Richard J. wrote:
Poldie wrote:
AndreaC wrote:
Also, can two people share one Oyster travelcard so that if I had a
zones 1-4, himself could use it on the days I'm not going to work
from his place if he didn't fancy cycling to work (which is what
he usually does)

Yes.

No. Pity you chose to contradict Paul C., who posted an hour before
you,

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

On 28 Sep 2006 23:42:33 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:


Richard J. wrote:
Poldie wrote:
AndreaC wrote:
Also, can two people share one Oyster travelcard so that if I had a
zones 1-4, himself could use it on the days I'm not going to work
from his place if he didn't fancy cycling to work (which is what
he usually does)

Yes.

No. Pity you chose to contradict Paul C., who posted an hour before
you,

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

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

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

James Farrar wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 23:42:33 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:


Richard J. wrote:
Poldie wrote:
AndreaC wrote:
Also, can two people share one Oyster travelcard so that if I had a
zones 1-4, himself could use it on the days I'm not going to work
from his place if he didn't fancy cycling to work (which is what
he usually does)

Yes.

No. Pity you chose to contradict Paul C., who posted an hour before
you,

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

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

No.

On 29 Sep 2006 10:42:24 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:


James Farrar wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 23:42:33 -0700, "Poldie" wrote:


Richard J. wrote:
Poldie wrote:
AndreaC wrote:
Also, can two people share one Oyster travelcard so that if I had a
zones 1-4, himself could use it on the days I'm not going to work
from his place if he didn't fancy cycling to work (which is what
he usually does)

Yes.

No. Pity you chose to contradict Paul C., who posted an hour before
you,

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.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

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]

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

[1] Ok, some usenet providers are better than other never the less

--
Paul G
Typing from Barking

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.

[1] Ok, some usenet providers are better than other never the less

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

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.

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)