Re: How to get onto urg
Janet Conroy
Janet Conroy;823492 Wrote:
> I left a message on another thread about this, after being told off by
> Mr R Hinge for viewing this newsgroup via Garden Banter. Please could
> someone tell me how to access urg? I've tried Googling it, but altho I
> get a home page it won't let me proceed. MY ISP is aol - don't know
> whether that's a problem.
> P.S. I found Garden Banter by accident and am wondering why it is so
> infra dig. The posts from other parts of the world are often
> informative and sometimes very amusing.
Here I am, replying to myself. I've tried twice to get a response to
this. Please don't tick me off or write snotty comments when I mention
something I've seen elsewhere on GardenBanter if none of you urglers is
prepared to give me guidance on how to access urg other than via GB.
--
Janet Conroy
Charlie Pridham
Janet.Conr...@gardenbanter.co.uk says...
the email package, go to tools accounts and look under the "News" tag,
however some of the free to use readers are better at getting rid of spam
messages I use MicroPlanet Gravity which was a free down load.
Then you need to subscribe to the newsgroup, UK rec gardening in this
case. again your ISP may have this listed and you can subscribe for free
or you can buy annual subscription from outfits like News.Individual.
--
Charlie Pridham, Gardening in Cornwall
www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of national collections of Clematis viticella cultivars and
Lapageria rosea
Martin Brown
3a3b...@gardenbanter.co.uk> wrote:
> Janet Conroy;823492 Wrote:
>
> > I left a message on another thread about this, after being told off by
> > Mr R Hinge for viewing this newsgroup via Garden Banter. Please could
> > someone tell me how to access urg? I've tried Googling it, but altho I
> > get a home page it won't let me proceed. MY ISP is aol - don't know
> > whether that's a problem.
AOL is a problem but I doubt it is preventing you using Google groups.
> > P.S. I found Garden Banter by accident and am wondering why it is so
> > infra dig. The posts from other parts of the world are often
> > informative and sometimes very amusing.
>
> Here I am, replying to myself. I've tried twice to get a response to
> this. Please don't tick me off or write snotty comments when I mention
> something I've seen elsewhere on GardenBanter if none of you urglers is
> prepared to give me guidance on how to access urg other than via GB.
GardenBanter effectively steals the discussions taking place on a pre-
existing Usenet group
uk.rec.gardening
Some people find this incredibly annoying and take it out on posters
from GB whose content is reflected onto Usenet.
You should be able to access urg via Google groups even if you don't
have a proper newsreader.
http://groups.google.com/
and specific for urg.
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.gardening/topics
or this particular thread
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.gardening/browse_frm/thread/e9c6c49e93ebe662#
Google groups is also a bit infra-dig but it is useful when you are
mobile and not at a machine that has direct Usenet news access.
Increasingly ISPs are pulling Usenet servers offline as not cost
effective (ie profitable).
Regards,
Martin Brown
K
>
>Janet Conroy;823492 Wrote:
>> I left a message on another thread about this, after being told off
>by
>> Mr R Hinge for viewing this newsgroup via Garden Banter. Please
>could
>> someone tell me how to access urg? I've tried Googling it, but altho
>I
>> get a home page it won't let me proceed. MY ISP is aol - don't know
>> whether that's a problem.
>> P.S. I found Garden Banter by accident and am wondering why it is so
>>> infra dig.
I don't like gardenbanter because it is enhancing (1) its own reputation
by using stuff I've posted to urg without asking my permission.
(1) matter of opinion, of course. It might well be better off without my
posts!
>> The posts from other parts of the world are often
>>> informative and sometimes very amusing.
There are newsgroups from all over the world accessible with a
newsreader - including all the newsgroups you see on gardenbanter!
>
>Here I am, replying to myself. I've tried twice to get a response to
>this. Please don't tick me off or write snotty comments when I mention
>something I've seen elsewhere on GardenBanter if none of you urglers is
>prepared to give me guidance on how to access urg other than via GB.
There's no problem with your continuing to access urg via gardenbanter
if you can cope with the inconvenience, but just remember that accessing
urg is what you are doing, and that most of us don't use gardenbanter,
so when you talk about things elsewhere on the gardenbanter site it
means nothing to us.
--
Kay
geo
> Here I am, replying to myself. I've tried twice to get a response to
> this. Please don't tick me off or write snotty comments when I mention
> something I've seen elsewhere on GardenBanter if none of you urglers is
> prepared to give me guidance on how to access urg other than via GB.
As others have said, you need to be able to use a newsreader. I have
just followed the instructions here:-
http://news.aioe.org/spip.php?article77
to set up a (free) account with nntp.aioe.org - you do not have to
register with them at all.
I then downloaded their group list, found uk.rec.gardening and posted
this reply. Took about 10-15 minutes.
If you don't have Thunderbird (a free email and news client), you could
download it, or alternatively set up Outlook Express (which I suspect
already lurks on your machine) but I have no information on how to use
that program.
Good to see someone wanting to get away from the webpage stuff - good luck.
geo
> Here I am, replying to myself. I've tried twice to get a response to
> this. Please don't tick me off or write snotty comments when I mention
> something I've seen elsewhere on GardenBanter if none of you urglers is
> prepared to give me guidance on how to access urg other than via GB.
As others have said, you need to be able to use a newsreader. I have
geo
> Here I am, replying to myself. I've tried twice to get a response to
> this. Please don't tick me off or write snotty comments when I mention
> something I've seen elsewhere on GardenBanter if none of you urglers is
> prepared to give me guidance on how to access urg other than via GB.
As others have said, you need to be able to use a newsreader. I have
just followed registered (free) with:-
news.motzarella.org
They send you an email with a password.
I then set up an acoount in Thunderbird (free), downloaded their group
list, found uk.rec.gardening and posted this reply. Took about 10-15
minutes.
If you don't have Thunderbird (a free email and news client), you could
download it, or alternatively set up Outlook Express (which I suspect
already lurks on your machine) but I have no information on how to use
that program.
Good to see someone wanting to get away from the thieving webpages -
good luck.
Geo
appear to get out so I repeated the exercise with a second free news server.
Anyway - the point is it only takes a few minutes to do...
Geo
Bob Hobden
"Janet Conroy" wrote
thing) and if you don't use it for e-mail you may not have set it up yet. Do
you also use web page mail from your isp? (Horrid IMO)
To set up OE just open the program and it will ask if you want it to be your
default Mail Program, just say "yes" and it should do it all automatically,
if not you may have to get the setup info for OE from your ISPs web site.
So from then onward when you go online and you open OE it will automatically
download all mail that is waiting for you and you can then read, delete or
save as you wish.
To get onto URG and any of the other 10s thousand of Newsgroups just go to
"Tools" then "Newsgroups" and your PC will download the list of Newsgroups
your ISP has (assuming your ISP has any, some don't). You then search for
uk.rec.gardening and "subscribe" (no fees involved) then when you open OE
and click where is says Inbox or Local Folders (top left) you will see URG
displayed. Simply click on it to come here and download all the latest
posts/comments. You will notice the headings slightly change (from the mail
setting) so have a look and see what they can do, it's quite intuitive IMO.
Always post replies to the Newsgroup not direct to the poster, it's good
manners.
One point, you do need to hide your e-mail address so go to "Tools" then
"accounts" then the News tab and put something like J...@invalid.com where it
says e-mail address. That way the spammers can't harvest your address.
Hope that helps, if not mail me on the plural of my surname snaily thing bt
internet spot com. :-)
--
Regards
Bob Hobden
Janet Conroy
Martin Brown;823630 Wrote:
> On Nov 26, 9:42*pm, Janet Conroy Janet.Conroy.
