also is a *yearly* DAed purported discussion, which was
>
> (DAed?)
expletive
>
>> also previously defined to finality. So, If you purport to be
>> interested, then do the research necessary [and you need go no further
>> than through this group, though if you intend to FRESHEN the idea at
>> least bring NEW information] to support YOUR claims rather than
>> spouting mindless OPINION which is unsupported by factual reality.
>>
> I'm not making any claims. I'm pretty sure MS did originally instigate
> this newsgroup - possibly in the form of a forum - within their own
> system; the fact that it starts with "microsoft.public." makes that
> fairly likely!
Not likely but definitely, and not a "news group" but a forum, need I
remind you that you must first subscribe to the Microsoft server if you
intend to participate DIRECTLY. Had you bothered to research as
suggested, you would find those specifics [and others] included in the
articles produced BY Microsoft.
Example: Why don't YOU create a new forum on microsoft.public for
master distribution.
Were it USENET you could [or rather supposedly, since you CLAIM there
is no authority or ownership associated with news groups]... since it
isn't, though you might create a group somewhere out in the USENET
arena, it will only make the master distribution [as in being offered
worldwide to EVERYONE] if Microsoft [or authorized agent] makes it so.
Could it be you have never had control of a bulletin board or public
[or private] posting forum, is that why the explanations and concepts
escape you?
Is it that you have never had to contact numerous services attempting
to get [as in promote] your Group or Forum placed on/in general USENET?
Is it that you have no blog or personal site which might give you an
idea of how this all works out here?
> However, it has a life outside the Microsoft servers now.
Which means nothing other than providing materials for USENET servers
and other sites [and promotion of Microsoft products of course, errr,
supplying support and information across a broader spectrum ;)]... the
primary function of this forum has been and remains as a general help
and discussion forum for the 9X [since the 95 groups have all but
disappeared or been removed] *Microsoft commercial products*, PROVIDED
by Microsoft. The master distibution is still held by and performed by
Microsoft [or rather its direct associates now charged with that
responsibility].
So once again, unless you come up with some additional articles to
support YOUR claims [such as Microsoft disclaiming its forums and groups
and with LINKED articles describing that in detail], my participation in
this unsupported nonsense is ended.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
> And what relevance does what goes on OUTSIDE of this forum have to do
>with anything UNLESS it makes it to the master distribution? Anything
The "master distribution" is no longer as important as it once was.
>NOT making to the master distibution is merely prattle among USENETTERS
Supremely ARROGANT (see, I can use capitals too) to consider usenetter's
contributions to be prattle, whereas contributions from users of the
Microsoft servers are what - the word of God?
>[or has been filtered out by Microsoft, or another secondary server
>prior to being sent to Microsoft for MASTER DISTRIBUTION, as is defined
>in the original Microsoft articles and agreements pursuant the
>mirroring of this forum].
>
Assuming such agreements are still in force.
>>>
>>> And yes, this also is a *yearly* DAed purported discussion, which was
>>
>> (DAed?)
>
> expletive
>
(Ah, I see - DA'ED then.)
>>
>>> also previously defined to finality. So, If you purport to be
(I do understand what you mean, but "defined to finality" is rather
unusual English!)
[]
>> I'm not making any claims. I'm pretty sure MS did originally instigate
>> this newsgroup - possibly in the form of a forum - within their own
>> system; the fact that it starts with "microsoft.public." makes that
>> fairly likely!
>
> Not likely but definitely, and not a "news group" but a forum, need I
You didn't recognise sarcasm ... (-:
>remind you that you must first subscribe to the Microsoft server if you
>intend to participate DIRECTLY. Had you bothered to research as
I prefer to participate via usenet. From what I've heard, those who
participate via the Microsoft servers - "DIRECTLY" as you put it - are
"protected" from some posts. (In fact, assuming those allegations have
any truth in them, I'm surprised that you are still seeing my posts in
order to respond to them.)
>suggested, you would find those specifics [and others] included in the
>articles produced BY Microsoft.
>
> Example: Why don't YOU create a new forum on microsoft.public for
>master distribution.
I don't doubt that I'd have no chance; however, if I were to want to
start a new newsgroup (not forum), on a computing subject, I'd probably
try to get it placed in the comp.* hierarchy.
> Were it USENET you could [or rather supposedly, since you CLAIM there
>is no authority or ownership associated with news groups]... since it
>isn't, though you might create a group somewhere out in the USENET
>arena, it will only make the master distribution [as in being offered
>worldwide to EVERYONE] if Microsoft [or authorized agent] makes it so.
Three things there.
Firstly, there is a difference between the creation and propagation of
newsgroups and the creation and propagation of postings within
newsgroups; there is indeed a certain amount of control over the
creation of newsgroups: it varies among the hierarchies - for example,
the uk.* one is so formal you'd never believe it, the alt.* one is
pretty free, and the others are somewhere in between. (FWIW, I did
indeed manage to get a couple of newsgroups raised in the uk.* hierarchy
[despite its procedures], which survived for some time; they were
withdrawn when there was no further need for them.)
Secondly, you are on about "master" again. What proportion of usenet -
either by number of posts or number of newsgroups - over which Microsoft
has any control, is perhaps not as high as you think.
Thirdly, when you say I claimed "there is no authority or ownership
associated with news groups", it is the posts within the 'groups which I
was talking about.
>
> Could it be you have never had control of a bulletin board or public
>[or private] posting forum, is that why the explanations and concepts
>escape you?
I have never run a bulletin board. As for "control of a ... posting
forum": any such forum that _can_ be controlled is not dissimilar to a
bulletin board anyway; a public usenet 'group is not under the control
of anyone. (Operators of servers which _carry_ it may choose to delete
posts and so on; users will usually leave such a server.) There are
"moderated" 'groups, which are a sort of in-between case.
(But just because I've never run a BBS etc., doesn't mean I don't
understand the concepts.)
>
> Is it that you have never had to contact numerous services attempting
>to get [as in promote] your Group or Forum placed on/in general USENET?
The two uk.* 'groups I was responsible for the creation of were carried
by most servers which carried the uk.* hierarchy; I didn't have to
contact anyone to ensure this - once I'd got the 'group creation through
the somewhat tedious process of creating them, they were propagated
automatically.
>
> Is it that you have no blog or personal site which might give you an
>idea of how this all works out here?
I fail to see how a blog or personal site relates to newsgroups. (I have
a personal site, if by that you mean a website; it's years out of date.)
>
>> However, it has a life outside the Microsoft servers now.
>
> Which means nothing other than providing materials for USENET servers
That, as far as I'm concerned, is now its primary purpose!
>and other sites [and promotion of Microsoft products of course, errr,
>supplying support and information across a broader spectrum ;)]... the
>primary function of this forum has been and remains as a general help
>and discussion forum for the 9X [since the 95 groups have all but
That's more or less the main function of this NEWSGROUP, too.
>disappeared or been removed] *Microsoft commercial products*, PROVIDED
>by Microsoft. The master distibution is still held by and performed by
>Microsoft [or rather its direct associates now charged with that
>responsibility].
There is a world outside however ...
>
> So once again, unless you come up with some additional articles to
>support YOUR claims [such as Microsoft disclaiming its forums and
I never said Microsoft disclaimed "its" forums WITHIN ITS OWN SERVERS. I
would imagine it also could - I don't know if it does - control how
non-microsoft forums propagate WITHIN THOSE SERVERS.
>groups and with LINKED articles describing that in detail], my
>participation in this unsupported nonsense is ended.
>
Aw shucks, so you're going to ignore this post then ... (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
I didn't get the documentation for the manuals.
Sunny
<snip>
> Not likely but definitely, and not a "news group" but a forum, need I
> remind you that you must first subscribe to the Microsoft server if you
> intend to participate DIRECTLY. Had you bothered to research as
> suggested, you would find those specifics [and others] included in the
> articles produced BY Microsoft.
Bullshit, lots of people are posting here through their ISP News Servers,
it may surprise you that many people are not aware that Microsoft even
have News Servers.
BTW, it might be a good idea, in your diminishing thirst for knowledge to
see what Microsoft has to say about "Forum" v "Usenet News Groups" e.g.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/150057
"Microsoft has expanded its online services to a non-proprietary platform
with the addition of no-charge Microsoft-sponsored NNTP newsgroups on the
Internet. Previously, Microsoft-sponsored electronic service forums were
limited to users of CompuServe and MSN. With the creation of these
newsgroups, users of Microsoft Access can obtain electronic service
support on the Microsoft Support Web site at
http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/FlyoutOverview.mspx
(http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/FlyoutOverview.mspx) by
using any Internet provider."
<snip rest>
MEB
Well good, finally a USENETTER got off their funk and actually did
some research. Now how about a REAL discussion heading in which you
place the new materials, with a summary of this prior activity.
And no, it doesn't surprise me... why do you think I COMPELLED you [or
others] to look... for once, rather than spouting the same drivel you
have placed here for several years... hint: its a discussion forum.
MEB
On 08/07/2009 07:10 PM, Sunny wrote:
> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O4%23c5t0F...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> <snip>
>> Not likely but definitely, and not a "news group" but a forum, need I
>> remind you that you must first subscribe to the Microsoft server if you
>> intend to participate DIRECTLY. Had you bothered to research as
>> suggested, you would find those specifics [and others] included in the
>> articles produced BY Microsoft.
>
> *expletive deleted*, lots of people are posting here through their ISP News Servers,
> it may surprise you that many people are not aware that Microsoft even
> have News Servers.
>
> BTW, it might be a good idea, in your diminishing thirst for knowledge to
> see what Microsoft has to say about "Forum" v "Usenet News Groups" e.g.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/150057
>
> "Microsoft has expanded its online services to a non-proprietary platform
> with the addition of no-charge Microsoft-sponsored NNTP newsgroups on the
> Internet. Previously, Microsoft-sponsored electronic service forums were
> limited to users of CompuServe and MSN. With the creation of these
> newsgroups, users of Microsoft Access can obtain electronic service
> support on the Microsoft Support Web site at
> http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/FlyoutOverview.mspx
> (http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/FlyoutOverview.mspx) by
> using any Internet provider."
>
> <snip rest>
>
>
Well good, finally a USENETTER got off their funk and actually did
some research. Now how about a REAL discussion heading in which you
place the new materials, with a summary of this prior activity.
And no, it doesn't surprise me... why do you think I COMPELLED you [or
others] to look... for once, rather than spouting the same drivel you
have placed here for several years... hint: its a discussion forum.
Sunny
> Let's try this again for the Microsoft servers, without the expletive
>
> On 08/07/2009 07:10 PM, Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:O4%23c5t0F...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> <snip>
>>> Not likely but definitely, and not a "news group" but a forum, need
>>> I
>>> remind you that you must first subscribe to the Microsoft server if
>>> you
>>> intend to participate DIRECTLY. Had you bothered to research as
>>> suggested, you would find those specifics [and others] included in the
>>> articles produced BY Microsoft.
>>
Your arrogant attitude, is just another indication of your diminishing
quest for knowledge.
Does knowing everything give you a warm fuzzy feeling?
Has it crossed your "mind" that the vast majority of participants in this,
and other Microsoft "News Groups",
are from Usenet?
Dream on in your little fantasy World, if you think that you "compelled"
anybody to do anything.
As for spouting "drivel" a perusal of your posts, and web site, indicates
that you are well versed in that "art".
BTW "Bullshit" is a good Aussie word that describes your attitude well.
MEB
> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OZbuVe8F...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Let's try this again for the Microsoft servers, without the expletive
>>
>> On 08/07/2009 07:10 PM, Sunny wrote:
>>> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:O4%23c5t0F...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> <snip>
>>>> Not likely but definitely, and not a "news group" but a forum, need
>>>> I
>>>> remind you that you must first subscribe to the Microsoft server if
>>>> you
>>>> intend to participate DIRECTLY. Had you bothered to research as
>>>> suggested, you would find those specifics [and others] included in the
>>>> articles produced BY Microsoft.
>
>
Wow, too bad you missed that your post had to MODIFIED to appear in
this master forum, AND you missed the entire reason for these
inappropriate sub postings... thought you might.
But while you're here:
Say, how is it *down under* since you're apparently trying to mimic
the UK and US... how's your economy doing... were you FORCED to put
large sums of money into your purported economy,, I mean you realize of
course if you did, that any purported money you now make, transfer,
save, receive for payment in your work, receive for interest or
dividend, and otherwise invest in your economy is actually your own
money or more accurately your debt you can't pay,, don't you???
How much longer do you think China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the
other nations of actual worth will continue to support this debt and
your nation??
Are you prepared to kill more people or use military force to steal
their resources or force acceptance of your dominance?
Oh, and have you ever satisfied your debt to the Aboriginals?
As always, nice to see you're back in the group...
Sunny
<snip>
> Wow, too bad you missed that your post had to MODIFIED to appear in
> this master forum, AND you missed the entire reason for these
> inappropriate sub postings... thought you might.
Your "modification" of my post, and claiming some mystical "master forum"
is just another example of your arrogance.
> But while you're here:
> Say, how is it *down under* since you're apparently trying to mimic the
> UK and US... how's your economy doing... were you FORCED to put large
> sums of money into your purported economy,, I mean you realize of course
> if you did, that any purported money you now make, transfer, save,
> receive for payment in your work, receive for interest or dividend, and
> otherwise invest in your economy is actually your own money or more
> accurately your debt you can't pay,, don't you???
> How much longer do you think China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the
> other nations of actual worth will continue to support this debt and
> your nation??
>
> Are you prepared to kill more people or use military force to steal
> their resources or force acceptance of your dominance?
>
> Oh, and have you ever satisfied your debt to the Aboriginals?
Rich coming from a citizen of the United States of America,
(But from you it's to be expected)
MEB
> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ut1vmM$FKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> <snip>
>> Wow, too bad you missed that your post had to MODIFIED to appear in
>> this master forum, AND you missed the entire reason for these
>> inappropriate sub postings... thought you might.
>
> Your "modification" of my post, and claiming some mystical "master forum"
> is just another example of your arrogance.
Really.. then care to explain why you received TWO postings in USENET,
one with and one without...
>
>> But while you're here:
>> Say, how is it *down under* since you're apparently trying to mimic the
>> UK and US... how's your economy doing... were you FORCED to put large
>> sums of money into your purported economy,, I mean you realize of course
>> if you did, that any purported money you now make, transfer, save,
>> receive for payment in your work, receive for interest or dividend, and
>> otherwise invest in your economy is actually your own money or more
>> accurately your debt you can't pay,, don't you???
>> How much longer do you think China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the
>> other nations of actual worth will continue to support this debt and
>> your nation??
>>
>> Are you prepared to kill more people or use military force to steal
>> their resources or force acceptance of your dominance?
>>
>> Oh, and have you ever satisfied your debt to the Aboriginals?
