Eternal September

[sf]

Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[Ophelia]

"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:l4cmn7hg0vl1mnvgs...@4ax.com...

>
> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
> seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
> four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
> maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.

I did indeed!

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[Janet]

In article <l4cmn7hg0vl1mnvgs...@4ax.com>, s...@geemail.com
says...

>
> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today?

It's not just ES users; others have commented too.

janet

[Janet Bostwick]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:21:34 -0700, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
>Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
>seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
>four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
>maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.

That happened to me about a week ago -- something like 600 messages on
Agent.
Janet US

[Lou Decruss]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 18:42:05 +0100, "Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.uk>
wrote:

>
>"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:l4cmn7hg0vl1mnvgs...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
>> seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
>> four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
>> maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.
>
>I did indeed!

Me too but they were all from google I think.

Lou

[dsi1]

On 4/3/2012 7:21 AM, sf wrote:
>
> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
> seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
> four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
> maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.
>

G**gle stopped relaying messages posted on their domain from last
Thursday to yesterday. Some newsgroups, like this one, were not affected
much. In others which have a lot of GG posters, it was very noticeable.
It was still posting Usenet messages, in essence, making Usenet a subset
of GG. It was an interesting experiment. My guess is that sooner or
later, it's going to be a permanent arrangement.

[sf]

Okay, thanks. Well, that will eliminate the spam from GG's issue
then. There are enough free news readers and free to almost free news
servers that those who want to stay with us can do so.

[Chemo the Clown]

Just go back to Google Groups!

[John Kuthe]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:25:39 -0700, meh <y...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:21:34 -0700, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>

>>Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today?
>

>NOT an E-S problem, a Google groups problem (surPRISE!).
>
>They were disconnected for several days, then sent everything at once
>when they got reconnected.
>

No surprise there!! That's why I bailed GoogleGroups finally. They
suck something incredible!

John Kuthe...

[Krypsis]

You were, however, a very slow learner! One could say retarded!

Even when you had good advice re GG, you persevered.

Worse, you filled RFC up with your bleating messages.

--

Krypsis

[Doug Freyburger]

meh wrote:

> sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today?
>

> NOT an E-S problem, a Google groups problem (surPRISE!).
>
> They were disconnected for several days, then sent everything at once
> when they got reconnected.

That has happened in the past. Both Google and E-T are free and worth
far more than that. Shrug.

What I noticed is far more google sourced spam made it through the E-T
spam filters than usual. I can go days only seeing one or two spam
messages then boom this time several dozen.

[John Kuthe]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 06:46:09 +1000, Krypsis <kry...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

I know, I liked GG's format, originally. Then they changed it, and
YUCK! So I got used to Free Agent's format and presentation.

But I never "filled up" RFC, duh!

John Kuthe...

[I'm back on the laptop]

sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote in news:l4cmn7hg0vl1mnvgs2du0k5go0e64osla6@
4ax.com:

>
> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
> seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
> four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
> maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.
>

I actually got that same thing here on Bigpong.

Had messages going back to 30Apr show up..... which was good because I
missed a couple :-)



--
Peter
Tasmania
Australia

[I'm back on the laptop]

dsi1 <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote in news:jlfend$fm0$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 4/3/2012 7:21 AM, sf wrote:
>>
>> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
>> seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
>> four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
>> maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.
>>
>
> G**gle stopped relaying messages posted on their domain from last
> Thursday to yesterday. Some newsgroups, like this one, were not affected
> much.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! No *wonder* I could see some messages on GG, and not on
the here.



--
Peter
Tasmania
Australia

[Dave Smith]

On 03/04/2012 4:46 PM, Krypsis wrote:

>>
>> No surprise there!! That's why I bailed GoogleGroups finally. They
>> suck something incredible!
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>
> You were, however, a very slow learner! One could say retarded!
>
> Even when you had good advice re GG, you persevered.
>
> Worse, you filled RFC up with your bleating messages.
>

Kuthe has a history of filling the group with bleating messages,

[Jim Elbrecht]

sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
>Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
>seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
>four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
>maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.

don't blame E-S. I'm on . . . . crap, brain fart-- the Berlin server
for $12 a year. Very reliable, at any rate.

