"news" wrote in message
news
In article , Baz
writes
But a quick search on Google groups would have done that easily.


OK. End of.
I really don't have the time or inclination to point you at the real
reason we use REAL newsreaders. I am sure you will get it eventualy. Most
probably not after reading and re-reading your slavver.

With the possible exception of harry, no-one has been 'slavvering'
(whatever that is) except you, I think.
ATM, you don't seem to understand that people can state genuinely held
opinions and answers that differ from yours. Just because they don't
match yours doesn't mean that you have to shout and insult them for it.

--
regards andy

Baz seems to be yet another one of those people who decree that their
statements are right and that if you do not agree, you are in the wrong. You
must understand what and how they are thinking, and accept that way :-((

Mike



--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

On 02/11/2011 14:12, Baz wrote:
Martin wrote in
:

On 02/11/2011 13:47, Baz wrote:
wrote in

:

On Nov 1, 6:27 pm, wrote:
wrote
innews:e91712d0-0d10-42e2-a200-1000df8a
:

On Nov 1, 1:01 pm, wrote:
Try as I might to find it, I have lost this discussion.

Would someone kindly give me, or point me to the topic header or
thread please.

Thanks
Baz
Get yourself a proper news reader.Here you a-

https://groups.google.com/group/uk.r...se_thread/thre
ad /3
b07c21688af7f13/117fd2d33f1eb9b1?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=runner+beans+par
rot#11
7fd2d33f1eb9b1

I have a "proper" newsreader, YOU don't.

Baz

If you used Google groups you would have no trouble finding things
like this.
Much more user friendly.
I have an old news reader too (eternal september/outlook express).
Complete s**t, outdated.


Look.
I don't use google groups, I never have and never will, I use my
ISP's quite complete set of newsgroups, always have done so. I have a
real newsreader too.(xnews can be your next imaginary friend)

Google groups is extremely useful for looking up old prehistoric
threads. It was more useful in its older incarnation as DejaNews.

My question/request failure is due to my mistake and I had lost the
thread. My request has been replied to and I have found the
neccessary information.

Thanks

Baz

But a quick search on Google groups would have done that easily.


I don't think that there is any use in continuing this repetative and
nauseating garble.

Baz

If you are too stubborn or stupid to use the tools available to you on
the Internet then that is your problem.

Any reasonable individual would be well advised to use Google groups to
search through historic Usenet postings on a given topic.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

Any reasonable individual would be well advised to use Google groups to
search through historic Usenet postings on a given topic.

Perhaps I know too much to be reasonable. I used to use it, quite
a lot, but gave up when it became so unreliable that other approaches
were several times less effort. Every now and then, I recheck, and
it is no better. Of course, I am looking for posts that I know were
made, but quite a lot time ago, and I am pretty sure that it indexes
only a small proportion of older ones.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 02/11/2011 17:39, wrote:
In ,
Martin wrote:

Any reasonable individual would be well advised to use Google groups to
search through historic Usenet postings on a given topic.

Perhaps I know too much to be reasonable. I used to use it, quite
a lot, but gave up when it became so unreliable that other approaches
were several times less effort. Every now and then, I recheck, and
it is no better. Of course, I am looking for posts that I know were
made, but quite a lot time ago, and I am pretty sure that it indexes
only a small proportion of older ones.

I am inclined to agree. If you have access to a news server with a very
deep memory and an alternative search index. Are any of the searchable
alternatives that you use publicly available outside academia?

Google groups no longer finds some of the very old posts that I know I
have made using ordinary search terms. Their indexing is badly screwed
up and they faithfully archive all the Chinese fake brandname goods spam
that they inject into Usenet for good measure.

But for moderately recent threads it does seem to more or less work.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

Perhaps I know too much to be reasonable. I used to use it, quite
a lot, but gave up when it became so unreliable that other approaches
were several times less effort. Every now and then, I recheck, and
it is no better. Of course, I am looking for posts that I know were
made, but quite a lot time ago, and I am pretty sure that it indexes
only a small proportion of older ones.

