Sally Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:28:06 +0100, Sacha wrote
(in article . com):


Janet Baraclough wrote:
snip

snip

One way to avoid that is to auto-mark your posts "X-no-archive-yes",
which prevents them appearing at all on gardenbanter. They will appear
on google-groups for seven days only (enabling those who use it as a
usenet access to read and reply).

I had that set up when I had a PC but am unsure as to how to do it with
a Mac. Anyone who knows will be warmly thanked by me if they can
explain it in words of one syllable!

It isn't particularly the Mac versus the PC, it is something you need to set
in your newsreader. Since we use different ones I can't help, but I suggest
you have a rummage in the Preferences or look at the various tools in the
menus. Failing that g there is probably a (sssshhh) web forum for your
particular software, or you could ask on comp.sys.mac.apps - they are pretty
helpful there.


Thanks, Sally. And I love Tiger, BTW! ;-)
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

"Janet Baraclough" wrote after"Bob Hobden" said

Actually Phil I have been seriously thinking about doing the same.
A couple of recent posts via GB got me thinking that way, still not sure
if
they were "wind ups" or not.

I'm pretty sure the one who (after lots of effort iinput by urg)
recently declined to answer your perfectly polite and reasonable
question (twice) was a wind up..there was a lot else in their posts that
made no sense. There appear to be an increasing number of trolls (the
spate of cod "university research" was an example) using gardenbanter as
cover :-(

Chris Bacon has just alerted me to the fact that despite
gardenbanters promise to conceal posters' email addresses (from their
post headers), in the case of usenet posters it doesn't honour the
promise.
IOW, those here using real email contact addresses are having them
permanently recorded on a commercial website; a valuable commercial
resource to the website and its advertisers.

One way to avoid that is to auto-mark your posts "X-no-archive-yes",
which prevents them appearing at all on gardenbanter. They will appear
on google-groups for seven days only (enabling those who use it as a
usenet access to read and reply).

Thanks Janet, not only do they ponce on URG but they ignore their own rules
too where we are concerned.
Anyone know how I "auto" that "X-no-archive-yes" in OE? Can it be in the
sig?

--
Regards
Bob
"Never get so busy making a living
that you forget to make a life"

Janet Baraclough wrote:
Chris Bacon has just alerted me to the fact that despite
gardenbanters promise to conceal posters' email addresses (from their
post headers), in the case of usenet posters it doesn't honour the
promise.

Could you point me to where it says that? I'd be interested
to see the wording.


IOW, those here using real email contact addresses are having them
permanently recorded on a commercial website; a valuable commercial
resource to the website and its advertisers.

One way to avoid that is to auto-mark your posts "X-no-archive-yes",
which prevents them appearing at all on gardenbanter. They will appear
on google-groups for seven days only (enabling those who use it as a
usenet access to read and reply).

This, to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource. Setting xna=y
reduces the effectiveness of this resource (although quoted
xna=y messages are still stored, which is most of them).
There are other, less well-known sites that do not take
notice of the xna=y request, as well.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...

This, to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource.


Only for those who are in search of arcane information that's
not readily available from any other source. Books or the
internet. I personally find the archive invaluable for tips
and workarounds on obsolete hardware and software, for
instance.

However IME, on most topics around 75% of the replies to any question
posted on Usenet will either be totally irellevant, wrong headed,
or deliberately misleading in any case.

While at a guess around 80% of the information posted on gardening
Newsgroups could probably be found elsewhere. In books or on the
net. And of the information posted, around 50% is largely a matter
of opinion based solely on subjective experience in any case.
This doesn't necessarily make it any the less valid, but its
hardly the most authoratitive source of information on
most topics, for a start.


michael adams

....

Setting xna=y
reduces the effectiveness of this resource (although quoted
xna=y messages are still stored, which is most of them).
There are other, less well-known sites that do not take
notice of the xna=y request, as well.

Chris Bacon wrote:
Janet Baraclough wrote:
snip

One way to avoid that is to auto-mark your posts "X-no-archive-yes",
which prevents them appearing at all on gardenbanter. They will appear
on google-groups for seven days only (enabling those who use it as a
usenet access to read and reply).

This, to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource. Setting xna=y
reduces the effectiveness of this resource (although quoted
xna=y messages are still stored, which is most of them).
There are other, less well-known sites that do not take
notice of the xna=y request, as well.

That's certainly a pov but I know others, journalists among them, who
think Google are riding for a massive fall over copyright, potentially.
There is also a problem in that anyone can say anything that libels or
defames another and it is there, forever, possibly to be taken up and
used in future as an authoritative source of information. I have had
to take legal steps over an American nutcase who tried that with me and
one of my family and even on here, someone has defamed me in such a way
that is both untrue and potentially harmful to my husband's business.
I have no idea how it would work or even if it could work, but IMO, it
would be better if newsgroups could maintain their own archives and
have a sort of 'librarian' moderator who would weed out those that are
clearly libelous or defamatory. But as I say, that may be impossible.

Certainly, I object very strongly to Garden Banter taking my answers
here and using them for their own benefit without permission or even a
by your leave.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Certainly, I object very strongly to Garden Banter taking my answers
here and using them for their own benefit without permission or even a
by your leave.
--
Sacha

Why?