>
> Rich coming from a citizen of the United States of America,
> (But from you it's to be expected)
>
>
Gees, I thought per your post you had actually looked at the site,
obviously you didn't.
Oh gosh, I should be honest, I didn't really presume you had, that
would require you to READ and comprehend what you had read.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
had to duplicate his post without an expletive because he thought it
wouldn't propagate on the MS servers!)
In message <OZbuVe8F...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, MEB
<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Let's try this again for the Microsoft servers, without the expletive
>
>On 08/07/2009 07:10 PM, Sunny wrote:
[]
>> *expletive deleted*, lots of people are posting here through their
>>ISP News Servers,
>> it may surprise you that many people are not aware that Microsoft even
>> have News Servers.
Well said that man!
>>
>> BTW, it might be a good idea, in your diminishing thirst for knowledge to
>> see what Microsoft has to say about "Forum" v "Usenet News Groups" e.g.
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/150057
>>
>> "Microsoft has expanded its online services to a non-proprietary platform
>> with the addition of no-charge Microsoft-sponsored NNTP newsgroups on the
The article was last reviewed 2007-1-19 and bears warnings that it won't
be updated, so take my comments on it with that in mind.
"Microsoft-sponsored" suggests something with which some of us I think
do not agree, or at least do not agree is still the case.
>> Internet. Previously, Microsoft-sponsored electronic service forums were
>> limited to users of CompuServe and MSN. With the creation of these
>> newsgroups, users of Microsoft Access can obtain electronic service
>> support on the Microsoft Support Web site at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/FlyoutOverview.mspx
>> (http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/FlyoutOverview.mspx) by
>> using any Internet provider."
Though useful information (presumably for Access users), that hasn't got
a lot to do with usenet.
>>
>> <snip rest>
>>
Which listed a lot of "microsoft.public.access.xxx" newsgroups; although
far from unique in this respect (i. e. there are other newsgroups with
the same fault), it does show a certain unfamiliarity with how newsgroup
names are supposed to work, to wit each dot in the name denotes a
subdivision of the hierarchy. What they probably meant was
microsoft.public-access.xxx ... (or of course just microsoft.public.xxx,
as in the case of the one we're posting in).
>>
>
>
> Well good, finally a USENETTER got off their funk and actually did
>some research. Now how about a REAL discussion heading in which you
>place the new materials, with a summary of this prior activity.
>
> And no, it doesn't surprise me... why do you think I COMPELLED you [or
>others] to look... for once, rather than spouting the same drivel you
>have placed here for several years... hint: its a discussion forum.
>
>
As Sunny replied, you didn't compel him to do anything (with or without
capital letters). And hint: it's not a "forum" from where we're
standing, it's a newsgroup.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
I didn't get the documentation for the manuals.
MEB
Why did you, in one paragraph, note that it pertains solely to
*Access*, and in the next miss the reason for *Microsoft* making the
specific *.access.* forums; and thereafter opening the once proprietary
[as in only for registered Office/Access users] forum; and in whole
failing to appreciate *MICROSOFT* created/instituted the forums in the
first place?
Moreover, that *NO WHERE* does Microsoft indicate that anyone other
the Microsoft retains control of its forums or its public offerings.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well good, finally a USENETTER got off their funk and actually did
>> some research. Now how about a REAL discussion heading in which you
>> place the new materials, with a summary of this prior activity.
>>
>> And no, it doesn't surprise me... why do you think I COMPELLED you [or
>> others] to look... for once, rather than spouting the same drivel you
>> have placed here for several years... hint: its a discussion forum.
>>
>>
> As Sunny replied, you didn't compel him to do anything (with or without
> capital letters). And hint: it's not a "forum" from where we're
> standing, it's a newsgroup.
What does compel mean .....
Do you actually think Sunny had reviewed that article anytime PRIOR to
this rambling "chat" in which the standard "tack opinions onto previous
informational materials" so prevalent in chat groups and specifically
USENET, continues?
I give credit, at least, that you have actually defined "from where
we're standing" as an identifier. At least you MAY understand there are
differences in the methods used for access and in service with a little
more prodding.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
> Why did you, in one paragraph, note that it pertains solely to
>*Access*, and in the next miss the reason for *Microsoft* making the
There was a mention of two WEBSITES that seemed to be to do with Access.
>specific *.access.* forums; and thereafter opening the once proprietary
Well, having "public.access" in the newsgroup(s) name(s) is rather
unfortunate. (They could have left out the "public".)
>[as in only for registered Office/Access users] forum; and in whole
>failing to appreciate *MICROSOFT* created/instituted the forums in the
>first place?
I don't really mind WHO created/instituted them originally - any more
than Microsoft, I would guess, mind that it was me that
created/instituted the two 'groups (now defunct) which I did.
> Moreover, that *NO WHERE* does Microsoft indicate that anyone other
>the Microsoft retains control of its forums or its public offerings.
>
If by forums, you mean these newsgroups as they exist within Microsoft
servers, then I'm sure Microsoft retain control of them; for that
matter, they will have control over all newsgroups, not just the
microsoft ones, within their server. Outside that area, it is a
different story.
[]
>> As Sunny replied, you didn't compel him to do anything (with or without
>> capital letters). And hint: it's not a "forum" from where we're
>> standing, it's a newsgroup.
>
> What does compel mean .....
>
> Do you actually think Sunny had reviewed that article anytime PRIOR to
>this rambling "chat" in which the standard "tack opinions onto previous
>informational materials" so prevalent in chat groups and specifically
>USENET, continues?
>
> I give credit, at least, that you have actually defined "from where
>we're standing" as an identifier. At least you MAY understand there are
>differences in the methods used for access and in service with a little
>more prodding.
>
Well, we're reading this NEWSGROUP in public usenet. If you're reading
it from within a controlled environment, that had some advantages
(you'll be protected from seeing some posts, allegedly) and some
disadvantages (you won't see some posts, allegedly) for you. I think, of
the two, I prefer to be where I am, but I am not going to try to
"compel" you to come outside.
MEB
On 08/08/2009 05:28 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <ulYoMWEG...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
> []
>> Why did you, in one paragraph, note that it pertains solely to
>> *Access*, and in the next miss the reason for *Microsoft* making the
>
> There was a mention of two WEBSITES that seemed to be to do with Access.
>
>> specific *.access.* forums; and thereafter opening the once proprietary
>
> Well, having "public.access" in the newsgroup(s) name(s) is rather
> unfortunate. (They could have left out the "public".)
Its Microsoft's format used throughout its public access services
which IS and DOES signify Microsoft [or rather for these specific public
offerings]. Take the time to actually look at Microsoft's *.public.*
offerings [specific] and other *public* [as in general usage] offerings.
There is, of course, still the private parts of Microsoft's domain.
>
>> [as in only for registered Office/Access users] forum; and in whole
>> failing to appreciate *MICROSOFT* created/instituted the forums in the
>> first place?
>
> I don't really mind WHO created/instituted them originally - any more
> than Microsoft, I would guess, mind that it was me that
> created/instituted the two 'groups (now defunct) which I did.
Microsoft still controls ALL of its public offerings, and still DOES
care. They [the public offerings] contain its trademarked name and come
under its authorization clauses. You *could* make an effort to review
services [and sites for that matter] that have been forced to
discontinue publication, though that would spoil your ability to voice
your present opinions.
You mention, again, your *groups* you created, yet you DID state they
were basically just transferred to *local* systems or with a limited
*mirroring*, e.g., NOT part of the *master* UK distribution. How can you
fail to recognize significance of that limitation?
>
>> Moreover, that *NO WHERE* does Microsoft indicate that anyone other
>> the Microsoft retains control of its forums or its public offerings.
>>
> If by forums, you mean these newsgroups as they exist within Microsoft
> servers, then I'm sure Microsoft retain control of them; for that
> matter, they will have control over all newsgroups, not just the
> microsoft ones, within their server. Outside that area, it is a
> different story.
> []
Newsgroups as YOU *receive* them...
Since you brought it up, please point out the newsgroups and other NOT
controlled by Microsoft offered on Microsoft's servers [or its
authorized associates].
Moreover, also point out WHERE Microsoft has authorized ANY misuse or
otherwise of its trademarks, commercial name, and/or other under its
control ANYWHERE in USENET [or elsewhere for that matter].
>>> As Sunny replied, you didn't compel him to do anything (with or without
>>> capital letters). And hint: it's not a "forum" from where we're
>>> standing, it's a newsgroup.
>>
>> What does compel mean .....
>>
>> Do you actually think Sunny had reviewed that article anytime PRIOR to
>> this rambling "chat" in which the standard "tack opinions onto
>> previous informational materials" so prevalent in chat groups and
>> specifically USENET, continues?
>>
>> I give credit, at least, that you have actually defined "from where
>> we're standing" as an identifier. At least you MAY understand there
>> are differences in the methods used for access and in service with a
>> little more prodding.
>>
> Well, we're reading this NEWSGROUP in public usenet. If you're reading
> it from within a controlled environment, that had some advantages
> (you'll be protected from seeing some posts, allegedly) and some
> disadvantages (you won't see some posts, allegedly) for you. I think, of
> the two, I prefer to be where I am, but I am not going to try to
> "compel" you to come outside.
So you obviously concede the *compelled* aspect... a small bit of
headway...
Controlled environment? Hmm, but am I???
Seems I could reply to postings NOT offered via the *master* worldwide
service because they failed Microsoft's requirements, yet apparently can
post in a more direct fashion [as long as I stay within the boundaries
imposed]... so which would be better - in your opinion, since you
persist in this tag-along series of opinions commonly referred to as
*chat*....
Seems you haven't thought about these factors carefully enough yet...
Sunny
What are you on about?
The simple explanation is that Microsoft has made their "public" News
Groups available for any ISP to include on their News Servers.
Any ISP will include a Microsoft News Group that their customers request.
Your references to "Master" Worlwide service is rubbish
Postings in the tens of thousands of groups can be read
with reader software such as Microsoft's Outlook Express.
(or any other)
Microsofts explanation
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/default.mspx
Microsoft has created the Microsoft.public newsgroup hierarchy
and made it available to anyone on the Usenet.
Newsgroups are online threaded discussion groups in which people
converse asynchronously to exchange ideas and information.
Technical Chats
Microsoft provides a forum to engage in discussions about
Microsoft products or technologies in many languages.
User Groups:
User groups are typically independently run, volunteer groups
that meet on a regular basis to discuss and share information
on a variety of technical topics.
Forums :
A Forum is a site on the Internet where people interact by posting
and reading messages about topics that are of interest to them
The Web-based Newsreader (Clunky and difficult to navigate)
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/
If you are so uncomfortable. mixing posts with common "Usenetters" I
suggest you stick to your warm and fuzzy "Forums" (or a "Chat")
BTW Usenet News Groups are not "tag along chats", seems you haven't
thought about it carefully enough yet...
MEB
Right,,, MICROSOFT, just as each forum or discussion carried ANYWHERE
has its own MASTER server.... in this case that would be Microsoft.
So what's your point in posting about newsreaders when you purport to
be posting about USENET?
And just where is it that you think those ISPs would get the Microsoft
public forums?
>
> Microsofts explanation
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/default.mspx
>
> Microsoft has created the Microsoft.public newsgroup hierarchy
> and made it available to anyone on the Usenet.
> Newsgroups are online threaded discussion groups in which people
> converse asynchronously to exchange ideas and information.
> Technical Chats
> Microsoft provides a forum to engage in discussions about
> Microsoft products or technologies in many languages.
> User Groups:
> User groups are typically independently run, volunteer groups
> that meet on a regular basis to discuss and share information
> on a variety of technical topics.
> Forums :
> A Forum is a site on the Internet where people interact by posting
> and reading messages about topics that are of interest to them
>
> The Web-based Newsreader (Clunky and difficult to navigate)
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/
>
> If you are so uncomfortable. mixing posts with common "Usenetters" I
> suggest you stick to your warm and fuzzy "Forums" (or a "Chat")
Wow, I'm impressed yet again, you felt compelled to look-up another
article...
So READ again the segments discussing forums, you did actually read
them first, right... then remember you could also be posting directly
into this FORUM by using the web interface... and in which both USENET
users and others could then participate.
No individual discussions surely aren't, nor is this forum, but this
*tag along chat* surely is,,, might want to check where you last put
your brain, you may be crushing it...
Now how about you create the new discussion heading like a real
grown-up would... after all it was left to me to at least bring note
that the ACTUAL and original discussion had ended.
It was you, wasn't it, that chose to bring this extraneous material
INTO a finalized one. Let's see, hmm, a comment to 98 Guy regarding that
entity's normal ignorance and how 98 Guy always posts since I posted in
the group regarding Aioe.org, then you,, yep that's what happened.
So where's that distinct threaded newsgroup discussion concerning
USENET???
Sunny
<snip>
> So what's your point in posting about newsreaders when you purport to
> be posting about USENET?
?? Using a News Reader to access Usenet of course.
> And just where is it that you think those ISPs would get the Microsoft
> public forums?
From Usenet, seeing as Microsoft broadcasts their News Groups onto Usenet.
> So READ again the segments discussing forums, you did actually read
> them first, right... then remember you could also be posting directly
> into this FORUM by using the web interface... and in which both USENET
> users and others could then participate.
News groups are not a "forum" (Microsofts words) and I can see posts from
people using the stupid web interface, by using a news reader designed to
read news groups through Usenet.
You are the one who keeps mixing Usenet with Internet, not me.
> So where's that distinct threaded newsgroup discussion concerning
> USENET???
You should know, seeing as you started it by altering the subject heading
i.e.
> " Now how about you create the new discussion heading like a real
> grown-up would... after all it was left to me to at least bring note
> that the ACTUAL and original discussion had ended."
If changing subject headings and arrogant nonsense that you display is
your take on a "Real grown-up" then I pass and leave you to talk among
yourself.
FWIW I have been using the Microsoft News Server (and others) for more
than 12 years.
Stay out of high winds in case the tickets you hold on yourself blow off.
MEB
> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OK3QggJG...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> <snip>
>> So what's your point in posting about newsreaders when you purport to
>> be posting about USENET?
>
> ?? Using a News Reader to access Usenet of course.
Okay, seems reasonable I suppose.
>
>> And just where is it that you think those ISPs would get the Microsoft
>> public forums?
>
> From Usenet, seeing as Microsoft broadcasts their News Groups onto Usenet.
Broadcasts???!!! And where did you get that information from...
>
>> So READ again the segments discussing forums, you did actually read
>> them first, right... then remember you could also be posting directly
>> into this FORUM by using the web interface... and in which both USENET
>> users and others could then participate.
>
> News groups are not a "forum" (Microsofts words) and I can see posts from
> people using the stupid web interface, by using a news reader designed to
> read news groups through Usenet.
> You are the one who keeps mixing Usenet with Internet, not me.
