Not@home said:

Sheldon wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:00?pm, "Not@home" wrote:
I agree that one should look in the newsgroup before posting, but the
unfortunate fact is that usenet is falling into disuse, as most people
find a web search a more efficient way of finding information.

Nonsense.

Searching this Newsgroup for compost results in many relevant
threads that have been discussed here, many recently. SteveB has
proven that he is an extremely otiose obnoxious small minded infantile
troll.

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups

The nonsense is that you are advocating doing a web based search using
google, when you apparently think you are doing a usenet search. In
other words, if google didn't copy the usenet posts into their website,
you wouldn't find them. Usenet and the web were, and are, separate
entities, and you can still use usenet exclusively using a reader,
rather than a web browser.


When Google took over the DejaNews archive, it had the potential to be a
good thing. When Google tried to make it look like The USENET was something
they came up with on their own ( Google Groups), they blew it. The
interface blows, and the formatting of replies, likewise.

Still, it's the largest archive that I know of, that's readily accessable.
IMO, it's the best way to search for posts on The USENET.

[...]

Unfortunately, apparently using newsgroups is not practiced by many
people any more, so many browsers now are published without a reader
component, and many ISPs are no longer carrying usenet. I started years
ago with the boards, and usenet seemed a natural progression; but none
of my three kids spends any time on usenet. I guess thats progress.

Mine also don't spend time on here, and that's probably, in large part, my
fault. I don't point them to it. In my defense, my son's biggest interest
is sports, and The Internet is probably better suited to that topic.


I agree with your evaluation of the OP; he is here (but not, thank
goodness, in recent days) only to function as a troll. When I posted a
non-flattering response to him, he of course responded with what he
thought was a witty riposte. He was half-right.

I saw that, and thought the same thing. As a troll, though, he caught at
least a dozen regulars, in this thread. Even some who claimed to be
long-time USENET users (yet top-post their replies, which I found quite
odd).


When I posted in the same thread later, he accused me of morphing to
evade the filter he had set. The problem was I had not morphed and was
using the same identifying data, so apparently he cannot even set a
filter without assistance.

LOL

--

Eggs

Did Noah keep his bees in archives?

On Nov 9, 12:04?pm, "Not@home" wrote:
Sheldon wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:00?pm, "Not@home" wrote:
I agree that one should look in the newsgroup before posting, but the
unfortunate fact is that usenet is falling into disuse, as most people
find a web search a more efficient way of finding information.

Nonsense.

Searching this Newsgroup for compost results in many relevant
threads that have been discussed here, many recently. SteveB has
proven that he is an extremely otiose obnoxious small minded infantile
troll.

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups

The nonsense is that you are advocating doing a web based search using
google, when you apparently think you are doing a usenet search.

What are you mumbling about, that search brought up only relevant
Usenet Newsgroup posts. Of course one can search the web for Usenet
Newsgroup posts too but searching with Google Newsgroups is far more
succinct, not necessary to wade throught all the web based sites. You
obviously haven't a clue about how to search.

Eggs Zachtly wrote:
Not@home said:

Sheldon wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:00?pm, "Not@home" wrote:
I agree that one should look in the newsgroup before posting, but the
unfortunate fact is that usenet is falling into disuse, as most people
find a web search a more efficient way of finding information.
Nonsense.

Searching this Newsgroup for compost results in many relevant
threads that have been discussed here, many recently. SteveB has
proven that he is an extremely otiose obnoxious small minded infantile
troll.

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups

The nonsense is that you are advocating doing a web based search using
google, when you apparently think you are doing a usenet search. In
other words, if google didn't copy the usenet posts into their website,
you wouldn't find them. Usenet and the web were, and are, separate
entities, and you can still use usenet exclusively using a reader,
rather than a web browser.


When Google took over the DejaNews archive, it had the potential to be a
good thing. When Google tried to make it look like The USENET was something
they came up with on their own ( Google Groups), they blew it. The
interface blows, and the formatting of replies, likewise.

