OT: Why People Are Not Free? (rant)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Rich The Newsgropup Wacko

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 3:48:32 PM2/28/05
to
I wonder how many people could parse this sentence these days:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

It's kinda like the "pledgalegance" that we were all forced to memorize -
it doesn't mean anything any more, because nobody understands what it's
actually saying!

I think the dumbing-down of American children is part of the illuminati
conspiracy. "Free? Uh, Yeah, I'm free! I'm free to go bowling, I'm free
to have barbecue - oh, wait a sec, better check that one - but who cares?
American Idol is on!"

Thank you for letting me rant.

Love,
Rich

John Woodgate

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 4:16:01 PM2/28/05
to
I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Newsgropup Wacko
<wa...@example.com> wrote (in <pan.2005.02.28....@example.co
m>) about 'OT: Why People Are Not Free? (rant)', on Mon, 28 Feb 2005:

>I wonder how many people could parse this sentence these days:
>
> "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
>people
> to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
> and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
> station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
> decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
> declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Parse? It would take quite a long time, and where would it get you?

If you mean 'comprehend', it's surely not that difficult? Mind you, in
spite of its historical context, its actually quite muddled
conceptually. The only bit that really makes sense is the last bit,
which is good sense.

You could render it in modern language:

If some body of people want to secede from the political unit to which
they belong, they owe it to their present associates and mankind at
large to explain why.

The Scottish National Party never ceases to explain at great length. Its
problem is that, even in Scotland, not enough people believe it. OTOH,
as far as I Know, Plaid Cymru has no such goal. They know which side of
their bara brith has the ymenyn.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

JeffM

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 4:48:02 PM2/28/05
to
>>"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
>>people
>>to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another,
>>and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
>>station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,
a
>>decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
>>declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
>> Rich The Newsgropup Wacko

>
>If some body of people want to secede from the political unit to which
>they belong, they owe it to their present associates and mankind at
>large to explain why.
> John Woodgate

Actually, the Declaration of Independence is a laundry list of
grievances.
Right after the part Rich quoted, it launches into it.

Active8

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 6:46:41 PM2/28/05
to

And calls the king a tyrant!

--
Best Regards,
Mike

Paul Burke

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 3:11:46 AM3/1/05
to
Rich The Newsgropup Wacko wrote:
> "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people
> to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
> and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
> station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
> decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
> declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Seems plain enough to me. I suppose the Rebs' downfall was that they
didn't explain their reasons for secession clearly enough, or that God
didn't think they were entitled to it. That and all the heavy industry
being in the north.

Paul Burke

martin griffith

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 6:40:39 AM3/1/05
to
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:46:41 -0500, in sci.electronics.design Active8
<reply...@ndbbm.net> wrote:

>On 28 Feb 2005 13:48:02 -0800, JeffM wrote:
>

snip


>> Actually, the Declaration of Independence is a laundry list of
>> grievances.
>> Right after the part Rich quoted, it launches into it.
>
>And calls the king a tyrant!


Even worse, our prospective "king" is going to marry a Divorced Woman.
What on earth is UK of GB coming to?


martin

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
Gandhi

Don Pearce

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 6:45:05 AM3/1/05
to
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:40:39 +0100, martin griffith
<marting...@Xyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:46:41 -0500, in sci.electronics.design Active8
><reply...@ndbbm.net> wrote:
>
>>On 28 Feb 2005 13:48:02 -0800, JeffM wrote:
>>
>snip
>>> Actually, the Declaration of Independence is a laundry list of
>>> grievances.
>>> Right after the part Rich quoted, it launches into it.
>>
>>And calls the king a tyrant!
>
>
>Even worse, our prospective "king" is going to marry a Divorced Woman.
>What on earth is UK of GB coming to?
>
>
>martin
>

It is the UK of GB and NI.

And really - who gives a f*ck whom he marries? Neither of them is a
friend of mine.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

John Woodgate

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 8:21:01 AM3/1/05
to
I read in sci.electronics.design that martin griffith
<marting...@Xyahoo.co.uk> wrote (in <q1l821dsnthdj7i6fft5j8j7c3okvl
ln...@4ax.com>) about 'OT: Why People Are Not Free? (rant)', on Tue, 1
Mar 2005:

>Even worse, our prospective "king" is going to marry a Divorced Woman.
>What on earth is UK of GB coming to?