It amazes me that you can actually post articles FROM Microsoft
specifically defining/outlining how the whole *Microsoft* event occurs,
yet can't seem to grasp what that actually means.
>
>> So where's that distinct threaded newsgroup discussion concerning
>> USENET???
>
> You should know, seeing as you started it by altering the subject heading
> i.e.
No. There is no distinct and separate discussion heading, though I
keep looking for it. What I find is just a "tag along".
>> " Now how about you create the new discussion heading like a real
>> grown-up would... after all it was left to me to at least bring note
>> that the ACTUAL and original discussion had ended."
>
> If changing subject headings and arrogant nonsense that you display is
> your take on a "Real grown-up" then I pass and leave you to talk among
> yourself.
>
> FWIW I have been using the Microsoft News Server (and others) for more
> than 12 years.
> Stay out of high winds in case the tickets you hold on yourself blow off.
>
HAHAHA, that's funny. How did you make it all these years without
understanding what you were doing...
Sunny
> On 08/09/2009 01:50 AM, Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OK3QggJG...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> <snip>
>>> So what's your point in posting about newsreaders when you purport
>>> to
>>> be posting about USENET?
>>
>> ?? Using a News Reader to access Usenet of course.
>
> Okay, seems reasonable I suppose.
>
>>
>>> And just where is it that you think those ISPs would get the
>>> Microsoft
>>> public forums?
>>
>> From Usenet, seeing as Microsoft broadcasts their News Groups onto
>> Usenet.
>
> Broadcasts???!!! And where did you get that information from...
Its English, and as a verb can mean :
verb: cause to become widely known
Lucky I guess. Must be comforting for you to know everything.
Maybe if embarqhsd.net offered a news server, you may find out you don't
MEB
> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uon%23p$LGKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> On 08/09/2009 01:50 AM, Sunny wrote:
>>> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OK3QggJG...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> <snip>
>>>> So what's your point in posting about newsreaders when you purport
>>>> to
>>>> be posting about USENET?
>>> ?? Using a News Reader to access Usenet of course.
>> Okay, seems reasonable I suppose.
>>
>>>> And just where is it that you think those ISPs would get the
>>>> Microsoft
>>>> public forums?
>>> From Usenet, seeing as Microsoft broadcasts their News Groups onto
>>> Usenet.
>> Broadcasts???!!! And where did you get that information from...
>
> Its English, and as a verb can mean :
> verb: cause to become widely known
So you aren't actually attempting to indicate Microsoft fills the
Internet with its offerings then, as in broadcasts, e.g., Television or
Radio... but more accurately, "offers access via Usenet."
So Usenet gets the Microsoft offerings how???...
Hey you actually looked at the message header, good for you.
Nah, I'd never attempt to indicate I knew everything, but I do make an
attempt to investigate and collect numerous things within my life
experience... I mean really what is life for but to make yourself and
hopefully others better from the experience...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>
>On 08/08/2009 05:28 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <ulYoMWEG...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB
>> <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> []
>>> Why did you, in one paragraph, note that it pertains solely to
>>> *Access*, and in the next miss the reason for *Microsoft* making the
>>
>> There was a mention of two WEBSITES that seemed to be to do with Access.
>>
>>> specific *.access.* forums; and thereafter opening the once proprietary
>>
>> Well, having "public.access" in the newsgroup(s) name(s) is rather
>> unfortunate. (They could have left out the "public".)
>
> Its Microsoft's format used throughout its public access services
>which IS and DOES signify Microsoft [or rather for these specific
>public offerings]. Take the time to actually look at Microsoft's
>*.public.* offerings [specific] and other *public* [as in general
>usage] offerings. There is, of course, still the private parts of
>Microsoft's domain.
I'm not aware of any other newsgroups with "public" in their name,
though there may well be some. It certainly isn't needed - if they've
allowed a 'group (forum if you like) to be peered with other
newsservers, it is by definition public; similarly, if they haven't, it
is by definition private. (I presume the ones they haven't decided to
peer do _not_ have ".private." in their name.)
[]
> Microsoft still controls ALL of its public offerings, and still DOES
>care. They [the public offerings] contain its trademarked name and come
>under its authorization clauses. You *could* make an effort to review
>services [and sites for that matter] that have been forced to
>discontinue publication, though that would spoil your ability to voice
>your present opinions.
Is that a threat? Anyway, not sure what you mean by "it's public
offerings". If you mean "posts in the microsoft.* newsgroups", then they
control them while within their own servers, not once peered. If you
mean other of their products and websites, then of course you are
correct.
There used to be a mechanism on usenet - honoured by most newsservers -
for killing postings, by which a second posting could be sent, the
result of which was that an earlier posting was killed. The intention of
this was that a posting containing an error could be deleted, or that
something that had expired or a question that had been answered could be
removed. However, this mechanism - which is the _only_ one that could be
used to remove postings in general usenet - is now largely not honoured,
because it became abused (people killing other people's postings).
>
> You mention, again, your *groups* you created, yet you DID state they
>were basically just transferred to *local* systems or with a limited
>*mirroring*, e.g., NOT part of the *master* UK distribution. How can
>you fail to recognize significance of that limitation?
>
Ah, I think we've got to the bottom of it at last! FOR MOST NEWSGROUPS,
THERE *IS* NO MASTER DISTRIBUTION. Posts propagate from newsserver to
newsserver. Any one newsserver will contain some posts that some of its
peering partners don't, either because they have been generated by that
server's own users, or because they come from a peering partner server
on one side and haven't been passed to the peering partner server on the
other side yet. Eventually (usually within seconds), the 'servers will
pass on to each other any postings that the other doesn't have yet.
Within usenet - it is a "net", not a hierarchy! - this even applies to
postings within the microsoft.* NEWSGROUP hierarchy.
>>
>>> Moreover, that *NO WHERE* does Microsoft indicate that anyone other
>>> the Microsoft retains control of its forums or its public offerings.
>>>
>> If by forums, you mean these newsgroups as they exist within Microsoft
>> servers, then I'm sure Microsoft retain control of them; for that
>> matter, they will have control over all newsgroups, not just the
>> microsoft ones, within their server. Outside that area, it is a
>> different story.
>> []
>
>Newsgroups as YOU *receive* them...
>
> Since you brought it up, please point out the newsgroups and other NOT
>controlled by Microsoft offered on Microsoft's servers [or its
>authorized associates].
If you read what I said and you quoted above, you'll see that I actually
said that they DO control all newsgroups WITHIN THEIR OWN SERVERS.
However, they do NOT control ANY newsgroups OUTSIDE that enclave. I can
post - in this 'group or any other that any of the servers I use carries
- and my post will be propagated to any other 'server those ones have
peering arrangements with. It is possible that if, on its travels, my
post should pass via the Microsoft servers, they _might_ not propagate
it - but it will still propagate, by other routes. The only place it
would _not_ reach would be a server which _only_ peers with the
Microsoft servers. I am sure there are many such, but they are _not_ a
large proportion of the whole of usenet.
> Moreover, also point out WHERE Microsoft has authorized ANY misuse or
>otherwise of its trademarks, commercial name, and/or other under its
>control ANYWHERE in USENET [or elsewhere for that matter].
Misuse, of course, not; however, you can't stop people talking about it!
Or even using it, as long as they don't misuse it.
I guess, due to their considerable might, they probably _might_ be able
to kill off the microsoft.* newsgroups, though I think they'd have a
battle on their hands - and it would be pointless anyway, since someone
would soon generate another one (possibly using one of the corruptions
of the name, to avoid any _possible_ litigation), initially in the alt.*
hierarchy probably. Let alone the bad publicity it would generate.
>
>>>> As Sunny replied, you didn't compel him to do anything (with or without
>>>> capital letters). And hint: it's not a "forum" from where we're
>>>> standing, it's a newsgroup.
[]
>> Well, we're reading this NEWSGROUP in public usenet. If you're reading
>> it from within a controlled environment, that had some advantages
>> (you'll be protected from seeing some posts, allegedly) and some
>> disadvantages (you won't see some posts, allegedly) for you. I think, of
>> the two, I prefer to be where I am, but I am not going to try to
>> "compel" you to come outside.
>
> So you obviously concede the *compelled* aspect... a small bit of
>headway...
Nope (-:
>
> Controlled environment? Hmm, but am I???
> Seems I could reply to postings NOT offered via the *master* worldwide
>service because they failed Microsoft's requirements, yet apparently
How could you reply to them if you can't see them - or are you using
another newsserver as well?
>can post in a more direct fashion [as long as I stay within the
>boundaries imposed]... so which would be better - in your opinion,
>since you persist in this tag-along series of opinions commonly
>referred to as *chat*....
> Seems you haven't thought about these factors carefully enough yet...
>
Well, either you're using a server other than the MS ones, or - despite
what you may think about their appropriateness - my postings _are_ being
carried by the MS servers (and you're replying to them there). I suspect
the latter, i. e. those in charge of the MS servers have a broader view
than you do.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
>> What are you on about?
>> The simple explanation is that Microsoft has made their "public" News
>> Groups available for any ISP to include on their News Servers.
>> Any ISP will include a Microsoft News Group that their customers request.
(And, obviously, which are available; Sunny didn't say that as he
thought it was obvious, but I'm just adding it in case it isn't.
Obviously, any 'groups - or forums, or whatever you want to call them -
which MS do _not_ release for public peering will not be available;
however, newsserver customers are unlikely to have heard about them and
thus unlikely to request them. However, the MS hierarchy is only a tiny
part of the whole of usenet, in this context meaning the list of
newsgroups which customers might request.)
>> Your references to "Master" Worlwide service is rubbish
>> Postings in the tens of thousands of groups can be read
>> with reader software such as Microsoft's Outlook Express.
>> (or any other)
>
> Right,,, MICROSOFT, just as each forum or discussion carried ANYWHERE
>has its own MASTER server.... in this case that would be Microsoft.
No - see my last post: _no_ *newsgroup* within usenet has a master
server.
[]
> And just where is it that you think those ISPs would get the Microsoft
>public forums?
>
From each other. In the extreme situation, if Microsoft stopped peering
the relevant newsgroups, then they'd continue as two separate entities,
within the MS servers and on general usenet, with neither group of users
being able to see postings from the other group. In the even more
extreme situation, MS _might_ get heavy-handed and try to get the
'groups removed from the outside world: as I've said already, I think
they'd have a fight on their hands, but it would be pointless anyway (as
well as terrible PR).
>>
>> Microsofts explanation
>> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/default.mspx
>>
>> Microsoft has created the Microsoft.public newsgroup hierarchy
>> and made it available to anyone on the Usenet.
For once, this is probably correct - probably since it's Microsoft
saying it, rather than you. Because of their size, the usenet community
probably did let the microsoft.* set of newsgroups get created, and
agreed to carry it. (It's not actually available to "anyone on the
Usenet", actually, only to users of newsservers who choose to carry it,
but I'd be surprised if there were many newsservers who don't.)
>> Newsgroups are online threaded discussion groups in which people
>> converse asynchronously to exchange ideas and information.
"Asynchronously" is right - posts are inserted anywhere and propagate
outwards from that point. (The speed of propagation is sufficient that,
most of the time, it _does_ appear sequential, for example you and I can
"reply" to each other's posts.)
>> Technical Chats
>> Microsoft provides a forum to engage in discussions about
>> Microsoft products or technologies in many languages.
>> User Groups:
>> User groups are typically independently run, volunteer groups
>> that meet on a regular basis to discuss and share information
>> on a variety of technical topics.
>> Forums :
>> A Forum is a site on the Internet where people interact by posting
>> and reading messages about topics that are of interest to them
(Those were run together in the original - I've added blank lines to
separate them.) Those are, as far as I can see from the above
explanations, completely separate entities from newsgroups - even the
"Forums" are described as being "a site", thus not usenet.
[]
> So READ again the segments discussing forums, you did actually read
>them first, right... then remember you could also be posting directly
>into this FORUM by using the web interface... and in which both USENET
>users and others could then participate.
>
I'm sure Sunny did read them (it, actually). I think he and I don't
particularly want to be restricted to accessing them via "a site".
[]
>> BTW Usenet News Groups are not "tag along chats", seems you haven't
>> thought about it carefully enough yet...
>>
>>
>
> No individual discussions surely aren't, nor is this forum, but this
This is not, for us, a forum ...
>*tag along chat* surely is,,, might want to check where you last put
>your brain, you may be crushing it...
>
> Now how about you create the new discussion heading like a real
>grown-up would... after all it was left to me to at least bring note
>that the ACTUAL and original discussion had ended.
Yes, well done.
> It was you, wasn't it, that chose to bring this extraneous material
>INTO a finalized one. Let's see, hmm, a comment to 98 Guy regarding
>that entity's normal ignorance and how 98 Guy always posts since I
>posted in the group regarding Aioe.org, then you,, yep that's what
>happened.
Eh? That paragraph isn't easy to follow.
>
> So where's that distinct threaded newsgroup discussion concerning
>USENET???
>
Here, now that you've changed the Subject. (I wouldn't have use "versus"
myself - that implies that a fight between the two is involved, whereas
Sunny and I I think have nothing against the forums; however, I'm not
changing it again.)
98 Guy
> From Usenet, seeing as Microsoft broadcasts their News Groups onto
> Usenet.
Look people.
You need to understand a few things.
These newsgroups do not "belong" to microsoft, and microsoft does not
"broadcast" them to usenet.
Microsoft has no special relationship to these microsoft.* newsgroups in
relation to the "world-wide" usenet. The do not control the flow of
messages posted to them. They do not act as a central node or server
for them. They can't delete them or otherwise make them or individual
posts go away.
Once the microsoft.* hirearchy of newsgroups were created, they were
available to any and all usenet servers who decided to carry them.
As an adminstrator or controller of a NNTP server, when you carry a
newsgroup, you allow your users to read and post messages to that
group. Your server is peered to other usenet servers according to
pre-arranged relationships that allow posts to propagate to all servers
who carry that group.
The microsoft.* group hirearchy has no more special arrangement or
relationship to Microsoft as alt.home.repair has to Home Depot.
Many people can't get over the hangup that the sequence of letters
"microsoft" appears in the name of several dozens of usenet newsgroups,
such as this one (microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion). They feel
that because those letters appear in the group name, that the corporate
entity known as Microsoft must have some special relationship to the
group. A relationship that places it in some position of authority or
control, or as a central "node" for message collection and dispersal
that is different than how other newsgroups operate.
Of course none of that is true. As we can all plainly see, we can read
and post to these microsoft.* groups without ever interacting with
microsoft's server apparatus. Our posts will not have the microsoft
server anywhere in it's path.
Microsoft could cut it's peering relationship to the rest of usenet,
which would turn it's server into an isolated set of web-forums, or it
could completely turn off it's server. Both actions would have
absolutely no impact on the existance of these microsoft.* newsgroups on
usenet. They would continue as if nothing happened.
