Google Group users

Dan Abel said:

Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out that
this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.

All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

As has been posted here on numerous occasions, some ISP's do deliver
these groups to some of us as part of Google. You probably like your
dedicated program on your MAC and I have no complaints with my ISP
delivering these groups to me through Google. I can set it up to
deliver only the groups I am interested in and no searching. I can
access either the newest or the oldest message, search through messages
that are several years old, search for a specific message, etc. As
long as we're able to read the postings, why does it matter how they
are accessed?

"itsjoannotjoann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dan Abel said:

Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out that
this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.

All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

As has been posted here on numerous occasions, some ISP's do deliver
these groups to some of us as part of Google. You probably like your
dedicated program on your MAC and I have no complaints with my ISP
delivering these groups to me through Google. I can set it up to
deliver only the groups I am interested in and no searching. I can
access either the newest or the oldest message, search through messages
that are several years old, search for a specific message, etc. As
long as we're able to read the postings, why does it matter how they
are accessed?

Man I would be soo mad if my ISP DARED try to pass off GOOGLE groups as
there newsfeed. That is just so WRONG!.

sf said:

Dave Bugg said:

Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most newsreaders
are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it appears
that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the time to
do it right.

While I agree that they should take the time to do it right (which many
people have demonstrated is easy enough to do), perhaps those who have
their newsreaders set to automatically delete read posts should
reconfigure their settings too. Google Groups users don't need to make
up for your shortcomings. Real news readers are threaded for a reason
and you're defeting the purpose by automatically deleting read
messages. If you're interested in it, wait until the thread is dead or
has drifted afar to delete.

Google is a real newsreader, it can automatically quote and can be set
in threaded "tree" format... there are many options available with
Google, if one takes a few minutes to learn. The one thing no
newsreader does is *trim* extraneous garbage, that is a manual
operation requiring user IQ, something all yoose Newbies really ought
to obtain. I'm positive that better than 75% of rfc posters are
italian... if slovenly garbage dump posting is representitive of your
homes, which it most definitely is... I know those who don't trim their
posts, especially of *extraneous attribution data*, don't flush their
terlits either, and we all know italians don't even have flush terlits.

M-W

la·sa·gna

noun

Etymology: Italian lasagna, from Vulgar Latin lasania cooking pot, its
contents, from Latin _lasanum chamber pot_,
---

Dan Abel said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

itsjoannotjoann said:

I use Google whether on the laptop or the rare occasions I use webtv.
I think some of the webtv posters that venture in here find it through
the webtv homepage entitled "Discussions." I think they believe when
they find this or any other group they are on the webtv firewalled
groups. I've seen a few complain they can't find the topic they had
posted to just a few minutes ago. This and all Google Groups look
entirely different on webtv. I can't speak for the AOL folks.

Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out that
this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.

All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.

actually, one cannot access newsgroups directly from AOL anymore.

--

saerah

http://anisaerah.blogspot.com/

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams

itsjoannotjoann said:

Dan Abel said:

Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out that
this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.

All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

As has been posted here on numerous occasions, some ISP's do deliver
these groups to some of us as part of Google. You probably like your
dedicated program on your MAC and I have no complaints with my ISP
delivering these groups to me through Google. I can set it up to
deliver only the groups I am interested in and no searching. I can
access either the newest or the oldest message, search through messages
that are several years old, search for a specific message, etc. As
long as we're able to read the postings, why does it matter how they
are accessed?

your ISP has nothing to do with it. Usenet is not "part of Google".
Google runs an archive of Usenet that you can also use to post. Big
difference.

--

saerah

http://anisaerah.blogspot.com/

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams

sf said:

While I agree that they should take the time to do it right (which
many people have demonstrated is easy enough to do), perhaps those
who have their newsreaders set to automatically delete read posts
should reconfigure their settings too.

Uh huh. Right. I was wondering when that silly notion would surface and by
whom.

Quoted message said:

Google Groups users don't
need to make up for your shortcomings. Real news readers are
threaded for a reason and you're defeting the purpose by
automatically deleting read messages. If you're interested in it,
wait until the thread is dead or has drifted afar to delete.

