[OT]? How to read facebook groups (and alike) posts

13 views
Skip to first unread message

R.Wieser

unread,
Mar 30, 2022, 2:12:05 PMMar 30
to
Hello all,

I'm using DDG and Google to search for some particular information, and ever
so often get results back that poin to a facebook group. I neither have a
login, nor does my browser run random scripts.

My question : does anyone know of a way to read (and *just* that)
facebook-group posts ? A proxy perhaps ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
If someone knows about similar simple, read-only access to other social
media I would like to hear about those too.


Sun City

unread,
Mar 30, 2022, 2:38:30 PMMar 30
to
You don't need a facebook account as far as I know. Can you get this link?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/47148932532

You need a browser that is recent such as Firefox 86.x++ or google chrome.

Philip Herlihy

unread,
Mar 30, 2022, 3:11:13 PMMar 30
to
In article <t226hf$1qj8$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser wrote...
Facebook groups (I've been an admin of a large group) are configured to be
public, private or secret (I rather think terms have changed, but the principal
is the same).

Public groups don't restrict visibility of posts at all, or their members'
identities, though individuals can also influence this. Private groups only
allow visibility of content to members. Secret groups can't be found in a
search - you have to have the exact name or link.

There's little cost in creating a simple Facebook profile, though admins
considering you for membership of their group often turn up their nose at near-
blank profiles. Be thoughtful what you disclose, but you can make most of your
details private. If you accept Facebook "friends" you can classify them as
Family, Close Friends, Friends or Acquaintances (without them seeing this).
Then choose which level of Friends are to be able to see any default posts you
make (adjustable on a per-post basis).

Facebook is huge fun if you get it right. You can keep up with people you'd
otherwise lose touch with, and groups can be a rich source of interest,
including locality-based groups. I learned a lot (and even grew a little as a
person) from creating and administering a very busy and lively locality group,
learning to deal with fools, trolls and worse, while cultivating a real
community. But I got sucked in to the point where it was taking up WAY too
much time, and I'm currently taking a lengthy break. I look forward to getting
back to it when current big projects are done and dusted.

One lesson, to pick from many? "Always let the other side have the last word.
For then it will be their foolishness, and not yours, that will linger in
people's minds."

TLDR: No, you can't read the content in private groups (most groups) unless
your Facebook identity is given membership of the group.

--

Phil, London

R.Wieser

unread,
Mar 30, 2022, 4:07:16 PMMar 30
to
Sun City,

> You don't need a facebook account as far as I know. Can you get this link?
>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/47148932532

Yeah, I can get at that link (I tested before posting here). But have you
noticed that there is absolutily no textual content in there ? Just
scripts. And as mentioned, my browser doesn't run them.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


R.Wieser

unread,
Mar 30, 2022, 4:07:16 PMMar 30
to
Philip,

> Facebook groups (I've been an admin of a large group) are configured
> to be public, private or secret

I'm aware of that. AFAIk the group I try to read the messages in is public.

> There's little cost in creating a simple Facebook profile,

Lets put it this way : I have zero wish to hand over my life to Facebook
just to read a few posts. Besides the problem that I would still be unable
to read anything, as everything is hidden away behind lots of JavaScript (I
checked)

Hence my question.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


Mayayana

unread,
Mar 30, 2022, 5:29:50 PMMar 30
to
"R.Wieser" <add...@not.available> wrote

| Lets put it this way : I have zero wish to hand over my life to Facebook
| just to read a few posts. Besides the problem that I would still be
unable
| to read anything, as everything is hidden away behind lots of JavaScript
(I
| checked)
|

I'm with you. Surprisingly, even a lot of organizations
and businesses use Facebook without having websites.
They just don't know about the WWW. They only know
social media.

I haven't come across a way to access such groups.
I just try to shame them when I have a chance. But
I did come across nitter.net, which allows you to search
and read Twitter without javascript. So if Twitter ever
has anything worth reading... I'm all set. :) So far I've
only used it to look up old friends, none of which seem
to actually post there.


Philip Herlihy

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 4:12:06 AMMar 31
to
In article <t22i49$1hn$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana wrote...
It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post - termed
"permalink" in FB. That link is underneath the faint grey legend of the
date/time of posting, just beneath the post. So it's possible to access a
given post via the web, if the applicable permissions allow. But if nobody
identifies that link for you, then without a profile you'll be knocking at a
locked door. It's perfectly possible to have a minimal profile, even using
genuine information, and to configure it so that none of it is visible to
anyone that you haven't explicitly given permission to. And that would give
you many more chances to get at the info you're looking for. But some people
simply knee-jerk at the thought (often based on third-hand accounts) of social
media. The choice is yours.

TikTok, on the other hand, is clearly the work of Satan.

--

Phil, London

R.Wieser

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 4:53:09 AMMar 31
to
Mayayana,

Thanks for mentioning that twitter entry point. I"ve stored it for when I
might need it.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


R.Wieser

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 5:04:47 AMMar 31
to
Philip,

> It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post

No, it isn't possible.

I took the time to follow such a link (
https://www.facebook.com/groups/{name}/posts/{big number} ), and all that I
got was a page full of JS. With the only human readable contentin some
"<meta property=" tags in the "head" part of the page.

IOW, the link itself is *at best* an indirect one - with the actual content
hidden behind a lot of JS.

Why do you think I asked ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser



JJ

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 7:04:45 AMMar 31
to
It's going to be difficult or at least, tedious.

First of all, the correct JS code will need to be parsed to extract the raw
data of the page content which contains user posted messages - which is in
form of a JS object.

The other difficulties is that, the HTML page resource retrieved from a post
URL, only contains the first view comments. FB retrieves the rest of the
comments using JS, and the URL used to retrieve it includes access tokens -
which also need to be extracted from a JS code elsewhere from the HTML page
resource and/or cookie.

You might want to search GitHub or other open source project repositories
for a project that does that _without_ using FB's Graph API. FYI, FB's Graph
API requires an FB account to generate an access token.

nospam

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 7:08:04 AMMar 31
to
In article <t23qra$i9k$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<add...@not.available> wrote:

> > It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post
>
> No, it isn't possible.

yes it is.

> I took the time to follow such a link (
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/{name}/posts/{big number} ), and all that I
> got was a page full of JS. With the only human readable contentin some
> "<meta property=" tags in the "head" part of the page.
>
> IOW, the link itself is *at best* an indirect one - with the actual content
> hidden behind a lot of JS.

your browser is either misconfigured or not supported. did you disable
javascript? what browser are you using?

if the content is not public, you should see a login page. since you
stated you do not have a facebook account, that will be as far as you
get, and even if you did have an account, it might not be available to
you.

Andy Burns

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 7:13:05 AMMar 31
to
R.Wieser wrote:

> I took the time to follow such a link (
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/{name}/posts/{big number} ), and all that I
> got was a page full of JS.

I'm not on FB in any way, but there's a village hall group I sometimes look at,
if you google for the name of the group, facebook wants you to login to see it,
but if you find a link to an item on the group itself, the group is "public" and
"visible" and you can see the discussion without logging in at all.

the formats that work for me are just

<https://www.facebook.com/groups/1111122222333335>

or

<https://www.facebook.com/groups/1111122222333335/posts/6666677777888889>

I don't see any javascript gobbledygook

Mayayana

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 8:44:44 AMMar 31
to
"Philip Herlihy" <Phillip...@SlashDevNull.invalid> wrote

| It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post -
termed
| "permalink" in FB. That link is underneath the faint grey legend of the
| date/time of posting, just beneath the post.

