OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

Some posters are now choosing to have their posts automatically
removed from the group after so many days.
Am I alone in regretting this?
We appear to be eroding one of the most valuable assests of the group
- its history, and the very real chance of being able to find a
solution by searching instead of by posting.
I wonder if a poster who chooses this mode could explain why they do ?
When the OP's post disappears, then it is really crazy.

This applies to all groups, of course; I post it here as a regular and
grateful reader and an occassional poster.
Save Our Archives !

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

"Rob" wrote...
Some posters are now choosing to have their posts automatically
removed from the group after so many days.
Am I alone in regretting this?
We appear to be eroding one of the most valuable assests of the group
- its history, and the very real chance of being able to find a
solution by searching instead of by posting.
I wonder if a poster who chooses this mode could explain why they do ?
When the OP's post disappears, then it is really crazy.

This applies to all groups, of course; I post it here as a regular and
grateful reader and an occassional poster.
Save Our Archives !

Maybe it's because of the use of this Newsgroup and all the free knowledge
in it by commercial sites like Gardenbanter. I know that annoys a lot of
people (including me). Yet others don't want their posts archived in Google
for eternity.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

On Aug 13, 1:06*pm, Rob wrote:
Some posters are now choosing to have their posts automatically
removed from the group after so many days.
Am I alone in regretting this?
We appear to be eroding one of the most valuable assests of the group
- its history, and the very real chance of being able to find a
solution by searching instead of by posting.
I wonder if a poster who chooses this mode could explain why they do ?
When the OP's post disappears, then it is really crazy.

This applies to all groups, of course; I post it here as a regular and
grateful reader and an occassional poster.
Save Our Archives !

I take your point Rob, a lot of people withdraw their posts, I'm not
too sure why. There are many posts that I have made in the past and
wished I hadn't but looking back, at the time, the posting was apt,
things and people move on though, fortunately.

Judith

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:06:47 -0700 (PDT), Rob wrote:

Some posters are now choosing to have their posts automatically
removed from the group after so many days.

How do they do this ? I can't see that it's possible.
--
Regards,

Hugh Jampton

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Some posters are now choosing to have their posts automatically
removed from the group after so many days


er, how do they do that?

pk

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

"PK" wrote in message
...

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Some posters are now choosing to have their posts automatically
removed from the group after so many days


er, how do they do that?

pk

http://www.helpwithwindows.com/windows95/oe-24.html

Tom

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

"PK" wrote in message
...

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Some posters are now choosing to have their posts automatically
removed from the group after so many days


er, how do they do that?

pk


They are not "removed" it is just that the Google system will not reproduce
them in public.
It is easily achieved by altering your group setting.
However the best way of defeating this is for reply posters to repeat all
immediately previous posts.
The post of the removal choosers are then recorded and are irremovable.
This will only work of course as long as these "short sighted" people remain
in a significant minority.
Your reader will also record the post for several months and even the Martin
P's of this world can't remove entries from that archive.
His point of comparing the situation with phone conversations is totally
invalid as we are a public newsgroup and
converse accordingly. Phone conversations are accepted as private between
the parties involved.

I agree with Rob

"Save Our Archives "

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:59:22 +0200, Martin wrote:

It is Google groups that decides to retain the messages for a certain number of
days.

Aaah - sorry, I failed to notice that Rob was using Google Groups.

Simple answer to his problem - don't use Google Groups ? Posts would *not*
disappear from threads if using a proper News reader + a proper News
server. Simple or what ?
--
Regards,

Hugh Jampton

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

Pete Stockdale writes

They are not "removed" it is just that the Google system will not reproduce
them in public.
It is easily achieved by altering your group setting.
However the best way of defeating this is for reply posters to repeat all
immediately previous posts.
The post of the removal choosers are then recorded and are irremovable.
This will only work of course as long as these "short sighted" people remain
in a significant minority.
Your reader will also record the post for several months and even the Martin
P's of this world can't remove entries from that archive.

Given that the x-no-archive facility exists, then it's up to the
originator of the post to decide whether he/she wishes their post to be
archived, and quite offensive for someone else to deliberately go
against their wishes in the way that you describe.

If I were requesting my posts not to be archived, and I realised someone
was quoting them in full with the intention of having them archived,
then I would simply stop posting.
--
Kay

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

"K" wrote in message
...

Given that the x-no-archive facility exists, then it's up to the
originator of the post to decide whether he/she wishes their post to be
archived, and quite offensive for someone else to deliberately go against
their wishes in the way that you describe.

If I were requesting my posts not to be archived, and I realised someone
was quoting them in full with the intention of having them archived, then
I would simply stop posting.