They were all google, so I suspect it was a google burp, not ours.
[and since I noticed a few posters that use google that I like to read
I'm not going to kf the server, much as I'd like to]

Jim

[John Kuthe]

"Filling" is not the correct word. One cannot "fill" a newsgroup.

John Kuthe...

[Nunya Bidnits]

MotoFox
<confucius-say@enlightenment!to!him!lead!it!for!bangpath!follow!man!wise.UUCP>
wrote:
> And it came to pass that Lou Decruss delivered the following message
> unto the people, saying~

>
>>> I did indeed!
>>
>> Me too but they were all from google I think.
>>
>> Lou
>

> Yup. Fortunately things like this are uncommon for E-S as opposed to,
> say, AIOE. But they do and will happen, regardless.

You missed his point. The fact that they were all posts from Google Gripes
points the finger at them, not ES. A server cannot distribute posts if it
doesn't receive them in the first place.

I'm not saying ES never has a problem but if the sudden influx of late posts
were all originated in GG, then it's consistent with their usual problems.

It sucks that a lame service like GG is affecting the reputation of
responsible servers.

MartyB

[Nunya Bidnits]

dsi1 <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:

> G**gle stopped relaying messages posted on their domain from last
> Thursday to yesterday. Some newsgroups, like this one, were not
> affected much. In others which have a lot of GG posters, it was very
> noticeable. It was still posting Usenet messages, in essence, making
> Usenet a subset of GG.

Say whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

>It was an interesting experiment. My guess is
> that sooner or later, it's going to be a permanent arrangement.

Here we go again with the old "Google is taking over Usenet" fiction.

[dsi1]

On 4/4/2012 5:07 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> dsi1<ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>
>> G**gle stopped relaying messages posted on their domain from last
>> Thursday to yesterday. Some newsgroups, like this one, were not
>> affected much. In others which have a lot of GG posters, it was very
>> noticeable. It was still posting Usenet messages, in essence, making
>> Usenet a subset of GG.
>
> Say whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

By "subset" I mean that GG had their own posts plus Usenet posts. Usenet
did not have the GG posts. That should be easy to understand but don't
worry about it if that fact distresses you. Just make believe that it
isn't true. :-)

>
>> It was an interesting experiment. My guess is
>> that sooner or later, it's going to be a permanent arrangement.
>
> Here we go again with the old "Google is taking over Usenet" fiction.

G**gle will not take over Usenet - mostly it will abandon it. In a way,
Blinky will get his wish. What I think will happen is that G will stop
converting posts made on their domain to NNTP format and relaying it to
Usenet servers because it's not in their best interests to do so. It
doesn't take a genius to figure that one out - or does it?


>

[Nunya Bidnits]

dsi1 <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
> On 4/4/2012 5:07 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>> dsi1<ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> G**gle stopped relaying messages posted on their domain from last
>>> Thursday to yesterday. Some newsgroups, like this one, were not
>>> affected much. In others which have a lot of GG posters, it was very
>>> noticeable. It was still posting Usenet messages, in essence, making
>>> Usenet a subset of GG.
>>
>> Say whaaaaaaaaaaaat?
>
> By "subset" I mean that GG had their own posts plus Usenet posts.
> Usenet did not have the GG posts. That should be easy to understand
> but don't worry about it if that fact distresses you. Just make
> believe that it isn't true. :-)
>
>>
>>> It was an interesting experiment. My guess is
>>> that sooner or later, it's going to be a permanent arrangement.
>>
>> Here we go again with the old "Google is taking over Usenet" fiction.
>
> G**gle will not take over Usenet - mostly it will abandon it.

One can only hope.

>In a
> way, Blinky will get his wish. What I think will happen is that G
> will stop converting posts made on their domain to NNTP format and
> relaying it to Usenet servers because it's not in their best
> interests to do so. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out -
> or does it?

It would take a genius to explain how GG, which has been bad for Usenet,
would harm it if it just went away.

Surely you aren't suggesting that if GG stops pushing posts to Usenet, that
all of us Usenet users will bail and go over to the horrid timewasting GG
and suffer that awful interface. Or are you?

[dsi1]

My point was that it's in G's interest to not relay posts to Usenet. Why
is it nit in G's interest? Because they lose control of the messages
once it goes out of their domain. It's not rocket science. Is this good
or bad for Usenet? I don't know - it just is what it is. I don't have
any feelings good or bad about this.