I have had this same conversation before with MEB, and he refuses to
believe that Microsoft does not have some special relationship to these
microsoft.* newsgroups, or that these are essentially usenet newsgroups
and that microsoft is operating just another usenet NNTP server.
He thinks that his posts some-how "leak" out onto usenet, and that
microsoft allows external usenet posts to "leak" back into the microsoft
server, but that none of that "leakage" constitutes anything resembling
the normal operation of a peered usenet server.
Many people in other microsoft.* groups who read and post through the
microsoft server have similar beliefs, but for different reasons. For
them, they feel some sense of superiority over usenet, and refuse to
believe that these are just usenet groups, because for some reason they
think usenet is inferior. Some of them don't even know that others are
reading and posting messages through other servers and not the microsoft
server.
MEB
I'll just reply to all three of you here...
You guys REALLY need to think about what you post... NONE of your
postings even agree with what you have previously posted or among
yourselves.
There ARE master servers... whether you choose to call HOW messages
get transferred across the world MIRRORING or propagation or peering or
something else, USENET REQUIRES there be some place wherein
information/postings can be collected, checked for duplicates,
clarified, and otherwise prepared.... WHY you guys can't grasp that is
beyond me or reasonable sensibilities. IS it that in your minds all
these newsgroups in Usenet are constantly colliding with each other
vying for control of the postings shown and then somehow your *miracle
newsreader* then sorts it all out?
Can you post and have messages appear OUTSIDE of the master services,,
yes,,, however, were it NOT for the EXTERNAL individual data bases and
localized transference, those messages would appear NO WHERE else EXCEPT
between whatever localized services might transfer amongst themselves.
Where it not for Google and other archival services, this might be more
clear as they have muddy the waters with the ability to pull/locate
messages OUTSIDE of master sites and the master servers/services, and
become, in essence a secondary master source. This is, of course, how
they make their money/financial enrichment, however it hasn't actually
changed the actual method nor HOW this all works and has worked since it
was originally conceived. Sites and services CAN refuse to let these
archival activities occur, and they CAN issues *take down notices* which
MUST *by Law* be honored. If you disagree best FIRST review the various
legal actions in which these issues HAVE been addressed when refusal
occurs or some other failure.
When done it this fashion, the Usenet MAY and generally does contain
the forum or other if it has been directed to them, that does NOT mean
USENET created them or has any control over them WHATSOEVER, other than
to mirror [or whatever term you so choose to use] the content and send
offered messages to the originating service.
If this is still difficult to understand, then review the hacker or
other *specialized* forums which appear and disappear from time to time
due to the loss of their MASTER host/service.... you may have also
noticed this when using some group you located somewhere in Usenet,
attempting to post and never seeing your message appear or if it appears
[locally] never receiving a response... the reason being there is no
longer any MASTER to send the message to or receive messages from...
Usenet CAN make that appear to NOT occur *IF* there are sufficient
numbers of SHARING among the services and *IF* other services then
mirror those postings/forums/messagings, but even then a NEW master has
essentially been created, that being wherever the originals come from
and are now collated. Google and the like can NOW also make that appear
to occur.... post something and you MAY get a response from a Google
user in its *Google groups* archival services or from some secondary
source USING Google to receive its newsgroups... yet nothing has
changed, Google is now the MASTER...
The Internet REQUIRES these things to occur, as without MASTERS [think
IPs if that helps] there is no ability to transfer anything ANYWHERE
other than in some local network-like fashion... the Internet and what
it contains isn't actually *ETHER* [as in some miracle gas like thing -
an appearing everywhere NATURALLY occurring thing], it happens to
consist of very real PHYSICAL segments, services, and other factors
which make it all work. WE [meaning the users who use it/connect to it]
AREN'T the Internet just as USENET isn't the Internet nor is it some all
powerful force which Microsoft and others must cow-tow too - it just
uses the Internet now to function wherein originally it relied upon
individual BBS services to function OUTSIDE of the Universities and
government institutions. So it would be reasonable to compare Usenet to
something like some gigantic parasite living off of other creatures, and
that isn't meant as a derogatory comparison.
If you want a new *take* on the future of the Internet then review
*cloud* activities.
Sunny
Already been covered, Microsoft makes the news groups available to any
ISP that wants to list them.
Customers using Usenet news servers have the choice of:
1. Using their ISP News Server, or
2. Using Microsoft's News Server
(Entirely different to "Forums" and "Chat" which require registration and
are not Usenet anyway)
MEB
Okay, we're a bit closer,,
So where do the messages go when posted via the ISP's News Server?
And it is that you infer the ISP's News Server is Usenet?
Let's leave your comment regarding Forums and Chat until you answer
this...
Sunny
> On 08/09/2009 05:44 PM, Sunny wrote:
>>
>> Already been covered, Microsoft makes the news groups available to any
>> ISP that wants to list them.
>> Customers using Usenet news servers have the choice of:
>> 1. Using their ISP News Server, or
>> 2. Using Microsoft's News Server
>> (Entirely different to "Forums" and "Chat" which require registration
>> and
>> are not Usenet anyway)
>
> Okay, we're a bit closer,,
>
> So where do the messages go when posted via the ISP's News Server?
Usenet. (To every news server that is carrying the news group being
"messaged")
I use 7 NNTP Servers :
aioe.org
Bigpond (My ISP)
Eternal-September
Microsoft
Microsoft.private
news4all
Telstra
Three of those servers actually show the messages before the Microsoft
server does
> And it is that you infer the ISP's News Server is Usenet?
If it is an NNTP Server, yes.
> Let's leave your comment regarding Forums and Chat until you answer
> this...
Not only my comment, Microsoft treats them differently to NNTP Usenet
servers as well.
Microsoft operates a usenet NNTP server, that carries the news groups
that they want. The "Microsoft.public" hirearchy of newsgroups are
available to any usenet servers who decided to carry them.
Any ISP NNTP server can carry, if they choose, "microsoft.Public" and any
or all of the other Usenet News groups like "alt" "aus" "Rec" etc.
If you still think the server < msnews.microsoft.com > is not a NNTP
Usenet server, then dream on.
btw; I use another Microsoft Usenet server as well <
privatenews.microsoft.com >
Punchline They are Usenet, not Web based "forums"or "Chats" . I hope
you are not to horrified that the vast majority of people frequenting the
"microsoft.public" news groups, are actually doing so through Usenet NNTP
servers.
Jeff Richards
that scrape the newsroups and present newsgroup discussions as if they were
their own forums, on the other? That would explain the references to
servers that MS had closed down, as well some of the other misinformation.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Sunny" <womba...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:uKEucVLG...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Jeff Richards
> snip <
>
> Microsoft still controls ALL of its public offerings, and still DOES
> care. They [the public offerings] contain its trademarked name and come
> under its authorization clauses. You *could* make an effort to review
> services [and sites for that matter] that have been forced to discontinue
> publication, though that would spoil your ability to voice your present
> opinions.
If you are suggesting that Microsoft exercises some control over which
USENET servers carry the newsgroups that it originally created, then I can
tell you from personal experience that you are wrong. I went through the
process of getting a local ISP to add a selection of microsoft.public.*
groups, and while the ISP had some procedures of its own to go through
before they agreed to carry them, I can assure that it did not involve
getting any permission from Microsoft.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> You mention, again, your *groups* you created, yet you DID state they
MEB
Why would I be horrified, you have just defined exactly what you
needed to...
Now answer these:
* Let's pull two references from your previous posting:
"Microsoft provides a forum to engage in discussions about
Microsoft products or technologies in many languages."
"A Forum is a site on the Internet where people interact by posting
and reading messages about topics that are of interest to them."
Where do those messages you mention/indicate regarding Microsoft end
up when sent to the microsoft.public. forums?
Do, at anytime, those microsoft.public. postings and/or messages
appear anywhere on Microsoft's site for public viewing?
Can parties post directly into those .public. forums using Microsoft's
site?
Can parties READ microsoft.public. forums on Microsoft's site?
--
Is it that you infer that Usenet controls how and what you receive
FROM or post to Microsoft in those special forums?
> If it is an NNTP Server, yes.
> If you still think the server< msnews.microsoft.com> is not a NNTP
> Usenet server, then dream on.
> btw; I use another Microsoft Usenet server as well<
> privatenews.microsoft.com>
>
> Punchline They are Usenet,
Moreover, IF as you claim, those special forums are *Usenet* since
they come from Microsoft's NNTP servers [which you defined, specifically
microsoft.com], then are those reflected elsewhere on Usenet, if not why?
Where in the periodic "List of Active Newsgroups" or "Alternative
Newsgroup Hierarchies", or other public listing service do these Usenet
newsgroups appear?
Additionally, as you specifically state they ARE Usenet:
> btw; I use another Microsoft Usenet server as well<
> privatenews.microsoft.com>
*WHERE* are these publicly available *Usenet newsgroups*
privatenews.microsoft.com located so the rest of Usenet might
participate, and specifically, how would they connect to them external
from Microsoft as in what you have claimed as a Usenet ability in your
prior postings?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=0Gi&q=define%3AUsenet&btnG=Search
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>On 08/09/2009 05:44 PM, Sunny wrote:
[Can you please do a bit more snipping, only quoting the parts of the
post to which you are responding?]
>> Already been covered, Microsoft makes the news groups available to any
>> ISP that wants to list them.
>> Customers using Usenet news servers have the choice of:
>> 1. Using their ISP News Server, or
>> 2. Using Microsoft's News Server
>> (Entirely different to "Forums" and "Chat" which require registration and
>> are not Usenet anyway)
>>
>>
>
> Okay, we're a bit closer,,
>
> So where do the messages go when posted via the ISP's News Server?
First, they appear on that server, becoming visible to users of that
server. (It isn't just ISPs who operate newsservers, by the way - it is
mostly ISPs, but anyone can, if they wish and have the bandwidth.)
After that, they are propagated - via peering - to the other newsservers
with which that server (or its owner/operator, if you want to be
pedantic) has peering arrangements.
>
> And it is that you infer the ISP's News Server is Usenet?
We're not "inferring" anything. No, usenet is the global collection of
all newsservers. Hint: it has "net" in its name - think of it as a
physical net, like a fishing net, if that helps you visualise it, with
the individual servers represented by the individual knots.
[]
Sunny
<snip>
> *WHERE* are these publicly available *Usenet newsgroups*
> privatenews.microsoft.com located so the rest of Usenet might
> participate, and specifically, how would they connect to them external
> from Microsoft as in what you have claimed as a Usenet ability in your
> prior postings?
Surely you are not as thick as you seem
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/guide/newsgroupfaq.mspx
Well maybe not :
"MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in messages
" You still don't get it do you,,, USENET *MIRRORS* this forum"
"TRY to remember this forum is actually associated with an OS AND a
commercial entity... I know its difficult, but try"
" And what relevance does what goes on OUTSIDE of this forum have to do
with anything UNLESS it makes it to the master distribution? Anything
NOT making to the master distibution is merely prattle among USENETTERS
[or has been filtered out by Microsoft, or another secondary server
prior to being sent to Microsoft for MASTER DISTRIBUTION, as is defined
in the original Microsoft articles and agreements pursuant the mirroring
of this forum]."
IMHO
Your use of words like "USENETTERS" and previous stooping to casting
dispersions on me, and Australia, reflects you true pathetic attitude.
Your whining complaints about how hard you have been done, by US Law is
further indications of your lack of worth, except in your own opinion.
While you may think your waste products don't stink, your wind gives you
away.
Feel free to blunder along thinking that Microsoft does not participate in
Usenet if it keeps you warm an fuzzy.
MEB
> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eNSlHBIG...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> snip<
>>
>> Microsoft still controls ALL of its public offerings, and still DOES
>> care. They [the public offerings] contain its trademarked name and come
>> under its authorization clauses. You *could* make an effort to review
>> services [and sites for that matter] that have been forced to discontinue
>> publication, though that would spoil your ability to voice your present
>> opinions.
>
> If you are suggesting that Microsoft exercises some control over which
> USENET servers carry the newsgroups that it originally created, then I can
> tell you from personal experience that you are wrong. I went through the
> process of getting a local ISP to add a selection of microsoft.public.*
> groups, and while the ISP had some procedures of its own to go through
> before they agreed to carry them, I can assure that it did not involve
> getting any permission from Microsoft.
>
>
Which allowed the ISP to OFFER those and define how they could be used
within its own service. It did NOT, however, allow them control over the
actual Microsoft forums/newsgroups, nor what Microsoft might eventually
accept, as in received FROM the ISP, for posting within Microsoft's
groups on its server, or to be transferred elsewhere [presuming you
convinced them to pull directly FROM Microsoft and not some secondary
source].
Microsoft could easily ban that particular ISP from direct access if
it so chose to do so for some abuse or otherwise. It could also, it
seems, filter out that ISP's input even from some secondary source via
IP information [reverse, trace, etc.] or one of the other methods
available (not saying specifically it would of course, nor waste that
time unless Microsoft was pursuing potential legal action).
Sunny
<snip>
> * Let's pull two references from your previous posting:
> "Microsoft provides a forum to engage in discussions about
> Microsoft products or technologies in many languages."
> "A Forum is a site on the Internet where people interact by posting
> and reading messages about topics that are of interest to them."
Correct, the vital part you are missing is that the "Forums" are accessed
through a web "browser" not a news reader.
>
> Where do those messages you mention/indicate regarding Microsoft end up
> when sent to the microsoft.public. forums?
They stay on the "forum" web pages/archives.
> Do, at anytime, those microsoft.public. postings and/or messages appear
> anywhere on Microsoft's site for public viewing?
The Microsoft web based forums are available for public viewing, however
to post messages on the "Forum"
requires registration as a user.
> Can parties post directly into those .public. forums using Microsoft's
> site?
Only if they "Join" by registering
> Can parties READ microsoft.public. forums on Microsoft's site?
You have already asked this ques in another way
> Is it that you infer that Usenet controls how and what you receive FROM
> or post to Microsoft in those special forums?
Are you trying to be cute? (Same answer - Forums are not Usenet)
No wonder you keep getting chat rooms, Forums, and web based discussion
groups confused with Usenet.
Would introducing Face Book and Twitter as comparisons blow your mind?
MEB
And WHERE are all those within Usenet *attempting* to post to when
messaging in microsoft.public.?
Is it the local services however widely "peered", or is it the actual
group hosted and served by Microsoft?
UHM,, ALL SERVERS, surely you don't mean all of the millions
available. Certainly you three understand that just because there is a
news server somewhere DOESN'T mean it is Usenet, carries Usenet, or
participates in Usenet.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
> Why would I be horrified, you have just defined exactly what you
>needed to...
(Well, you've been doing that from the start, so Sunny can if he wants
to - though I don't think he did.)