Thanks for your observations and entertainment value.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"sf" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

While I agree that they should take the time to do it right (which many
people have demonstrated is easy enough to do), perhaps those who have
their newsreaders set to automatically delete read posts should
reconfigure their settings too. Google Groups users don't need to make
up for your shortcomings.

Shortcomings? A post that doesn't reference what the hell they are
talking about is not anyone else's shortcoming.

nancy

In article <[email hidden]>,

Laura\(wow\) said:

Man I would be soo mad if my ISP DARED try to pass off GOOGLE groups as
there newsfeed. That is just so WRONG!.

Why? As long as they are honest about it. My ISP has a newserver.
They don't try to read the newsgroups directly. They are subscribed to
multiple newsfeed sources.

Works for me.

I use Google for old stuff. Postings fall off my newserver after a
month or two.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

Dan Abel said:

Frankly, Google groups looks pretty good. You have access to the old
records, and the searching is much better. If I hadn't been using my
present newsreader since dirt was invented, I might be tempted to switch.

I switched to Google (in desperation) when our ISP's newsfeed went down
for a few days...and I usually use Thunderbird. It didn't take me long
to figure out how to use the reply option that includes the previously
quoted text... and how to snip 😉 but that's just me. And I still use
it, if I feel like it...

Google is great for history, cos our newsfeed is set to dump old stuff
after 21 days (or something like that)... However, what does annoy me
is that Google carries history on groups like alt.this.sort.of.[censored] and
won't carry legit groups like aus.food because it "is not busy enough"
or some such excuse.

'Nuff said.

Cheers
Cathy(xyz)

itsjoannotjoann said:

Dan Abel said:

Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out

that

Quoted message said:

this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.

All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most

of us

Quoted message said:

don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a

Quoted message said:

dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

As has been posted here on numerous occasions, some ISP's do deliver
these groups to some of us as part of Google. You probably like your
dedicated program on your MAC and I have no complaints with my ISP
delivering these groups to me through Google. I can set it up to
deliver only the groups I am interested in and no searching. I can
access either the newest or the oldest message, search through
messages
that are several years old, search for a specific message, etc. As
long as we're able to read the postings, why does it matter how they
are accessed?

If i understand the original poster, accessing and responding to news
group posts through google lacks context, people respond with out quotes
from the post they are responding to, which can make it difficult. to
understand the context of or reason for the reply.

I personally find google unwieldy to read and post from, good for
finding that lost post and a great archive but i don't see why people
would use it for groups unless they had to. Even as a way to reduce
spam it seems extreme, in that there are easier ways.
---
JL

Joseph Littleshoes said:

itsjoannotjoann said:

Dan Abel said:

Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out

that

Quoted message said:

this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.

All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most

of us

Quoted message said:

don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a

Quoted message said:

dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.

As has been posted here on numerous occasions, some ISP's do deliver
these groups to some of us as part of Google. You probably like your
dedicated program on your MAC and I have no complaints with my ISP
delivering these groups to me through Google. I can set it up to
deliver only the groups I am interested in and no searching. I can
access either the newest or the oldest message, search through
messages
that are several years old, search for a specific message, etc. As
long as we're able to read the postings, why does it matter how they
are accessed?

If i understand the original poster, accessing and responding to news
group posts through google lacks context, people respond with out quotes
from the post they are responding to, which can make it difficult. to
understand the context of or reason for the reply.

If people aren't quoting with Google then they'd not quote with any
newsreader... Google quotes *everything automatically*, then all one
needs do is trim out all the superfluous drivel (which I didn't do here
just to make an example).

Quoted message said:

I personally find google unwieldy to read and post from, good for
finding that lost post and a great archive but i don't see why people
would use it for groups unless they had to. Even as a way to reduce
spam it seems extreme, in that there are easier ways.

The Google Newreader and Google Archives are separate entities, they
are separate links on the Google.com domain... you can access Archives
without ever subscribing to Newsgroups, or use the other Google search
engines independantly.

Google is no worse than any newsreader and better than most. I will
admit, however, that Google seemed unwieldly at first, same as using
any software one is unfamiliar with, but by the third day it felt as
comfortable as an old pair of shoes.

And Google makes improvements on an ongoing basis, nearly every day I
notice a new and better facility... and they notify of improvements via
email, and they're easy to contact... Google's Tech support is
excellent.