>
> Surely you aren't suggesting that if GG stops pushing posts to Usenet, that
> all of us Usenet users will bail and go over to the horrid timewasting GG
> and suffer that awful interface. Or are you?

I'm not suggesting anything. My guess is that some groups will carry on
fine on Usenet. Most posters on rfc were completely unaware of the GG's
not propagating messages to Usenet. Some groups will be greatly affected
by this and will exist mostly on GG.

Your main problem is that the Usenet servers are in bad shape and is
giving unreliable service and people moving over to social networks and
the rise in mobile device usage, not G**gle.


>
>

[dsi1]

On 4/4/2012 5:51 PM, meh wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:40:46 -1000, dsi1<ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>
>
>> My point was that it's in G's interest to not relay posts to Usenet. Why
>> is it nit in G's interest? Because they lose control of the messages
>> once it goes out of their domain. It's not rocket science. Is this good
>> or bad for Usenet? I don't know - it just is what it is. I don't have
>> any feelings good or bad about this.
>

> The entire purpose and design of newsgroups is the widest dissemination
> of a post, so as many people as possible can view it.

Usenet could disappear tomorrow and few people would know anything about
it. As far as dissemination of info goes, there's always Facebook, or
Twitter, or Youtube, and others. There's no such thing as a viral post
or a Usenet post heard round the world.

>
> What would GG be showing if they DIDN'T connect with the rest of the
> worlds news servers??

Beats me, it's surprising that they find it worth their while to bother
with Usenet.

>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jim Elbrecht]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:51:02 -0700, meh <y...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:40:46 -1000, dsi1 <ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>
>

>>My point was that it's in G's interest to not relay posts to Usenet. Why
>>is it nit in G's interest? Because they lose control of the messages
>>once it goes out of their domain. It's not rocket science. Is this good
>>or bad for Usenet? I don't know - it just is what it is. I don't have
>>any feelings good or bad about this.
>

>The entire purpose and design of newsgroups is the widest dissemination
>of a post, so as many people as possible can view it.
>

Agreed. But although their company motto is 'do no harm' or some
such, Google is *still* a publicly held corporation whose bean
counters are *only* interested in a profit.

>What would GG be showing if they DIDN'T connect with the rest of the
>worlds news servers??
>

They seem to be suffering the same delusions that AOL held for years--
'We're big enough that our people will be happy only talking to each
other'.

That-- and Google is just juggling too many balls in the air at once.

I'm not a Google basher, but I wish they would quit changing, adding,
an 'innovating' just for the sake of change.

Jim

[George M. Middius]

dsi1 wrote:

> > What would GG be showing if they DIDN'T connect with the rest of the
> > worlds news servers??
>
> Beats me, it's surprising that they find it worth their while to bother
> with Usenet.

I'm sure Google doesn't benefit financially. I think they did it just
to "give something back", as the expression goes. If the company were
ever to tumble from its current pinnacle of profitability, they might
suspend non-paying projects like Usenet.

[Gary]

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
> I'm not a Google basher, but I wish they would quit changing, adding,
> an 'innovating' just for the sake of change.
>
> Jim

I wish all software would quit with the changing or at least still provide
for the old versions. They constantly "improve" with new versions just to
keep the income flowing. People that get the new, reinvent their websites,
then old things don't work. You're mostly forced to upgrade whether you
want to or not.

[dsi1]

I think you're right about them dropping Usenet - they do seem to like
to trim their herd of Toys every once in a while.

I recently changed my cell service and initially was using an iPhone
over the Sprint network. The iPhone was not able to transfer my contact
list from my old Android device. I only got about 30% transferred to my
phone. A few days ago, I decided to switch the iPhone for a
Google-Android Motorola Photon 4G phone and was surprised to see my
complete contact list appear on my phone. It seems my old Android phone
backed up the contacts on a Google cloud server. Thanks Google!

[Krypsis]

On 5/04/2012 1:51 PM, meh wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:40:46 -1000, dsi1<ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>
>

>> My point was that it's in G's interest to not relay posts to Usenet. Why
>> is it nit in G's interest? Because they lose control of the messages
>> once it goes out of their domain. It's not rocket science. Is this good
>> or bad for Usenet? I don't know - it just is what it is. I don't have
>> any feelings good or bad about this.
>

> The entire purpose and design of newsgroups is the widest dissemination
> of a post, so as many people as possible can view it.
>

> What would GG be showing if they DIDN'T connect with the rest of the
> worlds news servers??
>
>

That they are control freaks????