Its senses, perhaps. Personal relationships are ridiculously beset with
ancient taboos (some of which may have been justified when both adult
and infant mortality were high) and rules imposed by, often allegedly
celibate, priests.

We have stuff that is clearly in 'Caesar's domain' such as taxation,
wound up with what is claimed as in 'God's domain' ('..let no man put
asunder.')

Andrew could marry Sarah Ferguson, who 'had a past', because none of her
alleged liaisons had progressed as far as a failed marriage.

Marriage customs and restrictions vary greatly between religions and
even between different sects and different nations. The Princess Royal
could re-marry in church in Scotland but in England could only have a
civil marriage.

The Anglican Church is faced with schism, perhaps even disintegration,
over the treatment of homosexuals. Homosexuality is not 'unnatural',
it's perfectly natural; the is no need for training courses for those so
disposed! But those who believe it to be sinful, and thus wish not to
associate with those who do not, should remember a statement of Jesus,
one of few to appear almost identical in two gospels, "I came not to
call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Kryten

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 8:34:20 AM3/1/05
to

"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:42275570...@news.plus.net...

> And really - who gives a f*ck whom he marries?
> Neither of them is a friend of mine.

Exactly.

I guess the populace was originally averse to having a queen that other
blokes had used and cast off. But since Charles has already produced heirs
then unless they both die and Camilla is still fertile it is unlikely to be
an issue.

Royalty no longer have any power to dictate the national religion, so it
doesn't matter if they marry or become non-protestant.

Royalty seems to have descended into an upper-class twit reality show funded
from the public purse, providing easy fodder for newspapers and people that
are obsessed with such crap.

The Royals ought to stop taking any money from the public and then they can
rightly say they are not paid to be a public freak show. Then they can tell
the world to mind their own business, and use anti-stalking laws if anyone
tries otherwise.

I wonder what would happen if any heir wanted to marry a non-white Satanist?

That would be damn funny! :->


John Woodgate

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 9:26:35 AM3/1/05
to
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kryten <kryten_droid_obfusticator@
ntlworld.com> wrote (in <wb_Ud.802$7D4...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>) about
'OT: Why People Are Not Free? (rant)', on Tue, 1 Mar 2005:

>The Royals ought to stop taking any money from the public

Charlie doesn't. And much of the Queen's Civil List grant goes to pay
her staff.

Kryten

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 9:54:28 AM3/1/05
to
"John Woodgate" <j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:lkqcf1Eb...@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

>>The Royals ought to stop taking any money from the public
> Charlie doesn't.

Good man, he can rightly do as he pleases.

> And much of the Queen's Civil List grant goes to pay
> her staff.

Not so good.
I can see that paying staff to look after spots open to tourists brings
money back from tourists, but I dislike paying for personal flunkies.

Mind you, government bureaucracy probably wastes as much or more, and it is
less visible to the public eye.

Reg Edwards

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 3:52:55 PM3/1/05
to
Why doesn't Charlie get married over the anvil at Gretna Green. It's
perfectly legal.

His problems arise due the City of London and the Multinationals being at
war with each other over who will have his money should there be another
divorce in the family.


~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 4, 2005, 2:52:16 PM3/4/05
to
That's the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, which they make
us analayze in the 8th grade. We had to analyze the Pledge of
Allegiance at the beginning of the year.

So, at least in my school, everyone knows what he or she is saying.

What does this have to do with electronics/design or whatever the
subject is?
(By the way I moved to sci.physics.research and I am posting there now,
I just looked around back here to see if anything interesting is
happening. sci.physics.research is moderated, so they don't let my
posts through unless I quote things correctly. That's how I'm
learning...)

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 4, 2005, 2:57:21 PM3/4/05
to
But, here, I don't have to worry about my quoting, so since this is an
off-topic topic anyway, I'll just forget about it altogether! (Hehe, I
bet someone'll get annoyed).

It means that when a people have to separate politically from another
people, it's only fair for them to explain why. So the delegates to the
Continental Congress were saying to England, "We want to ditch you and
form our own country because we don't like how you are treating us, but
we want to show you we can still be fair and respectful even if you
can't. The fair thing to do is tell you why, so here goes."