Still, it's the largest archive that I know of, that's readily accessable.
IMO, it's the best way to search for posts on The USENET.


That sums up that transaction pretty well. It is a shame.. But still the
best place to search archived posts.

It's too bad archive.org doesn't cover usenet. Oh well, at least you can
see what websites looked like when they started..

Sheldon wrote:
On Nov 9, 12:04?pm, "Not@home" wrote:
Sheldon wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:00?pm, "Not@home" wrote:
I agree that one should look in the newsgroup before posting, but the
unfortunate fact is that usenet is falling into disuse, as most people
find a web search a more efficient way of finding information.
Nonsense.
Searching this Newsgroup for compost results in many relevant
threads that have been discussed here, many recently. SteveB has
proven that he is an extremely otiose obnoxious small minded infantile
troll.
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups
The nonsense is that you are advocating doing a web based search using
google, when you apparently think you are doing a usenet search.

What are you mumbling about, that search brought up only relevant
Usenet Newsgroup posts. Of course one can search the web for Usenet
Newsgroup posts too but searching with Google Newsgroups is far more
succinct, not necessary to wade throught all the web based sites. You
obviously haven't a clue about how to search.



Umm, yeah, that's usenet results with a little google crap tossed in.

Actually google is a useful tool and much more than just websites anymore..

Has anyone tried digging through the books they have online? Some of
which are full versions which are no longer in print.

http://books.google.com/books?as_q=c...rr=1&as_drrb=c

The above is a search for composting, limited to books with full views -
not just the preview crap.

Just check the labs for all they're working on..

http://labs.google.com/

There is more to google than just the net..

In article ,
Scott Hildenbrand wrote:

Eggs Zachtly wrote:
Not@home said:

Sheldon wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:00?pm, "Not@home" wrote:
I agree that one should look in the newsgroup before posting, but the
unfortunate fact is that usenet is falling into disuse, as most people
find a web search a more efficient way of finding information.
Nonsense.

Searching this Newsgroup for compost results in many relevant
threads that have been discussed here, many recently. SteveB has
proven that he is an extremely otiose obnoxious small minded infantile
troll.

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups

The nonsense is that you are advocating doing a web based search using
google, when you apparently think you are doing a usenet search. In
other words, if google didn't copy the usenet posts into their website,
you wouldn't find them. Usenet and the web were, and are, separate
entities, and you can still use usenet exclusively using a reader,
rather than a web browser.


When Google took over the DejaNews archive, it had the potential to be a
good thing. When Google tried to make it look like The USENET was something
they came up with on their own ( Google Groups), they blew it. The
interface blows, and the formatting of replies, likewise.

Still, it's the largest archive that I know of, that's readily accessable.
IMO, it's the best way to search for posts on The USENET.


That sums up that transaction pretty well. It is a shame.. But still the
best place to search archived posts.

It's too bad archive.org doesn't cover usenet. Oh well, at least you can
see what websites looked like when they started..

http://www.google.com/search?q=Wayback+machine

--

S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
http://www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid

Scott Hildenbrand said:

Eggs Zachtly wrote:
Not@home said:

Sheldon wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:00?pm, "Not@home" wrote:
I agree that one should look in the newsgroup before posting, but the
unfortunate fact is that usenet is falling into disuse, as most people
find a web search a more efficient way of finding information.
Nonsense.

Searching this Newsgroup for compost results in many relevant
threads that have been discussed here, many recently. SteveB has
proven that he is an extremely otiose obnoxious small minded infantile
troll.

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups

The nonsense is that you are advocating doing a web based search using
google, when you apparently think you are doing a usenet search. In
other words, if google didn't copy the usenet posts into their website,
you wouldn't find them. Usenet and the web were, and are, separate
entities, and you can still use usenet exclusively using a reader,
rather than a web browser.

