In article <Tc8kwVUZneRiFw4x@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>
> I think R's point was, why should there a need to join - however easy,
> and however little information you have to give - just to get
> information?

because some people who post content have restricted it to be visible
only by certain people and the only way to verify that is by logging
in.

nospam,

> > It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post
>
>> No, it isn't possible.
>
> yes it is.

Seeing thay you have ignored my explanation to why I think it isn't as well
as having provided zilch in regard to why you think otherwise I have little
other choice than to ignore that. Funny how that works ...

> if the content is not public, you should see a login page.

Someone else mentioned that too. I already replied to him about it.

> your browser is either misconfigured or not supported.

On what grounds did you determine that ?...

> did you disable javascript?

.... Oh wait, you didn't.

And how is that relevant ? My browser doesn't do javascript. Thats all you
need to know.

> what browser are you using?

Again, how is that relevant ?

Kid, you are concentrating on solving problems I *do not* have, instead of
trying to solve the one I *do* have.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

nospam,

> because some people who post content have restricted it to be
> visible only by certain people and the only way to verify that
> is by logging in.

Kid, you're concentrating on what *isn't* possible, instead of focussing on
what *is* - and how to do it.

As such you are not really helpfull (understatement).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 3/31/2022 11:41 AM, sidder wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:10:57, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
>>(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>>On 3/31/2022 10:50 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I actually don't hate FaceBook*, I just don't
>>>> have the time), but when _companies_ start putting information _only_
>>>> there, it's (some way down!) the slippery slope.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know whether I would hate Facebook or not, but I suspect that I
>>>might. I've never seen it. I have no interest in it.
>>>
>>I really meant I don't hate people who _use_ FaceBook, which many other
>>people who like me don't use it seem to.
>
> Not just people who like you, right? Perhaps that sentence could have
> benefitted from a couple of apostrophes. ;-)

Apostrophes? There are no missing apostrophes in it. Did you perhaps
mean "quotation marks"?

--
Ken

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 11:13:51 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

>"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> on Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:42:07
>-0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
>>"John B. Smith" <crasso@verizon.net> wrote
>>
>>| I joined Facebook because friends told me I 'had' to. It's hardly been
>>| of any use to me at all.
>>
>> I've never used it, but friends who have typically say that
>>they joined to find old friends, only to discover their friends
>>were not on it. I don't think it's ever been very popular with
>>older people, except to read what their kids post publicly.
>
> Some times I find old friends, and well, all we have in common is
>something we were involved in 40 years ago, or that we once went to
>the same high school, or some similar part of what is a past life.
>
> "Glory Days!..."
I have family I would not contact otherwise, High School friends
(1961),City and State information. Get very little junk. Love to pick
on Democrats !!!!!!

KenW

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:38:17, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 3/31/2022 11:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>> I have no interest in it either - not because I have a strong dislike of
>> it, just I haven't the time to start yet another, on top of usenet,
>
>
>Me too.
>
>
>> email,
>
>
>Me too.
>
>
>> twitter,
>
>
>I've never used that either.
>
I started using it in an attempt to drum up e-signatures for a petition
I was running. (_That_ was spectacularly unsuccessful!) But I've built
up friends there - some who were on usenet, some not.
>
>> and YouTube.
>
>
>YouTube? That's very different. It's not for communication between people.
>
>I use YouTube fairly often, mostly because I play classical guitar, and
>use YouTube to study and learn from professional performances of pieces
>I'm working on.
>
Yes, but you can add comments to clips - and people post followups. So
though it's not primarily designed as a social medium, social
interaction does occur. Yes, I use it for more than that - I use it to
listen to/watch clips, primarily, as you do (though only for
pleasure/information in my case), but it does provide that function too.
>
>> Same applies to WhatsApp, TikTok, and all
>> the others:
>
>
>Me too. I probably haven't even heard of most of them.
>
I think as soon as we oldies even learn the name of one of these
mechanisms, it's automatically old hat for the new generation (-:
>
>
>>I don't hate people who use them, I just don't have time.
>
>
>For me, no time *and* no interest.
>
Sometimes it's the only place to get the information. Yes, you can cut
yourself off by not using, and we all do that in some walk of life or
other (I avoid paying by direct debit where I can, for example), but far
more to our own disadvantage than the organisation we dislike.
>
>
>> But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>> there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it.
>
>
>I've never run into that.
>
Well, I'll repeat my example - XGODY, a SatNav (GPS) company, only
release the URLs for their update map data via a FaceBook group you have
to join.
>
>
>> Like
>> fobile moan app.s.
>
>
>I've never run into that either.
>
>
Sorry, UK humour. UK for what US calls a "cellular 'phone" is a "mobile
'phone". Or, for fun, a "fobile moan".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 13:41:17, sidder@?.?.invalid wrote (my responses
usually FOLLOW):
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>>But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>>there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it. Like
>>fobile moan app.s.
>
>"app.s"?