As Rudy pointed out, that still leaves the problem of
extensive javascript, which probably won't work at all
in older browsers. I'm finding that in XP on an increasing
number of sites. The most recent was my doctor's website,
built on reactJS. These sites are complicated software,
designed to only work in the very latest browsers, by people
who don't actually have any idea of how to code a webpage.
One look at the code makes it clear that it's all machine-
generated.

| So it's possible to access a
| given post via the web, if the applicable permissions allow. But if
nobody
| identifies that link for you, then without a profile you'll be knocking at
a
| locked door. It's perfectly possible to have a minimal profile, even
using
| genuine information, and to configure it so that none of it is visible to
| anyone that you haven't explicitly given permission to. And that would
give
| you many more chances to get at the info you're looking for. But some
people
| simply knee-jerk at the thought (often based on third-hand accounts) of
social
| media. The choice is yours.
|

You talk as though social media is just a neutral tool. It's
actually a profound cultural change. Sleazy, for-profit companies
have taken control of peoples' social lives; especially teenagers.
If you ask young people why they don't quit they say they'd never
hear about parties. Their social lives are owned by Zuck and his
ilk. That's like teenagers who grow up in malls rather than in
parks and on Main St. They grow up seeing themselves having a
duty to be consumers, rather than as citizens. But social media has
greatly amplified that effect.

And that's just part of it. Social media has also created crushing
peer pressure. When I go onto public trains and buses I see virtually
everyone, especially the young, swiping through posts. Then they
put their phone away, only to take it out again, 2-3 seconds later,
like automatons on a software loop. As of 2021, 1 in 12 children
in the US is on psychoactive drugs prescribed by a doctor. I don't know
how many are in "therapy", but I know it's been normalized. I know
a 14 year old now who's going home from school regularly with
"panic attacks". That sea change is not an arbitrary accident.

Young people are living in a fishbowl of peer pressure, forever
doomed to the mob rule of the playground. They're growing up
in terror of actually being alone, because they don't know that
experience. Nor are they normally where they are. Their bodies are
in one place; their interactions in another.

If you look at wokist mania and cancel culture you can see
reverberations of that. Brutal peer pressure with no adult supervision.
Young people screaming about feeling "safe", obsessed with tokenistic
self-righteousness. They all feel under the microscope of social media
and that has produced a witch hunting mob of people who mercilessly
accuse others for fear they'll be accused themselves. They don't
even dare to be male or female!

To regard social media as neutral is like the geeks on Slashdot
desperately wanting to believe that 5 hours/day of murdering
people in video games has no effect on young minds. If that were
true there would be no such thing as raising children, because
the raising would have no effect. 40-year-old GTA addicts
just can't bring themselves to admit that they're wasting
their lives in a sick addiction.

Which is not to say that I think the whole idea is evil. Rather, the
ubiquity, the for-profit model, and the lack of supervision for children
is what worries me. I've been using Reddit for some time, to join
specific discussions where I can offer help. Their current version is broken
for me, but they were nice enugh to offer an older, compatible version
at old.reddit.com. They require minimal personal info and it's not a
social site in the sense of people conducting their personal lives there.
It's more like usenet with whining.

But even Reddit has a dark side. They want people to be happy
and keep coming back. So groups tend to form around topics of
interest and then the "moderators" can be petty tyrants, strictly
controlling what can be said. Anyone is free to complain that they
feel "harmed" by someone they disagree with. Posts can be upvoted
and downvoted. So that nasty peer pressure gets going again.
People begin to post in hopes of votes. I know that because they
talk about it. Younger people, especially, are so accustomed to the
mob rule of social media that for them social discourse means saying
whatever they think will gain them acceptance. Again, you can see
that mindset reflected in wokism, BLM, gender battles, and so on.
No one dares to think for themselves. It's all desperate "virtue
signalling" while accusing others of lacking in virtue.

I saw some good commentary about that kind of groupthink around
last week's Oscars. There was pure idiocy, like Jessica Chastain
defending LGBTQ out of the blue, as though someone had just
beat up a lesbian onstage, and "Power of the Dog" almost winning
simply because it attacks "toxic masculinity" and champions
men acting more feminine, bringing out their "hidden homosexuality".
CODA won because the actors are deaf. No one dares to judge
the movies on quality.

Ricky Gervais was asked what he might say if he were hosting,
and as usual, he injected a bit of sane decency:

"I'm proud to announce that this is the most diverse and progressive Oscars
ever. Looking out I see people from all walks of life. Every demographic
under the sun. Except poor people, obviously. Fuck them."


R.Wieser

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 9:03:21 AMMar 31
to
Andy,
I've tried both formats, with the latter one being the one I described in
the post you replied to. Neither work for me.

> I don't see any javascript gobbledygook

:-) You're not supposed to. You'll only see it when looking at the page
source.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


R.Wieser

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 9:03:21 AMMar 31
to
JJ,

> It's going to be difficult or at least, tedious.
>
> First of all, the correct JS code will need to be parsed to extract
> the raw data of the page content which contains user posted messages
> - which is in form of a JS object.

I was hoping that someone had already done that, wrapped it into a bit of
PHP, and would offer the result to us as a simple webpage. :-)

But yes, I've also considered trying to do that.

> You might want to search GitHub or other open source project
> repositories for a project that does that _without_ using FB's Graph
> API.

Thanks for pointer as well as the warning.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 1:51:37 PMMar 31
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 09:12:02, Philip Herlihy
<Phillip...@SlashDevNull.invalid> wrote (my responses usually
FOLLOW):
[]
>> "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available> wrote
>>
>> | Lets put it this way : I have zero wish to hand over my life to Facebook
>> | just to read a few posts. Besides the problem that I would still be
[]
>It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post
>- termed
>"permalink" in FB. That link is underneath the faint grey legend of the
>date/time of posting, just beneath the post. So it's possible to access a
>given post via the web, if the applicable permissions allow. But if nobody
>identifies that link for you, then without a profile you'll be knocking at a
>locked door. It's perfectly possible to have a minimal profile, even using
>genuine information, and to configure it so that none of it is visible to
>anyone that you haven't explicitly given permission to. And that would give
>you many more chances to get at the info you're looking for. But some people
>simply knee-jerk at the thought (often based on third-hand accounts) of social
>media. The choice is yours.

I think R's point was, why should there a need to join - however easy,
and however little information you have to give - just to get
information? Fair enough for a social group, I suppose (though you won't
find me joining such - I actually don't hate FaceBook*, I just don't
have the time), but when _companies_ start putting information _only_
there, it's (some way down!) the slippery slope.

(For example, my SatNav [GPS] maker - XGODY; the product itself is fine
- puts the _address_ of their map updates on a Facebook group, which you
have to join to get the addresses. (They put the actual _files_ on
Google Drive.))
>
>TikTok, on the other hand, is clearly the work of Satan.
>
(-:

* I think the main reason _I_ don't use FaceBook - as I said, I _don't_
hate people who do use it - is the way its pages work: a combination of
top-posting (which is irritating, but common in many situations) and
continuously-loading (presumably sodden with 'script). I'd (possibly)
use it more if it had pages where "loading complete" was even a
possibility.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

He [Alfred Kinsey] wouldn't ask 'Have you ever slept with a horse?' He would
say, 'When did you first sleep with a horse?' [RT 2018/5/5-11]

s|b

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 2:07:06 PMMar 31
to
On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:11:08 +0100, Philip Herlihy wrote:

> There's little cost in creating a simple Facebook profile

Like selling your soul to the devil.

