Google screwed up AGAIN
Andrew Usher
browsing a message list, clicking in the body of any message opens a
posting window that appears to be non-functional. It can only be
closed, not by the same action, but by clicking on the 'discard'
button. I fail to see the point of this window even if it worked.
Andrew Usher
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Who gives a crap.
Get a real news reader and a real news feed.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Mike Lyle
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:c0mgf4...@mail.specsol.com...
servers are. It also seems that a large chunk of the population can't
easily get anything else. Better, then, to agitate - however
despairingly - for improvements.
--
Mike.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Richard R. Hershberger
wrote:
> <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c0mgf4...@mail.specsol.com...> In sci.physics Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Well, it looks like another moronic change from Google. Now, when
> > > browsing a message list, clicking in the body of any message opens a
> > > posting window that appears to be non-functional. It can only be
> > > closed, not by the same action, but by clicking on the 'discard'
> > > button. I fail to see the point of this window even if it worked.
>
> > Who gives a crap.
>
> > Get a real news reader and a real news feed.
>
> Well, yes and no. GG isn't going away any time soon, while real news
> servers are. It also seems that a large chunk of the population can't
> easily get anything else. Better, then, to agitate - however
> despairingly - for improvements.
The mysterious part is that we don't really need improvements, though
they would be nice. What we need is for Google to stop making things
worse. Every change they have made the past year or so has been for
the worse. I don't even see any self-interested reason for them.
z
> In sci.physics Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, it looks like another moronic change from Google. Now, when
> > browsing a message list, clicking in the body of any message opens a
> > posting window that appears to be non-functional. It can only be
> > closed, not by the same action, but by clicking on the 'discard'
> > button. I fail to see the point of this window even if it worked.
>
> Who gives a crap.
>
> Get a real news reader and a real news feed.
For those who can't remember every post everybody ever posted, google
groups is handy. Although I do notice that their indexing seems a bit
unreliable, in that posts will appear in a search one day, not appear
the next, and reappear on a third day.
z
> The mysterious part is that we don't really need improvements, though
> they would be nice. What we need is for Google to stop making things
> worse. Every change they have made the past year or so has been for
> the worse. I don't even see any self-interested reason for them
Ah, you've forgotten the Programmers' Full Employment Act of 2000,
wherein all programmers who feel in danger of being laid off are
encouraged to screw up their employers' code base with badly thought
out "improvements", so that they can spend the next few months fixing
it.
Turenne
>'...Now, when browsing a message list, clicking in the body of any message opens a
posting window that appears to be non-functional....'
You're right it's bloody annoying.
Richard Lichten
Mike Lyle
"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1176928043....@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
doubt of the Windows generation, easily impressed by cosmetic changes.
Peter Moylan mentioned not long ago a rising generation even of
"programmers" who are focused on appearance rather than functionality.
As long as the number of users in China keeps growing, and the ads keep
clicking through, the managers will be satisfied.
Nobody has yet proposed a commercially viable model for real Usenet.
We'd be horrified if they did; but I think it's the only secure way
forward. Ads down the side of OE, perhaps? Some regulated form of spam?
Avenger
you.
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176871923.5...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Again, who gives a crap?
Look at all the groups this is crossposted to; none of them have the
slightest to do with USENET news, news feeds, news readers, or Google.
And there are lots of public accessible, free news servers out
there so there is no reason for anyone to ever use Google groups.
Andrew Usher
> And there are lots of public accessible, free news servers out
> there so there is no reason for anyone to ever use Google groups.
Well, can you name any? I have tried a couple (when Google was down)
but haven't found one that I like. Remember Google does have
advantages:
it's very fast, archives posts within seconds, and has a relatively
convenient
interface (compared to web boards, especially the atrocious Yahoo).
Andrew Usher
Mike Barnes
Are you sure you know what a news server is? Everything you write
suggests that you're comparing GG with other online services. A news
server is for use with offline newsreaders.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Mike M
I'm using GG, and clicking in the body of a message doesn't do
anything at all.
Mike M
Peter Moylan
> And there are lots of public accessible, free news servers out there
> so there is no reason for anyone to ever use Google groups.
Great, somebody who knows! "Where can I find a free news server?" is
one of the most frequently asked questions in many newsgroups. I had a
list about 10-15 years ago, but they've all disappeared. If you can name
just ONE publicly accessible and free news server out there, you'd be
doing the world a favour.
My present ISP runs an adequate news server (except for a few missing
groups), but I'm planning to jump ship soon, for reasons unrelated to
news servers, and I'm scared that I'll end up with an ISP without a news
server, since they're now in the majority. If GG is the only option, I
guess I'll have to give up newsgroups altogether, which would be a real
pity.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
nanc...@verizon.net
I've noticed the same change just within the past couple of days. It's
*highly* annoying.
It also made me realize that I've apparently developed the habit of
randomly clicking my mouse for no apparent reason while I'm reading.
That's never caused me any problem ... until now.
Will
[...]
> And there are lots of public accessible, free news servers out
> there so there is no reason for anyone to ever use Google groups.
Except that some of us are at the mercy of corporate policies - in my
case, I cannot persuade our Exchange administrator to allow access to
news groups. Hence I use GG. Personally, I find it very convenient,
except when they make "improvements", fixing problems that didn't
exist and ignoring all the cruft. I know that there are some users of
GG who don't know to snip, top-post etc., but there are also quite a
few sad old farts who, for reasons of pure snobbishness, deprecate GG.
Will.
OwlHoot
Another very irritating feature of GG (apart from wrapping input
lines,
which is my bete noir) is that a search of an author's posts only
return the latest year's worth. Even the date range in advanced
search doesn't seem to work for dates more than a year old.
This effectively means all older posts have fallen off the back
of the conveyor belt and been lost forever.
mensa...@aol.com
You're daft. I just did a search of myself on "Collatz" and got
402 messages dating back to 2001.
sg...@hotmail.co.uk
As it happens I finally got round to installing newsreader software
yesterday, only to discover that my isp's news server licks balls
(according to it there has been one post to sci.math in the past 10
days) and none of the free servers I have found allow posting. Google
groups may have some irritating idiosyncracies, but at least they are
useable.
-Rotwang
sg...@hotmail.co.uk
> Another very irritating feature of GG (apart from wrapping input
> lines,
> which is my bete noir) is that a search of an author's posts only
> return the latest year's worth. Even the date range in advanced
> search doesn't seem to work for dates more than a year old.
> This effectively means all older posts have fallen off the back
> of the conveyor belt and been lost forever.
Really? I haven't found that. Sometimes posts by all authors between
certain dates disappear from the records for a while, but then
reappear a week or so later, in my experience.
-Rotwang
z
wrote:
> "z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
I just read an old copy of Wired from like 2005, where some CEO of a
medium size well known software company (I'm not being coy, I can't
remember which) wrote about how he negotiated with Microsoft and
Google, since he knew one or the other would eat him; anyway, one
point is that most of the folks at Google have had experience with one
or another company that got steamrollered by Microsoft, be it
Netscape, Novell, whatever; except the two guys at the top who came up
with the basic ideas, algorithm, etc. Anyway, they informed him that
it was their intent to not indulge in the kind of free-for-all
brawling Microsoft is known for; rather to let their excellent product
and good behavior and fine reputation serve for them. Anyway, the next
day he sold out to Microsoft.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
You are again talking about a web based interface to news.