I hate the 'word' "app"; it's short for application, but actually means
a program. But it seems to have become generally used, to mean something
you run on a fobile moan. But I reserve the right to leave in the full
stop (period) to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:04:12, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 3/31/2022 11:41 AM, sidder wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:10:57, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com>
>>>wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>>>On 3/31/2022 10:50 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>>>I really meant I don't hate people who _use_ FaceBook, which many
>>>other people who like me don't use it seem to.
>> Not just people who like you, right? Perhaps that sentence could
>>have
>> benefitted from a couple of apostrophes. ;-)
>
>
>Apostrophes? There are no missing apostrophes in it. Did you perhaps
>mean "quotation marks"?
>
>
I think commas would have made it better - or brackets (parentheses):

"... which many other people who, like me, don't use it ..." or "who
(like me) don't ..."

Neither apostrophes nor quotation marks though (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

On 3/31/2022 2:07 PM, s|b wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:11:08 +0100, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>
>> There's little cost in creating a simple Facebook profile
>
> Like selling your soul to the devil.
>

"Facebook is asking people to submit their I.D.s to prove their accounts are real

by Marie Edinger January 4th 2019

....

There are two groups for the types of id they ask for.

In Group 1, acceptable forms of id include your birth certificate,
driver's license, passport, green card, and several others.

If you don't have any of those, some of the things Group 2 suggests
you send include your social security card, a bank statement, or medical records.

If you do upload any of those forms of ID, Facebook says
it's encrypted and stored securely."

Well, alrighty then. I'll get right on that.

Paul

On 3/31/2022 12:11 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:38:17, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On 3/31/2022 11:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> I have no interest in it either - not because I have a strong dislike of
>>> it, just I haven't the time to start yet another, on top of usenet,
>>
>>
>>Me too.
>>
>>
>>> email,
>>
>>
>>Me too.
>>
>>
>>> twitter,
>>
>>
>>I've never used that either.
>>
> I started using it in an attempt to drum up e-signatures for a petition
> I was running. (_That_ was spectacularly unsuccessful!) But I've built
> up friends there - some who were on usenet, some not.
>>
>>> and YouTube.
>>
>>
>>YouTube? That's very different. It's not for communication between people.
>>
>>I use YouTube fairly often, mostly because I play classical guitar, and
>>use YouTube to study and learn from professional performances of pieces
>>I'm working on.
>>
> Yes, but you can add comments to clips -

Yes, you can, but I never look at them.

> and people post followups. So
> though it's not primarily designed as a social medium, social
> interaction does occur. Yes, I use it for more than that - I use it to
> listen to/watch clips, primarily, as you do (though only for
> pleasure/information in my case), but it does provide that function too.

Pleasure in my case, too. My guitar playing is for my pleasure, and if I
get better at a piece, my pleasure increases.

>>> Same applies to WhatsApp, TikTok, and all
>>> the others:
>>
>>
>>Me too. I probably haven't even heard of most of them.
>>
> I think as soon as we oldies even learn the name of one of these
> mechanisms, it's automatically old hat for the new generation (-:
>>
>>
>>>I don't hate people who use them, I just don't have time.
>>
>>
>>For me, no time *and* no interest.
>>
> Sometimes it's the only place to get the information. Yes, you can cut
> yourself off by not using, and we all do that in some walk of life or
> other (I avoid paying by direct debit where I can, for example), but far
> more to our own disadvantage than the organisation we dislike.
>>
>>
>>> But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>>> there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it.
>>
>>
>>I've never run into that.
>>
> Well, I'll repeat my example - XGODY, a SatNav (GPS) company, only
> release the URLs for their update map data via a FaceBook group you have
> to join.