When Google took over the DejaNews archive, it had the potential to be a
good thing. When Google tried to make it look like The USENET was something
they came up with on their own ( Google Groups), they blew it. The
interface blows, and the formatting of replies, likewise.

Still, it's the largest archive that I know of, that's readily accessable.
IMO, it's the best way to search for posts on The USENET.

That sums up that transaction pretty well. It is a shame.. But still the
best place to search archived posts.

The other POS website that ports to The USENET is gardenbanter.uk. Good
grief that interface is almost as eff'd as G2. It censors posts, borks
quotes, won't allow referencing MID's (even when they're relevant to the
subject at hand, and I'm pretty sure I've seen it try and add tags for
images and text formatting. It's joined G2 as a permanent resident in my
killfile.

They *all* fail miserably at trying to make The USENET another lame, web
forum.


It's too bad archive.org doesn't cover usenet. Oh well, at least you can
see what websites looked like when they started..

Heh. Ya, that's a good time-waster. =)

--

Eggs

-Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.

William Wagner wrote:
In article ,
Scott Hildenbrand wrote:

Eggs Zachtly wrote:
Not@home said:

Sheldon wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:00?pm, "Not@home" wrote:
I agree that one should look in the newsgroup before posting, but the
unfortunate fact is that usenet is falling into disuse, as most people
find a web search a more efficient way of finding information.
Nonsense.

Searching this Newsgroup for compost results in many relevant
threads that have been discussed here, many recently. SteveB has
proven that he is an extremely otiose obnoxious small minded infantile
troll.

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups

The nonsense is that you are advocating doing a web based search using
google, when you apparently think you are doing a usenet search. In
other words, if google didn't copy the usenet posts into their website,
you wouldn't find them. Usenet and the web were, and are, separate
entities, and you can still use usenet exclusively using a reader,
rather than a web browser.

When Google took over the DejaNews archive, it had the potential to be a
good thing. When Google tried to make it look like The USENET was something
they came up with on their own ( Google Groups), they blew it. The
interface blows, and the formatting of replies, likewise.

Still, it's the largest archive that I know of, that's readily accessable.
IMO, it's the best way to search for posts on The USENET.

That sums up that transaction pretty well. It is a shame.. But still the
best place to search archived posts.

It's too bad archive.org doesn't cover usenet. Oh well, at least you can
see what websites looked like when they started..

http://www.google.com/search?q=Wayback+machine


Wayback machine (archive.org) does not cover usenet.

Eggs Zachtly wrote:
Scott Hildenbrand said:

Eggs Zachtly wrote:
Not@home said:

Sheldon wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:00?pm, "Not@home" wrote:
I agree that one should look in the newsgroup before posting, but the
unfortunate fact is that usenet is falling into disuse, as most people
find a web search a more efficient way of finding information.
Nonsense.

Searching this Newsgroup for compost results in many relevant
threads that have been discussed here, many recently. SteveB has
proven that he is an extremely otiose obnoxious small minded infantile
troll.

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups

The nonsense is that you are advocating doing a web based search using
google, when you apparently think you are doing a usenet search. In
other words, if google didn't copy the usenet posts into their website,
you wouldn't find them. Usenet and the web were, and are, separate
entities, and you can still use usenet exclusively using a reader,
rather than a web browser.
When Google took over the DejaNews archive, it had the potential to be a
good thing. When Google tried to make it look like The USENET was something
they came up with on their own ( Google Groups), they blew it. The
interface blows, and the formatting of replies, likewise.

Still, it's the largest archive that I know of, that's readily accessable.
IMO, it's the best way to search for posts on The USENET.
That sums up that transaction pretty well. It is a shame.. But still the
best place to search archived posts.

The other POS website that ports to The USENET is gardenbanter.uk. Good
grief that interface is almost as eff'd as G2. It censors posts, borks
quotes, won't allow referencing MID's (even when they're relevant to the
subject at hand, and I'm pretty sure I've seen it try and add tags for
images and text formatting. It's joined G2 as a permanent resident in my
killfile.

