On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 14:29:22 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 26.03.23 um 11:50 schrieb Alan B:
>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> X-posts eliminated
>>
>> Waste of time unless all responders do the same.
>
> All users responding in my subthread do exactly the same unless they add
> the groups back.

Fuck off mine fuhrer.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 12:48:12 +0100, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > X-posts eliminated
>>
>> Waste of time unless all responders do the same.
>
> Killfiling on Newsgroups: and/or Followup-To: contains
> "alt.computer.workshop" gets rid of that whole crew of pests.

I killfile all followup-to posts. That header should never be used. A reply going to where it's not expected will not be tolerated.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 14:27:47 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 26.03.23 um 14:18 schrieb Alan B:
>> Yes I do that but JL's post just had ucsm in the Newsgroups header so I was blissfully
>> unaware of the topic until he replied.
>
> Do you really have a plan?
> I did not add anything I just deleted all other NGs. That's what killed
> your filter. Your problem not mine.

Oh look at all the children playing with their broken filters.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 09:42:40 +0100, John Hill <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 26 Mar 2023 at 08:23:19 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> X-posts eliminated
>
> I wish you would'nt do that! It means stuff gets through my filters that would
> otherwise be suppressed.

This is funny, two people trying to filter the same thing causing a short circuit.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:14:37 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 28.03.23 um 10:53 schrieb David Brooks:
>> On 28/03/2023 09:42, John Hill wrote:
>>> On 26 Mar 2023 at 08:23:19 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> X-posts eliminated
>>>
>>> I wish you would'nt do that! It means stuff gets through my filters that would
>>> otherwise be suppressed.
>>
>> What, exactly, are you trying to 'filter', John?
>
> I guess your and clumsy militaristic Kinsey's spam to
> alt.computer.workshop. My 5 cts.

Then filter us duh.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:17:26 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 28.03.23 um 11:09 schrieb John Hill:
>> Unfortunately Usenapp can't filter on body content. Unlike MacSOUP, which
>> worked differently.
>
> McSoup is a dinosaur from times when postings were downloaded in batches
> which made filtering on the body possible. Modern Usenet-clients work
> differently which makes filtering on bodies impossible.

You're a fucking idiot. Unless you have an exceedingly slow internet connection, all bodies are downloaded along with the headers, therefore can be filtered on.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 15:35:56 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 28.03.23 um 12:31 schrieb David Brooks:
>> On 28/03/2023 10:09, John Hill wrote:
>>> At least Joerg is only doing it inadvertently - though why, I can't imagine.
>>
>> Joerg is FULL of self-importance!
>
> You or others do not determine where my or other people's postings go.
> Does that fit into your bird brain?

Cut the cryptic shite.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:18:10 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 29.03.23 um 11:06 schrieb John Hill:
>> I raise the question with Andre, and he explained the reason very clearly.
>>
>> See also Joerg's post, which is also clear.
>>
>> It is curious, though, that whole messages were downloaded in the dial-up era
>> when bandwidth was very limited, whereas now we have broadband only headers
>> are downloaded. You'd think the trend would be the other way around!
>
> This is a misunderstanding of the mechanics. To download just the
> headers was not an option in modem-times. Each and every time you wanted
> to read a message you would have had to redial to get the message.
>
> Nowadays it takes a fraction of a second to get the body of a
> Usenet-message when you click on it. Modern clients in most cases master
> both processes but the idea is to download only what is nedded (=online
> readers).

What a monumentally stupid idea. Why download twice and remove the ability to search/filter/whatever on the bodies?

I use a proper newsreader which downloads everything at once, so it's all right here on my disk to do as I wish with.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:36:12 +0100, John Hill <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 29 Mar 2023 at 10:18:10 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> Am 29.03.23 um 11:06 schrieb John Hill:
>>> I raise the question with Andre, and he explained the reason very clearly.
>>>
>>> See also Joerg's post, which is also clear.
>>>
>>> It is curious, though, that whole messages were downloaded in the dial-up era
>>> when bandwidth was very limited, whereas now we have broadband only headers
>>> are downloaded. You'd think the trend would be the other way around!
>>
>> This is a misunderstanding of the mechanics. To download just the
>> headers was not an option in modem-times. Each and every time you wanted
>> to read a message you would have had to redial to get the message.
>>
>> Nowadays it takes a fraction of a second to get the body of a
>> Usenet-message when you click on it. Modern clients in most cases master
>> both processes but the idea is to download only what is nedded (=online
>> readers).
>
> Very reasonable.
>
> I was watching the film "You've Got Mail" the other day and the dial-up
> connect sound was very nostalgic.
>
> Would make an interesting ring-tone!

