James Farrar wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 07:00:59 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:


James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:03:42 +0100, Paul G
wrote:

In message , James Farrar
writes
At the point I answered, no replies was visible (using Google Groups).

Well, then, use a real news server and newsreader.

No.

Well, then, expose yourself to ridicule.

Someone (in this came, James) appears to have forgotten that regardless
of the method used to view usenet articles, due to their usenet's of
propagation, there is no guarantee that one usenet provider will be
quicker to receive articles than another provider. [1]

Actually, I did not forget this; I applied the maxim in footnote 1.

Articles propagation is not necessary linear. Genuine question: Why
exclude people using a different method of reading usenet articles from
yourself?

Frankly, Google Groups may be the worst thing to happen to Usenet
since 1993. If people who use GG to read and post to Usenet are not
aware that that is, in fact, what they are doing, they are quite
likely to say or do silly things.

The technical barrier to Usenet entry is lower with GG; but that in
itself requires GG users to be more technically savvy.

You're the one making basic mistakes regarding Usenet!

What basic mistake?

Accusing someone of "contradicting" an article on Usenet when it was
probable that they were using a Usenet client that was likely to have
been responsible for a delay which meant they weren't contradicting
them after all (at least, not knowingly).

I'm a
programmer who can't be bothered to install a newsgroup reader on every
machine I connect to the 'net with.

I cry for you.

Why - would I be happier, or perhaps better paid, if I went to the
effort of installing Thunderbird and finding a free news server each
time I wanted to browse or post to Usenet, rather than simply firing up
Firefox?