> 3a3b...@gardenbanter.co.uk wrote:-
> Janet Conroy;823492 Wrote:
> -
> I left a message on another thread about this, after being told off
> by
> could
> someone tell me how to access urg? *I've tried Googling it, but altho
> I
> get a home page it won't let me proceed. *MY ISP is aol - don't know
> whether that's a problem.--
>
> AOL is a problem but I doubt it is preventing you using Google groups.
> P.S. I found Garden Banter by accident and am wondering why it is so
> informative and sometimes very amusing.-
>
> Here I am, replying to myself. *I've tried twice to get a response to
> this. *Please don't tick me off or write snotty comments when I
> mention
> something I've seen elsewhere on GardenBanter if none of you urglers
> is
>
> GardenBanter effectively steals the discussions taking place on a pre-
> existing Usenet group
> uk.rec.gardening
> Some people find this incredibly annoying and take it out on posters
> from GB whose content is reflected onto Usenet.
>
> You should be able to access urg via Google groups even if you don't
> have a proper newsreader.
>
> http://groups.google.com/
> and specific for urg.
> or this particular thread
> http://tinyurl.com/5tcmvo
>
> Google groups is also a bit infra-dig but it is useful when you are
> mobile and not at a machine that has direct Usenet news access.
> Increasingly ISPs are pulling Usenet servers offline as not cost
> effective (ie profitable).
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
Thank you for both replies. I will have a go.
--
Janet Conroy
Rusty_Hinge
from Janet Conroy <Janet.Conr...@gardenbanter.co.uk> contains
these words:
> > I left a message on another thread about this, after being told off by
> > Mr R Hinge for viewing this newsgroup via Garden Banter.
Mr. R. Hinge did no such thing. AFAIAC, you can look at URG anyhow you like.
IIRC, you were expecting Urglers to be using Gardenbanter - or at least,
to see everything that's on their website, or whatever it is.
It's a completely different set-up - you get access to Gardenbanter
through the WWW - you get access to URG through Usenet, and while they
use the same physical cables and sometimes, radio connections (as I do,
to get to the cablybits, WWW and Usenet work in very different ways.
My gripe is with Gardenbanter (allegedly) presenting URG as part of
itself, rather than explaining that they've swiped and republished URG
posts - and some say, not including some which are critical of
Gardenbanter and its methods.
Googlegropes is worse - they want the whole of Usenet, and because they
can't have it, like people to believe that it's theirs.
> Please could
> > someone tell me how to access urg? I've tried Googling it, but altho I
> > get a home page it won't let me proceed. MY ISP is aol - don't know
> > whether that's a problem.
Yes. AOL has no longer any news server. I have a feeling that it may be
worse than that too, and AOLlers may be unable to access directly news
at all.
> > P.S. I found Garden Banter by accident and am wondering why it is so
> > infra dig. The posts from other parts of the world are often
> > informative and sometimes very amusing.
It's not infra dig. It's just different.
> Here I am, replying to myself. I've tried twice to get a response to
> this. Please don't tick me off or write snotty comments when I mention
> something I've seen elsewhere on GardenBanter if none of you urglers is
> prepared to give me guidance on how to access urg other than via GB.
I expect someone will be along in a minute or two to give you chapter
and verse about AOL. Assuming it's possible, you'll need to subscribe to
a news server. Most make a small charge - ten Euros is about average, I
think - however - there are some good free servers, and I'm sure someone
will recommend one.
My ISP (and that of some other Urglers) has its own news server, so it's
on tap for us, and I think, Demonites.
--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig
Rusty_Hinge
<f5af775d-c60a-4f31...@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
from Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> Google groups is also a bit infra-dig but it is useful when you are
> mobile and not at a machine that has direct Usenet news access.
> Increasingly ISPs are pulling Usenet servers offline as not cost
> effective (ie profitable).
Since the Zetgods use Usenet, I am reliably informed that as long it
remains under the same management/ownership, the news server is secure,
if not sacred.
Rusty_Hinge
from Charlie Pridham <cha...@roselandhouse.co.uk> contains these words:
> again your ISP may have this listed and you can subscribe for free
> or you can buy annual subscription from outfits like News.Individual.
Nope - not AOL any longer.
Granity
geo;823639 Wrote:
> Janet Conroy wrote:
> -
> Here I am, replying to myself. I've tried twice to get a response to
> this. Please don't tick me off or write snotty comments when I
> mention
> something I've seen elsewhere on GardenBanter if none of you urglers
> is
>
> As others have said, you need to be able to use a newsreader. I have
> http://news.aioe.org/spip.php?article77
> to set up a (free) account with nntp.aioe.org - you do not have to
> register with them at all.
>
>
>
Using news groups is ok IF it's only one or two of them, if, as I do,
you subscribe to quite a lot then it becomes almost a full time
occupation to read all of the posts. Since in most cases only about 40%
of posts have any interest to anyone person, the time, effort and
trouble becomes too much and the whole thing implodes. Most of the
sites I receive in digest form via 2 or 3 emails a day which means I
can at least pick out the posts of interest to me from the digest
headers. The beauty of garden banter is that the forum layout enables
me to see at a glance what is new, what interests me, and above all I
don't have to wade through yards of quotes from the start of the thread
trying to find the one line reply buried in there somewhere, in a forum
you don't need to use quotes to show what you are talking about as the
thread has a title that tells you. /rant. :-)
--
Granity
Janet Conroy
Blimey - I seem to have gone from no response to a deluge in an instant.
I was OK with the first couple of replies but now I'm blinded by all
the techy stuff. I will try to do the newsgroup thing, but I'm still
unclear as to why GardenBanter is so hated by some posters. Is it
because you have paid some cash to access a kosher newsgroup?
--
Janet Conroy
Mike
"Janet Conroy" <Janet.Conr...@gardenbanter.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Janet.Conr...@gardenbanter.co.uk...
Janet some of the 'owners' of this site regard it as 'theirs' and use it as
an open email medium and general conversation channel. They 'object' to
their conversations, AND gardening tips, being posted onto another site
which they do not subscribe to.
The fact that this IS an open site and an open medium seems to be ignored.
It is THEIRS and only those who 'follow their rules' are allowed into the
clique.
Kind regards
Mike
David Poole
It's not hated Janet, just that it's a bit irksome that some
fly-by-night website pinches the advice given here and then passes it
off as its own. The impression given is that URG is part of GB and that
annoys a good many on here. In any case, a GB-only 'contributor' may
ask in vain about a thread trawled from urg. since no-one here will see
that question.
Charlie Pridham
make, but I do find that when people are posting via garden banter its
rather like being in a room with someone on the phone ie you are only
involved in part of the conversation! Had I started here via garden
banter I like you would not have seen the problem. Although news groups
have many good points they do suffer from time to time from spam attacks
which is why I moved to a dedicated news reader so I can filter these
out. I had not realised that some isps had discontinued newsgroups.
chris French
<Granity...@gardenbanter.co.uk> writes
>
>geo;823639 Wrote:
>> Janet Conroy wrote:
>> -
>> Here I am, replying to myself. I've tried twice to get a response to
>> this. Please don't tick me off or write snotty comments when I
>> mention
>> something I've seen elsewhere on GardenBanter if none of you urglers
>> is
>> prepared to give me guidance on how to access urg other than via GB.-
>>
>> As others have said, you need to be able to use a newsreader. I have
>> just followed the instructions he-
>> http://news.aioe.org/spip.php?article77
>> to set up a (free) account with nntp.aioe.org - you do not have to
>> register with them at all.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Using news groups is ok IF it's only one or two of them, if, as I do,
>you subscribe to quite a lot then it becomes almost a full time
>occupation to read all of the posts.
You don't have to read all the posts, I'm on quite a few groups, but I
only read all posts on low traffic ones.