--
s|b

Ken Blake

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 2:11:03 PMMar 31
to
On 3/31/2022 10:50 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


> I actually don't hate FaceBook*, I just don't
> have the time), but when _companies_ start putting information _only_
> there, it's (some way down!) the slippery slope.


I don't know whether I would hate Facebook or not, but I suspect that I
might. I've never seen it. I have no interest in it.



--
Ken

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 2:17:52 PMMar 31
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:10:57, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
I really meant I don't hate people who _use_ FaceBook, which many other
people who like me don't use it seem to.
>
I have no interest in it either - not because I have a strong dislike of
it, just I haven't the time to start yet another, on top of usenet,
email, twitter, and YouTube. Same applies to WhatsApp, TikTok, and all
the others: I don't hate people who use them, I just don't have time.
>
But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it. Like
fobile moan app.s.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush.
It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.
-Robert Maynard Hutchins, educator (1899-1977)

Ken Blake

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 2:38:46 PMMar 31
to
On 3/31/2022 11:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:10:57, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On 3/31/2022 10:50 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I actually don't hate FaceBook*, I just don't
>>> have the time), but when _companies_ start putting information _only_
>>> there, it's (some way down!) the slippery slope.
>>
>>
>>I don't know whether I would hate Facebook or not, but I suspect that I
>>might. I've never seen it. I have no interest in it.
>>
> I really meant I don't hate people who _use_ FaceBook, which many other
> people who like me don't use it seem to.
>>
> I have no interest in it either - not because I have a strong dislike of
> it, just I haven't the time to start yet another, on top of usenet,


Me too.


> email,


Me too.


> twitter,


I've never used that either.


> and YouTube.


YouTube? That's very different. It's not for communication between people.

I use YouTube fairly often, mostly because I play classical guitar, and
use YouTube to study and learn from professional performances of pieces
I'm working on.


> Same applies to WhatsApp, TikTok, and all
> the others:


Me too. I probably haven't even heard of most of them.



>I don't hate people who use them, I just don't have time.


For me, no time *and* no interest.



> But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
> there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it.


I've never run into that.



> Like
> fobile moan app.s.


I've never run into that either.


--
Ken

Unknown

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 2:41:23 PMMar 31
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:10:57, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
>(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On 3/31/2022 10:50 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I actually don't hate FaceBook*, I just don't
>>> have the time), but when _companies_ start putting information _only_
>>> there, it's (some way down!) the slippery slope.
>>
>>
>>I don't know whether I would hate Facebook or not, but I suspect that I
>>might. I've never seen it. I have no interest in it.
>>
>I really meant I don't hate people who _use_ FaceBook, which many other
>people who like me don't use it seem to.

Not just people who like you, right? Perhaps that sentence could have
benefitted from a couple of apostrophes. ;-)

>I have no interest in it either - not because I have a strong dislike of
>it, just I haven't the time to start yet another, on top of usenet,
>email, twitter, and YouTube. Same applies to WhatsApp, TikTok, and all
>the others: I don't hate people who use them, I just don't have time.
>>
>But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it. Like
>fobile moan app.s.

"app.s"?

nospam

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 2:47:14 PMMar 31
to
In article <Tc8kwVUZneRiFw4x@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>
> I think R's point was, why should there a need to join - however easy,
> and however little information you have to give - just to get
> information?

because some people who post content have restricted it to be visible
only by certain people and the only way to verify that is by logging
in.

R.Wieser

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 2:47:35 PMMar 31
to
nospam,

> > It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post
>
>> No, it isn't possible.
>
> yes it is.

Seeing thay you have ignored my explanation to why I think it isn't as well
as having provided zilch in regard to why you think otherwise I have little
other choice than to ignore that. Funny how that works ...

> if the content is not public, you should see a login page.

Someone else mentioned that too. I already replied to him about it.

> your browser is either misconfigured or not supported.

On what grounds did you determine that ?...

> did you disable javascript?

... Oh wait, you didn't.

And how is that relevant ? My browser doesn't do javascript. Thats all you
need to know.

> what browser are you using?

Again, how is that relevant ?

Kid, you are concentrating on solving problems I *do not* have, instead of
trying to solve the one I *do* have.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


R.Wieser

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 2:54:34 PMMar 31
to
nospam,

> because some people who post content have restricted it to be
> visible only by certain people and the only way to verify that
> is by logging in.

Kid, you're concentrating on what *isn't* possible, instead of focussing on
what *is* - and how to do it.

As such you are not really helpfull (understatement).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


Ken Blake

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 3:04:17 PMMar 31
to
On 3/31/2022 11:41 AM, sidder wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:10:57, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
>>(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>>On 3/31/2022 10:50 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I actually don't hate FaceBook*, I just don't
>>>> have the time), but when _companies_ start putting information _only_
>>>> there, it's (some way down!) the slippery slope.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know whether I would hate Facebook or not, but I suspect that I
>>>might. I've never seen it. I have no interest in it.
>>>
>>I really meant I don't hate people who _use_ FaceBook, which many other
>>people who like me don't use it seem to.
>
> Not just people who like you, right? Perhaps that sentence could have
> benefitted from a couple of apostrophes. ;-)


Apostrophes? There are no missing apostrophes in it. Did you perhaps
mean "quotation marks"?


--
Ken

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 3:14:06 PMMar 31
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:38:17, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 3/31/2022 11:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>> I have no interest in it either - not because I have a strong dislike of
>> it, just I haven't the time to start yet another, on top of usenet,
>
>
>Me too.
>
>
>> email,
>
>
>Me too.
>
>
>> twitter,
>
>
>I've never used that either.
>
I started using it in an attempt to drum up e-signatures for a petition
I was running. (_That_ was spectacularly unsuccessful!) But I've built
up friends there - some who were on usenet, some not.
>
>> and YouTube.
>
>
>YouTube? That's very different. It's not for communication between people.
>
>I use YouTube fairly often, mostly because I play classical guitar, and
>use YouTube to study and learn from professional performances of pieces
>I'm working on.
>
Yes, but you can add comments to clips - and people post followups. So
though it's not primarily designed as a social medium, social
interaction does occur. Yes, I use it for more than that - I use it to
listen to/watch clips, primarily, as you do (though only for
pleasure/information in my case), but it does provide that function too.
>
>> Same applies to WhatsApp, TikTok, and all
>> the others:
>
>
>Me too. I probably haven't even heard of most of them.
>
I think as soon as we oldies even learn the name of one of these
mechanisms, it's automatically old hat for the new generation (-:
>
>
>>I don't hate people who use them, I just don't have time.
>
>
>For me, no time *and* no interest.
>
Sometimes it's the only place to get the information. Yes, you can cut
yourself off by not using, and we all do that in some walk of life or
other (I avoid paying by direct debit where I can, for example), but far
more to our own disadvantage than the organisation we dislike.
>
>
>> But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>> there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it.
>
>
>I've never run into that.
>
Well, I'll repeat my example - XGODY, a SatNav (GPS) company, only
release the URLs for their update map data via a FaceBook group you have
to join.
>
>
>> Like
>> fobile moan app.s.
>
>
>I've never run into that either.
>
>
Sorry, UK humour. UK for what US calls a "cellular 'phone" is a "mobile
'phone". Or, for fun, a "fobile moan".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 3:18:06 PMMar 31
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 13:41:17, sidder@?.?.invalid wrote (my responses
usually FOLLOW):
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>>But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>>there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it. Like
>>fobile moan app.s.
>
>"app.s"?

