Re: An apology :-)

Maybe I shouldn't touch this with a barge pole, but...

This is not a Google Group, it is a Usenet group. Apparently 300 people have registered to read it through Google, but there will be many more readers who do not use Google. I don't know how many, nobody does, there is no way to tell. Of course this makes the reader/contributor ratio even lower, but...

No. Do you read newspapers? How often do you write a letter to the editor? Of course you'd expect a higher ratio here, but so what? The "right" ratio is enough people saying things of interest to keep a fair number of people reading (and sometimes responding!).

Patronise? you must be joking. And as for having the faintest idea, this whole thing is a wonderful demonstration of your own ignorance.

NNTP is a protocol, as its name says, not an application.

'usernet'? - you might at least try to get the name right!

Accounts? - you don't seem to know the difference between the account you have with some provider to allow you to to access newsgroups (free ones exist, but usually have some limitation or other) and the software you do have on your computer to fetch, read, and send messages, which may be paid or free, and which you may already have (Outlook Express for example).

Again, you don't know the difference between the reader program and the account.

I'm not insisting you are wrong about the speed, but I don't even think it's relevant.

Do you know another? And if you want to wind down you should give up writing long posts which are at best misleading.

Well, yes it is, but the attitude is common because so many people who post through Google parade their ignorance of the nature of the group, and break long-established conventions for messages and replies because the Google interface makes it easy to do the wrong thing.

RSS (abbreviation for Really Simple Syndication) is a family of Web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works such as blog entries, news headlines, audio, and video in a standardized format.

And that is an acknowledged quote from Wikipedia!

Or you can just make up a different one every time (but I don't think Google will let you do that).

Good grief, I can't find anything to say about that one since I don't what to start criticising grammar here.

... comments on other people's posts snipped

Request for Comments, formalized memoranda addressing Internet standards (Wikipedia again). Very few are about netiquette. The majority specify actual technical standards. (I will assume that "IFC" is just a typo.)

Your response (if any) to this post will probably make up my mind on the subject of whether you are a troll.

E.

Reply to
Eric
Loading thread data ...

: It's just the elitist attitude of some

It's not elitist to find a clue, in fact most would call it common sense, of course unlike a horse that can be taken to water but can never be made to drink, the terminally clueless will never even allow others to lead them to the water - never mind drink...

What Usenet is;

What Usenet is not;

Reply to
Jerry

Chris,

Dont bother with this, just continue with your snippets and other contributions.

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

: >

: > Maybe I shouldn't touch this with a barge pole, but... : > E. : : : Chris, : : Dont bother with this, just continue with your snippets and other : contributions. :

But he did and he well and truly showed Chris (or is it Dragon...) up as the ignorant oaf he is, gawd knows how long Chris must have researched that diatribe for but one thing is sure, how ever long it took all he actually succeeded in doing is sealing his own immortality on Usenet - YAGGW [1].

[1] Yet Another Google Groupie W*nker
Reply to
Jerry

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:07:40 +0000, Mark Goodge said in :

And half of them are the same person :-)

Guy

Reply to
Just zis Guy, you know?

Yes well, do you know of a good reference to explain why its says more about the sender than the target when someone tries to show up. Inform is nice. Also could you give a witty statement including the words - transient, Usenet and coherent thought in gordon browns head.

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

Who hasnt yet worked out how to unsubscribe :-)

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

Punctuation also helps. None of us are perfect ;-)

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

Actually, last year I was conceited but this year I'm perfect ;o)

Reply to
Keith W

Punctuation also helps. None of us are perfect ;-)

MBQ

thanks, was beginning to worry that no one would say anything.:-)

Reply to
simon

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 22:29:07 -0000, "simon" said in :

^^^

ITYM none of us /is/ perfect :-)

Guy

Reply to
Just zis Guy, you know?

Only the nit-picking grammarians who mistakenly believe that English is a type of Latin insist on that. Centuries old usage prefers the plural.

IOW "none of us are" = "all of us are not" in common understanding.

Reply to
Wolf K

Guy is right.

We were told off at school if we treated it as plural, because it is a shortened form of "not one".

It was a mark of the uneducated.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 08:26:24 -0500, Wolf K said in :

*Whoosh*

Guy

Reply to
Just zis Guy, you know?

No, your teachers were wrong (as they would have discovered had they taken my course on the history of English language and grammar back in the 60s. ;-))

A lot of nonsense is taught in the schools. 90% of what is taught as grammar is merely usage. Of course, if you violate usage rules, you mark yourself as Not One Of Us, so it's important to know which usage rules prevail where. There are two very bad usage behaviours: a) expecting other people to follow yours; and b) adopting usages that are foreign to you. Both are patronising, which in some quarters can lead to a bloody lip. ;-)

cheers,

wolf k.

Reply to
Wolf K

: : A lot of nonsense is taught in the schools. 90% of what is taught as : grammar is merely usage. Of course, if you violate usage rules, you mark : yourself as Not One Of Us, so it's important to know which usage rules : prevail where. There are two very bad usage behaviours: a) expecting : other people to follow yours;

!...but Arh yes want if you yourself to make helps understood it the to use correctrules

In the above I've used only three rules that are different to the expected norm, one is obvious, the second is more or less obvious, can you work out the other third rule (or should I say rule of third), once you do you will understand why your statement about rules above is so stupid! :~)

Reply to
Jerry

Oops confused myself there never mind anyone else! Substitute "be" for 'make'. Answer below;

Arh yes but if you want yourself to BE understood it helps to use the correct rules!...

Reply to
Jerry

Whose?

And you've violated one of _our_ usage rules in that sentence.

Reply to
Wolf K

And then there was none...

Reply to
MartinS

It helps if you get your facts right. The mother of one of the tots friend - wow, she is perfect.

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.