It appears you have no clue what a news server is.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > And there are lots of public accessible, free news servers out there
> > so there is no reason for anyone to ever use Google groups.
> Great, somebody who knows! "Where can I find a free news server?" is
> one of the most frequently asked questions in many newsgroups. I had a
> list about 10-15 years ago, but they've all disappeared. If you can name
> just ONE publicly accessible and free news server out there, you'd be
> doing the world a favour.
> My present ISP runs an adequate news server (except for a few missing
> groups), but I'm planning to jump ship soon, for reasons unrelated to
> news servers, and I'm scared that I'll end up with an ISP without a news
> server, since they're now in the majority. If GG is the only option, I
> guess I'll have to give up newsgroups altogether, which would be a real
> pity.
If you do a google search for "free news server" you get 235,000,000
hits; the lists have hardly disappeard.
Granted, some of them are crap or severly limited in the groups they
carry, but many of the sites providing the lists have rankings on
speed, number of groups, timelyness of updates, etc. so it isn't
much of a challenge to find one that suits your needs.
I run a news server that has a primary feed from the upstream provider
and serveral free servers as back up.
It has been working just fine for years and news at the server I run
is never effected by maintenance/failure downtime from any individual
site.
Once in a while one of the free sites folds it's tent and I replace it
with another one; big deal.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
You do realize that just about every web browser since about day one
has had a built in news reader that will connect to a real news server,
don't you?
I guess not.
Dave L. Renfro
[posting a second time since the first isn't showing up]
> Another very irritating feature of GG (apart from
> wrapping input lines, which is my bete noir) is that
> a search of an author's posts only return the latest
> year's worth. Even the date range in advanced
> search doesn't seem to work for dates more than
> a year old. This effectively means all older posts
> have fallen off the back of the conveyor belt and
> been lost forever.
It seems to be working for me. I get over 400 hits
when I search for posts made by me on or before
31 December 2001: <http://tinyurl.com/2xk5hx>.
I also haven't had much trouble finding old posts
when I want them for the information I've archived
in them (either for my own use or in directing another
poster to more information about something), such as
this rant of mine from a couple of years ago that I
think holds up quite well against the best rants I've
seen thus far in the present thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=lost-all-desire%22+author%3ARenfro
Dave L. Renfro
sg...@hotmail.co.uk
> In sci.physics s...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > As it happens I finally got round to installing newsreader software
> > yesterday, only to discover that my isp's news server licks balls
> > (according to it there has been one post to sci.math in the past 10
> > days) and none of the free servers I have found allow posting. Google
> > groups may have some irritating idiosyncracies, but at least they are
> > useable.
>
> You do realize that just about every web browser since about day one
> has had a built in news reader that will connect to a real news server,
> don't you?
Nope.
> I guess not.
Hey, I never said I was any good with computers. Any idea where one
would find such a thing in Firefox? Searches for relevant terms in the
help files produced no hits.
-Rotwang
Mike M
wrote:
I repeat: it doesn't happen on this here machine. This is good, but...
why?
Mike M
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Nope.
> > I guess not.
While I don't pretend to be an expert on every revision of every
browser out there, as I recall Firefox went the route of providing
a basic brower with optional add ons for everything else so you just
have the stuff (and bloat) that you actually want.
Martin Ambuhl
If you can download Firefox, then you know enough to download the
Thunderbird newsreader designed to work with it. Go to
<http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/thunderbird/>.
If you want an even more integrated solution from Mozilla, you can
instead of Firefox+Thunderbird use Seamonkey, formerly known as the
"Mozilla Application Suite." Go to
<http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/>.
sg...@hotmail.co.uk
> s...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > Hey, I never said I was any good with computers. Any idea where one
> > would find such a thing in Firefox? Searches for relevant terms in the
> > help files produced no hits.
>
> If you can download Firefox, then you know enough to download the
> Thunderbird newsreader designed to work with it. Go to
> <http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/thunderbird/>.
Thanks, but in fact I already have: Thunderbird was the newsreader to
which I referred here:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.math/msg/8bd6bfe25f2ddbe3?dmode=source
I'd be using it now if it weren't for my wretched isp >:-(
-Rotwang
Mike Lyle
"Mike M" <mikm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1176997353....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
[...]
Re Google "Reply" after clicking on message oddity.
> I repeat: it doesn't happen on this here machine. This is good, but...
> why?
Just been over to have a look. It seems to happen for me only if the
click is in a para break, when the cursor is an arrow, not an I-beam.
The functioning reply window appears immediately below the message. Why
the message also sports "Reply" and "Discard" must be GG logic.
--
Mike.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> Get a real news reader and a real news feed.
A news feed/reader does not satisfy the same requirements
as does google groups. Well, that GG does in theory anyway.
Lately I think I'd prefer the old pile of printouts by the green-bar
line printer as the repository of usenet. And maybe that's
where usenet belongs.
But your "real news feed" does not have the amount of saved
data, and does not have the search capability. So many times
I don't need to post a question as the answer is already in
the saved messages.
But then a big strong smart fellah like yourself would know
that. Wouldn't you? With your "real" news feed and your
"real" news reader.
Socks
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
A "big strong smart fellah" like myself knows the difference
between reading/posting news articles and searching archives
of ancient articles.
My news server keeps posts for 28 days.
I have seldom found a need to post something like "But in the
article you posted in 1987, you said...".
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> A "big strong smart fellah" like myself knows the difference
> between reading/posting news articles and searching archives
> of ancient articles.
Cool. So you were already aware of what an ass you were being
when you made comments about "real news servers" and so on.
You were already aware of the fact that Google does things that
your "real news server" does not, and is not intended for.
Cool.
> My news server keeps posts for 28 days.
Well... I suppose you can limp by on that short a repository time.
> I have seldom found a need to post something like "But in the
> article you posted in 1987, you said...".
That's sort of the point. Now in Google, if you find a link in an
old article, and click on it, you get a response window opening.
Or if you click on some text in an old post to highlight it and
copy it to some other app, you get a response window opening.
Or if you click on the stars thingy to rate a post, you get a
response window opening. And you have to close the response
window before you navigate away, or confirm you want to
navigate away because the window knows it's not supposed
to close a response window by default. What used to be an
acceptable, if a bit annoying, interface, is now aggravating
on *every* article.
Socks
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> [snip]
> > A "big strong smart fellah" like myself knows the difference
> > between reading/posting news articles and searching archives
> > of ancient articles.
> Cool. So you were already aware of what an ass you were being
> when you made comments about "real news servers" and so on.
> You were already aware of the fact that Google does things that
> your "real news server" does not, and is not intended for.
Nonsense.
> Cool.
> > My news server keeps posts for 28 days.
> Well... I suppose you can limp by on that short a repository time.
Actually, I was thinking about cutting it back to 14 days since
anything older than a few days has the same stench as a fish of
the same age.
