longest thread
Angus Paxton
posts) and depth (i.e. deepest single thread) is for a ng that I read.
Is there a quick way of doing this?
Ngus.
Jukka K. Korpela
> I'm trying to findout what the longest thread
Won't work. Experience has shown that you will _not_ spawn the longest
thread ever that way. Google a bit and you'll see why.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Usenet guides and essays: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/
Ant
news:Xns93558D4E063A...@193.229.0.31...
> "Angus Paxton" <guinness...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to findout what the longest thread
>
> Won't work. Experience has shown that you will _not_ spawn the
> longest thread ever that way. Google a bit and you'll see why.
What won't work in what way? He wasn't suggesting creating a
long or deep thread, but was trying to find out how to detect one.
Jukka K. Korpela
> He wasn't suggesting creating a long or deep thread,
Really? Whatever the intentions were, it would not be possible to find
consensus on the issue without changing the reality to be investigated,
i.e. without actually creating the longest thread.
> but was trying to find out how to detect one.
Which of the following words you don't understand: Google? Hint:
"longest thread ever".
P.S. Someone has puked on your From field.
Angus Paxton
> "Ant" <n...@home.today> wrote:
>
> > He wasn't suggesting creating a long or deep thread,
>
> Really? Whatever the intentions were, it would not be possible to find
> consensus on the issue without changing the reality to be investigated,
> i.e. without actually creating the longest thread.
Actually my intentions aren't nasty.
>
> > but was trying to find out how to detect one.
>
> Which of the following words you don't understand: Google? Hint:
> "longest thread ever".
Good point. But I want to know about uk.rec.scuba's longest thread. Not
alt.bored.load.of.fuckwits.
>
> P.S. Someone has puked on your From field.
Charming. Someone might say the same to you one day ;-)
Ant
> "Ant" <n...@home.today> wrote:
>
> > He wasn't suggesting creating a long or deep thread,
>
> Really? Whatever the intentions were, it would not be possible to find
> consensus on the issue without changing the reality to be investigated,
> i.e. without actually creating the longest thread.
That's how I read it.
> Whatever the intentions were, it would not be possible to find
> consensus on the issue without changing the reality to be investigated,
> i.e. without actually creating the longest thread.
If he was looking for the longest created to date,
then that would be irrelevant.
> > but was trying to find out how to detect one.
>
> Which of the following words you don't understand: Google? Hint:
> "longest thread ever".
It's nothing to do with what *I* understand, it's about what
*he* understands about googling.
I asked a different question.
Previously you said:
"Experience has shown that you will _not_ spawn the longest
thread ever that way."
And I replied:
"What won't work in what way?"
What way (no way has been stated) are you talking about?
> P.S. Someone has puked on your From field.
It's an anti-spam measure. I'm surprised you haven't seen it before.
Jukka K. Korpela
> Previously you said:
> "Experience has shown that you will _not_ spawn the longest
> thread ever that way."
And you're apparently trying to disprove it.
>> P.S. Someone has puked on your From field.
>
> It's an anti-spam measure. I'm surprised you haven't seen it before.
I didn't say I hadn't seen forged headers before. It was just a
potential clue. You have the liberty to remain clueless.
Ant
> "Ant" <n...@home.today> wrote:
>
> > Previously you said:
> > "Experience has shown that you will _not_ spawn the longest
> > thread ever that way."
>
> And you're apparently trying to disprove it.
Don't be ridiculous. You didn't answer my question about
"what way".
> >> P.S. Someone has puked on your From field.
> >
> > It's an anti-spam measure. I'm surprised you haven't seen it before.
>
> I didn't say I hadn't seen forged headers before. It was just a
> potential clue. You have the liberty to remain clueless.
Potential clue for what - that you are a troll?
Jukka K. Korpela
> Potential clue for what
RFC 1036, clause 2.1.1.
Ant
> "Ant" <n...@home.today> wrote:
>
> > Potential clue for what
>
> RFC 1036, clause 2.1.1.
Doesn't say it has to be valid. Anyway, it's now common
practice to munge the 'From:' line in newsgroup posts. It
wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for spammers.
I see you still haven't answered my question.
Angus Paxton
"Ant" <n...@home.today> wrote in message
news:b6qd1j$87k$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Nor mine.
Ngus
Jukka K. Korpela
>> RFC 1036, clause 2.1.1.
>
> Doesn't say it has to be valid.
It seems you have difficulties in understanding rather simple
statements. It says some very simple things about From syntax.
> Anyway, it's now common
> practice to munge the 'From:' line in newsgroup posts.
YM "foolish". HTH.
> It wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for spammers.
Address munging is defaitism and doesn't bother spammers the least. But
it is hostile to communication.
> I see you still haven't answered my question.
I did. But you seem to fail to understand simple answers to simple
questions, so I won't bother you with anything too complicated.
Besides, your first question also indicated lack of understanding of
simple statements and references, so I would have no idea of how to
explain it.
OK, here's the last try: Asking about the longest thread is pointless.
But sometimes people manage to spawn a long and useless thread that
way.
Ant
> "Ant" <n...@home.today> wrote:
>
> >> RFC 1036, clause 2.1.1.
> >
> > Doesn't say it has to be valid.
>
> It seems you have difficulties in understanding rather simple
> statements. It says some very simple things about From syntax.
I understand the intent. The remark was not entirely serious. I
should have indicated that better.
> > Anyway, it's now common
> > practice to munge the 'From:' line in newsgroup posts.
>
> YM "foolish". HTH.
No, I meant what I said.
> Address munging is defaitism and doesn't bother spammers the least.
I read the document by Matt Curtin. Very interesting; I hadn't seen
the argument for not munging before. I agree with it in principle,
however I don't agree I'm being defeatist.
I do get a little spam, and actively fight it. I trace and report
each one via a service I subscribe to. It gets spammers booted from
their ISP, and helps maintain block lists.
I do not want to be innundated with spam, and would rather not have
to filter mail.
> But it is hostile to communication.
Yes, that's true. However if I post to a newsgroup I expect to see
any reply in that group. I do not want email replies.
> > I see you still haven't answered my question.
>
> I did. But you seem to fail to understand simple answers to simple
> questions, so I won't bother you with anything too complicated.
> Besides, your first question also indicated lack of understanding of
> simple statements and references, so I would have no idea of how to
> explain it.
This is patronising (yes, that is a legitimate spelling) and rude (as
it seems to me), as were some of your earlier comments. Considering
your interest in communication, I'm surprised you do this. You don't
know me, or what I understood by your remarks. I don't believe you
understood my question at all.
> OK, here's the last try: Asking about the longest thread is pointless.
> But sometimes people manage to spawn a long and useless thread that
> way.
I think I now know what you thought was the purpose of the original
post. That was not the way I read it. I did not assume it to be an
attempt to start the longest thread, but a genuine request for
information.
In closing, I'll compliment you on your website. A useful resource.
This apparently useless thread may be of benefit after all.