>Since in most cases only about 40%
>of posts have any interest to anyone person, the time, effort and
>trouble becomes too much and the whole thing implodes.
Not really, read what you want, ignore the others (a newsreader as
opposed to a web interface makes it quick and easy to make those you are
interested in, and ignore those you aren't etc.)
> Most of the
>sites I receive in digest form via 2 or 3 emails a day which means I
>can at least pick out the posts of interest to me from the digest
>headers.
You are probably talking about email lists rather than newsgroups here,
personally I hate digests, but some people like them.
>The beauty of garden banter is that the forum layout enables
>me to see at a glance what is new, what interests me,
Which a newsreader does as well. Much better IMO.
> and above all I
>don't have to wade through yards of quotes from the start of the thread
>trying to find the one line reply buried in there somewhere, in a forum
>you don't need to use quotes to show what you are talking about as the
>thread has a title that tells you. /rant. :-)
>
I have subject headers as well...
The main reason for quoting is that the nature of Usenet is that it is
possible that you might receive a reply without receiving the original,
or you might not have the original any more. So a bit of quoting gives
context. Lack of snipping though is annoying eitherway.
My problems with web forums and interfaces is that it is just so slow
and clunky. I can only put up with it on places which are low traffic or
that I want to use enough to overcome the effort required. Dealing with
groups on the web with lots of traffic is much harder than via my
newsreader.
--
Chris French
Granity
Janet Conroy;823685 Wrote:
> I will try to do the newsgroup thing, but I'm still unclear as to why
> GardenBanter is so hated by some posters. Is it because you have paid
> some cash to access a kosher newsgroup?
I think it's a hang up from the old dial up days when browsing the web
was costed by the minute, and downloading from a news group took only a
few moments to do. Nowadays, with broadband it costs the same whether
you are on for 2mins or 24/7 but people like to stay with what they
know rather than embrace what some of us see as better and more
'usable' technology. :-)
--
Granity
Fuschia
Janet, once you get working with newsgroups so that you are seeing
uk.rec.gardening directly rather than through gardenbanter's copy, you
will find that there are many other newsgroups you might find
interesting.
There are subjects like cooking, diy, pets, you name it!
K
In my case, and in the case of others who have expressed their views
clearly in this thread, it is nothing to do with dial up.
It is precisely to do with an operation building its reputation on
material published by others without asking permission to do so.
--
Kay
K
>in a forum
you don't need to use quotes to show what you are talking
>about as the
thread has a title that tells you. /rant. :-)
How does that differ from a newsgroup?
Any newsreader worth its salt will highlight new bits in a different
colour so they are easy to find, a poster who is quoting properly will
merely quote the relevant bits, which saves you having to read all
through the previous post to try and dig out the tiny piece that relates
to the reply. Finally, using my newsreader I can just hit the space bar
to move from one new post to another - much less trouble than all this
clicking on particular topics.
But it all depends on how often you pick up posts and how many you want
to read. I don't mind if people want to get their gardening chat from a
website, I just object to my posts being creamed off into a website
where the majority of posters are totally unaware that what they are
reading is stuff that has been generated elsewhere (to be fair to
gardenbanter, it does have a tiny notice at the top saying it is a
portal to newsgroups)
--
Kay
K
If I had written some article in the newsletter of my local gardening
club, and later I found someone had published a book made up completely
of my article and that of other gardening club members who had also
contributed to the newsletter from time to time, I would be annoyed.
Even if the book was for charity, I would still be annoyed that my work
had been used without the courtesy of asking my permission.
I am annoyed that gardenbanter is building up its brandname on the basis
of my articles (and those of others in urg and in other newsgroups)
without ever having asked our permission.
--
Kay
Mike
"K" <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q8uTXeCK...@scarboro.demon.co.uk...
You have the answer :-))
Kind regards
Mike
K
posts
While on urg - 24 posts.
I haven't time to see whether the missing posts are all to do with time
lag.
And re ease of use - in GB, all the posts in the thread are in one long
chain arranged according to time of arrival. In a newsreader, all the
posts are sort into their subthreads, so you can read all secondary
responses to one answer before reading the next answer and its secondary
responses. Saves an awful lot of dodging about trying to work out
exactly what point someone is responding to.
--
Kay
Mike
"Martin" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:qqlvi4h23ghu6q3vb...@4ax.com...
> specifically specified that their posts are not to be archived.
> --
>
> Martin
>
and you have warned them have you? Solicitor's letter with a 'don't do it
again or else' warning?
Or is it all just glib talk on here?
Kindest regards
Mike
Rusty_Hinge
from Martin <m...@address.invalid> contains these words:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:23:43 GMT, Rusty_Hinge
> <rusty...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >The message <MPG.23986eb6c...@News.Individual.NET>
> >from Charlie Pridham <cha...@roselandhouse.co.uk> contains these words:
> >
> >> again your ISP may have this listed and you can subscribe for free
> >> or you can buy annual subscription from outfits like News.Individual.
> >
> >Nope - not AOL any longer.
> Why can't an AOL subscriber buy a subscription from news.individual.net ?
I was referring to the 'your ISP', but I have a sort-of dim memory of
someone complaining that they couldn't get access to Usenet through AOL.
Rusty_Hinge
from Granity <Granity...@gardenbanter.co.uk> contains these words:
> Using news groups is ok IF it's only one or two of them, if, as I do,
> you subscribe to quite a lot then it becomes almost a full time
> occupation to read all of the posts. Since in most cases only about 40%
> of posts have any interest to anyone person, the time, effort and
> trouble becomes too much and the whole thing implodes. Most of the
> sites I receive in digest form via 2 or 3 emails a day which means I
> can at least pick out the posts of interest to me from the digest
> headers. The beauty of garden banter is that the forum layout enables
> me to see at a glance what is new, what interests me, and above all I
> don't have to wade through yards of quotes from the start of the thread
> trying to find the one line reply buried in there somewhere, in a forum
> you don't need to use quotes to show what you are talking about as the
> thread has a title that tells you. /rant. :-)
Ah, that might explain the irritating replies that don't indicate what
is the reply and what being replied to, but just continue from the end
of the last quoted text.
IMO, such replies should be dumped somehow, so the posters behave with
due netiquette if they want their contributions to be seen.
Rusty_Hinge
from Janet Conroy <Janet.Conr...@gardenbanter.co.uk> contains
these words:
> Blimey - I seem to have gone from no response to a deluge in an instant.
No. I pay no extra for access to newsgroups, it's all part of Zetnet
membership.
IMO Gardenbanter is a bad-mannered Johnny-come-lately cowboy outfit
which provides a service, but to protect its own interests doesn't give
any credit where credit is due, and basically, lives partly
parasitically.
However, I shouldn't complain too much, as it does (eventually)
introduce some people to Usenet, of which more and more new subscribers
to the internet are unaware. This is probaby due to the proliferation of
cheapo ISPs and of the ignorance of some of their so-called technical
advisors.
Rusty_Hinge
from chris French <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> contains these words:
> >Using news groups is ok IF it's only one or two of them, if, as I do,
> >you subscribe to quite a lot then it becomes almost a full time
> >occupation to read all of the posts.
I subscribe to forty groups. A few years ago it would have taken me all
day to read all the posts in them. Now, I can usually read every post in
a couple of hours, should I wish to read every one of them.
> You don't have to read all the posts, I'm on quite a few groups, but I
> only read all posts on low traffic ones.
I don't even do that - if I see a question regarding XP or Vista, for
instance, I delete them, as I have no experience of them to share.
> >Since in most cases only about 40%
> >of posts have any interest to anyone person, the time, effort and
> >trouble becomes too much and the whole thing implodes.
> Not really, read what you want, ignore the others (a newsreader as
> opposed to a web interface makes it quick and easy to make those you are
> interested in, and ignore those you aren't etc.)