I hate the 'word' "app"; it's short for application, but actually means
a program. But it seems to have become generally used, to mean something
you run on a fobile moan. But I reserve the right to leave in the full
stop (period) to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 3:20:05 PMMar 31
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:04:12, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 3/31/2022 11:41 AM, sidder wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:10:57, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com>
>>>wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>>>On 3/31/2022 10:50 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>>>I really meant I don't hate people who _use_ FaceBook, which many
>>>other people who like me don't use it seem to.
>> Not just people who like you, right? Perhaps that sentence could
>>have
>> benefitted from a couple of apostrophes. ;-)
>
>
>Apostrophes? There are no missing apostrophes in it. Did you perhaps
>mean "quotation marks"?
>
>
I think commas would have made it better - or brackets (parentheses):

"... which many other people who, like me, don't use it ..." or "who
(like me) don't ..."

Neither apostrophes nor quotation marks though (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Paul

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 3:21:58 PMMar 31
to
"Facebook is asking people to submit their I.D.s to prove their accounts are real

by Marie Edinger January 4th 2019

...

There are two groups for the types of id they ask for.

In Group 1, acceptable forms of id include your birth certificate,
driver's license, passport, green card, and several others.

If you don't have any of those, some of the things Group 2 suggests
you send include your social security card, a bank statement, or medical records.

If you do upload any of those forms of ID, Facebook says
it's encrypted and stored securely."

Well, alrighty then. I'll get right on that.

Paul

Ken Blake

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 3:42:10 PMMar 31
to
On 3/31/2022 12:11 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:38:17, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On 3/31/2022 11:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> I have no interest in it either - not because I have a strong dislike of
>>> it, just I haven't the time to start yet another, on top of usenet,
>>
>>
>>Me too.
>>
>>
>>> email,
>>
>>
>>Me too.
>>
>>
>>> twitter,
>>
>>
>>I've never used that either.
>>
> I started using it in an attempt to drum up e-signatures for a petition
> I was running. (_That_ was spectacularly unsuccessful!) But I've built
> up friends there - some who were on usenet, some not.
>>
>>> and YouTube.
>>
>>
>>YouTube? That's very different. It's not for communication between people.
>>
>>I use YouTube fairly often, mostly because I play classical guitar, and
>>use YouTube to study and learn from professional performances of pieces
>>I'm working on.
>>
> Yes, but you can add comments to clips -



Yes, you can, but I never look at them.


> and people post followups. So
> though it's not primarily designed as a social medium, social
> interaction does occur. Yes, I use it for more than that - I use it to
> listen to/watch clips, primarily, as you do (though only for
> pleasure/information in my case), but it does provide that function too.


Pleasure in my case, too. My guitar playing is for my pleasure, and if I
get better at a piece, my pleasure increases.



>>> Same applies to WhatsApp, TikTok, and all
>>> the others:
>>
>>
>>Me too. I probably haven't even heard of most of them.
>>
> I think as soon as we oldies even learn the name of one of these
> mechanisms, it's automatically old hat for the new generation (-:
>>
>>
>>>I don't hate people who use them, I just don't have time.
>>
>>
>>For me, no time *and* no interest.
>>
> Sometimes it's the only place to get the information. Yes, you can cut
> yourself off by not using, and we all do that in some walk of life or
> other (I avoid paying by direct debit where I can, for example), but far
> more to our own disadvantage than the organisation we dislike.
>>
>>
>>> But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>>> there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it.
>>
>>
>>I've never run into that.
>>
> Well, I'll repeat my example - XGODY, a SatNav (GPS) company, only
> release the URLs for their update map data via a FaceBook group you have
> to join.


I must have missed your example. I've never heard of XGODY.



>>
>>
>>> Like
>>> fobile moan app.s.
>>
>>
>>I've never run into that either.
>>
>>
> Sorry, UK humour. UK for what US calls a "cellular 'phone" is a "mobile
> 'phone". Or, for fun, a "fobile moan".


Yes, I understood the joke and knew you meant "mobile phone." All I
meant was that I've never run into information I could only get there.


--
Ken

Ken Blake

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 3:56:30 PMMar 31
to
On 3/31/2022 12:15 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 13:41:17, sidder@?.?.invalid wrote (my responses
> usually FOLLOW):
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
> []
>>>But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>>>there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it. Like
>>>fobile moan app.s.
>>
>>"app.s"?
>
> I hate the 'word' "app";


I hate it too.



> it's short for application,


Yes.


> but actually means
> a program

No, it actually means an application program, as opposed to a utility
program.



> But it seems to have become generally used, to mean something
> you run on a fobile moan.


I dislike most abbreviations, but I especially dislike "app," because it
isn't always used to mean the same thing, and it's often unclear as to
what is meant. Sometimes someone uses it just to mean a smart phone
application program, sometimes an application program run on a desktop
or laptop computer, sometimes even a utility program. Sometimes even a
single person uses it inconsistently. I generally avoid using it all.


And speaking of commas, shouldn't it be omitted from your last sentence
above?


> But I reserve the right to leave in the full
> stop (period)


"Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term. If I
remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in "1066
and All That": "History came to a ."


> to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:

Thank you for not writing "acronym," a term that is almost universally
misused these days.


--
Ken

Mayayana

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 4:12:52 PMMar 31
to
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote

| I actually don't hate FaceBook*, I just don't
| have the time), but when _companies_ start putting information _only_
| there, it's (some way down!) the slippery slope.
|

I'm afraid we're already way down that slope. The
Internet was going to give everyone a front door
on the world. Now young people find their lives hijacked.
They think the Internet is commercial services.
If people make websites at all it's Wix or Wordpress.
Usually they just have a Facebook page for small
businesses.

I saw an interview on the news the other day about
Etsy. Apparently the craftspeople are mad because Etsy
is raising costs and catering to commercial sellers over
craftspeople. (Printed t-shirts over home-made clothes,
for example.) The woman interviewed said that 5,000
sellers had signed a petition but that there was no reason
to think Etsy would care. They're learning a hard lesson:
By letting a corporation middleman their storefront they
gave away control, and will have no way to forward
customers to a website if they quit Etsy.

It's similar with Facebook, Instagram, etc. They've
become the medium of socializing for young people.
Not just a new way to connect. The only way to connect.


Rene Lamontagne

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 4:18:20 PMMar 31
to
1: I wouldn't upload a blank piece of paper to Facebook.
2: I have never used Facebook.
3: I will never use Facebook or its ilk...

Rene

Mayayana

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 7:23:52 PMMar 31
to
"Ken Blake" <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote

| To change the subject somewhat, I've been trying to contact a second
| cousin that I haven't heard from in years. He no longer lives where I
| last knew where he lived, and none of the old e-mail addresses I have
| for him work.
|
| I'm not even sure he's still alive, but if he is, any suggestions on
| finding an e-mail address for him?
|

That's a tough one. I found the phone number today for
a cousin. It was easy because his landline is listed.
whitepages.com. But I don't think I've ever seen an email
address listed, except for sites that want you to pay a
fee. Someone would probably have to be naive enough to post
their name and email on a webpage somewhere.