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 4, 2005, 2:59:32 PM3/4/05
to
Oh wait, sorry for that, everyone already said what I just said, but I
didn't read it before posting. I'll pay more attention next time...

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 4, 2005, 3:00:23 PM3/4/05
to
We also had to count the grievances.

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 4, 2005, 3:02:50 PM3/4/05
to
Paul Burke wrote:
> "Seems plain enough to me. I suppose the Rebs' downfall was that they

> didn't explain their reasons for secession clearly enough, or that
God
> didn't think they were entitled to it. That and all the heavy
industry
> being in the north."

There's also evidence that the King had mental issues, didn't listen to
his advisors, and was drunk when he made his decisions regarding the
Colonists.

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 4, 2005, 3:06:04 PM3/4/05
to
(notice I quoted correctly that time) ;)

JeffM

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 12:34:26 AM3/5/05
to
>I moved to sci.physics.research and I am posting there now
> ~~SciGirl~~

...from Google
...without context
...or attribution.

Here's the document on which the newsgroups concept is based:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8PaSp2kKbWoJ:www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html+just-enough+at-*-top-*-*-message+do-not-*-*-*-original

Worth reading.

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 9:41:49 AM3/7/05
to
Are you one of the moderators or something? And there's a way to post
from somewhere other than Google?

Rich Grise

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 11:24:46 AM3/7/05
to
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:41:49 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:

> Are you one of the moderators or something? And there's a way to post
> from somewhere other than Google?

Yes, there is, albeit I hear that these days, not everybody gets a
news server with their internet account, through their ISP.

Either talk to your ISP people, and ask for the name of their news server,
and get that (a newsserver) included in your account. Then use a
newsreader. If you're on windoze, Outlook Express is the default news
client - the only other real newsreader I know of in Doze is Netscrape.

If you decided to install Linux, of course, you'd have your choice of a
plethora of client programs.

As far as operating the newsreader, netiquette, and so on, there are
usually answers in one of the news:news.* groups.

Good Luck!
Rich

Keith Williams

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 11:44:58 AM3/7/05
to
In article <pan.2005.03.07...@example.net>,
rich...@example.net says...

> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:41:49 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:
>
> > Are you one of the moderators or something? And there's a way to post
> > from somewhere other than Google?

No moderators 'round here. I don't think there is a *worse* way to
post.

> Yes, there is, albeit I hear that these days, not everybody gets a
> news server with their internet account, through their ISP.
>
> Either talk to your ISP people, and ask for the name of their news server,
> and get that (a newsserver) included in your account. Then use a
> newsreader. If you're on windoze, Outlook Express is the default news
> client - the only other real newsreader I know of in Doze is Netscrape.

There are *tons* of WinBlows newsreaders. Agent (not free), FreeAgent
(free), Gravity (free), and Mozilla/Thunderbird (free) seem to be the
most common.

> If you decided to install Linux, of course, you'd have your choice of a
> plethora of client programs.

There are likely just as many for WinBlows as there are for *ix. I
generally use Gravity('blows) or PAN (Linux).

YD

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 6:36:44 PM3/7/05
to
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:24:46 GMT, Rich Grise <rich...@example.net>
wrote:

Sign up for a free non-binaries account at news.individual.net. If you
want binaries too you can sign up for a free account at
http://www.yottanews.com/freeaccount.php. Yottanews is good but a bit
of a hassle if you're on dynamic IP since it needs to be redone every
time your IP changes. Doesn't take more than a few minutes so it's
worth it.

- YD.
--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 11:52:07 AM3/8/05
to
No, I was asking him if he was one of the moderators for
sci.physics.research because he said...

>I moved to sci.physics.research and I am posting there now
> ~~SciGirl~~


> ...from Google
> ...without context
> ...or attribution.

And no one there would be able to see my posts without context unless
he or she was a moderator, because they don't let them through.

Keith Williams

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 1:32:27 PM3/8/05
to
In article <gtop21d9q9ooh0d0k...@4ax.com>,
yd.te...@techie.com says...

> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:24:46 GMT, Rich Grise <rich...@example.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:41:49 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:
> >
> >> Are you one of the moderators or something? And there's a way to post
> >> from somewhere other than Google?
> >
> >Yes, there is, albeit I hear that these days, not everybody gets a
> >news server with their internet account, through their ISP.
> >
> >Either talk to your ISP people, and ask for the name of their news server,
> >and get that (a newsserver) included in your account. Then use a
> >newsreader. If you're on windoze, Outlook Express is the default news
> >client - the only other real newsreader I know of in Doze is Netscrape.
> >
> >If you decided to install Linux, of course, you'd have your choice of a
> >plethora of client programs.
> >
> >As far as operating the newsreader, netiquette, and so on, there are
> >usually answers in one of the news:news.* groups.
> >
> >Good Luck!
> >Rich
>
> Sign up for a free non-binaries account at news.individual.net.

Individual.net is no longer free. It's now 10EUR a year ($13.56US
according to charge). The service is well worth the small money. It's
been the best news server I've had so far (newsguy was good too but 10x
the price).

> If you
> want binaries too you can sign up for a free account at
> http://www.yottanews.com/freeaccount.php. Yottanews is good but a bit
> of a hassle if you're on dynamic IP since it needs to be redone every
> time your IP changes. Doesn't take more than a few minutes so it's
> worth it.

Hmm, I might try that, but it sounds like a PITA.

--
Keith

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 3:42:10 PM3/8/05
to
Ok this is going to sound totally random, but it's for a homework
assignment. You know those things that have candles on the bottom and
when you light the candles, the thing on top spins and makes the bells
ring? Why does it spin? I've only seen ONE in my entire life, so I
can't observe a bunch to test my idea, but I'd guess the candles are
positioned asymmetrically, so that air heats up and rises on one side
faster than the other. Is that right?

SOMEONE PLEASE REPLY I NEED TO KNOW SO I CAN WRITE MY ESSAY. (Stupid
unit on heat transfer in science class - I don't think we're even
expected to explain why it spins, just how the candles create
convection currents underneath, but I just can't go halfway like that.
When I write an essay I like to explain the whole thing.)

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 3:44:10 PM3/8/05
to
If the candles aren't positioned asymettrically, then I'm back to
square one. <sigh>

John Woodgate

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 4:16:24 PM3/8/05
to
I read in sci.electronics.design that ~~SciGirl~~ <palmt...@juno.com>
wrote (in <1110314530.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>) about
'OT: Why People Are Not Free? (rant)', on Tue, 8 Mar 2005:
The 'thing on top' has some form of inclined blades, like a fan or
turbine rotor, so that as the hot air goes up through them, it pushes
each one 'sideways', or tangentially to the circumference, thus causing
the whole thing to rotate.

YD

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 6:15:01 PM3/8/05
to
On 8 Mar 2005 12:44:10 -0800, "~~SciGirl~~" <palmt...@juno.com>
wrote:

>If the candles aren't positioned asymettrically, then I'm back to
>square one. <sigh>

The candles are placed symmetrically. We used to have one in the
family, it's with my sister now. As John said, there's a fan-shaped
brass rotor thingy on top of it, delicately balanced. The hot air from
the candles rises by convection, creating a vertical wind making it
move.

To keep the center of gravity low there are little brass angels
suspended from the tips, as they go around they hit little bells and
make them go ping.

I've seen similar things made with an incandescent lamp, a piece of
cardboard and a thumb tack.

JeffM

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 6:51:49 PM3/8/05
to

1) you don't seen to understand the word "context".
(Though you seen to have done it here--maybe it suited your whim this
time.)
Had you clicked on the link I provided
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8PaSp2kKbWoJ:www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html+just-enough+at-*-top-*-*-message+do-not-*-*-*-original
and read the highlighted portion,
(given any ability on your part to correlate 2 things),
the meaning of "context" would be obvious.

Since you are either lazy or brain-dead--or both, here it is:
In Usenet parlance, "context" means that
you clip a bit of the post to which you are responding
and include it in your post.[1]
It appears that just because everyone else included in their posts
1) text beginning with greater-than signs
and
2) the name of the person who originally posted that text
apparantly gives you no indication that you should follow suit.

I read the groups from Google and the only time I have problems
is when a fool who can't discern existing patterns (e.g., YOU)
won't abide by the existing Usenet norms.