True.
> > Most of the
> >sites I receive in digest form via 2 or 3 emails a day which means I
> >can at least pick out the posts of interest to me from the digest
> >headers.
> You are probably talking about email lists rather than newsgroups here,
> personally I hate digests, but some people like them.
Yes, there's an optional digest with all my mailing lists, and I take
none of them. In the case of mailing lists, though, they *MIGHT* be
usefully threaded - but, as in a couple of recent cases, I would have
missed some offers of unwanted useful hardware items.
> >The beauty of garden banter is that the forum layout enables
> >me to see at a glance what is new, what interests me,
> Which a newsreader does as well. Much better IMO.
Never having looked at GB, I couldn't comment on that, and I suppose, it
depends on the newsreader too. Some are, IMO, unnecessarily complicated,
with their nested folders and sub-threads. Mine just threads on subject.
What is annoying about GB is that they don't indicate that Urglers (for
instance) can't see the rest of the website, and that graphics should
never be posted to non-binary newsgroups.
> > and above all I
> >don't have to wade through yards of quotes from the start of the thread
> >trying to find the one line reply buried in there somewhere, in a forum
> >you don't need to use quotes to show what you are talking about as the
> >thread has a title that tells you. /rant. :-)
> >
> I have subject headers as well...
Yes - I can't quite - well, I can't grasp the objection at all. It seems
to me that if the above gripe is a measure of how digests work, they are
A Bad Thing[TM].
> The main reason for quoting is that the nature of Usenet is that it is
> possible that you might receive a reply without receiving the original,
> or you might not have the original any more. So a bit of quoting gives
> context. Lack of snipping though is annoying eitherway.
As is the leaving-out of valid sig-separators. (I've KFd posters for less...)
> My problems with web forums and interfaces is that it is just so slow
> and clunky. I can only put up with it on places which are low traffic or
> that I want to use enough to overcome the effort required. Dealing with
> groups on the web with lots of traffic is much harder than via my
> newsreader.
I have to admit to a profound ignorance of web forums, I'm afraid. When
I get a bit more time I need to look at how blogs work, too - I have a
sort-of feeling that they are very similar.
Rusty_Hinge
from "'Mike'" <3d&6...@woolies.com> contains these words:
> Janet some of the 'owners' of this site regard it as 'theirs' and use it as
> an open email medium and general conversation channel. They 'object' to
> their conversations, AND gardening tips, being posted onto another site
> which they do not subscribe to.
If you *REALLY*think that, you're not so perceptive I gave you credit for.
But with about the same level of <rot>fuvg-fgveevat</rot>.
> The fact that this IS an open site and an open medium seems to be ignored.
> It is THEIRS and only those who 'follow their rules' are allowed into the
> clique.
I don't usually vent my feelings so, but really, bollocks!
> Kind regards
Really?
Rusty_Hinge
from Martin <m...@address.invalid> contains these words:
> Some news servers react quickly to spam attacks by deleting spam.
> news.individual.net is one.
I've not heard any bad reports on NIN.
Most spam I don't see, because my killfile deals with it - and looking
at the log, there's not much for it to deal with. I think most of it is
done by e-mail these days, and the bots tend to trawl the WWW rather
than Usenet.
Rusty_Hinge
from K <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> Granity <Granity...@gardenbanter.co.uk> writes
> >in a forum
> you don't need to use quotes to show what you are talking
> >about as the
> thread has a title that tells you. /rant. :-)
> How does that differ from a newsgroup?
> Any newsreader worth its salt will highlight new bits in a different
> colour so they are easy to find,
Correction - any newsreader worth its salt will indicate newer bits by
indenting preceding blocks. Colour is non-compliant with Usenet
protocols.
> a poster who is quoting properly will
> merely quote the relevant bits, which saves you having to read all
> through the previous post to try and dig out the tiny piece that relates
> to the reply. Finally, using my newsreader I can just hit the space bar
> to move from one new post to another - much less trouble than all this
> clicking on particular topics.
> But it all depends on how often you pick up posts and how many you want
> to read. I don't mind if people want to get their gardening chat from a
> website, I just object to my posts being creamed off into a website
> where the majority of posters are totally unaware that what they are
> reading is stuff that has been generated elsewhere (to be fair to
> gardenbanter, it does have a tiny notice at the top saying it is a
> portal to newsgroups)
Good! Things are looking up!
With any luck they will put up another one indicating which groups they
carry are binary - and how to post to non-binaries!
Rusty_Hinge
from Charlie Pridham <cha...@roselandhouse.co.uk> contains these words:
> I had not realised that some isps had discontinued newsgroups.
I'm afraid that most of them have.
Groups where a few years ago I had to pick and choose which threads to
follow are very often devoid of posts for up to a week now.
Rusty_Hinge
from Granity <Granity...@gardenbanter.co.uk> contains these words:
> I think it's a hang up from the old dial up days when browsing the web
> was costed by the minute, and downloading from a news group took only a
> few moments to do. Nowadays, with broadband it costs the same whether
> you are on for 2mins or 24/7 but people like to stay with what they
> know rather than embrace what some of us see as better and more
> 'usable' technology. :-)
Here, on the far shore of the Styx, my (mobile) broadband connection is
little faster than dial-up, and sometimes, a good deal slower.
However, nothing I've heard to date has convinced me of, let alone
tempted me to try, the delights of web-based fora.
Rusty_Hinge
from Fuschia <Fus...@summerborder.net> contains these words:
Even fountain pens...
Rusty_Hinge
from K <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> And re ease of use - in GB, all the posts in the thread are in one long
> chain arranged according to time of arrival. In a newsreader, all the
> posts are sort into their subthreads, so you can read all secondary
> responses to one answer before reading the next answer and its secondary
> responses. Saves an awful lot of dodging about trying to work out
> exactly what point someone is responding to.
Ah, this is the thing I dislike about newsreaders like yours!
/Start internecine strife!/
K
>The message <xceVfSDI...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
>from K <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> And re ease of use - in GB, all the posts in the thread are in one long
>> chain arranged according to time of arrival. In a newsreader, all the
>> posts are sort into their subthreads, so you can read all secondary
>> responses to one answer before reading the next answer and its secondary
>> responses. Saves an awful lot of dodging about trying to work out
>> exactly what point someone is responding to.
>
>Ah, this is the thing I dislike about newsreaders like yours!
>
--
Kay
K
>The message <3N6Eb3AZ...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
>from K <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>> colour so they are easy to find,
>
>Correction - any newsreader worth its salt will indicate newer bits by
>indenting preceding blocks. Colour is non-compliant with Usenet
>protocols.
OK. Any newsreader worth its salt will indent, as mine does. Mine also
colourcodes, which may be none compliant but which does make it awfully
easy to pick out new bits ;-)
>
--
Kay
Rusty_Hinge
from Rusty_Hinge <rusty...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Correction - any newsreader worth its salt will indicate newer bits by
> indenting preceding blocks. Colour is non-compliant with Usenet
> protocols.
Oops!
I suspect it is the newsreader rather than the writer which does this,
in which case it has nothing to do with protocols.
Having used a friend's reader once, I find the practice totally
counter-intuitive - and to some types of colour-blindnesses, I'd guess
that it might be a visual drawback.
Still, I suppose it's what you're used to. While my newsreader has
sprouted a lot more bells and whistles since it was first written, it is
to the first glance very similar to version 1.0
alan.holmes
"'Mike'" <3d&6...@woolies.com> wrote in message
news:N-6dnfgvQ9SpRrLU...@bt.com...
And there's me thinking I had put a block on your posts!
Rusty_Hinge
from Martin <m...@address.invalid> contains these words:
> AFAIK the display presentation is not part of the protocol.
I think you'll find it is, as are a lot of other things which most
people now take for granted.