But if phone is good enough, you might be able to find that.
Most of these sites will show up in search. You seach for
John Q. Public and they list all matches in the US, with
age and location, as well as guesses at who they're related
to.


Ken Blake

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 7:36:06 PMMar 31
to
Ye, I'd settle for a phone number. But when I try, I get hits that are
either for someone with a similar but wrong name, or old info.


--
Ken

nospam

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 10:03:26 PMMar 31
to
In article <t24t00$1arb$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<add...@not.available> wrote:

> > > It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post
> >
> >> No, it isn't possible.
> >
> > yes it is.
>
> Seeing thay you have ignored my explanation to why I think it isn't as well
> as having provided zilch in regard to why you think otherwise I have little
> other choice than to ignore that. Funny how that works ...

i haven't ignored anything, and what matters are the facts, not what
you think.

it *is* possible to view some facebook content via a direct link
*without* logging in, however, most people don't provide such a link.

i don't know why you continue to argue that it's not possible when it
is.

> > if the content is not public, you should see a login page.
>
> Someone else mentioned that too. I already replied to him about it.

they mentioned it because that's how facebook works.

the only way to verify if someone is entitled to see non-public content
is by logging in. this is not a difficult concept.

> > your browser is either misconfigured or not supported.
>
> On what grounds did you determine that ?...

that you're seeing raw javascript.

if you did so deliberately expecting to find the post buried within it,
then you're even more lost than originally thought.

> > did you disable javascript?
>
> ... Oh wait, you didn't.
>
> And how is that relevant ? My browser doesn't do javascript. Thats all you
> need to know.

it's relevant because facebook relies on a modern browser with
javascript enabled.

if whatever unnamed browser that you're too embarrassed to say what it
is does not meet their requirement, then you are going to have numerous
problems. that's all you need to know.

> > what browser are you using?
>
> Again, how is that relevant ?

it's relevant because facebook does not support older browsers, nor do
a lot of other sites for that matter.

if whatever unnamed browser you're using is unsupported, which based on
your description, it's not, then you are going to have problems and not
just with facebook either.

> Kid, you are concentrating on solving problems I *do not* have, instead of
> trying to solve the one I *do* have.

do not call me kid and you were given solutions, at least for facebook.

nospam

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 10:03:28 PMMar 31
to
In article <t24td6$1gm0$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<add...@not.available> wrote:

>
> > because some people who post content have restricted it to be
> > visible only by certain people and the only way to verify that
> > is by logging in.
>
> Kid, you're concentrating on what *isn't* possible, instead of focussing on
> what *is* - and how to do it.

do not call me kid and your statement is false. several people have
told you what your options are.

> As such you are not really helpfull (understatement).

as such you do not actually want help. you're simply trolling.

Char Jackson

unread,
Mar 31, 2022, 10:35:41 PMMar 31
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:15:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 13:41:17, sidder@?.?.invalid wrote (my responses
>usually FOLLOW):
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>[]
>>>But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>>>there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it. Like
>>>fobile moan app.s.
>>
>>"app.s"?
>
>I hate the 'word' "app"; it's short for application, but actually means
>a program. But it seems to have become generally used, to mean something
>you run on a fobile moan.

So far, so good.

>But I reserve the right to leave in the full
>stop (period) to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:

That must be a British English thing. I don't think we use periods in
that way, (within a set of characters), on this side of the pond. BTW,
app isn't actually an abbreviation, it's a word.

mechanic

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 6:39:28 AMApr 1
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 11:10:57 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

> I don't know whether I would hate Facebook or not, but I suspect that I
> might. I've never seen it. I have no interest in it.

Thank goodness we have curious younger people driving the human race
forward.

Mayayana

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 8:31:54 AMApr 1
to
"Char Jackson" <no...@none.invalid> wrote

| BTW,
| app isn't actually an abbreviation, it's a word.
|

:) Such a short sense of history you have. Steve Jobs
started saying "app". ("There's an app for that.") I don't
doubt that it's been added to dictionaries recently, just
as twerk (to perform a standing lap dance) and triggered
(upset over imagined trauma) have probably been added...

After all, Amy Shumer was "triggered" by Will Smith's
slap, and everyone knew she didn't mean that she was
caused by it. So we all know it now as a word in her
usage. But it's a recent slang invention. Even such things
as CAD and HTML may be in modern dictionaries. Are they
not acronyms just because we're used to them?

App comes from a slang abbreviation. There was
no such word before iPhone. My Webster's dictionary has
only "app.", defined as short for appendix, appointed,
approval, or approximate. Why? Because it predates the
invention of the iPhone.


Mayayana

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 8:38:54 AMApr 1
to
"mechanic" <mech...@example.net> wrote
Ken Blake wrote:
|
| > I don't know whether I would hate Facebook or not, but I suspect that I
| > might. I've never seen it. I have no interest in it.
|
| Thank goodness we have curious younger people driving the human race
| forward.

Forward to superimposing dog faces on your friends'
photos while you suck on a vape pen? Or did you mean
driving the human race forward to making no distinction
between pre-digested, targetted, marketting propaganda
and news?


R.Wieser

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 8:51:25 AMApr 1
to
nospam,

>> Kid, you're concentrating on what *isn't* possible, instead of focussing
>> on what *is* - and how to do it.
>
> do not call me kid

Behave like one, get called one. Just be glad that I'm giving you the
benefit of the doubt in that you might grow up and out of it.

> and your statement is false. several people have told you
> what your options are.

Funny in how you exhibit childlike behaviour in trying to change the subject
from you to other people very obvious way - and still protest being called a
kid.

Kid, that what you quoted (and I re-quoted) is all about *you*. And for
that matter, you have not even tried to deny it.

So, take a hike. You have not brought anything to the table that :

1) has not already been said by others

2) brings me nearer to an solution

You however have, rather arrogantly I might add, started with telling me I'm
wrong without providing /any/ kind of reasoning for it, that my browser is
misconfigured and bluntly told me that my browser *has* to run JS.

Goodbye. May our paths never cross again.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 11:51:18 AMApr 1
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:42:02, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 3/31/2022 12:11 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:38:17, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>>>I use YouTube fairly often, mostly because I play classical guitar,
>>>and use YouTube to study and learn from professional performances of
>>>pieces I'm working on.
>>>
>> Yes, but you can add comments to clips -
>
>
>
>Yes, you can, but I never look at them.
>
When I started using it, I never did either; but now, I often do -
partly because I do actually like seeing other people's reaction to a
clip, and partly because they often contain useful extra information
(including corrections to the information the uploader provided!): in
the case of musical performances, things like venue, date, composer,
even lyrics, which the original poster may have omitted (or got wrong);
in the case of news or technical clips, extra information (including
corrections). In both cases, also links to other clips - the same piece
by another performer, or in a different language, or other pieces by the
same performer, or related technical/news ones.