What you post here is public and world wide. Why should Gardenbanter be
refused to publish your comments? You do NOT have copyright on anything said
on these newsgroups. If you wish to keep your comments/advice as answers to
that person only, use an email and not a public domain. Whilst I appreciate
that you feel uk.reg.gardening as your own, I have explained before that
your kissy kissy comments and long conversation with your 'friends' could
very well have gone to email

Mike

michael adams wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...

This, to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource.


Only for those who are in search of arcane information that's
not readily available from any other source. Books or the
internet. I personally find the archive invaluable for tips
and workarounds on obsolete hardware and software, for
instance.

However IME, on most topics around 75% of the replies to any question
posted on Usenet will either be totally irellevant, wrong headed,
or deliberately misleading in any case.

While at a guess around 80% of the information posted on gardening
Newsgroups could probably be found elsewhere. In books or on the
net. And of the information posted, around 50% is largely a matter
of opinion based solely on subjective experience in any case.
This doesn't necessarily make it any the less valid, but its
hardly the most authoratitive source of information on
most topics, for a start.

I do agree with this, in the main. I use Google but rarely use
newsgroup archives for all the reasons you've cited. One has only to
look at the trolls we've had and still have in here and the seriously
dodgy 'information' some people have handed out, to realise how
potentially damaging archive use could be.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

"Sacha" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have no idea how it would work or even if it could work, but IMO, it
would be better if newsgroups could maintain their own archives and
have a sort of 'librarian' moderator who would weed out those that are
clearly libelous or defamatory. But as I say, that may be impossible.


Look at it another way. Once you start moderating, then you potentially
become responsible for whats left, and also for whats been removed or has
not been removed. By leaving it alone, and archiving everything, you dont
have responsibility, since you are just a 'robotic' archiver. I think there
was a very recent court case against google that backed up this POV.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

michael adams wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
This [xna=y], to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource.

Only for those who are in search of arcane information that's
not readily available from any other source. Books or the
internet.

It's several times easier and quicker finding info. from
searching Usenet than looking things up in books, even
if you think you've got the right book (somewhere!).

That's not to say that books aren't useful.

Sacha wrote:
I'd guess that sooner or later, Google is going to be sued for
promoting the spread of libel or misinformation, or both.

Interesting theory - however, Google took over the Deja news
archive, and has, as far as I'm aware, an archive that goes
back about a quarter of a century, containing many millions
of posts. Many of these posts are from one of the most
litigious countries in the world. I wouldn't your breath!

Chris Bacon wrote:
Sacha wrote:
I'd guess that sooner or later, Google is going to be sued for
promoting the spread of libel or misinformation, or both.

Interesting theory - however, Google took over the Deja news
archive, and has, as far as I'm aware, an archive that goes
back about a quarter of a century, containing many millions
of posts. Many of these posts are from one of the most
litigious countries in the world. I wouldn't your breath!

If you do a Google search (oh, the irony of it!) on Google sued or
Google libel, you will get dozens of hits which show that Google must
have a legal department of some size and complexity! People are sueing
or trying to sue Google all the time, it seems. The cases are widely
varied.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Chris Bacon wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
This [xna=y], to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource.

Only for those who are in search of arcane information that's
not readily available from any other source. Books or the
internet.

It's several times easier and quicker finding info. from
searching Usenet than looking things up in books, even
if you think you've got the right book (somewhere!).

That's not to say that books aren't useful.

Interesting: I've met this before. I wonder if it's as much a
psychological difference as a practical one, since I'm a bookworm by
nature and find books vastly quicker. I do enjoy doing web searches, and
discussing things with people on line, but printed dead trees are my
instinctive first choice. I'm also more inclined to _believe_ what I
read in a reference book

--
Mike.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Chris Bacon wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
This [xna=y], to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource.

Only for those who are in search of arcane information that's
not readily available from any other source. Books or the
internet.

It's several times easier and quicker finding info. from
searching Usenet than looking things up in books, even
if you think you've got the right book (somewhere!).

That's not to say that books aren't useful.

Interesting: I've met this before. I wonder if it's as much a
psychological difference as a practical one, since I'm a bookworm by
nature and find books vastly quicker. I do enjoy doing web searches, and
discussing things with people on line, but printed dead trees are my
instinctive first choice. I'm also more inclined to _believe_ what I
read in a reference book

--
Mike.



Although it's always fun to disagree with you I admit that I do agree with
your comments.
The validity of information can usually be related to its provenance .
Reference books by definition have a good provenance whereas any idiot can
give a seemingly authoritative opinion on anything when using the web.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
This [xna=y], to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource.

Only for those who are in search of arcane information that's
not readily available from any other source. Books or the
internet.

It's several times easier and quicker finding info. from
searching Usenet than looking things up in books, even
if you think you've got the right book (somewhere!).

That's not to say that books aren't useful.

Too true Chris. I have almost stopped buying reference books about anything. The
web is so much handier.

Of course books are nice but if you just want one tiny bit of info the web is
far better,

Jenny

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Chris Bacon wrote:
It's several times easier and quicker finding info. from
searching Usenet than looking things up in books, even
if you think you've got the right book (somewhere!).

That's not to say that books aren't useful.

Interesting: I've met this before. I wonder if it's as much a
psychological difference as a practical one, since I'm a bookworm by
nature and find books vastly quicker. I do enjoy doing web searches, and
discussing things with people on line, but printed dead trees are my
instinctive first choice. I'm also more inclined to _believe_ what I
read in a reference book
Mike.

Why should it be true on a printed page and not on a virtual one?

I tend to look at at least three sites to judge the validity of the info.
Jenny :~))