I notice that top-posting replies is on the wane.
Rusty_Hinge
from K <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> Rusty_Hinge <rusty...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk> writes
> >The message <xceVfSDI...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
> >from K <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> >
> >> And re ease of use - in GB, all the posts in the thread are in one long
> >> chain arranged according to time of arrival. In a newsreader, all the
> >> posts are sort into their subthreads, so you can read all secondary
> >> responses to one answer before reading the next answer and its secondary
> >> responses. Saves an awful lot of dodging about trying to work out
> >> exactly what point someone is responding to.
> >
> >Ah, this is the thing I dislike about newsreaders like yours!
> >
> Sorry - which aspect do you dislike? And why?
I dislike posts being separated into subthreads - for two reasons: the
first is that some posts will contain reference to two or more points,
which have caused the thread to be split, and if, for instance, I am not
interested in one of the aspects and am not following that sub-thread,
I'll miss something which is apposite to the thread I *AM* following.
The second is that at least one of the clients which split things thus
split hairs too, and I get up to half a dozen threads all with a
different number of spaces added somewhere in the subject line, and very
often having been re-amalgamated by someone-else's reader, there is no
continuity. Odten, I read replies before I read the text to which the
poster is replying.
All these bells and whistles would be fine if there were a standard - or
rather - if every client adhered to the standard.
It's not your particular client I wouldn't use, but any which
automatically rethreads threads (and so ad infinitum...)
Just ask a Sheddi how many sub-threads there might have been in the
'Britain is best?' I can't remmber how many thousand posts there were in
that. (I'm sure someone will gargle and come up with an answer...)
Rusty_Hinge
from Martin <m...@address.invalid> contains these words:
> Mine was a good report on NIN.
Did I imply otherwise?
Mike
"alan.holmes" <alan.h...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:jLVXk.5209$io1....@newsfe30.ams2...
Why on earth would you want to do that?
Afraid of the truth and honest speaking?
Not an MP by any chance are you?
Kindest possible regards
Mike
Mike
"Martin" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:20:16 -0000, "alan.holmes"
> <alan.h...@somewhere.net>> <snip>
>
>>And there's me thinking I had put a block on your posts!
>
> --
>
> Martin
>
Another one who hides from the truth :-((((
K
>
>I dislike posts being separated into subthreads - for two reasons: the
>first is that some posts will contain reference to two or more points,
>which have caused the thread to be split, and if, for instance, I am not
>interested in one of the aspects and am not following that sub-thread,
>I'll miss something which is apposite to the thread I *AM* following.
Ah ... I guess there's more than one way of splitting. I'm thinking of
the scenario where A and B both reply to the original poster, then C and
D reply to A, E relies to C. N replies to B, P replies to N.
My newsreader shows this heirarchy clearly, and just hitting the space
bar gives me the posts in the order:
Original, A,C,E
D
B, N P
That means I follow a complete chain of responses to the end before
getting into the next response.
>
>The second is that at least one of the clients which split things thus
>split hairs too, and I get up to half a dozen threads all with a
>different number of spaces added somewhere in the subject line,
No spaces at all in the subject line. In fact the list of threads
doesn't show the sub-threads at all, unless I double click on a
particular thread, when it expands to list all the posts with a sort of
'family tree' showing who replied to who.
--
Kay
Christina Websell
"Rusty_Hinge" <rusty...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3130303032303...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <lqgvi4h4m3g29sn3e...@4ax.com>
> from Martin <m...@address.invalid> contains these words:
>
>> Some news servers react quickly to spam attacks by deleting spam.
>> news.individual.net is one.
>
> I've not heard any bad reports on NIN.
>
change ISP's but it seems most UK ISP's were about to do the same. I am
very impressed with NIN, it's worth every penny of the 10 euros/year it
costs and is easily paid for via BT, it's just added to my phone bill once a
year.
They are brilliant at filtering out offensive posts or flooding and if you
have any problem you just email them and get a reply very quickly from a
*real* person. I once mailed them about malicious flooding on one my Usenet
groups, I had a reply within 10 minutes thanking me for drawing it to their
attention and assuring me they would have noticed it themselves shortly.
I cannot fault news.individual.net in any way.
Binaries not allowed though and continual cross-posting will get you struck
off!
Pete Stockdale
"Rusty_Hinge" <rusty...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3130303032303...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk...
> from Charlie Pridham <cha...@roselandhouse.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> I had not realised that some isps had discontinued newsgroups.
>
> I'm afraid that most of them have.
>
> Groups where a few years ago I had to pick and choose which threads to
> follow are very often devoid of posts for up to a week now.
>
Gosh !
You are obviously in to the wrong groups.
I find it a full time job keeping up !
Try uk railway - they are at it 25/8/53 !!
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Granity
'Rusty_Hinge[_2_ Wrote:
> ;823744']
>
> IMO Gardenbanter is a bad-mannered Johnny-come-lately cowboy outfit
> which provides a service, but to protect its own interests doesn't
> give
> any credit where credit is due, and basically, lives partly
> parasitically.
>
>
>
> --
> Rusty
> Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period
> uk
> Separator in search of a sig
First of all this is the header for UK Gardening section on Garden
Banter
"(uk.rec.gardening) Based in the British Isles for gardening within
those islands. Some are quite experienced gardeners, others are (or
were when they first joined urg) complete beginners.
Threads: 27,113 Posts: 194,982"
Secondly this is how your post appears on GB:
" Today, 01:35 PM posted to uk.rec.gardening
Rusty_Hinge[_2_]
external usenet poster
Posts: 15
Default How to get onto urg
The message
from Rusty_Hinge contains these words:
Correction - any newsreader worth its salt will indicate newer bits by
indenting preceding blocks. Colour is non-compliant with Usenet
protocols.
Oops!
I suspect it is the newsreader rather than the writer which does this,
in which case it has nothing to do with protocols.
Having used a friend's reader once, I find the practice totally
counter-intuitive - and to some types of colour-blindnesses, I'd guess
that it might be a visual drawback.
Still, I suppose it's what you're used to. While my newsreader has
sprouted a lot more bells and whistles since it was first written, it
is
to the first glance very similar to version 1.0
--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period
uk
Separator in search of a sig"
I think that there is a great deal of credit to uk rec gardening on the
GB site.
--
Granity
Pete C
> Granity <Granity...@gardenbanter.co.uk> writes
>>
>> Janet Conroy;823685 Wrote:
>>> I will try to do the newsgroup thing, but I'm still unclear as to
>>> why GardenBanter is so hated by some posters. Is it because you
>>> have paid some cash to access a kosher newsgroup?
>>
>> I think it's a hang up from the old dial up days when browsing the
>> web was costed by the minute, and downloading from a news group took
>> only a few moments to do. Nowadays, with broadband it costs the same
>> whether you are on for 2mins or 24/7 but people like to stay with
>> what they know rather than embrace what some of us see as better and
>> more 'usable' technology. :-)
>
>
> In my case, and in the case of others who have expressed their views
> clearly in this thread, it is nothing to do with dial up.
>
> It is precisely to do with an operation building its reputation on
> material published by others without asking permission to do so.
--
Pete C
London UK
Pete C
> The message <lqgvi4h4m3g29sn3e...@4ax.com>
> from Martin <m...@address.invalid> contains these words:
>
>> Some news servers react quickly to spam attacks by deleting spam.
>> news.individual.net is one.
>
> I've not heard any bad reports on NIN.
>
> at the log, there's not much for it to deal with. I think most of it
> is done by e-mail these days, and the bots tend to trawl the WWW
> rather than Usenet.
I think NIN is brilliant. For e10, I get very little in spam posts.