I have - not often, granted - sometimes had a "conversation" with
another reader that has gone to two or three exchanges. Much like usenet
(or, I guess, any other discussion facility).
[]
>Pleasure in my case, too. My guitar playing is for my pleasure, and if
>I get better at a piece, my pleasure increases.
>
Pleased to make your acquaintance; I just wish I had the perseverance to
get good at some instrument!
[]
>> Well, I'll repeat my example - XGODY, a SatNav (GPS) company, only
>> release the URLs for their update map data via a FaceBook group you have
>> to join.
>
>
>I must have missed your example. I've never heard of XGODY.
>
>
A (one of many, probably) Chinese manufacturer of SatNav (GPS) systems,
at well below the price of the ore well-known ones. Here's an example:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/154858025945 - note that's aimed at UK, so
probably will have a hefty carriage charge to you and maybe not seem
competitive anyway, but I'm sure they're available in US too, as I've
seen people asking where to get the US map updates. It's certainly a
reasonable price for a 7" SatNav in UK, especially as it comes with more
than just UK/RoI map data (not that I've been abroad with it).
[]
>Yes, I understood the joke and knew you meant "mobile phone." All I
>meant was that I've never run into information I could only get there.
>
>
The example that comes to mind here isn't actually information (though
I'd be surprised if there _isn't_ some information you can only get
there); I'm thinking of rapid chargers for electric vehicles. I'm pretty
sure I've encountered some with nowhere to even swipe a credit card -
where the only way to activate them if with a fobile. I know - because
of the greater distances involved, and lower "gas" prices - that EVs
have caught on a lot less in the USA than here, but - although still
only a small fraction of the vehicles in use, they _are_ catching on
here. (And - totally unrealistically, IMO, in view of the rate of
charging infrastructure development - the government here have said
they'll ban sales of new fuel-only vehicles in 2030, and even hybrids in
2035.) FWIW, I _don't_ have an EV - I have a Diesel (also uncommon in
US). But I find the _concept_ of the assumption of smartphone - and
permanently-on data - irritating.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"You _are_ Zaphod Beeblebrox? _The_ Zaphod Beeblebrox?"
"No, just _a_ Zaphod Beeblebrox. I come in six-packs." (from the link episode)

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 11:55:20 AMApr 1
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:56:24, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 3/31/2022 12:15 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>> But it seems to have become generally used, to mean something
>> you run on a fobile moan.
>
>
>I dislike most abbreviations, but I especially dislike "app," because
>it isn't always used to mean the same thing, and it's often unclear as
>to what is meant. Sometimes someone uses it just to mean a smart phone
>application program, sometimes an application program run on a desktop
>or laptop computer, sometimes even a utility program. Sometimes even a
>single person uses it inconsistently. I generally avoid using it all.

Agreed with all the above, which rationalises my dislike of the term.
>
>
>And speaking of commas, shouldn't it be omitted from your last sentence
>above?
>
Interesting! On first glance, yes. I use comas more than most people
(maybe German influence?) to indicate pauses, but it does make the above
ambiguous.
>
>> But I reserve the right to leave in the full
>> stop (period)
>
>
>"Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term. If
>I remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in
>"1066 and All That": "History came to a ."
>
Excellent book.
>
>> to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:
>
>Thank you for not writing "acronym," a term that is almost universally
>misused these days.
>
>
To me, an acronym is a _pronounceable_ abbreviation (sometimes with
extra letters of the contributing words left in to make it more so). But
as with many things, its initially-abuse above is probably now in
dictionaries, thus losing another distinction.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on
politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 11:59:21 AMApr 1
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 20:18:13, Rene Lamontagne <rla...@shaw.ca> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>1: I wouldn't upload a blank piece of paper to Facebook.
>2: I have never used Facebook.
>3: I will never use Facebook or its ilk...
>
>Rene

"Know thine enemy". At least one of the allied generals - I think it
might have been Monty - had a picture of Rommel in his tent - not
because he liked him.

Ken Blake

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 12:13:20 PMApr 1
to
On 4/1/2022 8:58 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 20:18:13, Rene Lamontagne <rla...@shaw.ca> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>>1: I wouldn't upload a blank piece of paper to Facebook.
>>2: I have never used Facebook.
>>3: I will never use Facebook or its ilk...
>>
>>Rene
>
> "Know thine enemy". At least one of the allied generals - I think it
> might have been Monty - had a picture of Rommel in his tent - not
> because he liked him.



I'm reminded that back when I used to teach chess in after-school
classes in a couple of local schools (one elementary and one
middle-school), one of the classrooms I taught in had pictures of
Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, and Stalin on the wall--presumably for the
same reason, even though WWII was long over.


--
Ken

Ken Blake

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 12:19:47 PMApr 1
to
On 4/1/2022 8:50 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:42:02, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On 3/31/2022 12:11 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:38:17, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
>>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>>>>I use YouTube fairly often, mostly because I play classical guitar,
>>>>and use YouTube to study and learn from professional performances of
>>>>pieces I'm working on.
>>>>
>>> Yes, but you can add comments to clips -
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, you can, but I never look at them.
>>
> When I started using it, I never did either; but now, I often do -
> partly because I do actually like seeing other people's reaction to a
> clip, and partly because they often contain useful extra information
> (including corrections to the information the uploader provided!): in
> the case of musical performances, things like venue, date, composer,
> even lyrics, which the original poster may have omitted (or got wrong);


That's rarely, if ever, of interest to me. I mostly just want to listen
and watch how their fingers move.



> in the case of news or technical clips, extra information (including
> corrections). In both cases, also links to other clips - the same piece
> by another performer, or in a different language, or other pieces by the
> same performer, or related technical/news ones.
>
> I have - not often, granted - sometimes had a "conversation" with
> another reader that has gone to two or three exchanges. Much like usenet
> (or, I guess, any other discussion facility).
> []
>>Pleasure in my case, too. My guitar playing is for my pleasure, and if
>>I get better at a piece, my pleasure increases.
>>
> Pleased to make your acquaintance; I just wish I had the perseverance to
> get good at some instrument!


Understood. You have to decide whether the effort is worth it to you.
I've been playing the guitar for about 72 years, but I started on
classical guitar only about five years ago. I put a lot of time and
effort into it.



>>> Well, I'll repeat my example - XGODY, a SatNav (GPS) company, only
>>> release the URLs for their update map data via a FaceBook group you have
>>> to join.
>>
>>
>>I must have missed your example. I've never heard of XGODY.
>>
>>
> A (one of many, probably) Chinese manufacturer of SatNav (GPS) systems,
> at well below the price of the ore well-known ones. Here's an example:
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/154858025945 - note that's aimed at UK, so
> probably will have a hefty carriage charge to you and maybe not seem
> competitive anyway, but I'm sure they're available in US too, as I've
> seen people asking where to get the US map updates. It's certainly a
> reasonable price for a 7" SatNav in UK, especially as it comes with more
> than just UK/RoI map data (not that I've been abroad with it).


OK.


>>Yes, I understood the joke and knew you meant "mobile phone." All I
>>meant was that I've never run into information I could only get there.
>>
>>
> The example that comes to mind here isn't actually information (though
> I'd be surprised if there _isn't_ some information you can only get
> there); I'm thinking of rapid chargers for electric vehicles. I'm pretty
> sure I've encountered some with nowhere to even swipe a credit card -
> where the only way to activate them if with a fobile. I know - because
> of the greater distances involved, and lower "gas" prices - that EVs
> have caught on a lot less in the USA than here,


They're getting more and more common. They're still pretty expensive
here, though. The last car I bought was a 2020 Toyota Camry, and I don't
expect to live long enough to ever buy another one, but I ever do, it
will probably an electric.


