Google group users and spam.

Bottom posting is the usenet convention.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

e:

other google goop users would help with this. You just click on the triang le in the upper right corner of the post, (more message actions) Choose 're port abuse' and then spam. three clicks... it would just be nice to have s ome help.

newsgroup.

hat topic is lost forever. You would miss a post in case someone said somet hing important.

No, it does not seem to kill the thread. I have seen spam posted as replie s to other spam and it all shows up when you open the new post.

Rick C.

Of course it kills the thread. But only for the person who reported the abuse. Google stores the entire web on its servers. They have more than enough capability to store your preferences for a newsgroup.

It would really be a strange idea if someone could kill a thread for everyone else. With the nutters on the web, there wouldn't be much of a newsgroup left.

Of course, you have to be using Google Groups to see this. If you are using some other news client, it won't happen.

Bottom posting is the convention, but anyone with a bit of intelligence oug ht to be able to accept other formats.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little s tatesmen and philosophers and divines.".

I prefer top posting over long posts containing multiple posters opinions f ollowed by one line of new content. With"A foolish consistency is the hob goblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and div ines.". top posting you get the new information immediately and one can alw ays read the old material if you do not remember it.

Not picking on you , John. Just trying to not set off a long diatribe on f ormat.

Dan

They can decipher other formats, but bottom posting delivers the information in a logical order. It's more work to sort where a top poster is coming from.

The fact that it is possible to make sense of a top posted message doesn't make it a helpful way to organise what you have to say.

There's nothing foolish about making what you post easily accessible.

That's what snipping is for - you pare out the relevant preceding material and snip the rest. That requires some judgement, which Dan lacks.

But you don't get the new material in the right context. Working out exactly what was being responded to takes an effort, and most of what gets posted here isn't worth any kind of effort.

So why post the comment in the first place?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So why did you comment? That is a rhetorical question. Do not bother to answer.

Dan, Earth

You would have liked it to be a rhetorical question, but you are too dumb to realise that there is a perfectly rational - and indeed useful - answer.

I'm perfectly happy to set off long diatribes about all kinds of random subjects, though I do tend to snip those bits of the diatribe that aren't to the point (which is one of the many skills you seem to lack).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Your answer is neither perfectly rational nor useful.

Dan, Earth Savings

As if Dan could judge ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

that applies to most of what he writes, even though he thinks it is.

I use Giganews as my Usenet feed and read the posts on Thunderbird mail reader. I see no spam postings in SED at all and I collect postings as they happen.

Thnunderbird allows me to killfile posters I don't care for, etc. but I don't bother much as I can simply skip over their messages and once in a while there is actually valid content from a few of them.

As far as I know Giganews is not filtering Usenet messages for spam that it relays to its clients. However I have never looked into that.

Perhaps all this spam people are seeing is being generated on Google?

I get normal spam messages all day long, but very rarely from Usenet postings due to my reply-to address.

John :-#)#

Since Dan wasn't able to demonstrate what was irrational in my post, even NT should have been able to work out that this was merely formulaic sniping.

NT doesn't seem to have idea what "rational" means either, so he probably doesn't appreciate that the claim that something is "irrational" needs to be backed up by some kind of demonstration of where the argument falls short of being rational.

"Useful" is a more complicated measure and implies some grasp of real-world utility, which neither Dan nor NT seem to have.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Doe wrote in news:po72bs$5ms$2@dont- email.me:

You're a goddamned liar and a goddamned abject idiot.

I could point out what was irrational in your post, but think the readers of SED are capable of recognizing irrational posts.

Dan, Earth

+1, and probably many more. Everyone has irrational beliefs they think are rational. But some seem to make a life of them.

Bill's points, for what little they're worth, could do with addressing but life's way too short to deal with an endless stream of abusive & stupid junk.

NT

Of course Dan thinks that he could point out the irrational content in my post, even if he can't be bothered actually doing it. In reality he wouldn't know where to start, but the pathetic clown does know how to concoct excuses for failing to try.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Pity that the imaginary supporters can't be bothered doing the kind of analysis than Dan and NT allude to without actually ever doing.

NT is much much too busy churning out his own stream of stupid abusive junk to do anything that might make it obvious how fatuous his pretensions are.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Smarter, better university, richer

Dan , Earth