--

Krypsis

[Mogaba3]

Yes its really an awesome and amazing amazing work done that i ever
found here
very best and massive work done it is



________________________
' Bankruptcy Lawyer Seattle' (http://www.attorneybankruptcy.net/)




--
Mogaba3

[Nunya Bidnits]

dsi1 <ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
> On 4/4/2012 12:36 PM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>> dsi1<ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 4/4/2012 5:07 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>>> dsi1<ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> G**gle stopped relaying messages posted on their domain from last
>>>>> Thursday to yesterday. Some newsgroups, like this one, were not
>>>>> affected much. In others which have a lot of GG posters, it was
>>>>> very noticeable. It was still posting Usenet messages, in
>>>>> essence, making Usenet a subset of GG.
>>>>
>>>> Say whaaaaaaaaaaaat?
>>>
>>> By "subset" I mean that GG had their own posts plus Usenet posts.
>>> Usenet did not have the GG posts. That should be easy to understand
>>> but don't worry about it if that fact distresses you. Just make
>>> believe that it isn't true. :-)

But Usenet DOES have GG posts, unfortunately, so that makes GG a subset of
the much larger and much older Usenet.

Based on what? Another guess? Usenet servers are getting paid for the most
part and the free services aren't there for profit. Not to mention the fact
than none of the servers I use or am familiar with EVER have the horrid days
or weeks long shutdown problems like Google, where messages often go to die.

At least they die for a while on GG, until the undead message carcasses
suddenly arise and unload all at once on Usenet, sometimes days or weeks
worth, potentially hundreds of thousands of zombie messages disrupting
service everywhere. And this happens OFTEN. So don't EVEN try to tell me
other servers are in bad shape when your beloved GG is so utterly awful and
so clearly callous to the needs of group users. Don't even. It's ridiculous.

>and is
> giving unreliable service

As opposed to Google Groups giving reliable service?

Huh?

ROTFLMAObawhawhawhawhaw!!!!!!!!!!!

MartyB

[Nunya Bidnits]

Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:

> Yay Cloud! Thanks for stealing my contacts list!
>
> -sw

Oh come on. Google would never stoop to stunts like harvesting abandoned
contact lists to sell to spammers and scammers. They only steal active
lists. No point in working with old data.

;-)

[Nunya Bidnits]

Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
> Anybody else notice that "Groups" has been removed from the dropdown
> list of "More.." from the main Google page? Which makes it impossible
> to search web, then search groups without having to retype your search
> phrase from scratch. Looks like they want to draw attention away from
> Usenet/Groups to other venues that are easier to collect/mine personal
> data.
>
> -sw

That also answers the question of why GG would bother to maintain what has
been erroneously described here in this thread as an unprofitable service.
You have to maintain an account and be logged in to post or use certain
services such as viewing full posting addresses. And if you are logged in to
GG you are logged in to search and everything else. And if you are logged
in, you are easy to track. And the more people they can track, the more
money they can make.

MartyB

[dsi1]

On 4/5/2012 5:57 AM, Sqwertz wrote:

> There's that "Guess" word again.
>
> According to Google, 2,470 of your posts contain the word guess, and
> 7,530 don't. So about every 1 on 4 posts of yours contains the word
> "guess". Add another 500 "figure"'s and 500 "bet"'s that puts you up
> to about 1 in every 3 posts. That's lot of guessing, betting, and
> figuring going on in such a small space.

Really nice work! Google is our friend, right? My guess is that you're a
bigger crackpot than even I can imagine. That's 2471 for the folks that
are keeping score. It just keeps getting bigger every day don't it?

Sorry but my writing style is my own, not yours. If you don't care for
it, you know what you can do. Hint: it involves the letters "k" and "f"
but not the letters "c" or "u." Can you guess what it is? Oops - 2472. :-)

>
> ObFood: Peanut butter chocolate malt balls. These are the "Gourmet"
> ones - not those whimpy Whoppers(tm).
>
> -sw

[George M. Middius]

dsi1 said to sqwishy:

> My guess is that you're a bigger crackpot than even I can imagine.