>
> Now answer these:
>* Let's pull two references from your previous posting:
>"Microsoft provides a forum to engage in discussions about
>Microsoft products or technologies in many languages."
>"A Forum is a site on the Internet where people interact by posting
>and reading messages about topics that are of interest to them."
Yes, that's a forum. Accessed via one site.
>
> Where do those messages you mention/indicate regarding Microsoft end
>up when sent to the microsoft.public. forums?
The microsoft.public.* hierarchy of NEWSGROUPS are not forums. They may
possibly be presented as forums, by people operating a specific site
(which doesn't have to be Microsoft either - there are many such sites).
Someone using such a "forum" may post to it, and the site operator of
that "forum" may let those postings be peered to the rest of usenet. But
that's only a small (though increasing) proportion of how usenet works.
>
> Do, at anytime, those microsoft.public. postings and/or messages
>appear anywhere on Microsoft's site for public viewing?
If by "Microsoft's site" you mean the website www.microsoft.com, then
possibly, though I don't think so (though there may be links on it to
forum-based news access sites). If you mean Microsoft's newsserver(s),
then probably; I'm not a user of those 'servers, so don't know, but it
would seem rather daft if they didn't.
>
> Can parties post directly into those .public. forums using Microsoft's
>site?
_Using Microsoft's site_, if you mean Microsoft's newsservers, then,
presumably if they have registered with those servers, yes they can.
>
> Can parties READ microsoft.public. forums on Microsoft's site?
If you mean the website, see above (i. e. probably not); if you mean the
newsserver, also see above (i. e. probably).
>--
>
> Is it that you infer that Usenet controls how and what you receive
>FROM or post to Microsoft in those special forums?
You seem obsessed with this matter of "control". To a reasonable
approximation, NOBODY controls usenet.
>
>> If it is an NNTP Server, yes.
>> If you still think the server< msnews.microsoft.com> is not a NNTP
>> Usenet server, then dream on.
>> btw; I use another Microsoft Usenet server as well<
>> privatenews.microsoft.com>
>>
>> Punchline They are Usenet,
> Moreover, IF as you claim, those special forums are *Usenet* since
>they come from Microsoft's NNTP servers [which you defined,
>specifically microsoft.com], then are those reflected elsewhere on
>Usenet, if not why?
He didn't mention microsoft.com; he mentioned msnews.microsoft.com,
which is not the same thing. (And it is only you that keeps mentioning
"forums".)
> Where in the periodic "List of Active Newsgroups" or "Alternative
>Newsgroup Hierarchies", or other public listing service do these Usenet
>newsgroups appear?
I don't know who compiles this list; it is usually out of date. I've
just googled for the phrase, and got about 1,280 hits, the first of
which contains reference to 1996. I just tried restricting it to the
last month, which cut it down to 5: three mentions in newsgroup
postings, and two references in RFQs. (I used your first phrase;
obviously "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies" won't cover the
microsoft.* hierarchy, will it!)
>
> Additionally, as you specifically state they ARE Usenet:
>> btw; I use another Microsoft Usenet server as well<
>> privatenews.microsoft.com>
> *WHERE* are these publicly available *Usenet newsgroups*
>privatenews.microsoft.com located so the rest of Usenet might
You have even less grasp than I'd thought. He didn't say that was a
newsGROUP, but a newsSERVER.
[]
Jeff Richards
> On 08/10/2009 01:46 AM, Jeff Richards wrote:
>> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eNSlHBIG...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> snip<
>>>
>>> Microsoft still controls ALL of its public offerings, and still DOES
>>> care. They [the public offerings] contain its trademarked name and come
>>> under its authorization clauses. You *could* make an effort to review
>>> services [and sites for that matter] that have been forced to
>>> discontinue
>>> publication, though that would spoil your ability to voice your present
>>> opinions.
>>
>> If you are suggesting that Microsoft exercises some control over which
>> USENET servers carry the newsgroups that it originally created, then I
>> can
>> tell you from personal experience that you are wrong. I went through the
>> process of getting a local ISP to add a selection of microsoft.public.*
>> groups, and while the ISP had some procedures of its own to go through
>> before they agreed to carry them, I can assure that it did not involve
>> getting any permission from Microsoft.
>>
>>
>
> Which allowed the ISP to OFFER those and define how they could be used
> within its own service.
Yes. That's exactly what they did.
> It did NOT, however, allow them control over the actual Microsoft
> forums/newsgroups,
They controlled their own servers, and Microsoft controlled Microsoft's
servers. They probably had some profanity filtering, and they may also have
had some malware filtering, like every server probably has. Apart from
that, I don't know what other sort of 'control' you might be referring to.
> nor what Microsoft might eventually accept, as in received FROM the ISP,
> for posting within Microsoft's groups on its server,
Well - posts to the local ISP's servers appeared on Microsoft's servers, and
since MS didn't know anything about it I guess it must have happened
automatically. No control needed.
> or to be transferred elsewhere
Posts to that server appeared on two other non-MS servers that I am aware
of, so I guess they appeared throughout the network. I was never aware of
any comments that they weren't appearing or had gone missing. But there is,
in fact, no mechanism by which Microsoft could have controlled what appeared
on other servers, unless they sent out forged Kill messages (which most
servers don't action, anyway).
> [presuming you convinced them to pull directly FROM Microsoft and not some
> secondary source].
I have no idea where they actually pulled from, but I suspect it was a local
node. They would not have pulled it from further afield than they needed to.
Whatever, there was effective synchronization between the MS server listing
and the local ISP's, so however they did it they got it working OK. And I
can't see why the server they pulled from would make any difference, except
perhaps to timing.
> Microsoft could easily ban that particular ISP from direct access if it
> so chose to do so for some abuse or otherwise.
Direct access, yes, but I suspect most servers don't access MS directly -
it's much more likely they go through local nodes.
> It could also, it seems, filter out that ISP's input even from some
> secondary source via IP information [reverse, trace, etc.] or one of the
> other methods available (not saying specifically it would of course, nor
> waste that time unless Microsoft was pursuing potential legal action).
For their own servers, yes. They could simply use the posting host
information - no need for reverse tracing or anything fancy. But, of
course, that would not affect what appeared on any other servers, other than
perhaps the timing.
So I'm really not sure what sort of 'control' you are referring to in
respect of the microsoft.public.* newsgroups when you say "Microsoft still
controls ALL of its public offerings", other than the control over their own
servers which, of course, all responsible ISPs would be exercising.
I guess they could decide to drop some of them from their listings (perhaps
they already have for some of the W95 groups - they are very quiet on the MS
server) but of course those groups would continue to exist as long as there
were still connections amongst other servers carrying them, so even that
'Control' is pretty vague.
Sunny
> On 08/10/2009 02:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> We're not "inferring" anything. No, usenet is the global collection of
>> all newsservers. Hint: it has "net" in its name - think of it as a
>> physical net, like a fishing net, if that helps you visualise it, with
>> the individual servers represented by the individual knots.
>> []
>
> And WHERE are all those within Usenet *attempting* to post to when
> messaging in microsoft.public.?
> Is it the local services however widely "peered", or is it the actual
> group hosted and served by Microsoft?
>
> UHM,, ALL SERVERS, surely you don't mean all of the millions available.
> Certainly you three understand that just because there is a news server
> somewhere DOESN'T mean it is Usenet, carries Usenet, or participates in
> Usenet.
Look up "NNTP Server" on whatever search engine you use.
(when replying it is not good form to change a posters words to suite your
own agenda e.g.
"all newsservers" to your "ALL SERVERS") makes you look a tad silly.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
[Once again you have reposted an entire - long - post, then stuck your
bit on the end. Please try to snip, and insert your responses among the
text.]
> I'll just reply to all three of you here...
>
> You guys REALLY need to think about what you post... NONE of your
>postings even agree with what you have previously posted or among
>yourselves.
>
> There ARE master servers... whether you choose to call HOW messages
>get transferred across the world MIRRORING or propagation or peering or
>something else, USENET REQUIRES there be some place wherein
>information/postings can be collected, checked for duplicates,
>clarified, and otherwise prepared.... WHY you guys can't grasp that is
It's you who introduced the term mirroring, which is inappropriate here:
mirroring means an exact copy, and is usually applied to websites. News
peering is different.
Peering 101, as they might say in America:
At intervals set by the owner/operator of each newsserver, it connects
to each of its peering partners, and has an electronic conversation
something like this:
"here is a list of news postings I've received, either from my own users
or from other servers. Which ones do you not already have from the other
servers you peer with? OK, here are the bodies of the posts. Now can I
have your similar list? Thank you; from that list, these are the ones I
don't have, can I please have the bodies? Thank you."
Each posting on usenet has a unique identifier: for example, the posting
of yours to which this is a followup has
Message-ID: <eazCxuQG...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>
in its header. It is these MIDs that newsservers use to "check for
duplicates" as you put it. The MID is usually generated at the server to
which the person who originates the post is connected. So there is no
"central place".
As for "clarified, and otherwise prepared", they aren't; usenet posts
enter the system, and propagate, more or less exactly as the originating
poster types them, complete with spelling mistakes and so on.
>beyond me or reasonable sensibilities. IS it that in your minds all
>these newsgroups in Usenet are constantly colliding with each other
>vying for control of the postings shown and then somehow your *miracle
>newsreader* then sorts it all out?
You are VERY confused. Newsgroups don't collide. Nobody is "vying for
control". All my newsreader does is remember which postings I've read,
and also thread them, which it does by looking at the "References: "
header: when someone posts a followup, their newsreader inserts a
"References: " header listing the last few MIDs in the thread to which
they are contributing.
(Just out of curiosity, I tried to tell what news software you're using;
your posting contains
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre)
Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b2
, but whether that's the software you're using, or you're posting via
something that looks like a forum to you and that's what the forum is
using, I can't tell.)
>
> Can you post and have messages appear OUTSIDE of the master services,,
click ... there are no master services ... click ...
>yes,,, however, were it NOT for the EXTERNAL individual data bases and
>localized transference, those messages would appear NO WHERE else
>EXCEPT between whatever localized services might transfer amongst
You can think of usenet as a "localized" thing if you want; it is
actually global, but if it makes you feel "warm and fuzzy" as another
has put it to think of the outside world of usenet as something "local",
feel free (-:.
>themselves. Where it not for Google and other archival services, this
(You meant "Were ..." there.)
>might be more clear as they have muddy the waters with the ability to
>pull/locate messages OUTSIDE of master sites and the master
click ... there are no master services ... click ...
>servers/services, and become, in essence a secondary master source.
>This is, of course, how they make their money/financial enrichment,
Google make their money from advertising. (They do not conceal this
fact: they head the relevant column "Sponsored Links".)
>however it hasn't actually changed the actual method nor HOW this all
>works and has worked since it was originally conceived. Sites and
You are quite correct (even if it wasn't what you meant!), Google has
not changed how usenet peering works.
>services CAN refuse to let these archival activities occur, and they
Ah, perhaps you're talking about the wayback machine and other sites
(etc.) which attempt to archive the whole of the web. This is not the
same as usenet.
>CAN issues *take down notices* which MUST *by Law* be honored. If you
Whereas usenet posters can insert "X-No-Archive" headers, and similar,
which there is no obligation, legal or otherwise, to pay any attention
to; I believe some news-archiving sites (possibly including Google) do
in fact honour them. They are only partially effective, because of
quoting: if you add such a header to your post, it might not be
archived, but if someone posts a followup to your post and quotes it in
its entirety (as you have a habit of doing), and they do not put such a
header on their post, then their post, including the entirety of yours,
_will_ be archived.
>disagree best FIRST review the various legal actions in which these
>issues HAVE been addressed when refusal occurs or some other failure.
You're confusing websites with usenet postings - understandable, I
suppose, if you are viewing usenet via a web interface.
> When done it this fashion, the Usenet MAY and generally does contain
>the forum or other if it has been directed to them, that does NOT mean
>USENET created them or has any control over them WHATSOEVER, other than
Usenet does not create postings: individuals do. Usenet propagates them.
As for control - ... click ... nobody controls usenet postings ...
>to mirror [or whatever term you so choose to use] the content and send
>offered messages to the originating service.
See above for explanation that mirroring is not the same as peering.
>
> If this is still difficult to understand, then review the hacker or
>other *specialized* forums which appear and disappear from time to time
Forums again.
[]
>is no longer any MASTER to send the message to or receive messages
click ... there are no master services ... click ...
[]
> The Internet REQUIRES these things to occur, as without MASTERS [think
>IPs if that helps] there is no ability to transfer anything ANYWHERE
>other than in some local network-like fashion... the Internet and what
>it contains isn't actually *ETHER* [as in some miracle gas like thing -
>an appearing everywhere NATURALLY occurring thing], it happens to
No, but usenet is in fact quite a close approximation! Think of the
fishing-net again. (I mean the big nets as used by fishing-boats, not
the little ones with a handle which an individual fisherman might have.)
You can make holes in it (individual newsservers can close), but it is
self-repairing: the servers either side of the hole will make
arrangements with each other. (And even before that happens, posts will
propagate around the hole through the remaining parts of the net.)
>consist of very real PHYSICAL segments, services, and other factors
>which make it all work. WE [meaning the users who use it/connect to it]
>AREN'T the Internet just as USENET isn't the Internet nor is it some
>all powerful force which Microsoft and others must cow-tow too - it
>just uses the Internet now to function wherein originally it relied
>upon individual BBS services to function OUTSIDE of the Universities
>and government institutions. So it would be reasonable to compare
>Usenet to something like some gigantic parasite living off of other
>creatures, and that isn't meant as a derogatory comparison.
In the distant past that might have been the case (though I suspect even
there some would challenge you), but it certainly isn't now: newsservers
exist solely for the purpose of maintaining usenet, and there are an
awful lot of them (about, I think, half of all ISPs have one, as well as
numerous independent ones, some free, some to which you subscribe).
>
> If you want a new *take* on the future of the Internet then review
>*cloud* activities.
>
Usenet has some things in common with the cloud concept, though the
cloud concept seems to have more of a desire to control how you do
things.
MEB
Cute, one post in which you feign I have offended you AND Australia
"Sunny" <womba...@yahoo.com.au> while attempting to do so to me, then
this one "Sunny" <womba...@gmail.com> in which you avoid admitting
[though actually do admit] microsoft.public. received messages end up in
the same place as those submitted via the Microsoft site, its forums
viewable on its site.
Moreover, you continue to fail to admit your distinct errors in both
posts [heck actually all your posts] regarding Usenet:
MEB = >
Sunny = > >
> Is it that you infer that Usenet controls how and what you receive
> FROM or post to Microsoft in those special forums? [ref: the private
Microsoft activities]
No. I haven't got anything mixed up yet, but you CERTAINLY have...
you're obviously not familiar with adversarial questioning, are you.
