newbie question on EPEE's

In article <Xns9444BDD93AF785439754hjkgfdjio5408@216.196.97.1 36>,
"Holly E. Ordway" <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote:

> trebuchet30303@yahoo.com (William Marshal) wrote in
> news:dc7987e.0312011517.705178a2@posting.google.co m:
>
> > Just a "bump", to move that stupid non sequitur "yesterday" post on
> > down the page and into oblivion!
>
> FYI, Usenet is NOT part of the Web, and so Usenet doesn't work the same
> way as web-based forums, although it may appear that way if you are
> reading the newsgroups through Google. Your "bump" doesn't actually bump
> up anything: it just appears as a (uninformative) reply in the thread.
> It has absolutely no effect whatsoever on whether or not I (or anyone
> else) sees the original post or any of the other replies to that post.
>
> If that's unclear (and I have a feeling my explanation might have a
> touch of muddiness about it...) I'm sure someone else can explain it
> better.
>
> I recommend getting a decent newsreader program. You can do lovely
> things like adjust the settings to your liking, killfile people, and so
> on... I am particularly fond of Xnews (which is free, too!).
>


Thanks for writing that, Holly. I was just going to killfile him, but
I'll wait to see if he wises up.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> nattered on
thusnews:no_one_knows-A3AE2D.20104901122003@comcast.ash.giganews.com:

> Thanks for writing that, Holly. I was just going to killfile him, but
> I'll wait to see if he wises up.

About as quickly as he'll wise up to the basic legal principle of
"precedent", I'd wager.

"Holly E. Ordway" <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote

>FYI, Usenet is NOT part of the Web, and so Usenet doesn't work the
same
>way as web-based forums, although it may appear that way if you are
>reading the newsgroups through Google. Your "bump" doesn't actually
bump
>up anything: it just appears as a (uninformative) reply in the
thread.
>It has absolutely no effect whatsoever on whether or not I (or anyone
>else) sees the original post or any of the other replies to that
post.


Sorry for the misunderstanding---though I have to say that the whole
message board vs Usenet thing seems to me to be something of a
distinction without a difference. The post DID bring the
fencing-related threads back to the top, and pushed the irrelevant one
down, after all. That's what I was trying to accomplish, not to get
people to read what I'd dashed off.

Again, sorry for any inconvenience.


>I recommend getting a decent newsreader program. You can do lovely
>things like adjust the settings to your liking, killfile people, and
so
>on... I am particularly fond of Xnews (which is free, too!).

I think my IT department might frown on that...

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote

>
> About as quickly as he'll wise up to the basic legal principle of
> "precedent", I'd wager.

Oh, DO let it go, why don't you?

In rec.sport.fencing on 2 Dec 2003 16:45:15 -0800
William Marshal <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the misunderstanding---though I have to say that the whole
> message board vs Usenet thing seems to me to be something of a
> distinction without a difference. The post DID bring the
> fencing-related threads back to the top, and pushed the irrelevant one

In the software you are using.

To everyone else's software it was an unwelome and annoying intrusion
with no benefit.

If you can't handle the weapon, don't use it or get trained in it.
Don't wave it around making others duck and then say "but I didn't hit
anyone and yo uare all mean to me"

Zebee

trebuchet30303@yahoo.com (William Marshal) nattered on
thusnews:dc7987e.0312021645.7129b881@posting.googl e.com:

> distinction without a difference. The post DID bring the
> fencing-related threads back to the top,

Did not. My .newsrc handles that automatically.

trebuchet30303@yahoo.com (William Marshal) nattered on
thusnews:dc7987e.0312021645.2a012f98@posting.googl e.com:

> "Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote
>
>>
>> About as quickly as he'll wise up to the basic legal principle of
>> "precedent", I'd wager.
>
> Oh, DO let it go, why don't you?

For the same reason I have just GOT to tag an opening in the low outside
line.

trebuchet30303@yahoo.com (William Marshal) wrote in
news:dc7987e.0312021645.7129b881@posting.google.co m:

> Sorry for the misunderstanding---though I have to say that the
> whole message board vs Usenet thing seems to me to be something of
> a distinction without a difference.

It only seems that way to you because of the way you're reading the
newsgroups. If you use the Google web interface, Usenet looks
(superficially) like a web board, but it's NOT one.

>The post DID bring the
> fencing-related threads back to the top, and pushed the irrelevant
> one down, after all. That's what I was trying to accomplish, not to
> get people to read what I'd dashed off.

It brought those threads "back to the top" IN GOOGLE which is just one
(not very good) way of reading a Usenet newsgroup. For all the rest of
us, it did NOT accomplish what you were trying to accomplish - all it
did was present a content-free post. It had absolutely no effect
whatsoever on whether or not we see anything differently.