I've never heard "crackpot" used as a euphemism for a**hole before.

[dsi1]

I'm a great fan of euphemisms since they allow a polite, socially
acceptable way, of expressing an idea. We don't have to call a person an
asshole, we can say "an adamant individual of an advanced age who enjoys
speaking his mind." See? How nice.

Of course, I'm not using the word "crackpot" in such a way. Any guy
that's hates/uses Google and dislikes the word "guess*" and takes the
time to do research and analysis on the number of times a word is used
and brags about the size of his KF yet can't seem to control his
impulses and feels compelled to look at posts that displeases him is
pretty much a crackpot of sizable proportions.






* #2473

[dsi1]

On 4/5/2012 7:02 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>
> Based on what? Another guess? Usenet servers are getting paid for the most
> part and the free services aren't there for profit. Not to mention the fact
> than none of the servers I use or am familiar with EVER have the horrid days
> or weeks long shutdown problems like Google, where messages often go to die.

The servers I use are pretty unreliable in that about 25% of the
messages don't get posted the first time I press the send button. This
ain't rocket science. Maybe you've got a great server but I don't.
That's the breaks. My guess* that I'm not alone in noticing this big
change in reliability but most folks want to really believe that
everything is just A-OK. 2 years ago the servers were great. Times have
changed.

>
> At least they die for a while on GG, until the undead message carcasses
> suddenly arise and unload all at once on Usenet, sometimes days or weeks
> worth, potentially hundreds of thousands of zombie messages disrupting
> service everywhere. And this happens OFTEN. So don't EVEN try to tell me
> other servers are in bad shape when your beloved GG is so utterly awful and
> so clearly callous to the needs of group users. Don't even. It's ridiculous.

As it goes, I don't care how you or anybody posts. I don't care if you
don't like my posting through Google. I don't care if you really believe
that I just love Google to death. Generally speaking where you're
concerned, I don't care. Feel free to post any kind of lies you want
concerning me or anybody else. I just don't care. :-)

>
>> and is
>> giving unreliable service
>
> As opposed to Google Groups giving reliable service?
>
> Huh?
>
> ROTFLMAObawhawhawhawhaw!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> MartyB
>
>

*#2474

[Nunya Bidnits]

Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 08:34:18 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/2012 5:57 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> According to Google, 2,470 of your posts contain the word guess, and
>>> 7,530 don't. So about every 1 on 4 posts of yours contains the word
>>> "guess". Add another 500 "figure"'s and 500 "bet"'s that puts you
>>> up to about 1 in every 3 posts. That's lot of guessing, betting,
>>> and figuring going on in such a small space.
>>

>> Sorry but my writing style is my own, not yours. If you don't care
>> for it, you know what you can do. Hint: it involves the letters "k"
>> and "f" but not the letters "c" or "u." Can you guess what it is?
>> Oops - 2472. :-)
>

> I'd Guess that you wouldn't want to Bet that I can Figure it out.
>
> ObFood: 12 pounds of short ribs in the smoker. Got a late start at
> 3:00pm so dinner will be a little late. Time for nap.
>
> -sw

My guess is it will taste pretty good.

[George M. Middius]

sqwishy plays grammer kop.

> Run on sentence with too many "and"'s stringing all that babbling
> together. Gush much?

You're so testy lately. Is Queen Mary such a disappointment?

[Nunya Bidnits]

dsi1 <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 7:02 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>
>> Based on what? Another guess? Usenet servers are getting paid for
>> the most part and the free services aren't there for profit. Not to
>> mention the fact than none of the servers I use or am familiar with
>> EVER have the horrid days or weeks long shutdown problems like
>> Google, where messages often go to die.
>
> The servers I use are pretty unreliable in that about 25% of the
> messages don't get posted the first time I press the send button.

What servers (noting the plural form)? I use ES. Lots of people use ES. You
are using ES. My guess is you're the only one claiming you have to hit send
several times for a post to go through. And what is wrong with your
newsreader? Doesn't the message close? If it doesn't close, have you
bothered to consider that the problem is local to your computer inasmuch as
your software isn't accepting simple click commands? The whole thing is just
nonsense.

>This
> ain't rocket science. Maybe you've got a great server but I don't.

I'm using the same one you are. Is that difficult to understand?