> but - although still
> only a small fraction of the vehicles in use, they _are_ catching on
> here. (And - totally unrealistically, IMO, in view of the rate of
> charging infrastructure development - the government here have said
> they'll ban sales of new fuel-only vehicles in 2030, and even hybrids in
> 2035.) FWIW, I _don't_ have an EV - I have a Diesel (also uncommon in
> US). But I find the _concept_ of the assumption of smartphone - and
> permanently-on data - irritating.


Me too.


--
Ken

Ken Blake

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 12:38:07 PMApr 1
to
On 4/1/2022 8:54 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:56:24, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On 3/31/2022 12:15 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> But it seems to have become generally used, to mean something
>>> you run on a fobile moan.
>>
>>
>>I dislike most abbreviations, but I especially dislike "app," because
>>it isn't always used to mean the same thing, and it's often unclear as
>>to what is meant. Sometimes someone uses it just to mean a smart phone
>>application program, sometimes an application program run on a desktop
>>or laptop computer, sometimes even a utility program. Sometimes even a
>>single person uses it inconsistently. I generally avoid using it all.
>
> Agreed with all the above, which rationalises my dislike of the term.
>>
>>
>>And speaking of commas, shouldn't it be omitted from your last sentence
>>above?
>>
> Interesting! On first glance, yes. I use comas more than most people
> (maybe German influence?) to indicate pauses, but it does make the above
> ambiguous.
>>
>>> But I reserve the right to leave in the full
>>> stop (period)
>>
>>
>>"Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term. If
>>I remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in
>>"1066 and All That": "History came to a ."
>>
> Excellent book.


Yes. I thought you'd probably know it. You and I seem to have a lot in
common.


>> to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:
>>
>>Thank you for not writing "acronym," a term that is almost universally
>>misused these days.
>>
>>
> To me, an acronym is a _pronounceable_ abbreviation


Yes. Same to me. My point exactly.

Interestingly, the abbreviation for "Food and Agricultural Organization"
is "FAO. I don't know how it's pronounced in the UK, but here in the
USA, it's eff-eh-oh. However in Rome, where its headquarters are, it's
an acronym, FAH-oh.

One other, more minor, complaint about modern usage. Many people who
understand what "acronym" means, call abbreviations that are not
acronyms "initialisms." As far as I'm concerned, that's completely
unnecessary. Just calling them "abbreviations" should suffice.


>(sometimes with
> extra letters of the contributing words left in to make it more so). But
> as with many things, its initially-abuse above is probably now in
> dictionaries, thus losing another distinction.


Yes, probably, alas.

Before someone tells me that language isn't static and is always
changing, yes, I know that. A Shakespeare play doesn't sound like a
modern one, and Shakespeare isn't like Chaucer. But two points:

1. Languages now changes faster that it ever did, largely because of
television, and that's bad, not good, because not everyone can keep up
with such rapid change. There are many modern terms that leave me
baffled, largely because I watch almost no television.

2. Changes that merge separate meanings into a single word, such as
"acronym," are bad, not good. It's losing a valuable distinction, as you
point out.



--
Ken

nospam

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 12:48:10 PMApr 1
to
In article <t26sg8$1h38$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<add...@not.available> wrote:

>
> >> Kid, you're concentrating on what *isn't* possible, instead of focussing
> >> on what *is* - and how to do it.
> >
> > do not call me kid
>
> Behave like one, get called one.

given your behaviour below, it is you who should be called kid, among
other things.

> Just be glad that I'm giving you the
> benefit of the doubt in that you might grow up and out of it.

you've done no such thing.

what you're doing is your usual shtick of resorting to insults when you
realize just how over your head you actually are.



> You however have, rather arrogantly I might add, started with telling me I'm
> wrong without providing /any/ kind of reasoning for it, that my browser is
> misconfigured and bluntly told me that my browser *has* to run JS.

the reason is obvious: facebook requires javascript, as do many other
sites.

disabling javascript or using an outdated browser is going to cause
problems for many sites. this is not a difficult concept nor does it
need an explanation.

it should also be obvious that the only way to limit access for content
that is not public is to require authenticating to determine whether or
not someone is entitled to see it. for facebook, the way to do that is
by logging into a facebook account. you have stated you do not want to
create a facebook account, therefore such content will be inaccessible
to you. this is also not a difficult concept that requires no
explanation.

> Goodbye. May our paths never cross again.

ok, kid.

nospam

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 12:48:13 PMApr 1
to
In article <t26rbl$kn9$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | BTW,
> | app isn't actually an abbreviation, it's a word.
> |
>
> :) Such a short sense of history you have. Steve Jobs
> started saying "app". ("There's an app for that.")

such an incorrect sense of history you have.

the term 'app' long predates jobs saying 'there's an app for that',
going back to at least the 1980s, if not earlier.

ashton-tate frameworks, circa 1985 with an 'apps' menu:
<https://www.osnews.com/img/24882/apps.PNG>



> App comes from a slang abbreviation.

it's not slang. it's simply shorthand.

> There was
> no such word before iPhone.

oh yes there was.

see above for an example from 1985, more than 20 years before the
iphone was released.

there are many other examples.

> My Webster's dictionary has
> only "app.", defined as short for appendix, appointed,
> approval, or approximate. Why? Because it predates the
> invention of the iPhone.

no, that's not why.

the oxford english dictionary lists 1987, although the term actually
predates that.
<https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/103376#eid40167813>
killer application  n. Computing an application which is
particularly significant or useful; a feature, function, or
application of a new technology or product which is presented
as virtually indispensable or much superior to rival products;
also in extended use.

1987 PC Week 8 Sept. 107/2   Everybody has only one killer
application. The secretary has a word processor. The manager
has a spreadsheet.
1991 UnixWorld Dec. 30/3   The killer applications cost twice
as much in unix versions for no reason other than greed.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 1:07:48 PMApr 1
to
On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 09:38:00, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 4/1/2022 8:54 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>> Excellent book.
>
>
>Yes. I thought you'd probably know it. You and I seem to have a lot in
>common.
>
I think so! Do email me: we're probably trying the patience of the good
people of Windowsland with this thread. I am happy to talk about
language for hours though - it's in my blood, backwards and sideways
(though my carer was in electronics). But others here maybe not.
[]
>> To me, an acronym is a _pronounceable_ abbreviation
>
>
>Yes. Same to me. My point exactly.

Many of the examples of _long_ ones - when we used to take the Guinness
Book of Records, anyway - seem to come from the US military. I remember
one that contained something like NatComSubordPhibPac, though was much
longer than that.
>
>Interestingly, the abbreviation for "Food and Agricultural
>Organization" is "FAO. I don't know how it's pronounced in the UK, but

I was _going_ to say we have our own - MAFF (ministry of agriculture,
fisheries, and food), at least some of which I think is now part of
DEFRA (department of - I think - the environment, I forget the rest -
oh, might be rural affairs), but ...

>here in the USA, it's eff-eh-oh. However in Rome, where its
>headquarters are, it's an acronym, FAH-oh.