Context is simple--even for the lazy:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/browse_frm/thread/abf3f7038a2ef354/e08362c5b4fe45b5?q=jeffm_++Click-the-show-options-link+THAT-Reply-link#e08362c5b4fe45b5

Attribution refers to (2) above.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=attribution
As I said, I read the groups from Google
and don't like the way the MY Groups thingie looks
so if you strip my name out of your response,
it is unlikely I will see your response.

No. I am not a moderator,
just someone who has no appreciation of the clueless.

[1]Because you read at Google
and have never seen the way Usenet looks in a reak newsreader
you can't appreciate the way your disconnected comment looks
when it offers no clue
as to the content of the post to which you are responding.

I think I have only posted without context once and that was because
my Mama told me not to use the kind of language John Fields had used.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/ec7d4fe437358fc0/efd28853c88d04b9?q=till-then-dear-boy-Well-you-know#efd28853c88d04b9

JeffM

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 7:22:02 PM3/8/05
to
>>>a way to post from somewhere other than Google?
>>> ~~SciGirl~~

>
>I don't think there is a *worse* way to post.
> Keith Williams

I think you are confusing the medium with the many clueless folks who
use it.
(SciGirl being a prime example.)

MY ISP keeps a que of ~150 posts per group on its newsserver.
For me, Google is a viable option.

I like the interface as well.
I like being able to see a large portion of the thread on one page.
They have made some improvements with the new Beta.[1]
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/7e16d4e9a2af2e26/52d29d9dfd70ee0e?q=Show-quoted-text+I-can-see-the-whole-untruncated-post#52d29d9dfd70ee0e
(The toggle of the - Show quoted text - thingie is - Hide quoted text
-.)


[1]Reminds me. Hans Bethe died. He was 98!

Paul Burke

unread,
Mar 9, 2005, 3:15:12 AM3/9/05
to
John Woodgate wrote:
>
> The 'thing on top' has some form of inclined blades, like a fan or
> turbine rotor, so that as the hot air goes up through them, it pushes
> each one 'sideways', or tangentially to the circumference, thus causing
> the whole thing to rotate.

Like the 'thing' in the coal-effect electric fire back home. Positioned
over a red- stained lightbulb, it was meant to cast flickering light on
a pile of translucentish plastic 'coal' and give a homely effect.

I was always getting in trouble for taking the coal off, just to watch
it going round. I loved those little handheld windmill thingies too.

Paul Burke

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 9, 2005, 9:42:02 AM3/9/05
to
Oh! Thanx.

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 9, 2005, 9:42:28 AM3/9/05
to
Yes lol, I'm lazy and braindead.

Don Pearce

unread,
Mar 9, 2005, 10:09:10 AM3/9/05
to
On 9 Mar 2005 06:42:28 -0800, "~~SciGirl~~" <palmt...@juno.com>
wrote:

>Yes lol, I'm lazy and braindead.

Is there a chance you could quote at least a couple of words of the
post you are replying to so we know who it came from?

You can't possibly be *this* lazy.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Keith Williams

unread,
Mar 9, 2005, 2:21:59 PM3/9/05
to
In article <1110314530.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
palmt...@juno.com says...

<snipped everything not of relevance to the sub-thread>

What does this have to do with news servers?

--
Keith

Peter Bennett

unread,
Mar 9, 2005, 4:13:50 PM3/9/05
to
On 8 Mar 2005 12:42:10 -0800, "~~SciGirl~~" <palmt...@juno.com>
wrote:

>Ok this is going to sound totally random, but it's for a homework


>assignment. You know those things that have candles on the bottom and
>when you light the candles, the thing on top spins and makes the bells
>ring? Why does it spin? I've only seen ONE in my entire life, so I
>can't observe a bunch to test my idea, but I'd guess the candles are
>positioned asymmetrically, so that air heats up and rises on one side
>faster than the other. Is that right?

Think about fans or propellers....

--
Peter Bennett VE7CEI
email: peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca
GPS and NMEA info and programs: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter/index.html
Newsgroup new user info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 11, 2005, 5:18:24 PM3/11/05
to
I try to, unless the post I am replying to is right above where mine
will be or if I am replying to everyone.

JeffM

unread,
Mar 11, 2005, 5:44:08 PM3/11/05
to
~~SciGirl~~ (who is too stupid to be posting to Usenet)
chopped out

>>Is there a chance you could quote at least a couple of words of the
>>post you are replying to so we know who it came from?
>>
>>You can't possibly be *this* lazy.
>> Don Pearce

>>
and wrote:
>I try to, unless the post I am replying to is right above where mine
>will be or if I am replying to everyone.

