That everything posted here shows up on gardenbanter.co.uk? At least they do
attribute the posts to r.g.e and the original author .
I did a web search a little while ago on "mattie beane beans" and was very
surprised to find my posts here on their website .
--
Snag

On 11/06/2015 2:44 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
That everything posted here shows up on gardenbanter.co.uk?

Yes.

It's been that way for a very, very long time and that is also why there
have been many comments made by people here about gardenbanter and how
we are unable to see pics that are attached if people post through
gardenbanter.

Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/06/2015 2:44 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
That everything posted here shows up on gardenbanter.co.uk?

Yes.

It's been that way for a very, very long time and that is also why
there have been many comments made by people here about gardenbanter
and how we are unable to see pics that are attached if people post
through gardenbanter.

I was just wondering , if I were to add a copyright statement about no
reproduction of my posts without my permission , ya think they'd honor that
?

--
Snag

In article
"Terry Coombs" writes:
That everything posted here shows up on gardenbanter.co.uk? At least they do
attribute the posts to r.g.e and the original author .

There are many Usenet mirror sites out there. It is fusttrating
when searching for something and just finding the same text on 17
different sites.

I did a web search a little while ago on "mattie beane beans" and was very
surprised to find my posts here on their website .
--
Snag




--
Drew Lawson Some men's dreams
for others turn to nightmares.
I never would have thought this
in my wildest dreams.

In article
"Terry Coombs" writes:
Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/06/2015 2:44 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
That everything posted here shows up on gardenbanter.co.uk?

Yes.

It's been that way for a very, very long time and that is also why
there have been many comments made by people here about gardenbanter
and how we are unable to see pics that are attached if people post
through gardenbanter.

I was just wondering , if I were to add a copyright statement about no
reproduction of my posts without my permission , ya think they'd honor that
?

Usenet works by copying posts from one host to another, to another,
and so forth. If you do not want your words copied, do not post
them to Usenet.


--
Drew Lawson Some men's dreams
for others turn to nightmares.
I never would have thought this
in my wildest dreams.

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:44:27 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

That everything posted here shows up on gardenbanter.co.uk? At least they do
attribute the posts to r.g.e and the original author .
I did a web search a little while ago on "mattie beane beans" and was very
surprised to find my posts here on their website .

When Usenet was in its heyday, there were any number of sites that
just lifted an entire group and tossed it into a forum format. Now
that Usenet has waned, there are many fewer of these - a handful here
and there.

Boron

On 11/06/2015 10:26 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/06/2015 2:44 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
That everything posted here shows up on gardenbanter.co.uk?

Yes.

It's been that way for a very, very long time and that is also why
there have been many comments made by people here about gardenbanter
and how we are unable to see pics that are attached if people post
through gardenbanter.

I was just wondering , if I were to add a copyright statement about no
reproduction of my posts without my permission , ya think they'd honor that
?

:-)) I'd say there is fat chance of gardenbanter honouring anything.

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 08:26:08 -0500, phorbin
wrote:

In article ,
says...

I assure you Google will maintain Groups only so long as they can
monetize it in some way. They have been derelict in their initial
promises to maintain old Deja as an archive and continue such a
function once they took it over

They blew the whole database to hell when they tried to import it.

Those of us who had email accounts on Deja (once Dejanews; a superior archive
that threaded posts as a newsreader does) received an embarrassed note from
google saying that they'd lost it all.

I had the impression at the time that google didn't want to give the data room
on their servers.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


They actually held it together decently the first few years and had a
semi-decent search capability.

I do not think anything was lost by accident, I truly believe they
wanted to shift Usenet, which actually had a few posters in those
days, to Google Groups, so made Usenet less and less usable. Google
had and has enough storage for anything it can make a profit from.

But what do I know? I was just an observer.

In article ,
says...

I assure you Google will maintain Groups only so long as they can
monetize it in some way. They have been derelict in their initial
promises to maintain old Deja as an archive and continue such a
function once they took it over

They blew the whole database to hell when they tried to import it.

Those of us who had email accounts on Deja (once Dejanews; a superior archive
that threaded posts as a newsreader does) received an embarrassed note from
google saying that they'd lost it all.

I had the impression at the time that google didn't want to give the data room
on their servers.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 08:26:08 -0500, phorbin
wrote:

In article ,
says...

I assure you Google will maintain Groups only so long as they can
monetize it in some way. They have been derelict in their initial
promises to maintain old Deja as an archive and continue such a
function once they took it over

They blew the whole database to hell when they tried to import it.

Those of us who had email accounts on Deja (once Dejanews; a superior archive
that threaded posts as a newsreader does) received an embarrassed note from
google saying that they'd lost it all.

I had the impression at the time that google didn't want to give the data room
on their servers.

---


They actually held it together decently the first few years and had a
semi-decent search capability.

As far as I know, that came after the loss of the Dejanews archive.

....It started as a 'port of Dejanews butwas never as functional. Dejanews was
structured around being a useful tool.

As an activist type I was exhorting google to do it right and they were giving
members of Deja/Dejanews updates on the transfer process.

'Gone' was the word I recall being used to describe the data.

Incompetents was the word I remember thinking.

I do not think anything was lost by accident, I truly believe they
wanted to shift Usenet, which actually had a few posters in those
days, to Google Groups, so made Usenet less and less usable. Google
had and has enough storage for anything it can make a profit from.

But what do I know? I was just an observer.

I could say the same about being an observer but I'll submit that observers who
understand nuanced language and corporate and individual behaviour can make
some pretty accurate guesses. -- It was certainly clear that something had gone
wrong before they owned up to it.

I'm not prepared to suggest that google destroyed an archive of a generation's
communication on purpose, but they destroyed an archive of a generation's
communication nonetheless...


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus