Re: I7: Problems with Simple Chat Extension
Mark Tilford
Simple Chat is not designed in a way that you can nest conversations;
you can only run "start a conversation from ____;" from outside a
conversation.
I'm having trouble exactly visualizing your code, but I think this will
give the behavior you want:
instead of giving text for test_node:
say "Test.";
try giving text for test_node_2.
Instead of finding links from test_node:
try finding links from test_node_2.
Basti...@hotmail.com
Thanks! I'll try it out later. But i must admit I'm confused (probably
because I don't spend this much time on the net and this google groups
thing is new to me):
Is my message still visible? Because I though I've deleted it so I
could start a new discussion here where it seemed to be more
approppriate:
And besides is it possible to edit my entries?
Cheers
The Wanderer
> [I] must admit I'm confused (probably because I don't spend this much
> time on the net and this google groups thing is new to me):
>
> Is my message still visible?
For me at least: yes, it is.
> Because I though I've deleted it so I could start a new discussion
> here where it seemed to be more approppriate:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.int-fiction/browse_thread/thread/edb2f77b682cec60/b71d47d3ce0fa70a#b71d47d3ce0fa70a
It is theoretically possible to cancel ("delete") your own messages on
Usenet. However, because some people/programs/servers have been known to
issue indiscriminate cancels to perfectly legitimate messages, many or
most news servers now ignore cancels entirely.
The source of your confusion is most likely the fact that you think you
are posting to Google Groups. You are in fact using the Google Groups
interface to post to Usenet, which IIUC existed well before there was
even a Web for Google to index, much less a Google to do the indexing.
> And besides is it possible to edit my entries?
No. Usenet is, in effect, a write-once medium. The only possible way I
know of (except perhaps for ugly hacks involving server admins making
manual edits to the news spool on the server) is to cancel your post and
make a new one, but because most servers ignore cancels this is not
really effective.
(As a side note, it continues to amaze me how many people in my work
environment apparently think that it is possible to "recall" a message
they have sent out via E-mail...)
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
Jacek Pudlo
> It is theoretically possible to cancel ("delete") your own messages on
> Usenet. However, because some people/programs/servers have been known to
> issue indiscriminate cancels to perfectly legitimate messages, many or
> most news servers now ignore cancels entirely.
You can, however, have a post removed from Google's archive. Emily Short did
so with several unkind reviews of her games. You simply complain to Google
accusing the author of odious felonies. This is much more effective than
simply cancelling a post, since it expunges *all* traces and records of it.
Speaking of Google's archive, how's your father doing? Still preaching?
The Wanderer
> "The Wanderer" a.k.a. "God" a.k.a. "Eric" a.k.a. "Vita"
Eh?
I'm not Eric; that's my brother Henry.
I've never even known anyone who went by the name "Vita".
I'm certainly not any sort of deity.
I am, however, the Wanderer, whom I will admit is easily mistaken for a
god by the willfully uninformed.
>> It is theoretically possible to cancel ("delete") your own messages
>> on Usenet. However, because some people/programs/servers have been
>> known to issue indiscriminate cancels to perfectly legitimate
>> messages, many or most news servers now ignore cancels entirely.
>
> You can, however, have a post removed from Google's archive.
That's probably true, but it's not remotely effective as a means of
preventing people from seeing the original post if it has not yet
expired on other news servers.
> Speaking of Google's archive, how's your father doing? Still
> preaching?
Why, yes, he is; thank you for asking. What'd you find - his old
hold-the-line arguments against the loonies in the "Christian Identity
Movement"?
Jacek Pudlo
> Jacek Pudlo wrote:
>
>> "The Wanderer" a.k.a. "God" a.k.a. "Eric" a.k.a. "Vita"
>
> Eh?
>
> I'm not Eric; that's my brother Henry.
And this unsolicited scrap of information is supposed to make you look
innocent?
> I've never even known anyone who went by the name "Vita".
Of course you wouldn't. When you invent a persona for the sole purpose of
anonymously accusing a man of pedophilia, you choose a name as far removed
from you as possible.
> I'm certainly not any sort of deity.
For once, you're telling the truth.
> I am, however, the Wanderer, whom I will admit is easily mistaken for a
> god by the willfully uninformed.