As people have been trying to tell you,
GOOGLE GROUPS IS **NOT** USENET.
The MAJORITY of people DO NOT see Usenet THE WAY YOU DO on Google.

Given your propensities to constantly take shortcuts
and your unwillingness to follow established protocols,
you won't get far in science anyway.
Why don't you just go play in traffic?

Rich Grise

unread,
Mar 11, 2005, 5:57:04 PM3/11/05
to
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:18:24 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:

> I try to, unless the post I am replying to is right above where mine
> will be or if I am replying to everyone.

You need to learn about USENET and newsreaders in general.

Google groups is not a chatroom.

We[0] look at the newsgroup, and we see individual posts. If you don't
overtly include context when you post from google groups, it is a PITA
to track down what the heck you are talking about. USENET does not
spoon-feed context to the kiddies the way google does, which is why
google, and people who continue to use it while refusing to clue up, are
universally hated by USENETizens.

There might or might not be a setting to include context when replying,
otherwise it is strongly recommended that you bother to learn to copy
and paste text.

Thank you,
Rich

[0] People who use a real newsreader, logged into a real newsgroup

JeffM

unread,
Mar 12, 2005, 12:46:48 AM3/12/05
to
>There might or might not be a setting to include context when replying
> Rich Grise

It is possible.
I have already pointed out this and other the relevant data:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/3e13158594651a47/e45fcbf2f5288552
She's just too thick to follow directions. Typical child.

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 6:59:08 PM3/16/05
to
It is possible.
I have already pointed out this and other the relevant data:
http://groups-beta.google.com/­group/sci.electronics.design/b­rowse_frm...

She's just too thick to follow directions. Typical child.

I have clicked that link. All it did is the same thing that would
happen if I clicked "view as tree" here on Google.

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 7:07:11 PM3/16/05
to
Given your propensities to constantly take shortcuts
and your unwillingness to follow established protocols,
you won't get far in science anyway.
Why don't you just go play in traffic?

This is one of the many things people here have said against me - and I
can't say I fully disagree with it or any of the others.

I won't get far in science anyway: Who does? If you put all of the
knowledge and achievements of everyone on Earth together, it would
still be a fraction of what there is out there to accomplish and know.
Besides, I might not even end up working in a science-related field. If
I do, it will be meteorology. The other thing that interests me,
though, is interior design.

I'm too stupid to post in Usenet: Probably. But if it's truly
stupidity, then it is a mental condition rather than a personality
trait and therefore I cannot fix it. Maybe you meant ignorant, or
stubborn?

I'm a typical child: In a way, yes - I guess I'd probably have the
intelligence of a typical child and the personality. In another way, no
- most kids in my school break the dress code, do drugs, vandalize the
school, etc., or all of those, none of which I do. I'm more of the
nerdy kid who studies through lunch for no apparent reason.

Mark Jones

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 10:41:22 AM3/17/05
to

Good for you.

You're young enough still that anything is possible. Don't let anyone ever get
you down, or make you think you are stupid or ignorant. Those kinds of comments
stem simply from other's jealousy at your intelligence. (And possibly, man's
inherent drive to control and subjugate women, but that's another topic entirely.)

I think you're severely limiting your potential by making comments like "I
won't go far in science anyways." Well who's to say you won't? Who's to say you
won't revolutionize meterology or pioneer some new theory, bringing forth many
amazing new technologies? Think about this: did Edison set out to invent a
glowing bulb with the intent to revolutionize lighting, or simply to replace the
tiresome candles and oil lamps? The only difference between doing something
amazing and not doing something amazing, is DOING IT. Some of us old geezers
here can't do that - we're "set in our ways" and can't just decide to switch
careers into biomedicine, astronomy, astrophysics, or whatever it is we really
want to do. But if you want to be a string theory physicist, that is still an
option for you. But you'll never go anywhere if you believe you are stupid
and/or ignorant.

For some of us, we wish we would have done things differently at your age. I
could probably be doing R&D for the USAF if I'd joined when I had the chance.
Maybe that life would have been better, maybe it would be worse. But either sure
beats where I am today.