They *all* fail miserably at trying to make The USENET another lame, web
forum.

It's too bad archive.org doesn't cover usenet. Oh well, at least you can
see what websites looked like when they started..

Heh. Ya, that's a good time-waster. =)




All that gardenbanter site is is a module for VB which sucks nntp posts
into a forum. It's worthless.. The only thing it's goot for is
attracting traffic to them which they intern make adsense revenue off of.

As far as it being worth messing around with as an alternative to using
nttp software.. Naaaa..

"Hettie®" wrote in message
...


SteveB wrote:
Why doesn't everyone just Google everything?

I mean, there are people who vehemently believe that EVERY QUESTION IN
THE KNOWN UNIVERSE can be answered by Googling.

I think not because some questions humans do not have the answers for yet,
nor do computers either duh. You have to know some tricks about framing
your search and how to use the advanced search function which doesn't seem
to work as well as it did before for me; others may know something about
that I don't. I use google all the time. Sometimes it is very helpful,
and sometimes it is useless because it spits back too many results to sift
through, plus you have to use some discernment because there is a lot of
disinformation out there, well usenet has its share of that, too.

Google can't seem to archive subpages of many websites, probably can't
keep up. The cached feature is nice at times. So many searches for
products or info you have to go to a specific website and use their search
engine (which often don't work very well, won't search for exact phrases,
etc.).

At least you can't get flamed by google. Yet.


Ergo: Usenet Newsgroups are useless and pointless. Mental masturbation.
Pointless discussion by inferior human beings who don't know everything,
yet like to talk about their lack of education, knowledge, refinement and
culture.

I just don't get it.

Some groups are what you say and worse, but I don't get the point of your
post really, other than to put down others. If the discussions are
pointless and subhuman, why read them? There are many educated,
knowledgeable, refined, and cultured people on usenet, many the opposite,
and some in between. Usenet can be a valuable resource. I search the
archives all the time. But they have changed the links to get to them a
few times. But that's the beauty of usenet. I can ask on a group, not
sure which one, if anybody has a link to the current url for google
archives.

I plead guilty to jumping in and asking a quetion (as a poster mentioned
on another thread) without looking through a myriad of threads for the
same one that has already been asked recently. I only dl so many, and
headers can be misleading, plus there is the general topic and sometimes
the discussion veers off into something else.

There are many intelligent, helpful people on usenet, and nothing beats
being able to interact with another human than with a server somewhere.
You can get answers really fast sometimes on usenet, too, that you could
do umpteen searches on google and maybe finally dig out or not. I can't
tell you how many times people have steered me to the right website.

Somebody here identified a plant for me, a bird somewhere else, help with
computer problems, etc., etc., etc., and I posted a photo of an arbor I
had searched and searched for using google. They had seen kits for one.
I did have to google some more, but I finally found it. Once I had a name
for the model(s), I could find it in a snap. I can't find this certain
purple aster I'd like by googling. It would be hard to describe. The
petals are like fringe only upright. I found a similar one but has white
around the edges.

If you happen to be expert or knowledgeable on a certain subject, its
generous of people to be willing to share that knowledge and be helpful to
others.

For the answer to that, I'll have to ask the lady who brought one to a
meeting (she won a prize for it, I just want it because it is pretty and
would work well in a new garden area I'm planning) and hope she remembers
the name of it.


Steve ;-)

Maybe you are just bored and want to yank a few chains? ;-)

thanks for the great post.

"David Hare-Scott" wrote

In the composting thread I stayed away from the argument over form,
approach
and style. I thought it possible that you deserved the benefit of the
doubt,
you might be genuine but caught up in a silly ****ing competition that
neither
you nor some regular curmudgeons knew how to end.

Now you produce a new thread with no on-topic content simply to
re-energize
the argument. You have removed the doubt - now you are just trolling.

David


My purpose both times was to stimulate discussion. I think I have done
that.

Steve