For a community of 18.000 souls, Hinsdale sure has its fair share of IF
affectionados. Isn't it funny how they all use vague handles, connect via
comcast.net, and, with the exception of you, provide no valid email? Funnier
still, they all seem to have taken an interest in me. Perhaps you people
should have a Jacek meetup to discuss your hobby?
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer
>
>> Jacek Pudlo wrote:
>>
>>> "The Wanderer" a.k.a. "God" a.k.a. "Eric" a.k.a. "Vita"
>>
>> Eh?
>>
>> I'm not Eric; that's my brother Henry.
>
> And this unsolicited scrap of information is supposed to make you
> look innocent?
No, it's supposed to be confusing. In my opinion, there is not nearly
enough of the surreal in the world, or at least it is not nearly as
noticeable as it should be; from time to time, I attempt to do my part
to rectify this.
>> I am, however, the Wanderer, whom I will admit is easily mistaken
>> for a god by the willfully uninformed.
>
> For a community of 18.000 souls, Hinsdale sure has its fair share of
> IF affectionados. Isn't it funny how they all use vague handles,
> connect via comcast.net, and, with the exception of you, provide no
> valid email? Funnier still, they all seem to have taken an interest
> in me. Perhaps you people should have a Jacek meetup to discuss your
> hobby?
...I think I begin to see why some people find you amusing. This is so
off-target and so ill-supported it doesn't manage even to be insulting.
However, since this thread now has nothing to do with IF (and, really,
hasn't ever since my own first post in it), I will make no further reply
here unless things do manage to swerve back in that direction. And
probably not even then, since although I'm interested in IF I really
don't have much to say about it.
Jacek Pudlo
>> For a community of 18.000 souls, Hinsdale sure has its fair share of
>> IF affectionados. Isn't it funny how they all use vague handles,
>> connect via comcast.net, and, with the exception of you, provide no
>> valid email? Funnier still, they all seem to have taken an interest
>> in me. Perhaps you people should have a Jacek meetup to discuss your
>> hobby?
>
> ...I think I begin to see why some people find you amusing. This is so
> off-target and so ill-supported it doesn't manage even to be insulting.
The first Hinsdalean to show up is "Eric." NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.14.223.71.
Provider: Comcast.net. Location: Hinsdale, Illinois. "Eric" argues in my
favour, against the supposition that Emily Short didn't know what she was
doing when she accused me of pedophilia.
Hinsdalean number two is "The Wanderer," this time arguing against me.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.106.71.50. Provider: Comcast.net. Location: Hinsdale,
Illinois. Both "The Wanderer" and "Eric" like to flaunt their community
spirit. They both "care for IF." Both are moderate and balanced in their
opinions.
Two posts further down in the same thread is Hinsdalean number three, God
Almighty. NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.14.223.71. Provider: Comcast.net. Location:
Hinsdale, Illinois. Note that "God" has the same IP address as "Eric." "God"
is ceratinly more willing and alert to anwser questions on Usenet than He is
in real life. His post comes only eleven minutes after my reply to "The
Wanderer."
Hinsdalean number four is "Vita." NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.14.223.71. Provider:
Comcast.net. Location: Hinsdale, Illinois. Note that "Vita" has the same IP
address as "Eric" and "God." Vita is neither moderate nor balanced, but
"she" appears to be in touch with current events.
One individual, two IP addresses. The things that connects the two IP
addresses are theme and location. Either there are two separate individuals
posting from Hinsdale, Illinois, using the same provider, both with an
interest in the pedophilia accusation made against me, or "The Wanderer" and
"Vita" are the same person using different handles and IP addresses to
confuse, flame and insult other posters.
So why this unprovoked bait? Why slanderously flame someone you barely know?
Perhaps this "friendly advice" from "The Wanderer" can shed some light on
the behavior.
"Now that the matter has been brought to people's attention, for reasons at
which I could guess but which probably differ from person to person, they
appear to be having some fun with it. If you drop the matter and do not
respond to baiting"
Could it be that this is "The Wanderer's" idea of "having some fun"? To bait
people wrongly accused of pedophilia by repeating the accusation? Not bad
for a pastor's son...
> However, since this thread now has nothing to do with IF (and, really,
> hasn't ever since my own first post in it), I will make no further reply
> here unless things do manage to swerve back in that direction. And
> probably not even then, since although I'm interested in IF I really
> don't have much to say about it.
Keep it that way, troll. I don't want to see you here again.