I am inclined to agree. If you have access to a news server with a very
deep memory and an alternative search index. Are any of the searchable
alternatives that you use publicly available outside academia?

Actually, I don't, and they all are :-) I search the Web, using a
carefully-selected set of search terms.

Google groups no longer finds some of the very old posts that I know I
have made using ordinary search terms. Their indexing is badly screwed
up and they faithfully archive all the Chinese fake brandname goods spam
that they inject into Usenet for good measure.

Quite.

But for moderately recent threads it does seem to more or less work.

Yes, but they rarely are what I am looking for.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Nov 2, 8:11*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 02/11/2011 17:39, wrote:

In ,
Martin *wrote:

Any reasonable individual would be well advised to use Google groups to
search through historic Usenet postings on a given topic.

Perhaps I know too much to be reasonable. *I used to use it, quite
a lot, but gave up when it became so unreliable that other approaches
were several times less effort. *Every now and then, I recheck, and
it is no better. *Of course, I am looking for posts that I know were
made, but quite a lot time ago, and I am pretty sure that it indexes
only a small proportion of older ones.

I am inclined to agree. If you have access to a news server with a very
deep memory and an alternative search index. Are any of the searchable
alternatives that you use publicly available outside academia?

Google groups no longer finds some of the very old posts that I know I
have made using ordinary search terms. Their indexing is badly screwed
up and they faithfully archive all the Chinese fake brandname goods spam
that they inject into Usenet for good measure.

But for moderately recent threads it does seem to more or less work.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

The problems I find are that sometimes it'svery slow compared with a
newsreader and a few times it's completely packed in altogether.
Oh,and it rations your number of posts.

Janet wrote in
:

In article ,
says...

Martin Brown wrote in
:

But a quick search on Google groups would have done that easily.


I don't think that there is any use in continuing this repetative and
nauseating garble.

You never listen to good advice.

Google groups is not just a way to read and post to usenet.
It is also, an easy to use public archive of newsgroups which anyone
at
all can use and search for free; no need to be a member or sign in, no
password.

The GG archive of uk.rec.gardening goes back many years. A child could
use the search engine provided. Just type "toxins beans" in the search
envelope and click.

Janet

Ok, if you don't get it ..well! you don't get it.

Baz

"Baz" wrote in message
...
Janet wrote in
:

In article ,
says...

Martin Brown wrote in
:

But a quick search on Google groups would have done that easily.


I don't think that there is any use in continuing this repetative and
nauseating garble.

You never listen to good advice.

Google groups is not just a way to read and post to usenet.
It is also, an easy to use public archive of newsgroups which anyone
at
all can use and search for free; no need to be a member or sign in, no
password.

The GG archive of uk.rec.gardening goes back many years. A child could
use the search engine provided. Just type "toxins beans" in the search
envelope and click.

Janet

Ok, if you don't get it ..well! you don't get it.

Baz

""How to win friends ...............""

Mike

--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

news wrote in
news
In article , Baz
writes
But a quick search on Google groups would have done that easily.


OK. End of.
I really don't have the time or inclination to point you at the real
reason we use REAL newsreaders. I am sure you will get it eventualy. Most
probably not after reading and re-reading your slavver.

With the possible exception of harry, no-one has been 'slavvering'
(whatever that is) except you, I think.

ATM, you don't seem to understand that people can state genuinely held
opinions and answers that differ from yours. Just because they don't
match yours doesn't mean that you have to shout and insult them for it.


Did I shout? Did I insult?
I don't think I did, certainly didn't mean to.
If anyone has taken my words to insult them, then ok. If the cap fits, wear
it.
Not my intention to upset even the softest of hearts.

Baz

Janet wrote in news:MPG.291c9f7a438c32b698ab01
@news.eternal-september.org:

In article ,
says...

Did I shout? Did I insult?

You called the good advice given

"repetative and
nauseating garble. .. slavver"



Janet




Janet,
Which good advice was I given?

Baz