Just because a facility exists it doesn't mean that it is good practice to
take advantage of it.
Cliff and jumping off it springs to mind.

Most posts are repeated anyway, as I have with yours, in the normal course
of replying.

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

On 13/8/08 21:11, in article , "Pete
Stockdale" wrote:


"K" wrote in message
...

Given that the x-no-archive facility exists, then it's up to the
originator of the post to decide whether he/she wishes their post to be
archived, and quite offensive for someone else to deliberately go against
their wishes in the way that you describe.

If I were requesting my posts not to be archived, and I realised someone
was quoting them in full with the intention of having them archived, then
I would simply stop posting.


Just because a facility exists it doesn't mean that it is good practice to
take advantage of it.
Cliff and jumping off it springs to mind.

Most posts are repeated anyway, as I have with yours, in the normal course
of replying.

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com

All groups have their own customs. On this one, full repetition of
irrelevant parts of the post being replied to, are snipped, customarily, so
here your argument doesn't hold water. Of course, none of this can be
enforced and I don't think anyone has suggested that it can be but on the
whole, good manners suggest that people new to a group try to follow that
group's generally accepted ways. A journalist friend of mine has suggested
that groups or organisations which take, repeat and use the posts of others
from the group for which they are intended, may well be in breach of
intellectual copyright and that one of these days and if anyone can be
bothered, they might be open to a law suit on those grounds.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:33:07 +0100, K wrote:

Pete Stockdale writes

They are not "removed" it is just that the Google system will not reproduce
them in public.
It is easily achieved by altering your group setting.
However the best way of defeating this is for reply posters to repeat all
immediately previous posts.
The post of the removal choosers are then recorded and are irremovable.
This will only work of course as long as these "short sighted" people remain
in a significant minority.
Your reader will also record the post for several months and even the Martin
P's of this world can't remove entries from that archive.

Given that the x-no-archive facility exists, then it's up to the
originator of the post to decide whether he/she wishes their post to be
archived, and quite offensive for someone else to deliberately go
against their wishes in the way that you describe.

If I were requesting my posts not to be archived, and I realised someone
was quoting them in full with the intention of having them archived,
then I would simply stop posting.

[QUOTED IN FULL FOR GOOGLE ARCHIVE PURPOSES]

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:17:40 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 13/8/08 21:11, in article , "Pete
Stockdale" wrote:


"K" wrote in message
...

Given that the x-no-archive facility exists, then it's up to the
originator of the post to decide whether he/she wishes their post to be
archived, and quite offensive for someone else to deliberately go against
their wishes in the way that you describe.

If I were requesting my posts not to be archived, and I realised someone
was quoting them in full with the intention of having them archived, then
I would simply stop posting.


Just because a facility exists it doesn't mean that it is good practice to
take advantage of it.
Cliff and jumping off it springs to mind.

Most posts are repeated anyway, as I have with yours, in the normal course
of replying.

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com

All groups have their own customs. On this one, full repetition of
irrelevant parts of the post being replied to, are snipped, customarily, so
here your argument doesn't hold water. Of course, none of this can be
enforced and I don't think anyone has suggested that it can be but on the
whole, good manners suggest that people new to a group try to follow that
group's generally accepted ways. A journalist friend of mine has suggested
that groups or organisations which take, repeat and use the posts of others
from the group for which they are intended, may well be in breach of
intellectual copyright and that one of these days and if anyone can be
bothered, they might be open to a law suit on those grounds.

Your friend is a ****ing dickhead and you shouldn't post to the public
domain.

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

FOR THE GOOGLE ARCHIVE wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:33:07 +0100, K wrote:

Pete Stockdale writes


[QUOTED IN FULL FOR GOOGLE ARCHIVE PURPOSES]



For the second time !

Pete

OT maybe: Save Our URG Archives !
 

"Sacha" wrote in message
...
All groups have their own customs. On this one, full repetition of
irrelevant parts of the post being replied to, are snipped, customarily,
so
here your argument doesn't hold water. Of course, none of this can be
enforced and I don't think anyone has suggested that it can be but on the
whole, good manners suggest that people new to a group try to follow that
group's generally accepted ways. A journalist friend of mine has
suggested
that groups or organisations which take, repeat and use the posts of
others
from the group for which they are intended, may well be in breach of
intellectual copyright and that one of these days and if anyone can be
bothered, they might be open to a law suit on those grounds.
--

I do not agree that my argument does not hold water.
There are usually no parts of a post that are irrelevant.
I have seen no more snipping here than anywhere else on usenet.
I consider snipping to be more offensive than repeating the original post
unless it was of an oversize or offensive nature.

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com