Poldie wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
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! I'm a
programmer who can't be bothered to install a newsgroup reader on
every machine I connect to the 'net with.
Fair enough. Actually, Google must have been particularly slow that
evening; it's included your last post in less than 10 minutes.

Yes, I made a post to alt.test shortly afterwards which took hours to
turn up - usually it's pretty quick.

Your "sin" in using GG might have been overlooked if you hadn't made a "basic
mistake" in your answer!

How dare I use Google instead of what some nerd has on his list of
acceptable Usenet clients! Imagine the ridicule I'll now face amongst
my peers - can I ever again show my face in polite society?

The answer I gave was what I honestly believed to be true at the time.
If my wife asks to borrow my travelcard once I'm home from work I'm
hardly likely to tell her "no - go and buy your own!" before ripping
mine up in front of her, and I'd be suprised if anyone else would. The
Oyster webpage has this Q&A:

Q) Can I share my Oyster card if it has pay as you go with Auto top-up?
A) Yes, as long as you only have pay as you go on your card. If you
also have a season ticket on your Oyster card, it must not be used by
anyone else.

It doesn't mention travelcards. And as has been implied elsewhere in
this discussion, there's no difference between someone ordering an
Oyster Travelcard and then giving it to someone to keep, and buying two
travelcards at a station and handing one to someone to keep.

Unfortunately that's not true. There are three different products being
talked about in this discussion:

- Oyster with only pay-as-you-go credit on it
- Oyster with a season ticket on it (7-day travelcard, month travelcard
or longer)
- Paper One Day Travelcard (ODTC)

Only the first of those can be shared with other people. Neither an
Oyster with a season ticket nor a paper travelcard can be shared with
someone else.

When that Q&A you quote talks about season tickets, it is talking about
seven-day or longer tickets (which are always a type of travelcard).
One-day travelcards do not exist on Oyster.

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On 30 Sep 2006 09:10:48 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:


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 didn't accuse anyone of "contradicting" anything. It was Richard J
who did that.

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?

Well, you could invest EUR10/year in a news.individual.net
subscription, accessible from anywhere. Whether you'd be happier or
not is up to you. But saying "no replies were visible" an hour after
the reply in question was posted suggests you need to take a more
realistic view of the capabilities and performance of the service you
choose to use.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

James Farrar wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 09:10:48 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:
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 didn't accuse anyone of "contradicting" anything. It was Richard J
who did that.

Ok, I take that back, but you did seem to be upset with the fact I'm
not using a "real" news server & reader.

But saying "no replies were visible" an hour after
the reply in question was posted suggests you need to take a more
realistic view of the capabilities and performance of the service you
choose to use.

If that was all I'd said then yes, I'd have deserved your slightly
patronizing comments about people who weren't "technically savvy" doing
"silly things", but my comment, way back in my second contribution to
this thread was actually:

"At the point I answered, no replies was visible (using Google
Groups)."

which I thought made the situation clear enough. Apparantly I was wrong!

On 30 Sep 2006 10:04:13 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:

James Farrar wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 09:10:48 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:
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 didn't accuse anyone of "contradicting" anything. It was Richard J
who did that.

Ok, I take that back, but you did seem to be upset with the fact I'm
not using a "real" news server & reader.

Not upset, just giving a recommendation.

But saying "no replies were visible" an hour after
the reply in question was posted suggests you need to take a more
realistic view of the capabilities and performance of the service you
choose to use.

If that was all I'd said then yes, I'd have deserved your slightly
patronizing comments about people who weren't "technically savvy" doing
"silly things", but my comment, way back in my second contribution to
this thread was actually:

"At the point I answered, no replies was visible (using Google
Groups)."

which I thought made the situation clear enough. Apparantly I was wrong!

It seems to imply that if they didn't show by then, you'd expect them
not to exist.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

In message , James Farrar
writes

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.

Another thing I've noticed is that some GG users seem to be under the
impression that Google run/own news groups.

Causes all sorts of problems in Other Places that does.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)