I must have missed your example. I've never heard of XGODY.

>>
>>
>>> Like
>>> fobile moan app.s.
>>
>>
>>I've never run into that either.
>>
>>
> Sorry, UK humour. UK for what US calls a "cellular 'phone" is a "mobile
> 'phone". Or, for fun, a "fobile moan".

Yes, I understood the joke and knew you meant "mobile phone." All I
meant was that I've never run into information I could only get there.

--
Ken

On 3/31/2022 12:15 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 13:41:17, sidder@?.?.invalid wrote (my responses
> usually FOLLOW):
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> []
>>>But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>>>there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it. Like
>>>fobile moan app.s.
>>
>>"app.s"?
>
> I hate the 'word' "app";

I hate it too.

> it's short for application,

Yes.

> but actually means
> a program

No, it actually means an application program, as opposed to a utility
program.

> But it seems to have become generally used, to mean something
> you run on a fobile moan.

I dislike most abbreviations, but I especially dislike "app," because it
isn't always used to mean the same thing, and it's often unclear as to
what is meant. Sometimes someone uses it just to mean a smart phone
application program, sometimes an application program run on a desktop
or laptop computer, sometimes even a utility program. Sometimes even a
single person uses it inconsistently. I generally avoid using it all.

And speaking of commas, shouldn't it be omitted from your last sentence
above?

> But I reserve the right to leave in the full
> stop (period)

"Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term. If I
remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in "1066
and All That": "History came to a ."

> to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:

Thank you for not writing "acronym," a term that is almost universally
misused these days.

--
Ken

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| I actually don't hate FaceBook*, I just don't
| have the time), but when _companies_ start putting information _only_
| there, it's (some way down!) the slippery slope.
|

I'm afraid we're already way down that slope. The
Internet was going to give everyone a front door
on the world. Now young people find their lives hijacked.
They think the Internet is commercial services.
If people make websites at all it's Wix or Wordpress.
Usually they just have a Facebook page for small
businesses.

I saw an interview on the news the other day about
Etsy. Apparently the craftspeople are mad because Etsy
is raising costs and catering to commercial sellers over
craftspeople. (Printed t-shirts over home-made clothes,
for example.) The woman interviewed said that 5,000
sellers had signed a petition but that there was no reason
to think Etsy would care. They're learning a hard lesson:
By letting a corporation middleman their storefront they
gave away control, and will have no way to forward
customers to a website if they quit Etsy.

It's similar with Facebook, Instagram, etc. They've
become the medium of socializing for young people.
Not just a new way to connect. The only way to connect.

"pyotr filipivich" <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote

| Some times I find old friends, and well, all we have in common is
| something we were involved in 40 years ago, or that we once went to
| the same high school, or some similar part of what is a past life.
| | "Glory Days!..."

I haven't actually contacted old friends. I just look them up.
But actually, I don't usually find them. When I discovered
nitter.net with no hjavascript required I thought, "My,
how civilized!" I started looking people up. But the few I found
had no postings. They apparently just opened an account
and forgot about it.

On 2022-03-31 2:21 p.m., Paul wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 2:07 PM, s|b wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:11:08 +0100, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>
>>> There's little cost in creating a simple Facebook profile
>>
>> Like selling your soul to the devil.
>>
>
> "Facebook is asking people to submit their I.D.s to prove their accounts
> are real
>
> by Marie Edinger  January 4th 2019
>
> ...
>
> There are two groups for the types of id they ask for.
>
> In Group 1, acceptable forms of id include your birth certificate,
> driver's license, passport, green card, and several others.
>
> If you don't have any of those, some of the things Group 2 suggests
> you send include your social security card, a bank statement, or medical
> records.
>
> If you do upload any of those forms of ID, Facebook says
> it's encrypted and stored securely."
>
> Well, alrighty then. I'll get right on that.
>
>    Paul
>

1: I wouldn't upload a blank piece of paper to Facebook.
2: I have never used Facebook.
3: I will never use Facebook or its ilk...