Let me explain it a different way. Whenever I run my newsreader
program, it goes to the news server and gets all the articles that are
new since the last time I read the news, plus any old ones that I
didn't mark as "read." They appear in my newsreader program, nicely
threaded. I can sort them by a variety of ways: my default is
alphabetical by title, but I can also instantly sort them by the date
they appeared, or by the author, or by the "score" (I can assign
positive or negative scores to different people according to how
interesting I find their posts.)If I've already read the early posts
in a thread, I don't see them: I only see any replies continuing the
thread. Do you see how this is totally different from a web board?

> Again, sorry for any inconvenience.

If you really wanted to keep the epee thread alive, the thing to do
would be to reply to a post, quote anything that you want other people
to continue seeing, and ADD SOME CONTENT of your own - actually
contribute. That's how discussions grow, not through people "bumping"
threads. Or make a new post on something fencing-related that you want
to discuss.

>>I recommend getting a decent newsreader program. You can do lovely
>>things like adjust the settings to your liking, killfile people,
>>and
> so
>>on... I am particularly fond of Xnews (which is free, too!).
>
> I think my IT department might frown on that...

I can't imagine why, unless you're using departmental computers that
you're not allowed to install anything on. Oh... maybe you think I
meant "free" as in "pirated"? It's not - Xnews is freeware. It's
intended to be used for free. So is Free Agent (which is a free lower-
features version of Agent, IIRC).

Anyway, that's my last non-fencing-related comment. Hope it helps.

--Holly (looking forward to the Charm City Classic this weekend)

In article <9onzb.2476$Qd6.37@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.ne t>,
"Dirk Goldgar" <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote:

>
> Many corporate IT departments shut down NNTP completely, so as to keep
> their employees from wasting time & bandwidth downloading pornography.


Who says that's a waste of time? Oh, wait, you mean a waste of the
COMPANY'S time! Yeah, I guess it could be.

(Just kidding! :-)

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

"Holly E. Ordway" <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns944651FE5ED3B5439754hjkgfdjio5408@216.196. 97.136
[good explanation of Usenet snipped]
>
> trebuchet30303@yahoo.com (William Marshal) wrote in
> news:dc7987e.0312021645.7129b881@posting.google.co m:
>>
>> I think my IT department might frown on that...
>
> I can't imagine why, unless you're using departmental computers that
> you're not allowed to install anything on. Oh... maybe you think I
> meant "free" as in "pirated"? It's not - Xnews is freeware. It's
> intended to be used for free. So is Free Agent (which is a free lower-
> features version of Agent, IIRC).

Many corporate IT departments shut down NNTP completely, so as to keep
their employees from wasting time & bandwidth downloading pornography.

--
Dirk Goldgar

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote

>
> About as quickly as he'll wise up to the basic legal principle of
> "precedent", I'd wager.

Like a terrier with a rat. Let it go, already.

But no, I don't suppose you are capable of that. So...

From "Logic: An Introduction", by Robert Churchill, Chapter 13, Legal
Reasoning:

"Thanks to the legal realists [one school of thought, and a strong
one, but not the only one and not Revealed Truth, Bryan], few people
today believe that the techniques of formal logic alone can adequately
account for the arguments involved in legal decision making. But
this does not mean that legal reasoning has no use for rigorous
standards. Nor does it mean that legal reasoning is nonlogical and
that therefore there is no point in trying to evaluate the inferences
found in judicial opinions. The realists' theory of the judicial
process does not adequately account for the regularity and
predictability of the judicial process. Nor can it explain why
judicial decisions are usually accepted by society as legitimate and
authoritative. While searching for the psychological proceses through
which judges reach decisions, the realists lost sight of the role
of justification in legal argument."

And

"As with scientific reasoning, the logical analysis of legal reasoning
is concerned with arguments. These arguments can be studied
independently of both the judge's motives for advancing them and
psychological accounts of their formation in the judge's mind. The
logician is concerned with whether the reasons put forward for a
decision are adequate justification for it. The opinion is a sham or a
rationalization only if weak and irrelevant reasons are made to seem
as if they are strong and relevant."

And

"It does not follow from the fact that an argument is not formally
valid that there are no good reasons for accepting its conclusion. By
ignoring nondeductive arguments, the realists supposed that there were
no logical criteria for judicial decision making. But as
justifications for decisions, the written opinions of appellate judges
are arguments, and it is possible to appraise the inferences found in
these arguments."