> > I have seldom found a need to post something like "But in the
> > article you posted in 1987, you said...".
> That's sort of the point. Now in Google, if you find a link in an
> old article, and click on it, you get a response window opening.
> Or if you click on some text in an old post to highlight it and
> copy it to some other app, you get a response window opening.
> Or if you click on the stars thingy to rate a post, you get a
> response window opening. And you have to close the response
> window before you navigate away, or confirm you want to
> navigate away because the window knows it's not supposed
> to close a response window by default. What used to be an
> acceptable, if a bit annoying, interface, is now aggravating
> on *every* article.
> Socks
Since I have never felt the need to either rank or post a rely to
an ancient article I don't see the point. If that's your hobby...
I also make a distiction between reading/posting and research.
For research, Google has some advantages, but since Google only
goes back to 1987, I can't find and reminisce over my early
USENET postings back before the unwashed masses had access and
started mindlessly crossposting crap to non related groups like
this article is.
Androcles
"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1177015434.3...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
the harder they fall.
Autymn D. C.
> If you do a google search for "free news server" you get 235,000,000
> hits; the lists have hardly disappeard.
208,000 hits, illiterate doof
> It has been working just fine for years and news at the server I run
> is never effected by maintenance/failure downtime from any individual
> site.
affected
> Once in a while one of the free sites folds it's tent and I replace it
> with another one; big deal.
its, illiterate shithead
Phineas T Puddleduck
IRONY ALERT
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within. Coffee boy to the
rich and famous. Proud owner of the Mop Jockey.
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
Autymn D. C.
wrote:
> > its, illiterate shithead
>
> IRONY ALERT
no
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> In article <1177018338.5...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> "Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 8:05 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > > If you do a google search for "free news server" you get 235,000,000
> > > hits; the lists have hardly disappeard.
> >
> > 208,000 hits, illiterate doof
> >
> > > It has been working just fine for years and news at the server I run
> > > is never effected by maintenance/failure downtime from any individual
> > > site.
> >
> > affected
> >
> > > Once in a while one of the free sites folds it's tent and I replace it
> > > with another one; big deal.
> >
> > its, illiterate shithead
> IRONY ALERT
The real irony is I've had that idiot killfiled for a LONG time.
Martin Ambuhl
> On Apr 19, 8:05 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> If you do a google search for "free news server" you get 235,000,000
>> hits; the lists have hardly disappeard.
>
> 208,000 hits, illiterate doof
I get "about 167,000,000" without the quotes, of which 848 are different
enough to be in the base list.
With the quotes, I get your "about 208,000", but only 603 are in the
base list.
Still, even 603 distinct hits is enough to raise doubts about Peter Moylan's
> I had a
> list about 10-15 years ago, but they've all disappeared. If you can name
> just ONE publicly accessible and free news server out there, you'd be
> doing the world a favour.
It is not at all clear that failing to get the same number of Google
hits as you did make ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com an "illiterate doof" any
more than your reporting all 208,000 massive duplicated results makes
you one.
Peter Moylan
> I get "about 167,000,000" without the quotes, of which 848 are
> different enough to be in the base list. With the quotes, I get your
> "about 208,000", but only 603 are in the base list. Still, even 603
> distinct hits is enough to raise doubts about Peter Moylan's
>> I had a list about 10-15 years ago, but they've all disappeared. If
>> you can name just ONE publicly accessible and free news server out
>> there, you'd be doing the world a favour.
Note, however, that these hits include RSS feeds, web-based news, etc.
The very first sponsored link is for Google Groups, whereas what we're
looking for is a way to avoid GG. Finally, the sites you find are not
the servers themselves, for the most part, but lists of servers. This
should be sufficient, I admit, but look at what you see in the very
first hit:
<quote>
Posting Allowed
WARNING: most of these servers are probably lying
</quote>
That's pretty serious, because most of us wouldn't be satisfied with a
server where posting isn't allowed. (A lot of those "list" sites are
designed for those looking for places to download pornography. That
category of user doesn't worry whether posting is allowed.) Anyway,
looking at that category you'll find that most of the servers carry only
a very small number of newsgroups. The only exceptions are aioe.cjb.net
(32481 groups) and jack.oeiizk.waw.pl (4338 groups).
<goes away for a while>
OK, I withdraw my previous comments. The first of the above-cited
servers worked, and it even carries a group that I've been unable to get
from my ISP.
My sincere apologies for doubting the original claim. There _is_
something better than GG.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Peter Moylan
> In sci.physics sg...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> On 19 Apr, 13:45, Will <billri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 19, 5:15 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: [...]
>>>
>>>> And there are lots of public accessible, free news servers out
>>>> there so there is no reason for anyone to ever use Google
>>>> groups.
>>> Except that some of us are at the mercy of corporate policies -
>>> in my case, I cannot persuade our Exchange administrator to allow
>>> access to news groups. Hence I use GG.
> You do realize that just about every web browser since about day one
> has had a built in news reader that will connect to a real news
> server, don't you?
Irrelevant. The newsreader that's built into Thunderbird, Seamonkey,
etc. uses exactly the same NNTP port as any other newsreader. They have
to, because news servers (unless quirkily configured) don't respond to
anything except the NNTP port. If that port is blocked by administrative
diktat, no conceivable newsreader can access a Usenet server.
ObAUE: the spelling checker in Thunderbird objects to "quirkily". What's
the correct spelling?
sg...@hotmail.co.uk
> ObAUE: the spelling checker in Thunderbird objects to "quirkily". What's
> the correct spelling?
I'm pretty sure quirkily is correct and dictionary.com agrees with me.
Mozilla's spell checker seems to object to quite a few perfectly valid
spellings (even the names of their own products, bizarrely enough).
-Rotwang
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Could it be that the corporation doesn't want employees spending
time reading USENET news?
Martin Ambuhl
> ObAUE: the spelling checker in Thunderbird objects to "quirkily". What's
> the correct spelling?
It is indeed "quirkily." No spell checker will contain every acceptable
word and exclude all others. Just press the "Add Word" button.
Mike M
wrote:
> "Mike M" <mikmoo...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176997353....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> Re Google "Reply" after clicking on message oddity.
>
> > I repeat: it doesn't happen on this here machine. This is good, but...
> > why?
>
> Just been over to have a look. It seems to happen for me only if the
> click is in a para break, when the cursor is an arrow, not an I-beam.
> The functioning reply window appears immediately below the message. Why
> the message also sports "Reply" and "Discard" must be GG logic.
>
Nope. Just tried it. Clicking in the message does nothing, regardless
of cursor form or location.
Mike M
Andrew Usher
Strange, for me it happens anywhere in the message.
Andrew Usher
nanc...@verizon.net
> >> Just been over to have a look. It seems to happen for me only if the
> >> click is in a para break, when the cursor is an arrow, not an I-beam.
> >> The functioning reply window appears immediately below the message. Why
> >> the message also sports "Reply" and "Discard" must be GG logic.
>
>> Nope. Just tried it. Clicking in the message does nothing, regardless
>> of cursor form or location.
>
> Strange, for me it happens anywhere in the message.