> That's the breaks. My guess* that I'm not alone in noticing this big
> change in reliability but most folks want to really believe that
> everything is just A-OK. 2 years ago the servers were great. Times
> have changed.

My guess is you are having operator error and local computer issues and are
assigning fault to a news server for that, even though it operates reliably
for pretty much all the other hundreds of thousands of users I guess it
hosts.

>> At least they die for a while on GG, until the undead message
>> carcasses suddenly arise and unload all at once on Usenet, sometimes
>> days or weeks worth, potentially hundreds of thousands of zombie
>> messages disrupting service everywhere. And this happens OFTEN. So
>> don't EVEN try to tell me other servers are in bad shape when your
>> beloved GG is so utterly awful and so clearly callous to the needs
>> of group users. Don't even. It's ridiculous.
>
> As it goes, I don't care how you or anybody posts. I don't care if you
> don't like my posting through Google. I don't care if you really
> believe that I just love Google to death. Generally speaking where
> you're concerned, I don't care. Feel free to post any kind of lies
> you want concerning me or anybody else. I just don't care. :-)

I don't care either. I was just calling out bullshit so someone else
wouldn't be mislead into believing that the average nntp client/server
arrangement is some hideously unreliable piece of crap. It's not. I don't
care how badly you screw it up, but I don't like the idea of some nitwit
spouting bullshit scaring people away from perfectly legitimate servers and
software. And I don't like the idea of someone who is trying to understand
how to use Usenet getting the idea that the Google Groups mess is more
reliable than most NNTP servers. It isn't, and that is readily demonstrable
based on the posts being held and then flooded on a regular basis. GG is an
unreliable piece of crap, and that is not a guess, it is fact.

It's not the servers. It's not the software. It's you. It really is you. If
you can't work a basic nntp client on a reliable server, blame yourself.

MartyB

[dsi1]

On 4/5/2012 3:41 PM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>
> My guess is you are having operator error and local computer issues and are
> assigning fault to a news server for that, even though it operates reliably
> for pretty much all the other hundreds of thousands of users I guess it
> hosts.
>

> I don't care either. I was just calling out bullshit so someone else
> wouldn't be mislead into believing that the average nntp client/server
> arrangement is some hideously unreliable piece of crap. It's not. I don't
> care how badly you screw it up, but I don't like the idea of some nitwit
> spouting bullshit scaring people away from perfectly legitimate servers and
> software. And I don't like the idea of someone who is trying to understand
> how to use Usenet getting the idea that the Google Groups mess is more
> reliable than most NNTP servers. It isn't, and that is readily demonstrable
> based on the posts being held and then flooded on a regular basis. GG is an
> unreliable piece of crap, and that is not a guess, it is fact.
>
> It's not the servers. It's not the software. It's you. It really is you. If

> you can't work a basic nntp client on a reliable server, blame yourself.\

I'm so happy that you don't care how I post. Let's keep it that way. As
far as this server thing goes, I get the same results - refused
connections and time-outs, using DSL or cable. It could be that the
Thunderbird programs in two different locations have somehow become
compromised but my guess* is that other people are having this problem
too but they ain't talking. Just my guess**.

>
> MartyB
>
>




* #2475
** #2476

[dsi1]

On 4/6/2012 1:25 AM, meh wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:04:43 -1000, dsi1<ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/2012 7:02 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>>
>>> Based on what? Another guess? Usenet servers are getting paid for the most
>>> part and the free services aren't there for profit. Not to mention the fact
>>> than none of the servers I use or am familiar with EVER have the horrid days
>>> or weeks long shutdown problems like Google, where messages often go to die.
>>
>> The servers I use are pretty unreliable in that about 25% of the
>> messages don't get posted the first time I press the send button. This
>> ain't rocket science. Maybe you've got a great server but I don't.
>

> I've been using E-S for about 4 years, and have NO problem sending posts.
>
> My guess is it's your news client, NOT the server!

I've been using Thunderbird since its release with various Usenet
servers for about 8 years and it's only been giving me problems for the
last 2 years. I'm assuming it's the servers because one server gives me
more problems than the other. I paid good money for the account and all
they can do is give me shitty service.

>
> I hear so many problems with TBird in the E-S support group, but NONE with Agent.