MEB
> In message <Oujk47XG...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
> []
>> Why would I be horrified, you have just defined exactly what you
>> needed to...
>
> (Well, you've been doing that from the start, so Sunny can if he wants
> to - though I don't think he did.)
>>
the rest of your junk cut per your own prior request
>>
>> Additionally, as you specifically state they ARE Usenet:
>>> btw; I use another Microsoft Usenet server as well<
>>> privatenews.microsoft.com>
>> *WHERE* are these publicly available *Usenet newsgroups*
>> privatenews.microsoft.com located so the rest of Usenet might
>
> You have even less grasp than I'd thought. He didn't say that was a
> newsGROUP, but a newsSERVER.
> []
Nice try, but you AVOID what he DID say, its supposedly *Usenet*...
MEB
No your response is distinctly silly, or is it that your ARE
specifically stating all of the millions of newservers ARE Usenet?
MEB
Okay, but when you define a control such as profanity filtering is it
reasonable to then indicate some sort of inability to understand what a
control might be?
>
>> nor what Microsoft might eventually accept, as in received FROM the ISP,
>> for posting within Microsoft's groups on its server,
>
> Well - posts to the local ISP's servers appeared on Microsoft's servers, and
> since MS didn't know anything about it I guess it must have happened
> automatically. No control needed.
Then it would be reasonable to presume both had agreed on the
acceptable content.
>
>> or to be transferred elsewhere
>
> Posts to that server appeared on two other non-MS servers that I am aware
> of, so I guess they appeared throughout the network. I was never aware of
> any comments that they weren't appearing or had gone missing. But there is,
> in fact, no mechanism by which Microsoft could have controlled what appeared
> on other servers, unless they sent out forged Kill messages (which most
> servers don't action, anyway).
So either you didn't monitor the entire newsgroup offerings, or any
unacceptable may have been removed at the ISP level [or the hub perhaps].
>
>> [presuming you convinced them to pull directly FROM Microsoft and not some
>> secondary source].
>
> I have no idea where they actually pulled from, but I suspect it was a local
> node. They would not have pulled it from further afield than they needed to.
> Whatever, there was effective synchronization between the MS server listing
> and the local ISP's, so however they did it they got it working OK. And I
> can't see why the server they pulled from would make any difference, except
> perhaps to timing.
I'm rather certain that you are referring to a responsible ISP [or you
would indicate otherwise] so either prior filtering [before you might
see it] was unnecessary, or the hub you refer to may have done so. That
is unless what you did receive was filled with profanity and other.
>
>> Microsoft could easily ban that particular ISP from direct access if it
>> so chose to do so for some abuse or otherwise.
>
> Direct access, yes, but I suspect most servers don't access MS directly -
> it's much more likely they go through local nodes.
Yes, you are likely right, some secondary source.
>
>> It could also, it seems, filter out that ISP's input even from some
>> secondary source via IP information [reverse, trace, etc.] or one of the
>> other methods available (not saying specifically it would of course, nor
>> waste that time unless Microsoft was pursuing potential legal action).
>
> For their own servers, yes. They could simply use the posting host
> information - no need for reverse tracing or anything fancy. But, of
> course, that would not affect what appeared on any other servers, other than
> perhaps the timing.
>
> So I'm really not sure what sort of 'control' you are referring to in
> respect of the microsoft.public.* newsgroups when you say "Microsoft still
> controls ALL of its public offerings", other than the control over their own
> servers which, of course, all responsible ISPs would be exercising.
>
> I guess they could decide to drop some of them from their listings (perhaps
> they already have for some of the W95 groups - they are very quiet on the MS
> server) but of course those groups would continue to exist as long as there
> were still connections amongst other servers carrying them, so even that
> 'Control' is pretty vague.
>
>
I would agree for the most part. The control is as you indicate: any
filtering involved, dropping of any groups or other, potential denials
of access, and other within direct control of Microsoft. Of course
Microsoft could raise issue regarding usage of its name, or Windows, or
other trademarks, copyright, or other if choosing to do so, though where
that would go legally would be questionable, and public reception would
likely impact sales.
However, depending upon where those groups continued to exist and
whether they were actually used, world-wide impact would likely be
affected. Usenet is the offering, usage is another story altogether.
Imagine these groups filled with flame wars, cussing, and other that
tends to kill the groups [and I admit my participation at limited points]...
Sunny
<snip>
> Moreover, you continue to fail to admit your distinct errors in both
> posts [heck actually all your posts] regarding Usenet:
Rubbish, you don't have a clue what Usenet is
> No. I haven't got anything mixed up yet, but you CERTAINLY have...
> you're obviously not familiar with adversarial questioning, are you.
So what, is "adversarial questioning" your way of life?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
> Cute, one post in which you feign I have offended you AND Australia
>"Sunny" <womba...@yahoo.com.au> while attempting to do so to me,
>then this one "Sunny" <womba...@gmail.com> in which you avoid
>admitting [though actually do admit] microsoft.public. received
>messages end up in the same place as those submitted via the Microsoft
Usenet is not one "place".
>site, its forums viewable on its site.
>
> Moreover, you continue to fail to admit your distinct errors in both
>posts [heck actually all your posts] regarding Usenet:
'cos he hasn't made any ...
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
There are more bits in a 32-ton lorry driving up the motorway than the whole BT
net carries in an hour. (Duncan Hine of the Post Office, in Computing
1997-4-10)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
>> Look up "NNTP Server" on whatever search engine you use.
>> (when replying it is not good form to change a posters words to suite your
>> own agenda e.g.
>> "all newsservers" to your "ALL SERVERS") makes you look a tad silly.
>>
>>
>
> No your response is distinctly silly, or is it that your ARE
>specifically stating all of the millions of newservers ARE Usenet?
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
There are more bits in a 32-ton lorry driving up the motorway than the whole BT
J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
>> We're not "inferring" anything. No, usenet is the global collection of
>> all newsservers. Hint: it has "net" in its name - think of it as a
>> physical net, like a fishing net, if that helps you visualise it, with
>> the individual servers represented by the individual knots.
>> []
>
> And WHERE are all those within Usenet *attempting* to post to when
>messaging in microsoft.public.?
They're posting to usenet in general - expecting their posts to
propagate around all of usenet. And they're not just attempting -
they're succeeding.
> Is it the local services however widely "peered", or is it the actual
>group hosted and served by Microsoft?
I would imagine that most posters are not really bothered whether their
posts actually get carried on the Microsoft servers when they actually
reach them. Saying 'the local services however widely "peered"' conveys
a rather strange view of usenet! Go back to my fishing-net analogy: the
Microsoft server is only one knot in the net (or, at least, only one
small cluster of them - I expect it isn't just a single server).
>
> UHM,, ALL SERVERS, surely you don't mean all of the millions
Why not?
>available. Certainly you three understand that just because there is a
>news server somewhere DOESN'T mean it is Usenet, carries Usenet, or
>participates in Usenet.
>
It is true that you can have a news server that isn't connected to
usenet; you can even have a cluster of such. Some companies do so, for
newsgroups internal to that company. Most company newsserver clusters
carry some internal newsgroups, but often also carry some usenet
newsgroups which are peered with the rest of usenet in the normal way:
perhaps only those which the company considers relevant to its business.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
There are more bits in a 32-ton lorry driving up the motorway than the whole BT
Sunny
> On 08/10/2009 03:44 AM, Sunny wrote:
>> Look up "NNTP Server" on whatever search engine you use.
>> (when replying it is not good form to change a posters words to suite
>> your
>> own agenda e.g.
>> "all newsservers" to your "ALL SERVERS") makes you look a tad silly.
>>
>
> No your response is distinctly silly, or is it that your ARE
> specifically stating all of the millions of newservers ARE Usenet?
OK, change "you look a tad silly" to "deliberately change text to suit
your own agenda"?
Read slowly :
NNTP : Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) is a protocol used to
transfer news articles between a news server and a news reader.
There are now several web gateways, chiefly Google Groups (originally Deja
News).
Some web browsers include news readers and URLs beginning "news:" refer
to Usenet newsgroups.
Not all USENET machines are on the Internet. USENET is completely
decentralized, with over 10,000 discussion areas, called newsgroups.
I am specifically stating that if it is a "News Server" it is Usenet...
A world-wide system of discussion groups, with comments passed among
hundreds of thousands of machines.
It is not controlled by Microsoft despite your wish that it was.
If Microsoft withdrew their News server from Usenet tomorrow, Individual
Usenet users would start discussion groups to cover any perceived need.
It involves writing a "Request for Discussion" which is posted to
appropriate news groups and after a certain period of time the news group
is voted on and created if it passes. If you want more information on the
specifics see the article in the news.announce.newusers news group.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
>>> nor what Microsoft might eventually accept, as in received FROM the ISP,
>>> for posting within Microsoft's groups on its server,
>>
>> Well - posts to the local ISP's servers appeared on Microsoft's servers, and
>> since MS didn't know anything about it I guess it must have happened
>> automatically. No control needed.
>
> Then it would be reasonable to presume both had agreed on the
>acceptable content.
>
[]
>>> [presuming you convinced them to pull directly FROM Microsoft and not some
>>> secondary source].
Non-Microsoft servers are NOT a secondary source; they likely receive a
fair proportion of postings before the Microsoft servers do.
[]
>>> Microsoft could easily ban that particular ISP from direct access if it
>>> so chose to do so for some abuse or otherwise.
>>
>> Direct access, yes, but I suspect most servers don't access MS directly -
>> it's much more likely they go through local nodes.
>
> Yes, you are likely right, some secondary source.
>
Not secondary, just different. When I buy milk from my local
supermarket, I don't expect it to have come via the company's
headquarters.
[]
> I would agree for the most part. The control is as you indicate: any
[What, you agreeing with someone? (-:]
[]
MEB
> In message <#MEKtgZG...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> On 08/10/2009 03:32 AM, Jeff Richards wrote:
> []
>>>> nor what Microsoft might eventually accept, as in received FROM the
>>>> ISP,
>>>> for posting within Microsoft's groups on its server,
>>>
>>> Well - posts to the local ISP's servers appeared on Microsoft's
>>> servers, and
>>> since MS didn't know anything about it I guess it must have happened
>>> automatically. No control needed.
>>
>> Then it would be reasonable to presume both had agreed on the
>> acceptable content.
>>
> More likely that neither do any filtering.
Likely both... after all they want their PAYING users/customers
messages to go where the customer wants them to go, not get trashed upon
final destination.
> []
>>>> [presuming you convinced them to pull directly FROM Microsoft and
>>>> not some
>>>> secondary source].
>
> Non-Microsoft servers are NOT a secondary source; they likely receive a
> fair proportion of postings before the Microsoft servers do.
Which end up where? OH wait, whether you noticed or not you DID
indicate they go to Microsoft...
> []
>>>> Microsoft could easily ban that particular ISP from direct access if it
>>>> so chose to do so for some abuse or otherwise.
>>>
>>> Direct access, yes, but I suspect most servers don't access MS
>>> directly -
>>> it's much more likely they go through local nodes.
>>
>> Yes, you are likely right, some secondary source.
>>
> Not secondary, just different. When I buy milk from my local
> supermarket, I don't expect it to have come via the company's headquarters.
And without the FARM and COW you dang sure ain't gonna get no milk isya...
> []
>> I would agree for the most part. The control is as you indicate: any
>
> [What, you agreeing with someone? (-:]
> []
I would agree with you IF you had a lick of sensibilities...
regretfully you don't...
MEB
> In message <OrWQNlYG...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On 08/10/2009 02:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> We're not "inferring" anything. No, usenet is the global collection of
>>> all newsservers. Hint: it has "net" in its name - think of it as a
>>> physical net, like a fishing net, if that helps you visualise it, with
>>> the individual servers represented by the individual knots.
>>> []
Uhm so my site is org, does that mean I'm part of some vast organization?
>>
>> And WHERE are all those within Usenet *attempting* to post to when
>> messaging in microsoft.public.?
>
> They're posting to usenet in general - expecting their posts to
> propagate around all of usenet. And they're not just attempting -
> they're succeeding.
NO! They are posting into a specific newsgroup/forum/chat/whatever
from some specific originating service CARRIED/reflected/mirrored upon
numerous other services.... they expect to have their postings go TO
that particular source not some indexing services for OFFFERED
newsgroups... not some collective NAME for what happens to occur, but
what they actually expect to occur... the post appear in THAT
newsgroup/forum/chat/whatever.
And hopefully, if its a request for help, they don't bump into someone
like you three...
>
>> Is it the local services however widely "peered", or is it the actual
>> group hosted and served by Microsoft?
>
> I would imagine that most posters are not really bothered whether their
> posts actually get carried on the Microsoft servers when they actually
> reach them. Saying 'the local services however widely "peered"' conveys
> a rather strange view of usenet! Go back to my fishing-net analogy: the
> Microsoft server is only one knot in the net (or, at least, only one
> small cluster of them - I expect it isn't just a single server).
>>
>> UHM,, ALL SERVERS, surely you don't mean all of the millions
>
> Why not?
>
Cuz it aint da facts jack... no matter how many ways you guys attempt
to explain away what actually occurs.
MEB
> "MEB"<MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%239j2ZKZ...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> On 08/10/2009 03:44 AM, Sunny wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Look up "NNTP Server" on whatever search engine you use.
>>> (when replying it is not good form to change a posters words to suite
>>> your
>>> own agenda e.g.
>>> "all newsservers" to your "ALL SERVERS") makes you look a tad silly.
>>>
>> No your response is distinctly silly, or is it that your ARE
>> specifically stating all of the millions of newservers ARE Usenet?
>
> OK, change "you look a tad silly" to "deliberately change text to suit
> your own agenda"?
It never changed until YOU removed the second line which contained the
words "news servers".
Nice try.. so you distinctly display you do EXACTLY what you purport
to take issue with...
>
> Read slowly :
> NNTP : Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) is a protocol used to
> transfer news articles between a news server and a news reader.
> There are now several web gateways, chiefly Google Groups (originally Deja
> News).
> Some web browsers include news readers and URLs beginning "news:" refer
> to Usenet newsgroups.
And SOOOOOOOO....
>
> Not all USENET machines are on the Internet. USENET is completely
> decentralized, with over 10,000 discussion areas, called newsgroups.
>
> I am specifically stating that if it is a "News Server" it is Usenet...
> A world-wide system of discussion groups, with comments passed among
> hundreds of thousands of machines.
Wrong. News servers need not be part of, participate in, otherwise be
listed in your Usenet. They need not transfer public materials, nor
offer any for others to view. They need not transfer any news per se at
all because nntp can be and is used for other purposes as well.
>
> It is not controlled by Microsoft despite your wish that it was.
> If Microsoft withdrew their News server from Usenet tomorrow, Individual
> Usenet users would start discussion groups to cover any perceived need.
Really... so what does that mean...
You realize you again indicated Microsoft control...