Same for me. Could it be a factor of what browser we're using? I'm
here at work where I'm forced to use IE and it's definitely happening
all the time, anywhere in the message, for me. What about all you
Firefox users out there?
sg...@hotmail.co.uk
> Same for me. Could it be a factor of what browser we're using? I'm
> here at work where I'm forced to use IE and it's definitely happening
> all the time, anywhere in the message, for me. What about all you
> Firefox users out there?
Happens all the time anywhere in the message for me too. I upgraded to
the latest version of FF a few days ago.
-Rotwang
cbr...@cbrownsystems.com
I'm running WinXP SP2 with FF on two different machines, and I have
the problem.
What's your config like Mike?
Cheers - Chas
Autymn D. C.
Yes it is. He wrote "free news server". We both wrote of hits, not
entries.
Autymn D. C.
"quirkily." is not a word.
Skitt
You have been misinformed.
From M-W Online:
Main Entry: 1quirk
Pronunciation: 'kw&rk
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 a : an abrupt twist or curve b : a peculiar trait : IDIOSYNCRASY c :
ACCIDENT, VAGARY <a quirk of fate>
2 : a groove separating a bead or other molding from adjoining members
- quirk·i·ly /'kw&r-k&-lE/ adverb
- quirk·i·ness /-kE-n&s/ noun
- quirk·ish /'kw&r-kish/ adjective
- quirky /-kE/ adjective
--
Skitt
I may not understand what you say, but
I'll defend to your death my right to deny it.
--Albert Alligator
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quirkily
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
quirk·y [kwur-kee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
adjective, quirk·i·er, quirk·i·est.
having or full of quirks.
R H Draney
UC?...is that you?...
I assume you're actually talking about the period (=BrE "full stop") inside the
quotation marks (=BrE "inverted commas")....
I further assume that alt.circumcision (=AmE "circumcizion"?) was added to the
crosspost by mistake....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Dave Seaman
It's in several online dictionaries. Try Google. It also shows up in
/usr/share/dict/words on a RedHat machine I just checked, and it's in the
dictionary that comes with Mac OS X.
--
Dave Seaman
Oral Arguments in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case to be heard May 17
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
<http://mumia2000.org/>
Phil Carmody
> On 20 Apr 2007 11:25:53 -0700, Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> >> Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>
> >> > ObAUE: the spelling checker in Thunderbird objects to "quirkily". What's
> >> > the correct spelling?
> >>
> >> It is indeed "quirkily." No spell checker will contain every acceptable
> >> word and exclude all others. Just press the "Add Word" button.
>
> > "quirkily." is not a word.
>
> It's in several online dictionaries. Try Google. It also shows up in
> /usr/share/dict/words on a RedHat machine I just checked, and it's in the
> dictionary that comes with Mac OS X.
Are you sure you checked?
$ fgrep "quirkily." $DICT
$
(I'm using the ENABLE word list.)
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
Zac
The window actually appears when your mouse button RELEASES, so you
can drag the mouse over your window if you want to highlight text to
copy, for example, so the window isn't in the way.
The window is interesting because if you're not logged on and you
enter a comment and post it, nothing happens. You can open a window
for each message on the screen.
Maybe the programmers just made a mistake in activating the window on
the wrong event (left-mouse-button-up) while trying to fix or enhance
somethine else. I suppose it could be "job security code", but that
never worked very well for me. When I broke something in a piece of
software, I either got to work late when it was discovered or someone
else did, and in the end, we all lost our jobs anyway when the company
went under.
But back to the window issue, you could look at it this way: the
google software is free, so complaining will get you ... well, who
knows. A car mechanic I used to deal with had a poster that addressed
this idea pretty well:
"Due to numerous complaints
about our free service,
We will be discontinuing
the free service immediately."
The best thing to do? Laugh next time you see the window, then take a
break and laugh some more.
Martin Ambuhl
Are you just a troll or terminally stupid?
Even the COD and MW11CD have it. You would have to look to a dictionary
for 6-year-olds before you found one that doesn't have it. When you
write your own dictionary and have it widely accepted, then someone
might pay attention to your absurd claims about what is or is not a word.
[COD11]
quirky
n adjective (quirkier, quirkiest) having or characterized by peculiar or
unexpected traits or aspects.
DERIVATIVES
quirkily adverb
quirkiness noun
The SOED5 gives a definition:
• quirkily adverb in a quirky manner M20.
Androcles
"Martin Ambuhl" <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:58sr7jF...@mid.individual.net...
Autymn does have half her neurons functioning, unlike Throop.
Please realise it is cruel to mock the afflicted but innocently kind
to poke fun at the entirely comatose in the vain hope of a sensible
response, much as a neurologist pricks the soles of the feet of his
incontinent patient. I say incontinent because the usual response is
shit.
"No creature smarts so little as a fool." -- Alexander Pope
Thank you for attempting to educate. Alas, it is to no avail.
Robert Bannister
I presume the browser/newsreader I use, Netscape, uses the same spelling
checker. What amuses me is that often, when it suggests an alternative,
it will then reject its own suggestion.
--
Rob Bannister
Autymn D. C.
You and ye /are/ terminally dolty. No dictionary has the entry, and
yours was not what I quoted.
http://dictionary.com/browse/quirkily. brings up
No results found for quirkily..
Did you mean quirkily (in dictionary) or Quickly (in encyclopedia)?
-Aut
Skitt
You lie. It's that, or you can't read. I clicked on the above link and got
two entries -- one from Dictionary.com Unabridged, and another from AHD4.
--
Skitt
Jes' fine!
Martin Ambuhl
You purposely misquoted, since the '.' is part of the sentence structure
and not part of what was quoted. I'm sure that we all saw that, leaving
us a choice of idiocies on your part. Since all posters to
alt.usage.english should be aware of that style of punctuation, and you
_did_ post to AUE, it was more likely that your actual idiocy was
shooting from the hip without using your dictionary. No matter which
the case, you are, with Purl Gurl, undeniably an idiot.
>
R H Draney
>
>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>> "quirkily." is not a word.
>
>You purposely misquoted, since the '.' is part of the sentence structure
>and not part of what was quoted. I'm sure that we all saw that, leaving
>us a choice of idiocies on your part. Since all posters to
>alt.usage.english should be aware of that style of punctuation, and you
>_did_ post to AUE, it was more likely that your actual idiocy was
>shooting from the hip without using your dictionary. No matter which
>the case, you are, with Purl Gurl, undeniably an idiot.
Not at all...this one's an idiot all on their [1] own....r
[1] this being AUE, any likely response to my choice of pronoun has been
anticipated....
Benj
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> If you do a google search for "free news server" you get 235,000,000
> hits; the lists have hardly disappeard.
>
> carry, but many of the sites providing the lists have rankings on
> speed, number of groups, timelyness of updates, etc. so it isn't
> much of a challenge to find one that suits your needs.
>
> I run a news server that has a primary feed from the upstream provider
> and serveral free servers as back up.
>
> It has been working just fine for years and news at the server I run
> is never effected by maintenance/failure downtime from any individual
> site.
>
> Once in a while one of the free sites folds it's tent and I replace it
> with another one; big deal.