I've tried Agent - I don't care for it. The reason you hear so many
problems with T-bird is because so many folks use it. Complaining about
Agent would be like complaining about how you can't find any inner tubes
for your car tires.

I don't get why you anti-Google guys are so stuck in the 90s. My guess*
is that you don't take well to any kind of change in your routine. Big
deal - before that, youse guys were bitching about IBM, then Microsoft,
then Apple. Google is just another whipping boy in a long line of
whipping boys to pin all your fears of change on. Meh, that's the breaks.





* #7477

[dsi1]

On 4/6/2012 11:00 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> I've tried Agent - I don't care for it. The reason you hear so many
> problems with T-bird is because so many folks use it. Complaining about
> Agent would be like complaining about how you can't find any inner tubes
> for your car tires.
>

OTOH, T-bird is getting into some very shaky ground by going the Firefox
route and allowing plug-ins into the programs. Tabbing is a great idea
in a browser - maybe not so in an email program. If this is not the way
to bloating and instability, I don't know what is. I may have to find
another mail client soon. Guess* I'm kinda resistant to change too.






*#7479

[dsi1]

On 4/5/2012 3:41 PM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>

> I don't care either. I was just calling out bullshit so someone else
> wouldn't be mislead into believing that the average nntp client/server
> arrangement is some hideously unreliable piece of crap. It's not. I don't
> care how badly you screw it up, but I don't like the idea of some nitwit
> spouting bullshit scaring people away from perfectly legitimate servers and
> software. And I don't like the idea of someone who is trying to understand
> how to use Usenet getting the idea that the Google Groups mess is more
> reliable than most NNTP servers. It isn't, and that is readily demonstrable
> based on the posts being held and then flooded on a regular basis. GG is an
> unreliable piece of crap, and that is not a guess, it is fact.
>
> It's not the servers. It's not the software. It's you. It really is you. If
> you can't work a basic nntp client on a reliable server, blame yourself.
>
> MartyB
>
>

You're a "calling out the bullshit" kind of guy. Mostly you're just a
crabby old guy that gets his kicks hassling other people and whines at
the very thought of having to change his ways. Big deal - angry old guys
that scream that they're only "calling out the bullshit" are a dime a
dozen on Usenet.

Ain't you one of those guys that called me out for saying that tablets
would be the next big thing and didn't you say that there's no such
thing as a browser based Chrome OS? Nice calls. You probably still
believe that major appliance manufactures all make their own special
little parts that work only on their machines. I would expect no less
from a car salesguy. People like you deserve to remain stupid and ignorant.

If I ever need to be told that there's only one way to do things, or
that technology won't change things, or if I need any recommendations on
archaic programs from the 90s, or that the ideas and opinions of others
are stupid, all I have to do is read the posts from the usual suspects.
I guess* I'm just a lucky guy. :-)



*#7480

[George M. Middius]

dsi1 said to Queen Mary:

> Ain't you one of those guys that called me out for saying that tablets
> would be the next big thing and didn't you say that there's no such
> thing as a browser based Chrome OS? Nice calls. You probably still
> believe that major appliance manufactures all make their own special
> little parts that work only on their machines. I would expect no less
> from a car salesguy. People like you deserve to remain stupid and ignorant.

Mary doesn't like to be exposed as a small-minded blowhard. Prepare to
be excommunicated.

[dsi1]

Well, I feel like I'm losing my religion sometimes. That's the breaks.

[Nunya Bidnits]

Didn't you just say you don't care what I think?

[T]

In article <4f7f5e05$0$8788$882e...@usenet-news.net>, dsi123
@hawaiiantel.net says...

I never used Thunderbird to read newsgroups. I like my email to be my
email only.

But I agree, it's getting to be real bloatware.

[dsi1]

I got an error message from my T-Bird today saying that a Javascript was
causing an instability in the program and the message recommended that I
restart the program in a safe mode. That was a new one on me. I didn't
know that the program had a safe mode nor did I know it ran Java since
I've never installed any add-ons. T-bird - it once was a beautiful,
simple, thing.

OTOH, I believe that big Swiss army knife client programs that do a
number of different things like this will be gone soon. Like it or not,
our future will be small computers running web programs and small client
apps. I'm also warming up to the idea that the future of gaming, even
hard-core gaming, will be done on tablets. I know, it sounds nutty!