>
> It involves writing a "Request for Discussion" which is posted to
> appropriate news groups and after a certain period of time the news group
> is voted on and created if it passes. If you want more information on the
> specifics see the article in the news.announce.newusers news group.
>
>
Why would I waste my time, I use direct or private access for most
activities...
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
Uh? The difficulty I have is in understanding what YOU might consider
'control' over the newsgroups they created. I believe I understand the
sorts of controls that anyone who operates a news server has over their own
servers, and I gave an example. But your claim was "Microsoft still
controls ALL of its public offerings" and, as I said, I don't know what
sorts of 'control' you might be referring to when you make this claim,
other than the control they have over their own servers.
>>> nor what Microsoft might eventually accept, as in received FROM the ISP,
>>> for posting within Microsoft's groups on its server,
>>
>> Well - posts to the local ISP's servers appeared on Microsoft's servers,
>> and
>> since MS didn't know anything about it I guess it must have happened
>> automatically. No control needed.
>
> Then it would be reasonable to presume both had agreed on the acceptable
> content.
No. Each had decided, separately, on the content control they would place on
their own servers. There is no agreement between MS and any other server
operator about what postings will or will not be rejected.
>>> or to be transferred elsewhere
>>
>> Posts to that server appeared on two other non-MS servers that I am aware
>> of, so I guess they appeared throughout the network. I was never aware of
>> any comments that they weren't appearing or had gone missing. But there
>> is,
>> in fact, no mechanism by which Microsoft could have controlled what
>> appeared
>> on other servers, unless they sent out forged Kill messages (which most
>> servers don't action, anyway).
>
> So either you didn't monitor the entire newsgroup offerings, or any
> unacceptable may have been removed at the ISP level [or the hub perhaps].
I made no claim to have monitored the entire newsgroup offering - that would
be impossible as I do not have access to most of them. I drew a conclusion
from a small sample. Whatever might have been unacceptable for a particular
server (if anything) was deleted when it was delivered to that server. If a
particular message didn't make it to a particular server, there is no
practical way of identifying which server deleted it. But, in fact, if a
particular message fails to make it to a particular server via one route, it
will almost certainly make it there by some of the many other routes
available. Therefore, it is reasonable, in practice, to assume that if a
particular message fails to appear on a particular server it is that server
which has rejected it.
>>> [presuming you convinced them to pull directly FROM Microsoft and not
>>> some
>>> secondary source].
>>
>> I have no idea where they actually pulled from, but I suspect it was a
>> local
>> node. They would not have pulled it from further afield than they needed
>> to.
>> Whatever, there was effective synchronization between the MS server
>> listing
>> and the local ISP's, so however they did it they got it working OK. And I
>> can't see why the server they pulled from would make any difference,
>> except
>> perhaps to timing.
>
> I'm rather certain that you are referring to a responsible ISP [or you
> would indicate otherwise] so either prior filtering [before you might see
> it] was unnecessary, or the hub you refer to may have done so. That is
> unless what you did receive was filled with profanity and other.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
>>> Microsoft could easily ban that particular ISP from direct access if
>>> it
>>> so chose to do so for some abuse or otherwise.
>>
>> Direct access, yes, but I suspect most servers don't access MS directly -
>> it's much more likely they go through local nodes.
>
> Yes, you are likely right, some secondary source.
A classic example of begging the question. With your experience in debate,
you should know better. You have attempted to argue that there is some
notion of a 'Master' news server, and you have attempted to support that
claim by arguing that the 'Master' server can be defined as the server that
'controls' the group. I have pointed out that there are no controls other
than what the server administrator has over its own server - where it pulls
feeds from, what (if any) filtering it applies, whether or not sign-in is
required for access - and therefore there can be no 'Master'. But now you
are implying that I suggested that my ISP gets its messages from a
'secondary source'. There can only be a secondary source is there is a
primary or 'Master'. Your statement in support of your position starts from
an assumption that your position is correct - you have begged the question.
OK. So Microsoft controls what newsgroups appear on its servers, what
messages are rejected for its servers (if any) and how people access those
groups (public, in the case of microsoft.public.*). So can we agree that MS
does not control the newsgroups it created, and that there is no Master
server?
> Of course Microsoft could raise issue regarding usage of its name, or
> Windows, or other trademarks, copyright, or other if choosing to do so,
> though where that would go legally would be questionable, and public
> reception would likely impact sales.
They could, and in the case of Websites they do. But there is no evidence
that such an attempt in the case of the term "microsoft" appearing in a
newsgroup name, especially since it was MS that put it there, would be
possible. But if that is possible (and it's doubtful) it is only an
accidental result of using 'microsoft' in the group name. It has no
relation to the issue of whether the creator of a newsgroup somehow controls
that newsgroup.
> However, depending upon where those groups continued to exist and whether
> they were actually used, world-wide impact would likely be affected.
I think you mean would wide usage would be affected. Any change in which
servers do, and which don't, carry a particular newsgroup will impact usage,
as it directly relates to visibility. But if you want to predict the impact
of MS dropping some of it's public newsgroups, you are much braver than any
professional comentator that I am aware of. In any case, it has nothing to
do with controlling the newsgroup or a 'Master" server.
> Usenet is the offering, usage is another story altogether.
> Imagine these groups filled with flame wars, cussing, and other that tends
> to kill the groups [and I admit my participation at limited points]...
I don't need to imagine them - I know them from personal experience. But I
don't understand what that has to do with the discussion.
--
Jeff Richards
MEB
Okay, how about you create your own newsgroup on microsoft.public.
WITHOUT contacting Microsoft or those you know there or have a
connection there.... but use an external source somewhere and have it
appear here... post the link so we can all move to that group...
As if you didn't have a clue, gees you really must be bored or
something...
>
>>>> nor what Microsoft might eventually accept, as in received FROM the ISP,
>>>> for posting within Microsoft's groups on its server,
>>> Well - posts to the local ISP's servers appeared on Microsoft's servers,
>>> and
>>> since MS didn't know anything about it I guess it must have happened
>>> automatically. No control needed.
>> Then it would be reasonable to presume both had agreed on the acceptable
>> content.
>
> No. Each had decided, separately, on the content control they would place on
> their own servers. There is no agreement between MS and any other server
> operator about what postings will or will not be rejected.
ANDDDDDD, if the ISP does not follow what Microsoft allows can it
guarantee the customer's post will appear on Microsoft?
>
>>>> or to be transferred elsewhere
>>> Posts to that server appeared on two other non-MS servers that I am aware
>>> of, so I guess they appeared throughout the network. I was never aware of
>>> any comments that they weren't appearing or had gone missing. But there
>>> is,
>>> in fact, no mechanism by which Microsoft could have controlled what
>>> appeared
>>> on other servers, unless they sent out forged Kill messages (which most
>>> servers don't action, anyway).
>> So either you didn't monitor the entire newsgroup offerings, or any
>> unacceptable may have been removed at the ISP level [or the hub perhaps].
>
> I made no claim to have monitored the entire newsgroup offering - that would
> be impossible as I do not have access to most of them.
Didn't say you had... it says "So either".
Oh come on,, what game are you playing here...
>
>>>> Microsoft could easily ban that particular ISP from direct access if
>>>> it
>>>> so chose to do so for some abuse or otherwise.
>>> Direct access, yes, but I suspect most servers don't access MS directly -
>>> it's much more likely they go through local nodes.
>> Yes, you are likely right, some secondary source.
>
> A classic example of begging the question. With your experience in debate,
> you should know better. You have attempted to argue that there is some
> notion of a 'Master' news server, and you have attempted to support that
> claim by arguing that the 'Master' server can be defined as the server that
> 'controls' the group. I have pointed out that there are no controls other
> than what the server administrator has over its own server - where it pulls
> feeds from, what (if any) filtering it applies, whether or not sign-in is
> required for access - and therefore there can be no 'Master'. But now you
> are implying that I suggested that my ISP gets its messages from a
> 'secondary source'. There can only be a secondary source is there is a
> primary or 'Master'. Your statement in support of your position starts from
> an assumption that your position is correct - you have begged the question.
If you are attempting to claim there is no master source, yet
Microsoft does create and offer those for distribution as their MASTER,
other sources would be at minimum secondary.
If, as you attempt to present, there is no master then:
You state a "hub" was likely used, not direct access to Microsoft -
now what would you claim as being the position of that hub?
Don't bother with "peer" or some other junk, because parties posting
expect their message to appear on Microsoft... and I'm rather sure
Microsoft doesn't consider itself as nor offer itself to, as peer to
Jobowan's ISP in VAMPUZUBANSKI which can post what it wishes on Microsoft.
What gave you that idea? Now you are posturing something not even
remotely presented...
>
>> Of course Microsoft could raise issue regarding usage of its name, or
>> Windows, or other trademarks, copyright, or other if choosing to do so,
>> though where that would go legally would be questionable, and public
>> reception would likely impact sales.
>
> They could, and in the case of Websites they do. But there is no evidence
> that such an attempt in the case of the term "microsoft" appearing in a
> newsgroup name, especially since it was MS that put it there, would be
> possible. But if that is possible (and it's doubtful) it is only an
> accidental result of using 'microsoft' in the group name. It has no
> relation to the issue of whether the creator of a newsgroup somehow controls
> that newsgroup.
Nice! You state "MS put it there"; previously indicate Microsoft
created the groups and controls creation; previously indicated receiving
messages/groups not directly from Microsoft; then argue its an
"accidental result"... you don't really believe that do you, or expect
me to ignore that?
>
>> However, depending upon where those groups continued to exist and whether
>> they were actually used, world-wide impact would likely be affected.
>
> I think you mean would wide usage would be affected. Any change in which
> servers do, and which don't, carry a particular newsgroup will impact usage,
> as it directly relates to visibility. But if you want to predict the impact
> of MS dropping some of it's public newsgroups, you are much braver than any
> professional comentator that I am aware of. In any case, it has nothing to
> do with controlling the newsgroup or a 'Master" server.
NO, world-wide.
Wasn't meant to be part of a MASTER VERSES issue unless you WANT me to
make it one, seems you're stuck in that mode...
The investors certainly wouldn't tolerate the abuse of the Microsoft
name for very long in anything remotely resembling or indicating it came
from Microsoft or originally came from Microsoft, or is it that you
believe they would?
[Not counting the marketing ploys wherein Microsoft or representative
makes fun of itself]
>
>> Usenet is the offering, usage is another story altogether.
>> Imagine these groups filled with flame wars, cussing, and other that tends
>> to kill the groups [and I admit my participation at limited points]...
>
> I don't need to imagine them - I know them from personal experience. But I
> don't understand what that has to do with the discussion.
Look guys I appreciate you're trying to keep this forum active, and
give yourselves something to do and NOT get flamed when doing it [except
in return], but this is ridiculous... either come up with some viable
arguments or discussion materials, or you can continue amongst yourselves...
98 Guy
Is there really a need to keep nesting quoted material to a depth of 8?
In case you're interested, this topic of "master/slave" or
"primary/secondary" microsoft servers has been raised in the following
two newsgroups:
news.admin.misc
news.admin.technical
You might want to see how those threads are progressing, and what
comments are being made there about some of the material that has been
posted here in this thread.
Sunny
"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4A80EF6B...@Guy.com...
Maurice is not interested, and Microsoft has chosen to not carry those
news groups on their NNTP Usenet News Server. From a previous post from
MEB ;
"Why would I waste my time, I use direct or private access for most
activities..."
Additionally MEB would not be pleased that his premise that Microsoft is a
"Master" News server is wrong
(I doubt that they are even "Moderated")
J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
>> Read slowly :
>> NNTP : Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) is a protocol used to
>> transfer news articles between a news server and a news reader.
>> There are now several web gateways, chiefly Google Groups (originally Deja
>> News).
>> Some web browsers include news readers and URLs beginning "news:" refer
>> to Usenet newsgroups.
>
> And SOOOOOOOO....
>
>>
>> Not all USENET machines are on the Internet. USENET is completely
>> decentralized, with over 10,000 discussion areas, called newsgroups.
>>
>> I am specifically stating that if it is a "News Server" it is Usenet...
>> A world-wide system of discussion groups, with comments passed among
>> hundreds of thousands of machines.
>
> Wrong. News servers need not be part of, participate in, otherwise be
>listed in your Usenet. They need not transfer public materials, nor
>offer any for others to view. They need not transfer any news per se at
>all because nntp can be and is used for other purposes as well.
>
newsservers exist which carry them, usually within large
companies/corporations. Although these usually _do_ also carry - and
therefore peer with the rest of usenet where these are concerned - a
limited set of "public" newsgroups, often those which someone has
decided are relevant to what the organisation in question does. (For
example, a software company might well carry some of the comp.*
newsgroups on its internal servers.) They don't usually censor those
'groups they carry, as that takes too much time; their censorship is
generally limited to killing those internal newsgroups where someone
complains about a posting within them to some manager who probably
wasn't previously aware the system existed. But private news networks
are very different from usenet.
>>
>> It is not controlled by Microsoft despite your wish that it was.
>> If Microsoft withdrew their News server from Usenet tomorrow, Individual
>> Usenet users would start discussion groups to cover any perceived need.
>
> Really... so what does that mean...
> You realize you again indicated Microsoft control...
>
be necessary for any newsgroups to be created: the existing ones would
continue.
Jeff Richards
> WITHOUT contacting Microsoft or those you know there or have a connection
> there.... but use an external source somewhere and have it appear here...
> post the link so we can all move to that group...
> As if you didn't have a clue, gees you really must be bored or
> something...
What do you mean "on microsoft.public"? What sort of thing do you believe
that "microsoft.public" is that I could create a newsgroup "on" it?
Do you mean that I should attempt to create a newsgroup that is accessible
through MSNews.microsoft.com? If so, then I have explained why that is not
possible: one of the things that I explicitly mentioned that was controlled
for each server was the newsgroups that the ISP chose to carry. Unless I
could somehow convince Microsoft to carry the newsgroup I created, it would
not be accessible through MSNews.Microsoft.com.
> snip <
> If you are attempting to claim there is no master source, yet Microsoft
> does create and offer those for distribution as their MASTER, other
> sources would be at minimum secondary.
I think you mean maximum, not minimum.
> If, as you attempt to present, there is no master then:
> You state a "hub" was likely used, not direct access to Microsoft - now
> what would you claim as being the position of that hub?
I never used the term 'hub' - that was your term. I used the term 'node'.
Since 'hub' is your term I am not going to attempt to eplain what you may
mean by it. When I used the term 'node' I meant any other news server in
the network that provided access to that set of newsgroups.
> Don't bother with "peer" or some other junk, because parties posting
> expect their message to appear on Microsoft... and I'm rather sure
> Microsoft doesn't consider itself as nor offer itself to, as peer to
> Jobowan's ISP in VAMPUZUBANSKI which can post what it wishes on Microsoft.