Take the BLUE pill. Find out how far the rabbit hole goes. Otherwise, be
content in just being another battery for some machine.

P.S. Did you ever receive the mail I sent you about munging your email address
in usenet posts? Or was it filtered, misplaced, or ignored like everything else
I seem to write?

JeffM

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 5:59:18 PM3/17/05
to
>>~~SciGirl~~ wrote [attempting to justify her unwillingness
>>to abide by Usenet norms]

>
>>about munging your email address in usenet posts
>> Mark Jones

For those not paying attention:
The whole point of the sub-thread has been GOOGLE GROUPS.
You must give a vadid email address to them to sign up.
THEY control what appears in FROM: line of your posts.

Rich Grise

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 8:06:23 PM3/17/05
to

I solved that years ago, before spam was so rampant and WAY
before they fucked up google groups. I use richar...@yahoo.com,
which gets me in, and at yahoo, I told it to dump everything
that comes in. I also have a real email which you can get by
eliding ard. ;-) Think the spambots will dope that one out? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich


~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 25, 2005, 1:30:26 PM3/25/05
to
P.S. Did you ever receive the mail I sent you about munging your email
address
in usenet posts? Or was it filtered, misplaced, or ignored like
everything else
I seem to write?

I don't think so. Everything I write seems to get filtered too :)
Those weren't my comments, I was responding to them. What I wrote was
after the colons, what people said was before them. But my IQ is
average, really. I just care to learn.

Rich Grise

unread,
Mar 25, 2005, 7:17:14 PM3/25/05
to

We see your posts. You're being ignored because you steadfastly refuse
to follow USENET conventions in your posting. IOW, you're acting like
the standard fuckhead:
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fuckhead.html

Good Luck!
Rich

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 25, 2005, 8:00:05 PM3/25/05
to
We see your posts. You're being ignored because you steadfastly refuse
to follow USENET conventions in your posting.

I clipped text in all my recent messages. What did I do now? Also, you
can ignore my messages if you want. I don't really care, to be honest.
They're targeted to those who want to read them. The rest of you talk
among yourselves, forget I'm here.

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 25, 2005, 8:05:32 PM3/25/05
to
Note: This doesn't have any text clipped because it's not a reply to
anything in particular.

Now I have a bone to pick with all of you who criticize my posts. Yours
aren't perfect either. Some of you copy and paste others' words along
with THIER clips and you can't tell who wrote what. In Rich Grise's
post...


Part of the text he clipped from my post was text I clipped from
another one. So it looks like I said the whole thing, which I didn't.
I'm assuming this doesn't go against your standard protocol or
whatever, but it IS annoying just the same.

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 25, 2005, 8:13:54 PM3/25/05
to
>>>~~SciGirl~~ wrote [attempting to justify her unwillingness
>>>to abide by Usenet norms]

WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO? I'VE STARTED TO PUT A BIT OF WHAT I'M
REPLYING TO IN EACH OF MY POSTS, INCLUDING THIS ONE, AND EVERYONE STILL
SAYS I'M "not abiding by norms" AND OTHER SUCH THINGS.

I just discovered there's a sci.geo.meteorology so now I'm happy. I'll
try "abiding by norms" from the beginning there and see if they get mad
at me, and maybe that'll give me a hint.

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 25, 2005, 8:27:33 PM3/25/05
to

I just discovered there's a sci.geo.meteorology so now I'm happy. I'll
try "abiding by norms" from the beginning there and see if they get mad

at me, and maybe that'll give me a hint.

That is, when they post something worth replying to. What's there is
worthless. I started a new topic with something I've always wanted to
know the answer to - what the record low and high adiabatic and
environmental lapse rates are.

John Woodgate

unread,
Mar 26, 2005, 3:26:28 AM3/26/05
to
I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <rich...@example.net>
wrote (in <pan.2005.03.26...@example.net>) about 'OT: Why
People Are Not Free? (rant)', on Sat, 26 Mar 2005:

>We see your posts. You're being ignored because you steadfastly refuse
>to follow USENET conventions in your posting.

I thought of a more polite word for that, but if I posted it, I'd
probably become one.(;-)


--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.

There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 26, 2005, 10:56:25 AM3/26/05
to
I thought of a more polite word for that, but if I posted it, I'd
probably become one.(;-)

I don't want to know.