... that suggests it is an international organisation, so we probably
_do_ have something to do with it. Yes, we'd spell it out, eff-ay-oh,
too: probably because -ao is not a common ending in (either British _or_
American) English, but maybe is in Italian, which I think would
pronounce it that way.
>
>One other, more minor, complaint about modern usage. Many people who
>understand what "acronym" means, call abbreviations that are not
>acronyms "initialisms." As far as I'm concerned, that's completely
>unnecessary. Just calling them "abbreviations" should suffice.
>
Indeed. They abolish - initially by misuse - a distinction, then find
they need the distinction, so they invent a new word )-:.
[]
>Before someone tells me that language isn't static and is always
>changing, yes, I know that. A Shakespeare play doesn't sound like a
>modern one, and Shakespeare isn't like Chaucer. But two points:

Yes, Shakespeare English does usually need a lot of explanation. Though
in the hands of _skilful_ actors/speakers, _can_ - with a few glitches -
be spoken in such a way that you can understand it. Chaucer is more
difficult, and mostly beyond me (my mother's degree was in Mediaeval
French - as she was fond of saying, a less marketable one would be hard
to find!).
>
>1. Languages now changes faster that it ever did, largely because of
>television, and that's bad, not good, because not everyone can keep up
>with such rapid change. There are many modern terms that leave me
>baffled, largely because I watch almost no television.

I think the internet - and, especially, social media (in the modern
sense of Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Tiktok, and so on; AFAIAC usenet
is a social medium, very much so) - has probably far outstripped
television as the cause of rapid change.
>
>2. Changes that merge separate meanings into a single word, such as
>"acronym," are bad, not good. It's losing a valuable distinction, as
>you point out.
>
(-:
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand

Frank Slootweg

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 1:54:49 PMApr 1
to
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]

> >One other, more minor, complaint about modern usage. Many people who
> >understand what "acronym" means, call abbreviations that are not
> >acronyms "initialisms." As far as I'm concerned, that's completely
> >unnecessary. Just calling them "abbreviations" should suffice.
> >
> Indeed. They abolish - initially by misuse - a distinction, then find
> they need the distinction, so they invent a new word )-:.

I 'disagree'. Acronyms and initialisms are both forms of
abbreviations, but they're both a special kind of abbreviation, that's
why both terms exist. We've already covered the regular form of an
abbreviation, which is cutting of part of the word, i.e. 'app', 'etc',
etc. :-) So why do we need a special term for the acronym-type
abbreviation, but not for the initialism-type?

FWIW :-), I don't care if someone calls a certain initialism 'an
abbreviation'. I *do* care if someone calls a non-pronouncable
initialism/abbreviation 'an acronym'. So 'FWIW' is *not* an acronym.

I *have* spoken!

[...]

Java Jive

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 1:59:19 PMApr 1
to
On 31/03/2022 20:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> "Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term. If I
> remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in "1066
> and All That": "History came to a ."

For a moment there, but a search suggests that in fact that's a
different book which I also remember, I thought you'd at last given me
the title of a book of historical cartoons I remember from the library
of a 'prep' school that I attended. From that very distant memory, the
page size was about an A4 sheet in landscape orientation, the title
almost certainly contained '1066', and included 'William The Conker'
among its cast of characters lampooned, and it was old and well-thumbed
by generations of schoolkids even then in the 1950s, so was probably
published around the same time as the above in the 1930s or 40s. Does
anybody else remember such a book?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Ken Blake

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 2:16:01 PMApr 1
to
On 4/1/2022 10:59 AM, Java Jive wrote:
> On 31/03/2022 20:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>> "Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term. If I
>> remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in "1066
>> and All That": "History came to a ."
>
> For a moment there, but a search suggests that in fact that's a
> different book which I also remember, I thought you'd at last given me
> the title of a book of historical cartoons I remember from the library
> of a 'prep' school that I attended. From that very distant memory, the
> page size was about an A4 sheet in landscape orientation, the title
> almost certainly contained '1066', and included 'William The Conker'
> among its cast of characters lampooned, and it was old and well-thumbed
> by generations of schoolkids even then in the 1950s, so was probably
> published around the same time as the above in the 1930s or 40s. Does
> anybody else remember such a book?


"1066 And All That" is by W. C. Sellar and RJ Yeatman. It's well-knowm.
It's not a book of cartoons, although there's an occasional cartoon in it.

I also found "1066 and Before All That: The Battle of Hastings,
Anglo-Saxon and Norman England (A Very, Very Short History of England
Book 1)" on Amazon.com, but I've never read it and can't tell you
anything about it.


--
Ken

Ken Blake

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 2:17:40 PMApr 1
to
On 4/1/2022 10:05 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 09:38:00, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On 4/1/2022 8:54 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> Excellent book.
>>
>>
>>Yes. I thought you'd probably know it. You and I seem to have a lot in
>>common.
>>
> I think so! Do email me: we're probably trying the patience of the good
> people of Windowsland with this thread. I am happy to talk about
> language for hours though - it's in my blood, backwards and sideways
> (though my carer was in electronics). But others here maybe not.



Yes. For everyone else here, I responded to John via e-mail and this
conversation is now over here.


--
Ken

Ken Hart

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 3:21:29 PMApr 1
to
On 4/1/2022 2:17 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

> Yes. For everyone else here, I responded to John via e-mail and this
> conversation is now over here.

Why don't you stop trolling and have your conversations there then?

Ken Hart

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 3:22:28 PMApr 1
to
On 4/1/2022 12:38 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

> Yes. I thought you'd probably know it. You and I seem to have a lot in
> common.

When are you going to stop trolling?

Ken Hart

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 3:23:17 PMApr 1
to
On 3/31/2022 7:35 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

> Ye, I'd settle for a phone number. But when I try, I get hits that are
> either for someone with a similar but wrong name, or old info.

Can't you troll somewhere else?

Java Jive

unread,
Apr 1, 2022, 6:00:48 PMApr 1
to
On 01/04/2022 19:15, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> On 4/1/2022 10:59 AM, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 31/03/2022 20:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>
>>> "Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term.
>>> If I remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in
>>> "1066 and All That": "History came to a ."
>>
>> For a moment there, but a search suggests that in fact that's a
>> different book which I also remember, I thought you'd at last given me
>> the title of a book of historical cartoons I remember from the library
>> of a 'prep' school that I attended.  From that very distant memory, the
>> page size was about an A4 sheet in landscape orientation, the title
>> almost certainly contained '1066', and included 'William The Conker'
>> among its cast of characters lampooned, and it was old and well-thumbed
>> by generations of schoolkids even then in the 1950s, so was probably
>> published around the same time as the above in the 1930s or 40s.  Does
>> anybody else remember such a book?
>
> "1066 And All That" is by W. C. Sellar and RJ Yeatman. It's well-knowm.
> It's not a book of cartoons, although there's an occasional cartoon in it.

Yes, that came up readily in a search, but I'm fairly sure that's a
different book.

> I also found "1066 and Before All That: The Battle of Hastings,
> Anglo-Saxon and Norman England (A Very, Very Short History of England
> Book 1)" on Amazon.com, but I've never read it and can't tell you
> anything about it.

Definitely not the one I remember, but thanks anyway.

Since writing the description above, I've remembered that other cartoons
included native Britains in coracles.

Philip Herlihy

unread,
Apr 2, 2022, 1:10:01 PMApr 2
to
In article <t23qra$i9k$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser wrote...
>
> Philip,
>
> > It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post
>
> No, it isn't possible.
>
> I took the time to follow such a link (
>