Yes it does. That's why they put the term 'public' in the name. That's why
you can access MSNews.microsoft.com and read the messages without any form
of registration - it is accessible by any news reader (or news server) that
wants to see the messages. Distinguish this from many other newsgroups that
MS hosts on their servers, some with the word 'private' in their name, which
are not accessible to anyone other than those people that MS stpecifically
authorises to access them.
Of course, Microsoft may well choose not to receive messages from any other
news servers. But this would create the odd situation that I would be
seeing a only a tiny fraction of the total messages if I accessed the group
through MSNews.microsoft.com compared with what I saw at News.Jobowan.ru.
There would be little point in Microsoft carrying the newsgroup at all, let
alone making it public..
> snip <
>> OK. So Microsoft controls what newsgroups appear on its servers, what
>> messages are rejected for its servers (if any) and how people access
>> those
>> groups (public, in the case of microsoft.public.*). So can we agree that
>> MS
>> does not control the newsgroups it created, and that there is no Master
>> server?
>
> What gave you that idea? Now you are posturing something not even
> remotely presented...
If that's not what you are suggesting, then can you give us some other form
of 'control' that MS might be exercising that justifies your use of terms
like 'Master' and 'secondary'? Or are you abandoning the concept of control
as defining the 'Master'?
> Nice! You state "MS put it there"; previously indicate Microsoft created
> the groups and controls creation; previously indicated receiving
> messages/groups not directly from Microsoft; then argue its an "accidental
> result"... you don't really believe that do you, or expect me to ignore
> that?
I mean exactly what I said - that the possibility of MS exercising some
control over servers carrying that newsgroup (if it exists) is the
accidental result of Microsoft using the term 'microsoft' in the name they
used for the groups they created on their public servers. I am not
suggesting that Microsoft's use of the term was accidental - it was clearly
very deliberate. But I am very confident that _if_, at some time in the
future, MS decided they needed to stop other news servers from carrying
these groups and _if_ they discovered that their use of the term 'microsoft'
gave them some legal leverage to do so, they would regard it as a very happy
accident.
> snip <
> Wasn't meant to be part of a MASTER VERSES issue unless you WANT me to
> make it one, seems you're stuck in that mode...
Yes. I am stuck in that mode because of your persistent refusal to recognise
that there is no MASTER.
> The investors certainly wouldn't tolerate the abuse of the Microsoft name
> for very long in anything remotely resembling or indicating it came from
> Microsoft or originally came from Microsoft, or is it that you believe
> they would?
I am not aware of any investor concern about news servers that carry
newsgroups with 'microsoft' as part of the newsgroup name. If you know of
any such concern, you might like to alert the ISPs who carry these groups so
they are forewarned.
You have been directed to a source where you can discuss this with people
who have much more authority in respect of the topic than anyone here.
Whether you will pay any more attention to what they will tell you than you
have paid to what you have been told here is anyone's guess.
--
Jeff Richards
Jeff Richards
there.
However I do wonder who thought to take the discussion there.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4A80EF6B...@Guy.com...
> snip <
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>On 08/10/2009 07:05 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <OrWQNlYG...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB
>> <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 08/10/2009 02:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> []
>>>> We're not "inferring" anything. No, usenet is the global collection of
>>>> all newsservers. Hint: it has "net" in its name - think of it as a
>>>> physical net, like a fishing net, if that helps you visualise it, with
>>>> the individual servers represented by the individual knots.
>>>> []
>
> Uhm so my site is org, does that mean I'm part of some vast organization?
>
sites (I presume you mean a website)?
>>>
>>> And WHERE are all those within Usenet *attempting* to post to when
>>> messaging in microsoft.public.?
>>
>> They're posting to usenet in general - expecting their posts to
>> propagate around all of usenet. And they're not just attempting -
>> they're succeeding.
>
> NO! They are posting into a specific newsgroup/forum/chat/whatever
>from some specific originating service CARRIED/reflected/mirrored upon
>numerous other services.... they expect to have their postings go TO
>that particular source not some indexing services for OFFFERED
There is no "particular source". We who post in usenet newsgroups expect
our postings to propagate around the network of news servers around the
world which between them constitute newsnet/usenet, and eventually to
"expire". A post includes, in its header, the date and time it was
posted, and most newsservers don't accept posts over a certain age; they
usually publish their "retention policy", which usually varies between
hierarchies (generally short for binary 'groups, if carried, up to
indefinite for any private 'groups).
>newsgroups... not some collective NAME for what happens to occur, but
>what they actually expect to occur... the post appear in THAT
>newsgroup/forum/chat/whatever.
> And hopefully, if its a request for help, they don't bump into someone
>like you three...
>
I haven't (I think) met Sunny and Jeff before this discussion, but I
have no reason to think they do not answer requests for help if it is on
a subject on which they can offer it; I certainly do. In fact, even
though it has gone beyond the point you may realise it, we are trying to
help you understand the difference between forums and newsgroups,
newsgroups and newsservers, newsgroup creation and news posting
creation, ...
[]
>>> UHM,, ALL SERVERS, surely you don't mean all of the millions
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>
> Cuz it aint da facts jack... no matter how many ways you guys attempt
>to explain away what actually occurs.
>
No matter how many times you deny it ... (-:
J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
>> Non-Microsoft servers are NOT a secondary source; they likely receive a
>> fair proportion of postings before the Microsoft servers do.
>
> Which end up where? OH wait, whether you noticed or not you DID
>indicate they go to Microsoft...
>
don't consider them to be any different to any other server, in this
respect. They are one of many.
[]
>> Not secondary, just different. When I buy milk from my local
>> supermarket, I don't expect it to have come via the company's headquarters.
>
> And without the FARM and COW you dang sure ain't gonna get no milk isya...
>
in the world, from which all milk comes. The milk I buy in any one
region I assume comes from a farm - and hence cow - not that far away;
SOME OF the postings I read on any one newsserver I expect to have come
from the users of that particular server, but since unlike milk postings
don't "go off", I also expect to see postings that have come from users
of other servers all around the world. (Well, postings often lose their
relevance in time, but that time is long compared to the time it takes
them to propagate around the world.)
MEB
Good, then we can consider this as being closed here then. We agree to
disagree.
And since this is apparently being placed elsewhere:
Just for an FYI, as previously noted within this group, I was part of
the originating of this Usenet aspect and I was part of the mirroring of
this Usenet indexing and distribution during those initial years of
establishing and expanding that "network" [that's before the Internet
and for a time afterwards]. That it now exists, for the most part, ON
the Internet, hasn't changed much in reality, its still a networking
system which relies upon parties [news servers if that's what helps
understand] and users to participate within it. If the businesses,
corporations, and other remove their support or no longer offer Usenet
access, it becomes again what it once was, just another offering for
discussion usage.
It was far more useful prior to the entry of Search Engines and their
locational abilities and archiving into the Internet, as they now
provide the indexing and locational abilities, and many now supply their
own versions of "Usenet" or more appropriately social networks without
the need for Usenet, save for historical purposes and to offer those
groups *distinct* within that network. Most groups and forums, however,
are not in Usenet, and the spiders and other now used by the Search
Engines are far more effective at locating and offering the groups for
"discovery" that a party might wish to locate and use.
Moreover, just as this forum has noticed decreases in usage not just
do to lack of OS use, "Usenet" [per se] has also suffered similar losses
within its own Networking system. As Twitter, Facebook, and the like
[distinct and separate social networks] expand their impact, Usenet will
also lose some or potentially all of its users and value. When "Cloud"
and other new aspects of Internet usage become the standard and fully
implemented, Usenet and many other present external networking features
and offerings will become unnecessary and likely fade away or become
somewhat niche like in nature.
Since you have indicated this is being discussed elsewhere, here's
some more ideas to think about and discuss, feel free to do so elsewhere.
Sunny
"> On 08/11/2009 03:57 AM, Jeff Richards wrote:
>> You have been directed to a source where you can discuss this with
>> people
>> who have much more authority in respect of the topic than anyone here.
>> Whether you will pay any more attention to what they will tell you than
>> you
>> have paid to what you have been told here is anyone's guess.
MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ujUJ$FqGKH...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
<snip>
> Since you have indicated this is being discussed elsewhere, here's some
> more ideas to think about and discuss, feel free to do so elsewhere.
<snip>
Forums are run from webservers that can only be located at a specific
address, If the webserver for a forum goes down for any reason, nobody
will be able to access the content at all until the server is restored.
Usenet is distributed across a large number of servers, each carrying
their own mirrors of various different newsgroups. If one Usenet server
goes down, only the users directly connected to that server will have
trouble connecting. Other users can still participate in newsgroups
without interruption.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>Do you guys ever think of trimming your posts?
I certainly do; I think two of the other three posters in this thread do
too. There is one who doesn't seem to do much trimming.
>
>Is there really a need to keep nesting quoted material to a depth of 8?
Very rarely IMO!
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the way before
it is understood." - Fortunes
J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
>> Uh? The difficulty I have is in understanding what YOU might consider
>> 'control' over the newsgroups they created. I believe I understand the
>> sorts of controls that anyone who operates a news server has over their own
>> servers, and I gave an example. But your claim was "Microsoft still
>> controls ALL of its public offerings" and, as I said, I don't know what
>> sorts of 'control' you might be referring to when you make this claim,
>> other than the control they have over their own servers.
>
> Okay, how about you create your own newsgroup on microsoft.public.
As Jeff has already replied, there is no such thing as
"microsoft.public" - no newsgroup, no newsserver. Thus he can't "create"
anything "on" it.
>WITHOUT contacting Microsoft or those you know there or have a
>connection there.... but use an external source somewhere and have it
>appear here... post the link so we can all move to that group...
> As if you didn't have a clue, gees you really must be bored or
>something...
>
Pot, kettle ... I think perhaps what you might have meant is creating _a
newsgroup whose name begins with microsoft.public_. This might indeed be
difficult, since most newsserver operators would discuss it with
Microsoft, out of courtesy; however, in theory such a 'group _could_ be
created without Microsoft's approval. If it was, it would propagate via
whichever servers chose to carry it - and that choice is independent of
Microsoft's approval of the 'group's existence.
[]
>> No. Each had decided, separately, on the content control they would place on
>> their own servers. There is no agreement between MS and any other server
>> operator about what postings will or will not be rejected.
>
> ANDDDDDD, if the ISP does not follow what Microsoft allows can it
>guarantee the customer's post will appear on Microsoft?
>
If by "on Microsoft", you mean "in the microsoft newsgroups", then yes;
if you mean "on the Microsoft newsserver", then no. But remember that
most usenet users don't use the MS 'server, and quite a few of them
don't even know there is an MS server.
[]
>>> I'm rather certain that you are referring to a responsible ISP [or you
>>> would indicate otherwise] so either prior filtering [before you might see
>>> it] was unnecessary, or the hub you refer to may have done so. That is
>>> unless what you did receive was filled with profanity and other.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
>
> Oh come on,, what game are you playing here...
>
English?
[]
> If you are attempting to claim there is no master source, yet
>Microsoft does create and offer those for distribution as their MASTER,
>other sources would be at minimum secondary.
You are confusing the creation of newsgroups with the creation of
postings.
Newsgroups can be created by anyone; those beginning microsoft were, I
presume, created by microsoft (though they don't have to be, see above).
Once they've been created, the person who creates a newsgroup has no
control over the postings that appear in that newsgroup, except on their
own server, if they have one.
News postings are created by individuals (as I am creating this one).
>
> If, as you attempt to present, there is no master then:
> You state a "hub" was likely used, not direct access to Microsoft -
>now what would you claim as being the position of that hub?
Nobody mentioned hubs.
> Don't bother with "peer" or some other junk, because parties posting
>expect their message to appear on Microsoft... and I'm rather sure
I've got news for you: whether their postings appear on the Microsoft
_newsserver(s)_ is probably of supreme indifference to most posters;
quite a large proportion don't even know there _are_ Microsoft
newsserver(s). IF you mean people posting expect their posts to appear
in the microsoft news_groups_ (assuming they posted them to such in the
first place), then it isn't a matter of expecting: they can see that
their posts _do_ appear in those newsgroups.
>Microsoft doesn't consider itself as nor offer itself to, as peer to
>Jobowan's ISP in VAMPUZUBANSKI which can post what it wishes on
>Microsoft.
>
You keep talking about "posting to Microsoft", without explaining what
you mean by that.
[]
>> OK. So Microsoft controls what newsgroups appear on its servers, what
>> messages are rejected for its servers (if any) and how people access those
>> groups (public, in the case of microsoft.public.*). So can we agree that MS
>> does not control the newsgroups it created, and that there is no Master
>> server?
>
> What gave you that idea? Now you are posturing something not even
>remotely presented...
>
Observation (as well as knowledge of how usenet propagates) has
confirmed that to us (not just "given" us it as an "idea").
>>
>>> Of course Microsoft could raise issue regarding usage of its name, or
>>> Windows, or other trademarks, copyright, or other if choosing to do so,
>>> though where that would go legally would be questionable, and public
>>> reception would likely impact sales.
>>
>> They could, and in the case of Websites they do. But there is no evidence
>> that such an attempt in the case of the term "microsoft" appearing in a
>> newsgroup name, especially since it was MS that put it there, would be
>> possible. But if that is possible (and it's doubtful) it is only an
>> accidental result of using 'microsoft' in the group name. It has no
>> relation to the issue of whether the creator of a newsgroup somehow controls
>> that newsgroup.
>
> Nice! You state "MS put it there"; previously indicate Microsoft
>created the groups and controls creation; previously indicated
We believe MS created the groups (where the group names starts with
microsoft). We believe there is probably some extent to which MS still
influence the creation of groups whose name starts with microsoft. We do
not yield at all on the matter of control of the postings that appear
within those (or any other) groups: once a newsgroup has been created
(and starts to be propagated), there is very little control over what
postings appear in it.
[]
> Wasn't meant to be part of a MASTER VERSES issue unless you WANT me to
>make it one, seems you're stuck in that mode...
No-one mentioned poetry ...
>
> The investors certainly wouldn't tolerate the abuse of the Microsoft
>name for very long in anything remotely resembling or indicating it
>came from Microsoft or originally came from Microsoft, or is it that
>you believe they would?
Not only would they, they do. The microsoft.* set of newsgroups
propagate, including posts not originating from posters who are users of
the MS newsservers, and have been doing for some time.
[]
> Look guys I appreciate you're trying to keep this forum active, and
We're not using a forum.
>give yourselves something to do and NOT get flamed when doing it
>[except in return], but this is ridiculous... either come up with some
>viable arguments or discussion materials, or you can continue amongst
>yourselves...
>
We don't need to continue among ourselves, since we are in broad
agreement.
MEB
Wrong yet again.
Check this group for an indication during a similar discussion with 98
Guy.