Oh sure. You run "free sites" all right, Mr. "upstream provider".
Yeah, I'd like to see you run your news server without the upstream
provider for a while. Hey, how about you provide your wonderful news
server to US, FREE? We'll all kiss your ass if you do! When Google
is the best there is out there without a huge monthly fee, you know
usenet is in trouble!
Their software really sucks but the service is fast, timely, and
covers enormous number of groups. The biggest problem is they keep
"improving" the software making sure that things that used to work,
don't anymore. Maybe one of these days they'll hire a few real
programmers.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> > If you do a google search for "free news server" you get 235,000,000
> > hits; the lists have hardly disappeard.
> >
> > Granted, some of them are crap or severly limited in the groups they
> > carry, but many of the sites providing the lists have rankings on
> > speed, number of groups, timelyness of updates, etc. so it isn't
> > much of a challenge to find one that suits your needs.
> >
> > I run a news server that has a primary feed from the upstream provider
> > and serveral free servers as back up.
> >
> > It has been working just fine for years and news at the server I run
> > is never effected by maintenance/failure downtime from any individual
> > site.
> >
> > Once in a while one of the free sites folds it's tent and I replace it
> > with another one; big deal.
> Oh sure. You run "free sites" all right, Mr. "upstream provider".
What the holy hell are you talking about?
Try again when you come down/sober up.
<snip babble>
Peter Moylan
Using FF, I even typed a test message into the composition window and
pressed "send". Google went through some operations, and informed me
that the message had been posted. I don't know where it went, because
there was nothing in the "To" field.
Mike Barnes
No, he[1] tells the truth. There was no "link" in his posting, only a
URL. Your newsreader created the link for you, and in doing so it
omitted the trailing ".".
I'm surprised - astounded, in fact - at how many people[2] fell into his
little trap, and even more surprised at how many didn't see it when it
was pointed out to them in terms that I thought would have been hard to
miss. Closer reading of his postings is required.
[1] Or "Autymn D. C." might be "she", but I shall assume "he" for the
sake of simplicity.
[2] It started with Martin "Are you just a troll?" Ambuhl. I can't speak
of the person, but the posting was clearly a troll, and a surprisingly
effective one.
--
Mike Barnes (posting from a.u.e)
Cheshire, England
Moishe Lipschitz,M.D.
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177080499....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
a computer? Many jews are computer illiterate.
Martin Ambuhl
> In alt.usage.english, Skitt wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> You and ye /are/ terminally dolty. No dictionary has the entry, and
>>> yours was not what I quoted.
>>>
>>> http://dictionary.com/browse/quirkily. brings up
>>>
>>> No results found for quirkily..
>> You lie. It's that, or you can't read. I clicked on the above link
>> and got two entries -- one from Dictionary.com Unabridged, and another
>>from AHD4.
>
> No, he[1] tells the truth. There was no "link" in his posting, only a
> URL. Your newsreader created the link for you, and in doing so it
> omitted the trailing ".".
The above is misplaced pedantry. Mr Barnes is certainly aware that many
newsreaders will treat such URLs as clickable links. To cavil that such
URLs are not "links" is silly.
> I'm surprised - astounded, in fact - at how many people[2] fell into his
> little trap, and even more surprised at how many didn't see it when it
> was pointed out to them in terms that I thought would have been hard to
> miss. Closer reading of his postings is required.
[...]
> [2] It started with Martin "Are you just a troll?" Ambuhl. I can't speak
> of the person, but the posting was clearly a troll, and a surprisingly
> effective one.
I'm not at all convinced that _anyone_ "fell into his little trap."
There is a reason my post began
>>>> Are you just a troll or terminally stupid?
The "little trick" with the period was so overwhelmingly obvious that it
did not need spelling out. It is the sort of thing that 8-year-olds
think clever. Having mentioned the obvious possible trolldom, I wrote
the rest of my post as if "Autymn D. C." were one of those, who we see
often here, who make completely unsubstantiated claims based on nothing
but ignorance. Purl Gurl is the obvious other candidate.
Purl Gurl
> Mike Barnes wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
(snipped - read thread for context)
> Purl Gurl is the obvious other candidate.
My infamy continues to propagate! I am infamous!
Po' boy, Martin, you are barely known, mostly around
the C language community. I am known around the world!
Martin Ambuhl
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>
>> Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>
> (snipped - read thread for context)
>
>> Purl Gurl is the obvious other candidate.
>
> My infamy continues to propagate! I am infamous!
>
> Po' boy, Martin, you are barely known, mostly around
> the C language community. I am known around the world!
You do understand, don't you, that you have seriously compromised
whatever professional status you claim to have. By becoming famous for
posting incorrect, misleading, and probably malicious information in a
field that you claim expertise in you have made it impossible for anyone
to ever take your claimed professional standing seriously. This is not
the kind of fame you want.
Purl Gurl
Oh my, you have such poor reading comprehension skills!
You confuse infamy for fame.
Who gives a hoot's ass what you sissified geeks think?
Purl Gurl
Autymn D. C.
> In alt.usage.english, Skitt wrote:
> >and got two entries -- one from Dictionary.com Unabridged, and another
> >from AHD4.
I lie in bed; however, now I'm a'sitting up in bed. What has my
posture to do with anything?
> No, he[1] tells the truth. There was no "link" in his posting, only a
> URL. Your newsreader created the link for you, and in doing so it
> omitted the trailing ".".
>
> I'm surprised - astounded, in fact - at how many people[2] fell into his
> little trap, and even more surprised at how many didn't see it when it
> was pointed out to them in terms that I thought would have been hard to
> miss. Closer reading of his postings is required.
>
> [1] Or "Autymn D. C." might be "she", but I shall assume "he" for the
> sake of simplicity.
for the sake of illiterasey* and incorrectness (*where se is the Latin
letter|staffr seo|shoe)
> [2] It started with Martin "Are you just a troll?" Ambuhl. I can't speak
> of the person, but the posting was clearly a troll, and a surprisingly
> effective one.
It was not a troll, and I never troll. I am a conordered patholòjic
literalist.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
Idiot means lonester, and is not ae insult. You, however, are a mòròn
as punctuation in the quotations could not be fitt of the sentense
structure. I know, wit, and ken more about English than you, so blow
your fake arguments intom your potty and not at someone who has a
wrihtly-a'working brain.
-Aut
Al in Dallas
Does she claim expertise in anything but Perl and English? I, for one,
have assumed she's joking about the English expertise, leaving Perl as
her actual area of expertise--either that or knitting.
--
Al in St. Lou
RezaRob
wrote:
> worse. Every change they have made the past year or so has been for
> the worse. I don't even see any self-interested reason for them.
Look at the nice wide clean pane to the right. The one for ads ;-)
On another note, how is this related to sci.math?
Reza.
Purl Gurl
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>> Purl Gurl wrote:
>>> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>>>> Mike Barnes wrote:
>>>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>(snipped - read thread for context)
>>>> Purl Gurl is the obvious other candidate.
>>> My infamy continues to propagate! I am infamous!
>> You do understand, don't you, that you have seriously compromised
> Does she claim expertise in anything but Perl and English? I, for one,
> have assumed she's joking about the English expertise, leaving Perl as
> her actual area of expertise--either that or knitting.