I find the sci.physics.research topic "Neutrino Generation from
Electrons" fascinating... you might want to try reading it. Also the
one on quantum black holes.

keith

unread,
Mar 26, 2005, 12:17:32 PM3/26/05
to
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:27:33 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:

>
> I just discovered there's a sci.geo.meteorology so now I'm happy. I'll
> try "abiding by norms" from the beginning there and see if they get mad
>
> at me, and maybe that'll give me a hint.

Try posting with proper quotation marks. That'll be a start.


>
> That is, when they post something worth replying to. What's there is
> worthless. I started a new topic with something I've always wanted to
> know the answer to - what the record low and high adiabatic and
> environmental lapse rates are.

Record low and high *adiabatic lapse rates"? The dry ALR is 1C/100m
(5.5F/1000') and the wet (saturated) ALR is about .55C/100m (2-3F/1000').
There is no "record", high or low. It's a physical phenomenon, PV=nRT,
and all that.

I wasn't familiar with the term "environmental lapse rate", but
apparently it's the average lapse rate in the troposphere and is the
"average lapse rate" (wet and dry ALR combined) and averages .65C/100m,
so I suppose there must be a high and low. There is also a
"superadiabatic" lapse rate (greater than the dry ALR, but less than ~3x
the dry) and "autoconvective" lapse rate (greater than superadiabatic), so
perhaps it would help to search on these.

--
Keith

Mark Jones

unread,
Mar 26, 2005, 12:26:38 PM3/26/05
to

Oooh, now you're starting to sound like a hangglider pilot. :)

Clarence_A

unread,
Mar 26, 2005, 12:28:04 PM3/26/05
to

"~~SciGirl~~" <palmt...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1111852585.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

PLONK!

There, it's much quieter now!


Reg Edwards

unread,
Mar 26, 2005, 3:57:00 PM3/26/05
to
"Freedom" is merely a recent political "in" word associated with
so-called "Democracy" and "Human Rights".

Freedon from what? Responsibility?


Rich Grise

unread,
Mar 26, 2005, 4:44:38 PM3/26/05
to
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:13:54 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:

>>>>~~SciGirl~~ wrote [attempting to justify her unwillingness
>>>>to abide by Usenet norms]
>
> WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO?

Quote whatever it is you are responding to, and set it off with angle
brackets in the first column, much as your rant is quoted here.

> I'VE STARTED TO PUT A BIT OF WHAT I'M
> REPLYING TO IN EACH OF MY POSTS, INCLUDING THIS ONE,

This is simply not true. There is not a trace of what you are replying
to, other than what you see above, also set off by angle brackets.

You really need to learn to copy/paste.

> AND EVERYONE STILL
> SAYS I'M "not abiding by norms" AND OTHER SUCH THINGS.

I am not "everyone"; other than that, that statement _is_ accurate.

> I just discovered there's a sci.geo.meteorology so now I'm happy. I'll
> try "abiding by norms" from the beginning there and see if they get mad
> at me, and maybe that'll give me a hint.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Good Luck!
Rich

Pig Bladder

unread,
Mar 26, 2005, 4:48:27 PM3/26/05
to

Hey, Clarence! Why plonk SciGirl? Sounds like she's right up your alley!
--
Pig Bladder on a Stick


~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 26, 2005, 5:08:12 PM3/26/05
to
also a
"superadiabatic" lapse rate (greater than the dry ALR, but less than
~3x
the dry) and "autoconvective" lapse rate (greater than superadiabatic),
so
perhaps it would help to search on these.

I know superadiabatic but not autoconvective.

~~SciGirl~~

unread,
Mar 26, 2005, 5:11:25 PM3/26/05
to
This is simply not true. >There is not a trace of what you are replying

>to, other than what you see above, also set off by >angle brackets.

>You really need to learn to copy/paste.

[I have been copying and pasting, and I seem to be doing it right
because it comes up blue. I don't understand. What else is there to
do?]

Clarence_A

unread,
Mar 26, 2005, 6:50:41 PM3/26/05
to

"Pig Bladder" <pigbl...@neodruid.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.26....@neodruid.net...

Well I don't think so, besides I don't pick up girls that hang out
in alleys. "I just got tired of the noise."


Michael A. Terrell

unread,
Mar 26, 2005, 7:09:39 PM3/26/05