Which is what I have been arguing all along: it is legitimate to
question the logic behind judicial decisions, and it is not mandatory
to, as you have been so superciliously insusting, disregard it
entirely in favor of what might be summed up in the words of the
Logician from the soundtrack of Monty Python's "Holy Grail"---"This is
not logical; it simply IS, in the sense that Mt. Everest IS, and that
Alma Cogan isn't".

Back to you again, Mr. Sneerwell.

"Holly E. Ordway" <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net>



> FYI, Usenet is NOT part of the Web, and so Usenet doesn't work the same
> way as web-based forums, although it may appear that way if you are
> reading the newsgroups through Google.


Very well, and thank you for the correction...though in all candor it
seems something of a distinction without a difference to me. I am, as
you say, working through Google. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

How DO things look to non-Googlers, just out of curiosity? Does a post
not move a thread, or whatever it's called, down the title page here?



> I recommend getting a decent newsreader program. You can do lovely
> things like adjust the settings to your liking, killfile people, and so
> on... I am particularly fond of Xnews (which is free, too!).


Alas, I think the IT department might frown on this. Not supposed to
download or install anything on our computers...

Anyway, sorry to have put anyone out.

"Dirk Goldgar" <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote in message
news:9onzb.2476$Qd6.37@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net...

> Many corporate IT departments shut down NNTP completely, so as to keep
> their employees from wasting time & bandwidth downloading pornography.
>
> --
> Dirk Goldgar

Killjoy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's that kind of thinking that has killed the Internet.

What did we do all day before the days of the Internet???

Paolo

--
-)-------

"He is a man of splendid abilities but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks
like rotten mackerel by moonlight."

trebuchet30303@yahoo.com (William Marshal) nattered on
thusnews:dc7987e.0312031650.538b053b@posting.googl e.com:

> How DO things look to non-Googlers, just out of curiosity? Does a post
> not move a thread, or whatever it's called, down the title page here?

No. There is no "title page".

Logically demonstrate that precedent has and ought not have precedence in
the formation of law.

>Very well, and thank you for the correction...though in all candor it
>seems something of a distinction without a difference to me. I am, as
>you say, working through Google. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

For what it's worth, Usenet actually predates the web, by close to (or maybe
even more) than a decade. In fact, the first I heard of the web was when Tim
Berners-Lee posted a description of it to comp.infosystems back in 1992 or so.
Usenet's basic infrastructure is much different than the web, and so the ways
of accessing it are different as well.

>How DO things look to non-Googlers, just out of curiosity? Does a post
>not move a thread, or whatever it's called, down the title page here?

Not necessarily. Depends on the reader.

Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote

> In the software you are using.
>
> To everyone else's software it was an unwelome and annoying intrusion
> with no benefit.

Ah, so des. Sort of like the "We are the downtrodden" post was to
me...which was why I reacted as I did.

Well, now I know. Sorry. Won't happen again.




> Don't wave it around making others duck and then say "but I didn't hit
> anyone and yo uare all mean to me"
>
> Zebee

Um...and I said such a thing---where, again?

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote

>
> Did not. My .newsrc handles that automatically.

Yeah, now I understand. My apologies for any annoyance caused; I
didn't realize things worked differently depending on how one accessed
a news group.

"Holly E. Ordway" <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote

> If I've already read the early posts
> in a thread, I don't see them: I only see any replies continuing the
> thread. Do you see how this is totally different from a web board?

Yes, thank you for your patience. I did not realize that a newsgroup
appeared and worked differently depending on how one accessed it.



> If you really wanted to keep the epee thread alive, the thing to do
> would be to reply to a post, quote anything that you want other people
> to continue seeing, and ADD SOME CONTENT of your own - actually
> contribute. That's how discussions grow, not through people "bumping"
> threads. Or make a new post on something fencing-related that you want
> to discuss.

Yes, I ought to have done the latter, I guess. It wasn't that I was
interested in the epee thread, though, but that I was annoyed by the
appearance of completely irrelevant threads and was trying to get rid
of one---in my experience, one does that by posting to preferable
ones, which "moves" those to the top of the title list. Unaware that
there was another methodology at work to those of you with
newsreaders, I caused annoyance of my own instead...

Again, my apologies.



>
> I can't imagine why, unless you're using departmental computers that
> you're not allowed to install anything on. Oh... maybe you think I
> meant "free" as in "pirated"? It's not - Xnews is freeware. It's
> intended to be used for free. So is Free Agent (which is a free lower-
> features version of Agent, IIRC).


No, no...it's just that we've been told "Don't download anything".
They didn't tell us why.

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote

>
> For the same reason I have just GOT to tag an opening in the low outside
> line.

Even when you're parried every time? Or when it's an invitation, with
a prepared response waiting?