Knitting! I am discovered! Knitting is my bag. I will be to the point.
No need for me to needle you further on this. I would be unkind to
continue to string along you stringless yo-yos. Shirley you would
unravel and your pink panties would purl and curl.
I am an older woman, retired, little to do. I spend most of my days
knitting in front of my computer while waiting for new articles.
When not waiting on pins and needles for one of you sissified geeks
to post a new article, I sit at our dining table knitting away
to my sharp tongue's delight. This places me close to our fridge
for easy-to-reach ice cream!
* belches *
http://www.purlgurl.net/aue/knit.jpg
Purl Gurl - yarn spinner
Andrew Usher
> Have you ever considered that maybe you're stupid and don't know how to use
> a computer? Many jews are computer illiterate.
- I'm still not Jewish.
- You're still an idiot.
- How long before you get arrested in the men's room asking some cop
to suck your dick?
Andrew Usher
Peter Moylan
Martin has made a good point. I don't know what her level of competence
in Perl is, but if I were looking for a Perl expert I wouldn't even
consider her. Her claims of expertise in English have been blown out of
the water so many times that I'd be inclined to disregard any claims at all.
I don't know how many potential employers check Usenet archives when
shortlisting candidates, but it's possible that the number is growing.
Trolls never seem to consider that sort of thing. Of course, it's
possible that PG has no intention of ever applying for a position that
requires Perl expertise.
Purl Gurl
> Al in Dallas wrote:
>> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>>> Purl Gurl wrote:
(snipped - read thread for comical childish boy trolling)
> I don't know how many potential employers check Usenet archives when
> shortlisting candidates, but it's possible that the number is growing.
> Trolls never seem to consider that sort of thing. Of course, it's
> possible that PG has no intention of ever applying for a position that
> requires Perl expertise.
How silly! Why would I apply for employment? As you know,
our family is filthy rich.
Boy howdy, you boys are such childish trolls!
Got Bucks?
http://www.purlgurl.net/aue/bucks.jpg
Purl Gurl
Mike Barnes
>Mike Barnes wrote:
>> In alt.usage.english, Skitt wrote:
>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>[...]
>
>>>> You and ye /are/ terminally dolty. No dictionary has the entry, and
>>>> yours was not what I quoted.
>>>>
>>>> http://dictionary.com/browse/quirkily. brings up
>>>>
>>>> No results found for quirkily..
>>> You lie. It's that, or you can't read. I clicked on the above link
>>> and got two entries -- one from Dictionary.com Unabridged, and another
>>>from AHD4.
>> No, he[1] tells the truth. There was no "link" in his posting, only
>>a
>> URL. Your newsreader created the link for you, and in doing so it
>> omitted the trailing ".".
>
>The above is misplaced pedantry. Mr Barnes is certainly aware that
>many newsreaders will treat such URLs as clickable links. To cavil
>that such URLs are not "links" is silly.
I repeat, they aren't links. Had Aut posted a link, Skitt would have
clicked on it and seen exactly the result that Aut described ("No
results found for quirkily.."). The difference between a URL and a link
is the nub of the matter, and is not at all "silly".
Accusations of lying demand a high standard of care. Aut was *not*
lying. The error was Skitt's, aided by his apparently faulty newsreader.
(I should point out that my newsreader made the same error, but I
spotted it straight away. I still think it's rather obvious and I'm
surprised that Skitt missed it.)
>> I'm surprised - astounded, in fact - at how many people[2] fell into his
>> little trap, and even more surprised at how many didn't see it when it
>> was pointed out to them in terms that I thought would have been hard to
>> miss. Closer reading of his postings is required.
>[...]
>> [2] It started with Martin "Are you just a troll?" Ambuhl. I can't speak
>> of the person, but the posting was clearly a troll, and a surprisingly
>> effective one.
>
>I'm not at all convinced that _anyone_ "fell into his little trap."
>There is a reason my post began
>>>>> Are you just a troll or terminally stupid?
>The "little trick" with the period was so overwhelmingly obvious that
>it did not need spelling out. It is the sort of thing that 8-year-olds
>think clever. Having mentioned the obvious possible trolldom, I wrote
>the rest of my post as if "Autymn D. C." were one of those, who we see
>often here, who make completely unsubstantiated claims based on nothing
>but ignorance.
But as I hope you now realise, he isn't one of those. Unless you can
point out what "unsubstantiated claims" he made, or what ignorance he
demonstrated.
He has described himself as a "literalist". *That* fits.
Phil Carmody
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> > Al in Dallas wrote:
> >> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> >>> Purl Gurl wrote:
>
> (snipped - read thread for comical childish boy trolling)
What you snipped included this:
<<<
Martin has made a good point. I don't know what her level of competence
in Perl is, but if I were looking for a Perl expert I wouldn't even
consider her.
>>>
> > I don't know how many potential employers check Usenet archives when
> > shortlisting candidates, but it's possible that the number is growing.
> > Trolls never seem to consider that sort of thing. Of course, it's
> > possible that PG has no intention of ever applying for a position that
> > requires Perl expertise.
>
> How silly! Why would I apply for employment? As you know,
> our family is filthy rich.
Who cares if you've got money? Peter mentioned looking for expertise.
You've deliberately avoided that issue. Are we led to understand that
you aren't prepared to have us delve into that issue?
Put it this way, if we were to delve, then we might discover that:
http://www.purlgurl.net/~purlgurl/perl/array/ele_indx.html
can trivia||y be made to fai|.
http://www.purlgurl.net/~purlgurl/perl/array/evalarry.html
despite you claiming it is 'Exceptionally fast', is less
than half of the speed of the naive method.
http://www.purlgurl.net/~purlgurl/perl/array/median.html
is 50% no-brainer, 50% using-one-too-many-array accesses.
http://www.purlgurl.net/~purlgurl/perl/array/no_null.html
can be achieved in 1 operation about 3 times faster.
http://www.purlgurl.net/~purlgurl/perl/array/shuffle.html
is based on an algorithm with known highly biased behaviour.
E.g.
bash-3.1$ perl -e 'for(1..10000){@a=qw(one two three);for(1..@a){push(@a,splice(@a,int(rand(@a)),1));}print("@a\n")}' | sort | uniq -c
1888 one three two
1818 one two three
1479 three one two
1444 three two one
1499 two one three
1872 two three one
A 2-character change would turn it back into the usual, unbiased algorithm
bash-3.1$ perl -e 'for(1..10000){@a=qw(one two three);for(1..@a){push(@a,splice(@a,elided_this,1));}print("@a\n")}' | sort | uniq -c
1679 one three two
1623 one two three
1631 three one two
1694 three two one
1681 two one three
1692 two three one
So that's half a point out of five for the "Arrays" section.
Now I kind of feel guilty criticising someone I hardly know,
and you're evidently not stupid, but you really shouldn't
hold yourself up as being anything special when you only have
a fairly simple grasp of the language.
And I say that as someone who only has a competant grasp
of the language, but who has seen the real masters, and in
fact a few gods, at work.
