anti-MI5 filter
VK
pretending to be new Mike Corley and to cut his balls out with a blunt
knife. The exact amount of the deal is in secret but most
satisfactory.
:-) :-\
For the time being Google Groups Web interface users may use
Greasemonkey-based filter. If anyone is interested:
1) Download and install Greasemonkey add-on from:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
2) Restart Firefox on request.
3) Go to
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/MI5.user.js
and install the script when prompted
The script source itself is as following:
// ==UserScript==
// @name MI5-Persecution Spam Removal
// @namespace http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/
// @description Hides MI5-Persecution spam posts
// @include http://groups.google.com/*
// ==/UserScript==
var lnk = document.links;
var row = null;
var len = lnk.length;
for (var i=0; i<len; ++i) {
if (lnk[i].innerHTML.indexOf('MI5-Persecution') != -1) {
row = lnk[i].parentNode;
do {
row = row.parentNode;
} while (row.tagName.toUpperCase() != 'TR');
row.style.display = 'none !important';
}
}
I have made it half sleepy, angry plus never used Greasemonkey
before.
So from any possible qualities to discuss it has only one: it does
what promised for the time being.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> [MI5 spam]
MI5 does not show up here, using a decent newsreader instead.
http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>
VK
On Dec 16, 9:10 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
>
> MI5 does not show up here, using a decent newsreader instead.
>
> http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/
I cannot speak for everyone who is using Google Groups: but DejaNews
and much later Google Groups as the take-over is the only real reason
Usenet is still existing and progressing instead of becoming an
enclosed moribund community like FidoNet. The global change is the
possibilities to search, find and links materials from all groups for
20 years and more back. Any "real" newsreader cannot compete with this
summarized data right on your desktop. Some time ago I tried to switch
to different "real readers" but no one corresponded to my needs. All
of them were the same very short memory, wrote-forgotten junk after
years of using DejaNews and then Google Groups. So use whatever you
like but as one Slavic(?) proverb says: "don't spit into the well
where you are drinking from" :-)
</OT>
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> On Dec 16, 9:10 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de> wrote:
>> MI5 does not show up here, using a decent newsreader instead.
>>
>> http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/
>
> I cannot speak for everyone who is using Google Groups: but DejaNews and
> much later Google Groups as the take-over is the only real reason Usenet
> is still existing and progressing instead of becoming an enclosed
> moribund community like FidoNet.
ROTFL.
> The global change is the possibilities to search, find and links
> materials from all groups for 20 years and more back. Any "real"
> newsreader cannot compete with this summarized data right on your
> desktop.
Yes, it can, and unsurprisingly you missed the point completely.
MI5 spam is above the BI or BI2, and so is subject to (automated) Cancel,
which is why I don't see it most of the time. Google Groups ignores Cancel
control messages instead.
> Some time ago I tried to switch to different "real readers" but no one
> corresponded to my needs.
Probably you were as hallucinating and off-topic as you always appear to be
in Usenet.
EOD
PointedEars
--
"Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't
prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.)"
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>
VK
> > I cannot speak for everyone who is using Google Groups: but DejaNews and
> > much later Google Groups as the take-over is the only real reason Usenet
> > is still existing and progressing instead of becoming an enclosed
> > moribund community like FidoNet.
> ROTFL.
As you wish.
> > The global change is the possibilities to search, find and links
> > materials from all groups for 20 years and more back. Any "real"
> > newsreader cannot compete with this summarized data right on your
> > desktop.
> Yes, it can
So it will not take any efforts for you to find your own year of 2006
precisions explanation of numbers, from by far the best source on
Javascript numbers: "How are JS numbers represented internally??"
thread? I'll even make it more easy for you by providing the info I
did not have when starting the search. You first words on the subject
are: "I meant the truncation of binary...". To prove the search
completed please finish the paragraph. Be fair please: no Google
search, no personal files search, only any "real" newsreader and your
NNTP server. My search in clj archives by "float number Thomas Lahn"
took 3min20sec. What will be your result?
</OP>
Bart Van der Donck
> VK wrote:
>> I cannot speak for everyone who is using Google Groups: but DejaNews and
>> much later Google Groups as the take-over is the only real reason Usenet
>> is still existing and progressing instead of becoming an enclosed
>> moribund community likeFidoNet.
>
> ROTFL.
I think VK is right. By today's standards, Usenet is absolutely an
archaic medium. But the working and logic are very efficient. Without
Google's support (link to 'Groups' from homepage + GG archive/
frontend) I'm convinced that Usenet would receive much, much less
airplay.
As for the posts, I have (nearly) always used the Google Groups
interface, and I'm happy with it.
--
Bart
Ivan Marsh
> <OT>
> On Dec 16, 9:10 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
> wrote:
>>
>> MI5 does not show up here, using a decent newsreader instead.