Gopher
<m...@address.invalid> writes
>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:18:16 GMT, Rusty_Hinge
><rusty...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>The message <un60j49gf9rlgtpd1...@4ax.com>
>>from Martin <m...@address.invalid> contains these words:
>>
>>> AFAIK the display presentation is not part of the protocol.
>>
>>I think you'll find it is, as are a lot of other things which most
>>people now take for granted.
>
>
>Which protocol defines usenet screen presentation?
>take your pick from
>
>RFC 822 specifies the format of messages; RFC 1036 uses this.
>RFC 977 specifies NNTP, the Network News Transfer Protocol.
>RFC 1036 specifies the format of Usenet articles.
>RFC 1123 amends RFC 822.
>RFC 1153 specifies the digest format some moderated groups use.
>
>>
>>I notice that top-posting replies is on the wane.
>
That's it - I'm off!
I joined this group a few months ago, lurking and mainly enjoying and
appreciating the advice and comments made on gardening. However I have
noticed that it appears to have become the preserve of a clique of
individuals who treat it as their private debating chamber. Like a bunch
of smug, bickering, spoiled children, obviously educated and with
exceedingly high opinions of their individual cerebral worth, they stamp
their feet and shout, insult and sulk. They are unhelpful, rude,
cynical, argumentative and nitpicking, trying to impose opinions -
mainly on matters unrelated to gardening. You (who know who you are but
would never admit it without arguing) - should be ashamed of yourselves!
You have so much to offer to those needing help and advice (like me) but
object to the method of asking the question or attribute a non existent
commercial motive to the post. This thread is a classic example. Just
review the OP's remarks in the 1st 2 posts. 60 plus posts later the
thread is a plate of spaghetti and still going nowhere and wasting time
and space.
--
Gopher .... I know my place!
Christina Websell
"Martin" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:14:19 -0000, "Pete C" <pet...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>>You copyright your posts?
> http://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/showthread.php?s=0dcfae59f3715a53915a2014841a100a&t=179669&page=3
>
> They copy your posts.
Exactly. And pretend it is theirs. That's what annoys us.
chris French
>The message <XP1sr4FlF$LJF...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
>from K <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>> Rusty_Hinge <rusty...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk> writes
>> >The message <xceVfSDI...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
>> >from K <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>> >
>> >> And re ease of use - in GB, all the posts in the thread are in one long
>> >> chain arranged according to time of arrival. In a newsreader, all the
>> >> posts are sort into their subthreads, so you can read all secondary
>> >> responses to one answer before reading the next answer and its secondary
>> >> responses. Saves an awful lot of dodging about trying to work out
>> >> exactly what point someone is responding to.
>> >
>> >Ah, this is the thing I dislike about newsreaders like yours!
>> >
>> Sorry - which aspect do you dislike? And why?
>
>I dislike posts being separated into subthreads - for two reasons: the
>first is that some posts will contain reference to two or more points,
>which have caused the thread to be split, and if, for instance, I am not
>interested in one of the aspects and am not following that sub-thread,
>I'll miss something which is apposite to the thread I *AM* following.
>
I think you misunderstand what Kay means. Turnpike arranges the thread
in a branching tree type arrangement but with all the 'sub branches
connected, not split off into separate threads. As you read through the
thread it presents posts in each sub-thread such that you can follow it
rather more easily than just going in time stamp order.
>The second is that at least one of the clients which split things thus
>split hairs too, and I get up to half a dozen threads all with a
>different number of spaces added somewhere in the subject line, and very
>often having been re-amalgamated by someone-else's reader, there is no
>continuity. Odten, I read replies before I read the text to which the
>poster is replying.
You need a better newsreader ;-) Relying on the subject line to thread
is always prone to people editing it etc.
Turnpike threads on the references header (unless it is missing - when
it uses other info such as the subject), one of the problems with Garden
banter posts is they don't - or maybe didn't include this.
It's not fool proof, some people start a new thread by replying to
another post and TP will stick it in that thread (more of a problem with
the way I Turnpike can present email lists though). But the thread can
be broken manually if I want
--
Chris French
Rusty_Hinge
from "Pete Stockdale" <peter....@btopenworld.com> contains these words:
I have a spy in ur, and I know they are at it - unlike today's railways...
Wave at Dave Jackson...
Rusty_Hinge
from Granity <Granity...@gardenbanter.co.uk> contains these words:
> I think that there is a great deal of credit to uk rec gardening on the
> GB site.
I'm not anti-GB as such - indeed, many GB posters contribute a lot to
this group.
While I suppose it doesn't seem at first sight to be in GB's interest to
point you too enthusiastically at Usenet, without Usenet groups it will
dwindle, and if not fade away, at least fade to a shadow of its earlier
glory.
Rusty_Hinge
> >
> >I dislike posts being separated into subthreads - for two reasons: the
> >first is that some posts will contain reference to two or more points,
> >which have caused the thread to be split, and if, for instance, I am not
> >interested in one of the aspects and am not following that sub-thread,
> >I'll miss something which is apposite to the thread I *AM* following.
> Ah ... I guess there's more than one way of splitting. I'm thinking of
> the scenario where A and B both reply to the original poster, then C and
> D reply to A, E relies to C. N replies to B, P replies to N.
> My newsreader shows this heirarchy clearly, and just hitting the space
> bar gives me the posts in the order:
> Original, A,C,E
> D
> B, N P
> That means I follow a complete chain of responses to the end before
> getting into the next response.
Seems unnecessarily complicated to me, and prone to hiccups...
> >
> >The second is that at least one of the clients which split things thus
> >split hairs too, and I get up to half a dozen threads all with a
> >different number of spaces added somewhere in the subject line,
> No spaces at all in the subject line. In fact the list of threads
> doesn't show the sub-threads at all, unless I double click on a
> particular thread, when it expands to list all the posts with a sort of
> 'family tree' showing who replied to who.
See comment above.
Rusty_Hinge
from "Christina Websell" <spam...@tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> contains
these words:
I don't think I could live with that last condition - when I post to
urmc I often crosspost to urm - and join threads so crosspostedby
others.
Otherwise I seldom crosspost.
Rusty_Hinge
from "Pete C" <pet...@lineone.net> contains these words:
> You copyright your posts?
I shouldn't think it is necessary under the law.
However, getting recompense for misappropriation of your intellectual
property would certainly be uneconomic.
Rusty_Hinge
from Gopher <Gop...@work.co.uk> contains these words:
> I joined this group a few months ago, lurking and mainly enjoying and
> appreciating the advice and comments made on gardening. However I have
> noticed that it appears to have become the preserve of a clique of
> individuals who treat it as their private debating chamber. Like a bunch
> of smug, bickering, spoiled children, obviously educated and with
> exceedingly high opinions of their individual cerebral worth, they stamp
> their feet and shout, insult and sulk. They are unhelpful, rude,
> cynical, argumentative and nitpicking, trying to impose opinions -
> mainly on matters unrelated to gardening. You (who know who you are but
> would never admit it without arguing) - should be ashamed of yourselves!
> You have so much to offer to those needing help and advice (like me) but
> object to the method of asking the question or attribute a non existent
> commercial motive to the post. This thread is a classic example. Just
> review the OP's remarks in the 1st 2 posts. 60 plus posts later the
> thread is a plate of spaghetti and still going nowhere and wasting time
> and space.
You are quite at liberty to ignore threads which don't concern you, or
meet with your approval. There are several threads ATM which I am
ignoring, largely because I've nothing to contribute and/or they don't
interest me.
> Gopher .... I know my place!
Hmmm.
Personally, I'd hang around - you'll find everything becomes all
sweetness and light again.
Until the next time.
When you will know which thread(s) to drop.
Rusty_Hinge
Pete Stockdale
>> >
>
>> Gosh !
>> You are obviously in to the wrong groups.
>> I find it a full time job keeping up !