If you position yourself modestly, others will lift you up.
If you position yourself too high, you'll get slapped down.
Consider this such a slap.
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> I don't know how many potential employers check Usenet archives when
> shortlisting candidates, but it's possible that the number is growing.
> Trolls never seem to consider that sort of thing. Of course, it's
> possible that PG has no intention of ever applying for a position that
> requires Perl expertise.
It's getting serious now. If you're libelled in Wikipedia, it seems that
the US and Canadian Immigration services may take it seriously; so
presumably Usenet content can also wreck one's plans. See:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2469270.ece
I'd have thought it was part of the definition of a troll that they
don't consider that kind of thing. Pointlessness and self-destruction
seem to be job requirements in the fol-de-rol business. If you can work
out why somebody posted a particular message, then it probably wasn't a
troll.
--
Mike.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Andrew Usher
He won't reply to this. He talks all kinds of shit about other people
but can't take any himself.
Andrew Usher
Purl Gurl
> Purl Gurl writes:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Al in Dallas wrote:
>>>> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>>>>> Purl Gurl wrote:
>>(snipped - read thread for comical childish boy trolling)
(snipped with a laugh!)
My, my, you have been a busy boy! I bet you spent an hour of
your time looking for anything and everything to bitch about
like a gossipy old woman, which is what you are!
I would also bet you spent another hour typing out your so
very childish insults in a way you believe none will recognize
all you are doing is spreading school yard bully discontent.
You are so ignorantly arrogant you assume all readers to be
blithering idiots so gullible as to believe these lies you
little boys suffer upon others!
Such a waste of time! You boys could be spending your time
engaging in productive activities which benefit your families,
benefit others and benefit each of you. Oh no! You boys waste
your time, on a daily basis, playing your childish fragile
masculine ego "my dick is bigger than your dick" games!
You are laughable dickless twits!
> If you position yourself modestly, others will lift you up.
> If you position yourself too high, you'll get slapped down.
> Consider this such a slap.
Ha! Ha!
You and your friends are about as smart as a bucket of rocks!
Look at you childish boys. You sit there on your ignorant asses
acting all smug and arrogant, thinking yourselves to be gods of
discussion groups, while you timidly peek out at our world through
your narrow belly buttons! Such ironic comedy!
You boys will never realize people do not care what you think.
Keep on spinning you stringless yo-yos, you are good for a laugh!
Purl Gurl
http://www.purlgurl.net/aue/fry.jpg
David Z
Exactly. When he doesn't like the responses (and that's most of the
time), he just morphs into a cartoon character (Avenger). He lives a
very rich fantasy life. Usenet is probably his only communication
outlet. He's probably very capable of doing what happened last week at
VT. Someday police will be doing forensic analysis of his hard drives.
Phil Carmody
> Phil Carmody wrote:
>
> > Purl Gurl writes:
> >> Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>> Al in Dallas wrote:
> >>>> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> >>>>> Purl Gurl wrote:
>
> >>(snipped - read thread for comical childish boy trolling)
>
> (snipped with a laugh!)
>
> My, my, you have been a busy boy! I bet you spent an hour of
> your time looking for anything and everything to bitch about
Au contraire. Straight to your site. Straight to the perl section.
Given that there was a flaw with _every single script_ I saw, I
didn't waste any time at all in the "looking for" phase. Each
flaw jumped out within 10 seconds of looking at the code.
Don't judge others' abilities in Perl based on your own inabilities.
Slap #2.
Phil Carmody
> boys
> boys
> boys
> dick
> dickless
> boys
> gods
> boys
Do I detect "issues"?
And the inability to realise that when one individual slaps you
by puncturing your self-inflated Perl coding skills that it's an
individual, singular, that has slapped you, and turning the
whole thing into some kind of inane rant against all males in the
group, and addressing them in plural, as you did.
Not only are you nothing more than mediocre at Perl, but you
also overrate your skills with the English language - both
input and output.
Purl Gurl
(other childish boys trolled):
> Purl Gurl wrote:
(snipped more comical childish boy trolling)
ehhh.. your sister blows bubblegum.
Purl Gurl
Ben newsam
wrote:
>You boys waste
>your time, on a daily basis, playing your childish fragile
>masculine ego "my dick is bigger than your dick" games!
>
>You are laughable dickless twits!
So... let me get this right... your dick is bigger than that, right?
Purl Gurl
> Purl Gurl wrote:
>> You boys waste your time, on a daily basis, playing your childish fragile
>> masculine ego "my dick is bigger than your dick" games!
>> You are laughable dickless twits!
> So... let me get this right... your dick is bigger than that, right?
My metaphorical dick is Godzilla size, and I know how to use
my metaphorical dick to severely beat you boys about your
heads and shoulders; I beat you at your own dick head games.
Evolution of Man:
http://www.purlgurl.net/~sexism/graphics/evol.jpg
* demure smile *
Purl Gurl
Skitt
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>> Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>> You and ye /are/ terminally dolty. No dictionary has the entry,
>>>>> and yours was not what I quoted.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://dictionary.com/browse/quirkily. brings up
>>>>>
>>>>> No results found for quirkily..
>>>>
>>>> You lie. It's that, or you can't read. I clicked on the above
>>>> link and got two entries -- one from Dictionary.com Unabridged,
>>>> and another from AHD4.
>>>
>>> No, he[1] tells the truth. There was no "link" in his posting, only
>>> a URL. Your newsreader created the link for you, and in doing so it
>>> omitted the trailing ".".
>>
>> The above is misplaced pedantry. Mr Barnes is certainly aware that
>> many newsreaders will treat such URLs as clickable links. To cavil
>> that such URLs are not "links" is silly.
>
> I repeat, they aren't links. Had Aut posted a link, Skitt would have
> clicked on it and seen exactly the result that Aut described ("No
> results found for quirkily..").
That's exactly what I did when I got the results *I* described. I use OE
(with QF, but that is immaterial in this case), and OE is smart enough to
not display or handle the period as part of the link.
> The difference between a URL and a
> link is the nub of the matter, and is not at all "silly".
OE shows a URL as a link, as do some other newsreaders, I believe. I also
believe that OE is the most-used newsreader by those not using Google
Groups.
> Accusations of lying demand a high standard of care. Aut was *not*
> lying. The error was Skitt's, aided by his apparently faulty
> newsreader. (I should point out that my newsreader made the same
> error, but I spotted it straight away. I still think it's rather
> obvious and I'm surprised that Skitt missed it.)
I am used to not having any problems with links in messages. I am also used
to posters making many kinds of errors. The placement of periods and commas
when working with quoted material seems to vary a bit. There are at leas a
couple of beliefs encountered on that, as we plow along.
>>> I'm surprised - astounded, in fact - at how many people[2] fell
>>> into his little trap, and even more surprised at how many didn't
>>> see it when it was pointed out to them in terms that I thought
>>> would have been hard to miss. Closer reading of his postings is
>>> required.
True, but lack of knowledge about the skills of the poster, especially one
thought to be trolling, can certainly throw a monkey wrench in the works.
Newsreaders work in various and wondrous ways, as do news readers. Even
news writers.