>
> I cannot speak for everyone who is using Google Groups: but DejaNews
> and much later Google Groups as the take-over is the only real reason
> Usenet is still existing and progressing instead of becoming an
> enclosed moribund community like FidoNet.
You're an idiot.
--
I told you this was going to happen.
Randy Webb
Does that mean that you think without web-based interfaces to Usenet
that it wouldn't become a dead animal? Without web-based access, the
people using it now would be using web-based forums and not Usenet.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
VK
> Does that mean that you think without web-based interfaces to Usenet
> that it wouldn't become a dead animal? Without web-based access, the
> people using it now would be using web-based forums and not Usenet.
To Bart Van der Donck as well:
I just would like to avoid an impression that Google Groups interface
is perfect for Usenet style posting. It is not and at some points it
simply sucks. There is a difference between a mean itself and the
implementation of the mean. While the search capabilities are on
strong "B", the filtering, posting and particular thread monitoring
shaking between "B-" and "C-". That is the major difference I guess of
DejaNews and Google Groups. While for DejaNews Web-interface to Usenet
was the primary aim - for Google Groops it is a huge but still an
icing on the cake for their own groups. In either case it is a deus ex
machina that Google decided to take over DejaNews instead of letting
all data to be thrown on the street. Whoever really likes Usenet
should celebrate February 12 of each year - starting from 2001 - as
the second birthday of the Usenet.
Ivan Marsh
> Ivan Marsh said the following on 12/17/2007 1:07 PM:
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:27:41 -0800, VK wrote:
>>
>>> <OT>
>>> On Dec 16, 9:10 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> MI5 does not show up here, using a decent newsreader instead.
>>> I cannot speak for everyone who is using Google Groups: but DejaNews
>>> and much later Google Groups as the take-over is the only real reason
>>> Usenet is still existing and progressing instead of becoming an
>>> enclosed moribund community like FidoNet.
>>
>> You're an idiot.
>
> Does that mean that you think without web-based interfaces to Usenet
> that it wouldn't become a dead animal?
Sure does.
> Without web-based access, the people using it now would be using
> web-based forums and not Usenet.
Most web based forums ARE front-ends for usenet.
I have never used a web based front end.
...and I'm guessing you have no statistics what so ever on the ratio of
users using web based front-ends or direct clients...
Therefore: the statement is idiotic.
VK
> You're an idiot.
I am glad that you are back from your depression but please retain of
using such epithets on me.
Ivan Marsh
Well said.
Randy Webb
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:59:55 -0500, Randy Webb wrote:
>
>> Ivan Marsh said the following on 12/17/2007 1:07 PM:
>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:27:41 -0800, VK wrote:
>>>
>>>> <OT>
>>>> On Dec 16, 9:10 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> MI5 does not show up here, using a decent newsreader instead.
>>>> I cannot speak for everyone who is using Google Groups: but DejaNews
>>>> and much later Google Groups as the take-over is the only real reason
>>>> Usenet is still existing and progressing instead of becoming an
>>>> enclosed moribund community like FidoNet.
>>> You're an idiot.
>> Does that mean that you think without web-based interfaces to Usenet
>> that it wouldn't become a dead animal?
>
> Sure does.
Then we have a difference of opinion.
>> Without web-based access, the people using it now would be using
>> web-based forums and not Usenet.
>
> Most web based forums ARE front-ends for usenet.
That is true. And most reluctantly admit to it. Part in due to the
reaction of this group when it was portrayed as a "Forum". But, without
the web users, what percentage drop in traffic would you see?
> I have never used a web based front end.
I have. Very few times though.
> ...and I'm guessing you have no statistics what so ever on the ratio of
> users using web based front-ends or direct clients...
It is exactly and precisely ~71.2342% web users. Statistics are worthless.
> Therefore: the statement is idiotic.
No, what is idiotic is obvious.
The Natural Philosopher
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:59:55 -0500, Randy Webb wrote:
>
>> Ivan Marsh said the following on 12/17/2007 1:07 PM:
>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:27:41 -0800, VK wrote:
>>>
>>>> <OT>
>>>> On Dec 16, 9:10 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> MI5 does not show up here, using a decent newsreader instead.
>>>> I cannot speak for everyone who is using Google Groups: but DejaNews
>>>> and much later Google Groups as the take-over is the only real reason
>>>> Usenet is still existing and progressing instead of becoming an
>>>> enclosed moribund community like FidoNet.
>>> You're an idiot.
>> Does that mean that you think without web-based interfaces to Usenet
>> that it wouldn't become a dead animal?
>
> Sure does.
>
>> Without web-based access, the people using it now would be using
>> web-based forums and not Usenet.
>
> Most web based forums ARE front-ends for usenet.
Oh no they're not...;-)
>
> I have never used a web based front end.
>
> ...and I'm guessing you have no statistics what so ever on the ratio of
> users using web based front-ends or direct clients...
>
> Therefore: the statement is idiotic.
therefore your premises are flawed.
>