>> Try uk railway - they are at it 25/8/53 !!
>
> I have a spy in ur, and I know they are at it - unlike today's railways...
>
> Wave at Dave Jackson...
>
Regards
Pete
Rusty_Hinge
from "Pete Stockdale" <peter....@btopenworld.com> contains these words:
> >> Gosh !
While I do have large enough HDs to accommodate Urposts, but not the
time to shoot a Bulleid through them innit.
Rusty_Hinge
from chris French <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> contains these words:
/snip/
> I think you misunderstand what Kay means. Turnpike arranges the thread
> in a branching tree type arrangement but with all the 'sub branches
> connected, not split off into separate threads. As you read through the
> thread it presents posts in each sub-thread such that you can follow it
> rather more easily than just going in time stamp order.
This seems fine - until a poster refers back to an earlier parting of
the ways, and slides down another branch.
> >The second is that at least one of the clients which split things thus
> >split hairs too, and I get up to half a dozen threads all with a
> >different number of spaces added somewhere in the subject line, and very
> >often having been re-amalgamated by someone-else's reader, there is no
> >continuity. Odten, I read replies before I read the text to which the
> >poster is replying.
> You need a better newsreader ;-) Relying on the subject line to thread
> is always prone to people editing it etc.
A?
> Turnpike threads on the references header (unless it is missing - when
> it uses other info such as the subject), one of the problems with Garden
> banter posts is they don't - or maybe didn't include this.
Well, if GB threads only on the subject line, that's one-up for GB IMO.
> It's not fool proof, some people start a new thread by replying to
> another post and TP will stick it in that thread (more of a problem with
> the way I Turnpike can present email lists though). But the thread can
> be broken manually if I want
Oh, I could do that - but seldom do. Gets confusing after a while.
K
>> Ah ... I guess there's more than one way of splitting. I'm thinking of
>> the scenario where A and B both reply to the original poster, then C and
>> D reply to A, E relies to C. N replies to B, P replies to N.
>
>> My newsreader shows this heirarchy clearly, and just hitting the space
>> bar gives me the posts in the order:
>> Original, A,C,E
>> D
>> B, N P
>
>> That means I follow a complete chain of responses to the end before
>> getting into the next response.
>
>Seems unnecessarily complicated to me, and prone to hiccups...
You only see the complication if you ask to. Otherwise it makes reading
smoothly because I don't, for example, see A's reply, then B's reply,
then C's reply to A, then N's reply to B, then back to E's reply to C's
reply A ...
Never had any hiccups.
>> >
--
Kay
K
>object to the method of asking the question or attribute a non existent
>commercial motive to the post.
I think you've misunderstood the argument
>This thread is a classic example. Just review the OP's remarks in the
>1st 2 posts. 60 plus posts later the thread is a plate of spaghetti and
>still going nowhere and wasting time and space.
You don't have to read it. Or any of the individuals that annoy you -
just kill file us.
--
Kay
K
>The message <5AbFMPHd...@blackhole.familyfrench.co.uk>
>from chris French <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>/snip/
>
>> I think you misunderstand what Kay means. Turnpike arranges the thread
>> in a branching tree type arrangement but with all the 'sub branches
>> connected, not split off into separate threads. As you read through the
>> thread it presents posts in each sub-thread such that you can follow it
>> rather more easily than just going in time stamp order.
>
>This seems fine - until a poster refers back to an earlier parting of
>the ways, and slides down another branch.
You mean a poster replies to a post, but also replies to another post in
a different dub-branch at the same time?
>
>
--
Kay
Rusty_Hinge
Yes. Permit me to demonstrate:
> >Seems unnecessarily complicated to me, and prone to hiccups...
> You only see the complication if you ask to. Otherwise it makes reading
> smoothly because I don't, for example, see A's reply, then B's reply,
> then C's reply to A, then N's reply to B, then back to E's reply to C's
> reply A ...
> Never had any hiccups.
All this reminds me of the two bishops from different denominations in
the same carriage compartment, arguing their respective dogmata.
One gets up to leave the train, and as he's opening the door as it's
pulling up, says: "Ah well, Your Grace: you continue to worship the Lord
in your way, and I'll continue to worship him in His."
alan.holmes
"Gopher" <Gop...@work.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uEr2YuDT...@Milckhouse.co.uk...
Just ignore them, whilst they won't necessarily go away, you do not have to
read their posts.
Alan
K
>The message <rC6zY7BH...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
>from K <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> a different dub-branch at the same time?
>
>Yes. Permit me to demonstrate:
>
>> >Seems unnecessarily complicated to me, and prone to hiccups...
>
>> You only see the complication if you ask to. Otherwise it makes reading
>> smoothly because I don't, for example, see A's reply, then B's reply,
>> then C's reply to A, then N's reply to B, then back to E's reply to C's
>> reply A ...
>> Never had any hiccups.
>
of doing that! Most people don't ;-)
--
Kay
Rusty_Hinge
from K <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> Rusty_Hinge <rusty...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk> writes
> >The message <rC6zY7BH...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
> >from K <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> >
> >> You mean a poster replies to a post, but also replies to another post in
> >> a different dub-branch at the same time?
> >
> >Yes. Permit me to demonstrate:
> >
> >> >Seems unnecessarily complicated to me, and prone to hiccups...
> >
> >> You only see the complication if you ask to. Otherwise it makes reading
> >> smoothly because I don't, for example, see A's reply, then B's reply,
> >> then C's reply to A, then N's reply to B, then back to E's reply to C's
> >> reply A ...
> >> Never had any hiccups.
> >
> Yes, but you have to be quite deliberately difficult to go to the bother
> of doing that! Most people don't ;-)
Aye, but I have done it before more than once, for reasons other than that...
Also, I've gone right back near to the beginning of the thread to
reinstate comments which had dropped out of the equation.
Anyway, I've been happy with the way ZIMACS works for fifteen years, and
see no need to change things - besides - I'm a beta-tester innit.
Janet Conroy
I really don't want to prolong this thread, in fact I'm beginning to
wish I'd never started it. BUT the anti-GBers seem to have segued from
arguments abour how GB has "stolen" urg, to highly complicated stuff
about sub-branches and sub-threads which are a total mystery to me.
--
Janet Conroy
bobharvey
> or alternatively set up Outlook Express (which I suspect
> already lurks on your machine) but I have no information on how to use
> that program.
If you want to use OE, go and find OE quotefix, and wrap it roundf
OE. It fixes the top-posting behaviour and also sorts out some other
shortcomings.
bobharvey
3a50...@gardenbanter.co.uk> wrote:
> Blimey - I seem to have gone from no response to a deluge in an instant.
> I was OK with the first couple of replies but now I'm blinded by all
> the techy stuff. I will try to do the newsgroup thing, but I'm still
> unclear as to why GardenBanter is so hated by some posters. Is it
> because you have paid some cash to access a kosher newsgroup?
I am pretty relaxed about gardenbanter users, but I do think that the
site creators pulled a fast one by hijacking a public, free, resource
that we contribute to as a community and then passing it off as
something they have created. It's vulgar and rude of them.
Urglers post for the benefit of each other, not the benefit of
commercial operations.
bobharvey
wrote:
> Googlegropes is worse - they want the whole of Usenet, and because they
> can't have it, like people to believe that it's theirs.
WHile I agree with the logic, I work all over the place with a variety
of access methods, and use google groups because if I didn't I would
not be able to post.
chris French
<Janet.Conr...@gardenbanter.co.uk> writes
>
>I really don't want to prolong this thread,
Don't worry Janet, you aren't :-)
> in fact I'm beginning to
>wish I'd never started it. BUT the anti-GBers seem to have segued from
>arguments abour how GB has "stolen" urg, to highly complicated stuff
>about sub-branches and sub-threads which are a total mystery to me.