--
Skitt
Ever ready to retract the aforesaid and aver the opposite.
Mike Barnes
>Mike Barnes wrote:
>> I repeat, they aren't links. Had Aut posted a link, Skitt would have
>> clicked on it and seen exactly the result that Aut described ("No
>> results found for quirkily..").
>
>That's exactly what I did when I got the results *I* described.
No, that's not exactly what you did. I said "had Aut posted a link". And
*had* Aut posted a link, it would have included the final "." in the
destination URL, and you would have got a different result.
>I use OE (with QF, but that is immaterial in this case), and OE is
>smart enough to not display or handle the period as part of the link.
But OE isn't smart enough to realise that the "." was part of the URL
and not a period at the end of the sentence. I'm not saying it should be
that smart; just that it isn't, and that limited smartness is what
misled you. Had OE simply displayed the message exactly as Aut posted
it, I doubt that you'd have been misled.
>> The difference between a URL and a
>> link is the nub of the matter, and is not at all "silly".
>
>OE shows a URL as a link, as do some other newsreaders, I believe. I
>also believe that OE is the most-used newsreader by those not using
>Google Groups.
So? That doesn't mean that anyone *posted* a link. That's the
distinction I'm trying to make. The link you followed was not posted by
Aut, it was synthesized by your client software.
>> Accusations of lying demand a high standard of care. Aut was *not*
>> lying. The error was Skitt's, aided by his apparently faulty
>> newsreader. (I should point out that my newsreader made the same
>> error, but I spotted it straight away. I still think it's rather
>> obvious and I'm surprised that Skitt missed it.)
>
>I am used to not having any problems with links in messages. I am also
>used to posters making many kinds of errors.
The poster made no error.
>The placement of periods and commas when working with quoted material
>seems to vary a bit. There are at leas a couple of beliefs encountered
>on that, as we plow along.
This wasn't quoted material, it was original text. Here it is again:
>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>>> http://dictionary.com/browse/quirkily. brings up
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No results found for quirkily..
That "." after "quirkily" is not a mistake and it's not the period at
the end of a sentence. It's part of the URL. If you look up that URL by
pasting it into your browser (*not* by clicking on the incorrect link
created by your newsreader), you'll see the result claimed by Aut, which
you said was a lie.
Ben newsam
wrote:
>Ben newsam wrote:
>
>> Purl Gurl wrote:
>
>>> You boys waste your time, on a daily basis, playing your childish fragile
>>> masculine ego "my dick is bigger than your dick" games!
>
>>> You are laughable dickless twits!
>
>> So... let me get this right... your dick is bigger than that, right?
>
>My metaphorical dick is Godzilla size, and I know how to use
>my metaphorical dick to severely beat you boys about your
>heads and shoulders; I beat you at your own dick head games.
I don't play willy-waving games. You, self-evidently, do.
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> I repeat, they aren't links. Had Aut posted a link, Skitt would have
>>> clicked on it and seen exactly the result that Aut described ("No
>>> results found for quirkily..").
>>
>> That's exactly what I did when I got the results *I* described.
>
> No, that's not exactly what you did. I said "had Aut posted a link".
> And *had* Aut posted a link, it would have included the final "." in
> the destination URL, and you would have got a different result.
I know what I did. I clicked on OE's representation of what Aut posted.
>> I use OE (with QF, but that is immaterial in this case), and OE is
>> smart enough to not display or handle the period as part of the link.
>
> But OE isn't smart enough to realise that the "." was part of the URL
> and not a period at the end of the sentence.
Yeah, but that would have been a faulty URL.
> I'm not saying it should
> be that smart; just that it isn't, and that limited smartness is what
> misled you. Had OE simply displayed the message exactly as Aut posted
> it, I doubt that you'd have been misled.
True.
>>> The difference between a URL and a
>>> link is the nub of the matter, and is not at all "silly".
>>
>> OE shows a URL as a link, as do some other newsreaders, I believe. I
>> also believe that OE is the most-used newsreader by those not using
>> Google Groups.
>
> So? That doesn't mean that anyone *posted* a link. That's the
> distinction I'm trying to make. The link you followed was not posted
> by Aut, it was synthesized by your client software.
OK, explain to me how one posts a link.
>>> Accusations of lying demand a high standard of care. Aut was *not*
>>> lying. The error was Skitt's, aided by his apparently faulty
>>> newsreader. (I should point out that my newsreader made the same
>>> error, but I spotted it straight away. I still think it's rather
>>> obvious and I'm surprised that Skitt missed it.)
>>
>> I am used to not having any problems with links in messages. I am
>> also used to posters making many kinds of errors.
>
> The poster made no error.
True, but at times it is hard to tell, especially when seemingly outrageous
claims are being made.
>> The placement of periods and commas when working with quoted material
>> seems to vary a bit. There are at leas a couple of beliefs
>> encountered on that, as we plow along.
>
> This wasn't quoted material, it was original text. Here it is again:
>
>>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>>>> http://dictionary.com/browse/quirkily. brings up
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No results found for quirkily..
OK, please define "quoted material". I define the last sentence above as
being quoted material from the Web site where it was found.
> That "." after "quirkily" is not a mistake and it's not the period at
> the end of a sentence. It's part of the URL.
Not as shown by OE.
> If you look up that URL
> by pasting it into your browser (*not* by clicking on the incorrect
> link created by your newsreader), you'll see the result claimed by
> Aut, which you said was a lie.
Yes, I have done what you suggest, and I see what you say I'd see. It's
just that normally URLs don't work that way. You know very well that
there's been complaining in this group about periods after URLs and people
who don't put a space before them, separating them from the actual URL. Not
knowing that Aut was playing silly games, I took him to be faultily
presenting a false claim. I didn't take him to really be a troll, as
claimed by someone. I see that I was mistaken in that. My bad.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
Phil Carmody
> > But OE isn't smart enough to realise that the "." was part of the URL
> > and not a period at the end of the sentence.
>
> Yeah, but that would have been a faulty URL.
What is the correct way to render _just_ the URL for the
following page:
http://asdf.org/~anna/slash/dot.
?
Like others before, I assert that the URL was not faulty,
the user agent's (OE's) interpretation of it was faulty.
> OK, explain to me how one posts a link.
As conventionally described, there is no such thing as a
"link" in a plain text medium. Plain text does not link.
However, if you want to unambiguously post a URL, then
one should simply surround the URL with characters which
are illegal within URLs. That way, there _should be_ no
ambiguity about where the URL starts and ends. Spaces
are not valid within URLs, so the above URL should be
interpreted as beginning ``htt'' and ending ``ot.''.
However, not all programs or humans use that logic.
> > The poster made no error.
>
> True, but at times it is hard to tell, especially when seemingly
> outrageous claims are being made.
This is a medium full of one-upmanship. If someone is making
what appears to be an outragious claim with a straight face,
then they're almost certainly gaming you. If you respond
without questioning your own position, then you deliver them
their one-uppance on a plate.
> > That "." after "quirkily" is not a mistake and it's not the period at
> > the end of a sentence. It's part of the URL.
>
> Not as shown by OE.
OE's fault. OE's fault. Thrice OE's fault.