I've got a very unusual ringtone. It sounds like a telephone.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 13:06:58 +0100, David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> On 29/03/2023 10:06, John Hill wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 2023 at 11:31:10 BST, "David Brooks" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/03/2023 10:09, John Hill wrote:
>>>> On 28 Mar 2023 at 09:53:02 BST, "David Brooks" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28/03/2023 09:42, John Hill wrote:
>>>>>> On 26 Mar 2023 at 08:23:19 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> X-posts eliminated
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wish you would'nt do that! It means stuff gets through my filters that would
>>>>>> otherwise be suppressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> What, exactly, are you trying to 'filter', John?
>>>>
>>>> If I said that publicly, people (trolls especially) might figure out how to
>>>> defeat the filters!
>>>
>>> What is the difference beween YOU and a so-called Troll?
>>
>> Basically, nothing.
>
> Just as I thought! :-)
>
>>> Are you, in some way, more important than other folk who wish to post in
>>> a Usenet group?
>>>
>>> (no disrespect intended!)
>>
>> None taken.
>
> I'm really pleased about that!
>
>>>> At least Joerg is only doing it inadvertently - though why, I can't imagine.
>>>
>>> Joerg is FULL of self-importance!
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately Usenapp can't filter on body content. Unlike MacSOUP, which
>>>> worked differently.
>>>
>>> Thank you for explaining that.
>>
>> I raise the question with Andre, and he explained the reason very clearly.
>
> Andre seems like a very fine fellow!
>
>> See also Joerg's post, which is also clear.
>>
>> It is curious, though, that whole messages were downloaded in the dial-up era
>> when bandwidth was very limited, whereas now we have broadband only headers
>> are downloaded. You'd think the trend would be the other way around!
>
> Everything is so very quick nowadays, so I don't understand why many of
> the folkhere are rather up-themselves.
> What difference does it make who posts whatever they wish about whatever
> they want? (Rhetorical question!)

They're geeks/programmers/network admins. Or in English, arrogant OCD cunts.

Am 06.04.23 um 03:28 schrieb Commander Kinsey:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 14:27:47 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> Am 26.03.23 um 14:18 schrieb Alan B:
>>> Yes I do that but JL's post just had ucsm in the Newsgroups header so I was blissfully
>>> unaware of the topic until he replied.
>>
>> Do you really have a plan?
>> I did not add anything I just deleted all other NGs. That's what killed
>> your filter. Your problem not mine.
>
> Oh look at all the children playing with their broken filters.

Two weeks after the fact? Idiot.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 06.04.23 um 03:26 schrieb Commander Kinsey:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 14:29:22 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> Am 26.03.23 um 11:50 schrieb Alan B:
>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> X-posts eliminated
>>>
>>> Waste of time unless all responders do the same.
>>
>> All users responding in my subthread do exactly the same unless they add
>> the groups back.
>
> Fuck off mine fuhrer.

Two weeks after the fact?
Did they forget to turn off your router in the looney-bin?

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[snip]

>> I was watching the film "You've Got Mail" the other day and the dial-up
>> connect sound was very nostalgic.
>>
>> Would make an interesting ring-tone!
>
> I've got a very unusual ringtone.  It sounds like a telephone.

I have one like that too. Not many do so it's easy to tell when its my
phone.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is
unconsciousness" -- George Orwell

Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

> [snip]
>
> >> I was watching the film "You've Got Mail" the other day and the dial-up
> >> connect sound was very nostalgic.
> >>
> >> Would make an interesting ring-tone!
> >
> > I've got a very unusual ringtone. It sounds like a telephone.
>
> I have one like that too. Not many do so it's easy to tell when its my
> phone.

Mine is 'CQ' in Morse code or, if known, the caller's nickname in Morse.

--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

<https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 06:32:24 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 06.04.23 um 03:28 schrieb Commander Kinsey:
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 14:27:47 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 26.03.23 um 14:18 schrieb Alan B:
>>>> Yes I do that but JL's post just had ucsm in the Newsgroups header so I was blissfully
>>>> unaware of the topic until he replied.
>>>
>>> Do you really have a plan?
>>> I did not add anything I just deleted all other NGs. That's what killed
>>> your filter. Your problem not mine.
>>
>> Oh look at all the children playing with their broken filters.
>
> Two weeks after the fact? Idiot.

Why would I respond instantaneously? Unlike you I have a life outside newsgroups. It gets replied to when I get round to it. What's the hurry? It wasn't a discussion about the current football game. Not time sensitive.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 18:25:12 +0100, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> I was watching the film "You've Got Mail" the other day and the dial-up
>> >> connect sound was very nostalgic.
>> >>
>> >> Would make an interesting ring-tone!
>> >
>> > I've got a very unusual ringtone. It sounds like a telephone.
>>
>> I have one like that too. Not many do so it's easy to tell when its my
>> phone.
>
> Mine is 'CQ' in Morse code or, if known, the caller's nickname in Morse.

Can you understand Morse on hearing it? I didn't think many folk could.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 15:47:24 +0100, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

> [snip]
>
>>> I was watching the film "You've Got Mail" the other day and the dial-up
>>> connect sound was very nostalgic.
>>>
>>> Would make an interesting ring-tone!
>>
>> I've got a very unusual ringtone. It sounds like a telephone.
>
> I have one like that too. Not many do so it's easy to tell when its my
> phone.

When my dad heard mine he didn't recognise it as a phone, mind you it's an American bell, I couldn't find a recording of a proper British one. American phones sound underwater. There's two frequencies at once, not in tune with each other, it sounds depressed.