>
It's the delights of Usenet (or any other forum really I guess, threads
go off in all sorts of odd directions.
Enjoy it if it interests you, otherwise ignore that bit (possibly not so
easy if you read via GB as if you read via a news reader, but he ho :-)
)
--
Chris French
chris French
>The message <65rHGLLA...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
>from K <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>> of doing that! Most people don't ;-)
>
>Aye, but I have done it before more than once, for reasons other than that...
>
>Also, I've gone right back near to the beginning of the thread to
>reinstate comments which had dropped out of the equation.
>
Yeah, but whatever threading algorithm is used that sort of posting
behaviour is going to leave replies oddly placed.
But it isn't very common.
>Anyway, I've been happy with the way ZIMACS works for fifteen years, and
>see no need to change things - besides - I'm a beta-tester innit.
>
Different strokes :-)
--
Chris French
chris French
Rusty_Hinge <rusty...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk> writes
>from chris French <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>/snip/
>
>> I think you misunderstand what Kay means. Turnpike arranges the thread
>> in a branching tree type arrangement but with all the 'sub branches
>> connected, not split off into separate threads. As you read through the
>> thread it presents posts in each sub-thread such that you can follow it
>> rather more easily than just going in time stamp order.
>
>This seems fine - until a poster refers back to an earlier parting of
>the ways, and slides down another branch.
>
Which rarely happens for starters.
>> >The second is that at least one of the clients which split things thus
>> >split hairs too, and I get up to half a dozen threads all with a
>> >different number of spaces added somewhere in the subject line, and very
>> >often having been re-amalgamated by someone-else's reader, there is no
>> >continuity. Odten, I read replies before I read the text to which the
>> >poster is replying.
>
>> You need a better newsreader ;-) Relying on the subject line to thread
>> is always prone to people editing it etc.
>
>A?
You were complaining about messed up threading as a result of replying
on threading by subject header. I was suggesting there are better ways.
>
Treading on the references header works much better overall IMO
--
Chris French
Rusty_Hinge
from Janet Conroy <Janet.Conr...@gardenbanter.co.uk> contains
these words:
Never mind - branches and sub-branches are a mystery here, too - while I
understand what they're intended to do, I tip my hat to them and say -
"No thanks!"
The internet is full of people wanting to 'improve' things.
M$ - well, Bill Gates - said something to the effect that the internet
would never come to much, and wasn't a good financial proposition.
He suddenly woke up to the fact that he was being left behind, and tried
to catch up, buying-up smaller companies and their software.
Then he launched IE, OE and Outlook, the first two of which (and
probably the third, but of which I have no experience), both (or all?)
ignored existing and established internet protocols so that as M$ had
the most operating system users with DOS and Windows and could at least
make a good fist at derailing opposition by a) incorporating IE and OE
into Windows so cutting off the lifeblood of competitors like Netscape,
and b) witholding their codes so that other software-writers would find
it difficult to make programs play nicely with Windows.
There are lots of other issues, but I don't want to write a book - today.
However, M$ made such a pig's ear of IE and OE that despite it being
'free' software bundled in with Windows, there was still room for
Netscape, and later, a lot of other browsers like Opera, Firefox, etc,
as well as independent news and mailreaders.
Fortunately, the US 'Establishment' became alarmed about these tactics
and instituted 'anti-trust' actions, which, despite struggling and
wriggling, M$ lost. The EU has piled in with legislation of its own, and
the playing-field is levelling off.
A bit.
But even now, IE isn't properly compliant.
What Gardenbanter did smacked rather of M$ tactics to a lot of people,
but I think it's unfair to blame the users too much, as ISPs are
contributing to the decline of everything except the WWW - it's so much
easier for them just to provide the connection and charge for it, rather
than provide access to all the other nooks and crannies, bells and
whistles which are available.
Some ISPs do still maintain their own news servers, but usually, you
have to pay for your account with them.
People have been using newsgroups for - I don't know (exactly) - twenty
years? You can't blame old hands for resenting companies etc who have
contributed little or nothing to the success of usenet and the internet
in general from shouldering their way to the fullest troughs.
There!
Rant over!
Rusty_Hinge
from chris French <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> contains these words:
> >A?
> You were complaining about messed up threading as a result of replying
> on threading by subject header. I was suggesting there are better ways.
No I wasn't! Quite the reverse!
> >
> Treading on the references header works much better overall IMO
Depends: there's one newsreader - may be one with a glitch, and not in
this group anyway, which spreads threads around like a ^h^h^h^h^ all
over the place, adding a space to the subject line to make a new
sub-thread.
Rusty_Hinge
from chris French <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> contains these words:
/Wackford Squeers/
> Different strokes :-)
chris French
<m...@address.invalid> writes
>On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:45:45 +0000, chris French
><newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote:
>>Treading on the references header works much better overall IMO
>
>reference header is there.
I suspect so, but wasn't sure and CNBA to look it up
--
Chris French
chris French
Rusty_Hinge <rusty...@invalid.zetnet.co.uk> writes
>
>
Jolly good too, overall I'd say the Internet is a more useful and
interesting place than it was 10 years ago.
>
>Then he launched IE, OE and Outlook, the first two of which (and
>probably the third, but of which I have no experience), both (or all?)
>ignored existing and established internet protocols
I don't think they ignored them, otherwise Ie wouldn't have opened web
pages and OE wouldn't send mail, but they did add non-standard things
which complicated matters, however, so did Netscape.
>so that as M$ had
>the most operating system users with DOS and Windows and could at least
>make a good fist at derailing opposition by a) incorporating IE and OE
>into Windows so cutting off the lifeblood of competitors like Netscape,
>and b) witholding their codes so that other software-writers would find
>it difficult to make programs play nicely with Windows.
>
And if it had been another company, they'd have done the same sort of
thing. Look what happened when some companies tried to sell alternative
hardware running Apple Os-es.
>But even now, IE isn't properly compliant.
IE7 was pretty good, IE8 even more so. Ironically the problem MS are
having with IE8 relate to web pages providing pages tweaked for the
older versions, they are having to put code into IE8 to deal with them.
>
>What Gardenbanter did smacked rather of M$ tactics to a lot of people,
>but I think it's unfair to blame the users too much, as ISPs are
>contributing to the decline of everything except the WWW - it's so much
>easier for them just to provide the connection and charge for it, rather
>than provide access to all the other nooks and crannies, bells and
>whistles which are available.
The market is very price sensitive, things like news servers are
probably very little used overall, so they get trimmed to save a little.
Which seems fair enough from a business POV. I don't think the
availability of servers is an issue really, most people just don't know
about or understand about newsgroups (mostly by word of mouth, or an
accident like using GB I guess nowadays). People who want to use them
will either choose an ISP who provides the service or make other
arrangements
>
>Some ISPs do still maintain their own news servers, but usually, you
>have to pay for your account with them.
I think all the ISP's I've used have provided free news servers, but not
always good enough to bother using
>
>People have been using newsgroups for - I don't know (exactly) - twenty
>years?
Coming on for 30.
>
>Rant over!
>
Feel better I hope :-)
--
Chris French
Mungo
>That's it - I'm off!
>
>I joined this group a few months ago, lurking and mainly enjoying and
>appreciating the advice and comments made on gardening. However I have
>noticed that it appears to have become the preserve of a clique of
>individuals who treat it as their private debating chamber. Like a bunch
>of smug, bickering, spoiled children, obviously educated and with
>exceedingly high opinions of their individual cerebral worth, they stamp
>their feet and shout, insult and sulk.
If you think this group is bad for that, you should take a look at
uk.food+drink.misc!
95% of people who post there fit that description and are real scum.
The women (bitches) who post there trying to get one up on another woman
(bitch) are the worst.