I admit I was a bit bummed out when AOL suddenly dropped Newsgroups
(people are naturally resistant to change) but once I tried Google I
quickly discovered that it's better.... with Google there is really no
reason to access newsgroups any other way, what point is there in
reinventing the wheel.

Again, those who aren't quoting wouldn't qoute regardless which
newsreader they used, there have always been lazy uncaring "hoo-ray"
for me [censored], always will be.

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 18:19:51 -0600, notbob <[email hidden]>
connected the dots and wrote:
~
~ For Google users:
~
~ You can quote text by clicking "Show Options" before
~ hitting "Reply." This will include the appropriate
~ attribution, as well as including the quoted text.
~

I've been cutting and pasting and adding angle brackets to many of my
replies.
Merci Beaucoup
Todah Rabah
Shukran
Tak
Mani Tak
Danke
Gracias
Domo Arigato
Obrigato
Thank you

maxine in ri

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dave Bugg said:

Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most newsreaders
are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it appears
that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the time to
do it right.

Dave (or whoever wrote what I snipped above), I recently rejoined
rec.food.cooking after a long hiatus... and since I didn't have a
newsreader, I ended up using Google Groups by default. But I am SO
glad you posted this, b/c you just got rid of a huge frustration for
me; I've been snipping by hand and adding in those little >>s (when I
remember)... I didn't even see the 'show options' button because it was
tiny, gray, and in a weird spot.

Thanks. Now I can avoid posting 'out of thin air'...

Karen MacInerney
Kitchen experimenter, family chauffeur, and culinary mystery author
www.karenmacinerney.com

Sheldon said:

Again, those who aren't quoting wouldn't qoute regardless which
newsreader they used, there have always been lazy uncaring "hoo-ray"
for me [censored], always will be.

Yep, and these are the same pukes that will also insist on top -
posting...some idjits just *can't* (or won't) learn, they are gratuitously
clueless.

--
Best
Greg

Dan Abel said:

All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.

We do if our ISP can't figure out how to configure Tin to run
efficiiently. So, what is this Mac newsreader you are using? Does it
run on OS X? (Google is driving me nutz)

D.M.

In article <[email hidden]>,

D.A.Martinich said:

Dan Abel said:

All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.

We do if our ISP can't figure out how to configure Tin to run
efficiiently. So, what is this Mac newsreader you are using? Does it
run on OS X? (Google is driving me nutz)

MT NewsWatcher

It's free!

http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/

What I really like about this program is that I've been using it for
years and so it's really familiar to me.

:-)

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

No, the problem is that the default "Reply" button doesn't add quoted
text to the edit box it opens up.

To get quoted text you have to click on "show options" next to the
poster's name, then use the "Reply" button that it exposes.

Then the quoting is there, done in the classical style.

And if you don't use a newsreader that does threading properly using
the References: header, that's your problem.

--Blair

Karen MacInerney said:

Thanks. Now I can avoid posting 'out of thin air'...

That's the spirit, Karen. Glad everyone joined in to help. :-)
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

I can be understood just fine without quoting anything, if I so choose.

An RFC about netiquette is not a "protocol". Its discussion of quoting
is a matter of ensuring a conversation is maintained rather than a
collection of non sequiturs, and is far more about trimming quoted
material to a reasonable length than demanding that something be
quoted.

What's far worse netiquette is net.cops waltzing around creating
flamewars simply because they see top-posting and non-quoting.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton said:

I can be understood just fine without quoting anything, if I so choose.

You can do anything you want, this is an unmoderated ng. Whether
you're understood or not is a different question.

Quoted message said:

An RFC about netiquette is not a "protocol". Its discussion of quoting
is a matter of ensuring a conversation is maintained rather than a
collection of non sequiturs, and is far more about trimming quoted
material to a reasonable length than demanding that something be
quoted.

No one is demanding anything. "This memo does not specify an
Internet standard of any kind".

The above contaxt would much clearer had you quoted from the
post you were replying to.

Get it?

Quoted message said:

What's far worse netiquette is net.cops waltzing around creating
flamewars simply because they see top-posting and non-quoting.

Relax, you're not under attack. I'm simply making an
observation.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com