Rene

On 3/31/2022 1:16 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "pyotr filipivich" <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote
>
> | Some times I find old friends, and well, all we have in common is
> | something we were involved in 40 years ago, or that we once went to
> | the same high school, or some similar part of what is a past life.
> |
> | "Glory Days!..."
>
> I haven't actually contacted old friends. I just look them up.
> But actually, I don't usually find them. When I discovered
> nitter.net with no hjavascript required I thought, "My,
> how civilized!" I started looking people up. But the few I found
> had no postings. They apparently just opened an account
> and forgot about it.

To change the subject somewhat, I've been trying to contact a second
cousin that I haven't heard from in years. He no longer lives where I
last knew where he lived, and none of the old e-mail addresses I have
for him work.

I'm not even sure he's still alive, but if he is, any suggestions on
finding an e-mail address for him?

--
Ken

>I'm not even sure he's still alive, but if he is, any suggestions on
>finding an e-mail address for him?

Search for >find email address for a person< I got some hits.
Probably as hard as phone number

KenW

"Ken Blake" <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote

| To change the subject somewhat, I've been trying to contact a second
| cousin that I haven't heard from in years. He no longer lives where I
| last knew where he lived, and none of the old e-mail addresses I have
| for him work.
| | I'm not even sure he's still alive, but if he is, any suggestions on
| finding an e-mail address for him?
|

That's a tough one. I found the phone number today for
a cousin. It was easy because his landline is listed.
whitepages.com. But I don't think I've ever seen an email
address listed, except for sites that want you to pay a
fee. Someone would probably have to be naive enough to post
their name and email on a webpage somewhere.

But if phone is good enough, you might be able to find that.
Most of these sites will show up in search. You seach for
John Q. Public and they list all matches in the US, with
age and location, as well as guesses at who they're related
to.

On 3/31/2022 3:24 PM, KenW wrote:
>
>>I'm not even sure he's still alive, but if he is, any suggestions on
>>finding an e-mail address for him?
>
> Search for >find email address for a person< I got some hits.
> Probably as hard as phone number

Yes,I should have said that I had tried that and similar searches. I
also get several hits, but none are him.

Ken

On 3/31/2022 4:24 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Ken Blake" <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
>
> | To change the subject somewhat, I've been trying to contact a second
> | cousin that I haven't heard from in years. He no longer lives where I
> | last knew where he lived, and none of the old e-mail addresses I have
> | for him work.
> |
> | I'm not even sure he's still alive, but if he is, any suggestions on
> | finding an e-mail address for him?
> |
>
> That's a tough one. I found the phone number today for
> a cousin. It was easy because his landline is listed.
> whitepages.com. But I don't think I've ever seen an email
> address listed, except for sites that want you to pay a
> fee. Someone would probably have to be naive enough to post
> their name and email on a webpage somewhere.
>
> But if phone is good enough, you might be able to find that.
> Most of these sites will show up in search. You seach for
> John Q. Public and they list all matches in the US, with
> age and location, as well as guesses at who they're related
> to.

Ye, I'd settle for a phone number. But when I try, I get hits that are
either for someone with a similar but wrong name, or old info.

--
Ken

Ken Blake wrote:

> To change the subject somewhat, I've been trying to contact a second
> cousin that I haven't heard from in years. He no longer lives where I
> last knew where he lived, and none of the old e-mail addresses I have
> for him work.
>
> I'm not even sure he's still alive, but if he is, any suggestions on
> finding an e-mail address for him?

Maybe a genealogy site might help. Some have free trials, but could be
too crippled to be of value. Likely you'll have to pay a monthly
subscription to get a far larger database to search, but you'll have to
pay for a month if the free trial is fruitless. While such sites try to
track your ancestry, I've never used one to see if they include contact
information, like postal addresses, phone numbers, and so on. However,
they might give info regarding family members either side of the cousin
to do searches on their contact info.

Before wasting time doing all that, is the family around the cousin
still alive? You didn't mention if 1st, 2nd, 3rd cousin, or other types
of cousins. If a 1st cousin, you could try calling your father, your
monther, your uncle, your aunt, your grandparents, or the cousin's
children to see if they have contact info on the cousin. You don't
know, but maybe someone in your family does.

In article <t24t00$1arb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> > > It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post
> >
> >> No, it isn't possible.
> >
> > yes it is.
>
> Seeing thay you have ignored my explanation to why I think it isn't as well
> as having provided zilch in regard to why you think otherwise I have little
> other choice than to ignore that. Funny how that works ...

i haven't ignored anything, and what matters are the facts, not what
you think.

it *is* possible to view some facebook content via a direct link
*without* logging in, however, most people don't provide such a link.

i don't know why you continue to argue that it's not possible when it
is.

> > if the content is not public, you should see a login page.
>
> Someone else mentioned that too. I already replied to him about it.

they mentioned it because that's how facebook works.

the only way to verify if someone is entitled to see non-public content
is by logging in. this is not a difficult concept.

> > your browser is either misconfigured or not supported.
>
> On what grounds did you determine that ?...

that you're seeing raw javascript.

if you did so deliberately expecting to find the post buried within it,
then you're even more lost than originally thought.

> > did you disable javascript?
>
> ... Oh wait, you didn't.
>
> And how is that relevant ? My browser doesn't do javascript. Thats all you
> need to know.

it's relevant because facebook relies on a modern browser with
javascript enabled.

if whatever unnamed browser that you're too embarrassed to say what it
is does not meet their requirement, then you are going to have numerous
problems. that's all you need to know.

> > what browser are you using?
>
> Again, how is that relevant ?

it's relevant because facebook does not support older browsers, nor do
a lot of other sites for that matter.

if whatever unnamed browser you're using is unsupported, which based on
your description, it's not, then you are going to have problems and not
just with facebook either.

> Kid, you are concentrating on solving problems I *do not* have, instead of
> trying to solve the one I *do* have.

do not call me kid and you were given solutions, at least for facebook.

In article <t24td6$1gm0$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

>
> > because some people who post content have restricted it to be
> > visible only by certain people and the only way to verify that
> > is by logging in.
>
> Kid, you're concentrating on what *isn't* possible, instead of focussing on
> what *is* - and how to do it.

do not call me kid and your statement is false. several people have
told you what your options are.

> As such you are not really helpfull (understatement).

as such you do not actually want help. you're simply trolling.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:15:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 13:41:17, sidder@?.?.invalid wrote (my responses
>usually FOLLOW):
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>[]
>>>But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>>>there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it. Like
>>>fobile moan app.s.
>>
>>"app.s"?
>
>I hate the 'word' "app"; it's short for application, but actually means
>a program. But it seems to have become generally used, to mean something
>you run on a fobile moan.

So far, so good.

>But I reserve the right to leave in the full
>stop (period) to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:

That must be a British English thing. I don't think we use periods in
that way, (within a set of characters), on this side of the pond. BTW,
app isn't actually an abbreviation, it's a word.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:21:44 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 3/31/2022 2:07 PM, s|b wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:11:08 +0100, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>
>>> There's little cost in creating a simple Facebook profile
>>
>> Like selling your soul to the devil.
>>
>
>"Facebook is asking people to submit their I.D.s to prove their accounts are real
>
>by Marie Edinger January 4th 2019
>
>...
>
>There are two groups for the types of id they ask for.
>
>In Group 1, acceptable forms of id include your birth certificate,
>driver's license, passport, green card, and several others.
>
>If you don't have any of those, some of the things Group 2 suggests
>you send include your social security card, a bank statement, or medical records.
>
>If you do upload any of those forms of ID, Facebook says
>it's encrypted and stored securely."
>
>Well, alrighty then. I'll get right on that.
>
> Paul

If they ever do that to my dog, we will send his AKC papers, county
license and vaccination record.
They love him tho. He clicks on lots of stuff and even buys something
now and then. Even a stupid AI program would trip on his profile but
he is still in good standing. They did have him in the cone of shame
for a week because he barked out something insensitive about woke
people.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 22:03:13 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>it *is* possible to view some facebook content via a direct link
>*without* logging in, however, most people don't provide such a link.

I agree with that. I see facebook links on some net groups that go
directly to the content without a log in screen. I don't know how to
do it tho. I don't ever link Facebook content. This thread explains
why.
I'm an adult. I buy web space for my content.