Microsoft has removed 500+ groups, including 21 Windows-98 groups

On 12/20/2009 08:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , MEB
writes:
[]
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
[]
(By the way: it's probably changing due to the frequency of it
being got
wrong, but the phrase "is comprised of" should really be replaced
by the
single word "comprises". If you feel naked without the word "of", then
say "consists of".)
[]
No, the intelligent will never accept depreciation to a level of
ignorance...

Any lexicographer will tell you that language _does_ change, however
much we pedants would wish otherwise!

So what next, we should all just use the common cell text "shorts"? Not
going to happen...

I hope not, but of course your use of the non-sentence "Not going to
happen" suggests that you're not as immune to short-speak as you'd like
to think you are (-:.

Actually the three dots at the end connotation mean addition materials
are to be considered... do try to keep up.

Oh, I'm keeping up: it was the other end of the sentence where you have
trimmed - using a form that is so common you haven't noticed it. What
you meant was IT'S not going to happen (with dots on the end if you
wish); you had trimmed the "It's".
[]
And are you USENUTTERS such absolute morons you STILL don't get who
provides these MANUFACTURER and PRODUCT newsgroups AND THE SERVERS.

"Provides" isn't quite correct. In the case of (most of!) the
microsoft.public.* newsgroups, they may well have originated as
private
'groups - or fora, or whatever - inside Microsoft's own server, and
not
passed to usenet in general; at some point, Microsoft opened them to
usenet. Once they had done that, they could not really control what
appeared in those 'groups _on usenet_; some people have claimed
that MS
censors the posts _as carried on its own servers_, on which I cannot
comment as I'm not a user of those servers.

That was the correct and LEGAL determination. That you fail to grasp

What was: that Microsoft originally created them on their own servers?
That Microsoft at some point peered them? That Microsoft censored the
posts on their own servers?

that, as most USENUTTERS do, is why all the issues within Usenet abound.
Microsoft OWNS AND CONTROLS its own groups, e.g, the microsoft.public.
hierarchy. PERIOD. Usenet and/or the Services have ZERO authority to do

Anyone who tries to end an argument with PERIOD is feeling insecure.
(Incidentally, we don't have periods in the UK, at least not with that
meaning!) Microsoft own and control their own _servers_.

anything in, as create any groups, these groups. That these are on
Usenet means nothing,,, zip,, nada.

If their being on usenet means nothing, why are you so agitated about
them? You have made your opinion of usenet clear for some time, though I
wonder why you bother to continue if you think it's such rubbish.
[]
Microsoft CAN control what it owns, and it does OWN the
microsoft.public. hierarchy.

Within its own servers, certainly.

It "owned" them while they were on its own servers. I can only rely here
on what others have said, but apparently someone (or several someones)
"created" them on usenet at large, some years ago, and someone (maybe or
maybe not the same someones) cross-fertilised the inner and outer
contents. If any claim to "ownership" is being made, it would indeed
have been prudent for Microsoft to object when these two things first
happened, some years ago; the fact that they did not, suggests that they
do not make any such ownership claim. (Incidentally, I have not seen a
claim of ownership of these 'groups by Microsoft, only by you on their
behalf - and you have stated by implication that you are not in their
counsel.)

WRONG, Microsoft followed EXACTLY what was required to ensure continued
ownership. This has already been shown, why didn't you bother to read
the Law, the Microsoft documents, and everything else that applies. You

I'm afraid that, despite what their lawyers would wish, Microsoft do not
write the law.
[]
(This is not a loaded question, I ask out of genuine desire to know
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying there. It sounds like you are
saying the number of botnets etc. dropped briefly during the changeover,
and has now gone much higher - is that what you are saying? If so, it
would be interesting to know (though impossible to prove either way)
whether the drop was related to the NT-based OSs, or just coincidental.


It was presumed that there was a change over occurring by those in the
field. The information now available seems to indicate there was, and
not just due to the normal fluctuations.

I think I know, but in that case, to what would you attribute the rise
since?
[]
I write they way I choose to write at that time, and which does include
the normally found errors and other; you have issues with it, you can
deal with it and keep your comments to yourself or I will respond in
kind. You were warned again, I suggest you heed that warning.

As others would say, gee I'm scared. I'll take you on on grammar any
time - though it'd be kind to other readers if we didn't have that sort
of fight in the win98 'group. Let's not, eh - for 2010?

Short, sweet and to the point..

If you wish the battle then it will be done.

As for the rest of your crap, ah, its crap.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On 12/20/2009 08:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , MEB
writes:
[]
USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the
[]
(By the way: it's probably changing due to the frequency of it
being got
wrong, but the phrase "is comprised of" should really be replaced
by the
single word "comprises". If you feel naked without the word "of", then
say "consists of".)
[]
No, the intelligent will never accept depreciation to a level of
ignorance...

Any lexicographer will tell you that language _does_ change, however
much we pedants would wish otherwise!

So what next, we should all just use the common cell text "shorts"? Not
going to happen...

I hope not, but of course your use of the non-sentence "Not going to
happen" suggests that you're not as immune to short-speak as you'd like
to think you are (-:.

Actually the three dots at the end connotation mean addition materials
are to be considered... do try to keep up.

Oh, I'm keeping up: it was the other end of the sentence where you have
trimmed - using a form that is so common you haven't noticed it. What
you meant was IT'S not going to happen (with dots on the end if you
wish); you had trimmed the "It's".
[]
And are you USENUTTERS such absolute morons you STILL don't get who
provides these MANUFACTURER and PRODUCT newsgroups AND THE SERVERS.

"Provides" isn't quite correct. In the case of (most of!) the
microsoft.public.* newsgroups, they may well have originated as
private
'groups - or fora, or whatever - inside Microsoft's own server, and
not
passed to usenet in general; at some point, Microsoft opened them to
usenet. Once they had done that, they could not really control what
appeared in those 'groups _on usenet_; some people have claimed
that MS
censors the posts _as carried on its own servers_, on which I cannot
comment as I'm not a user of those servers.

That was the correct and LEGAL determination. That you fail to grasp

What was: that Microsoft originally created them on their own servers?
That Microsoft at some point peered them? That Microsoft censored the
posts on their own servers?

that, as most USENUTTERS do, is why all the issues within Usenet abound.
Microsoft OWNS AND CONTROLS its own groups, e.g, the microsoft.public.
hierarchy. PERIOD. Usenet and/or the Services have ZERO authority to do

Anyone who tries to end an argument with PERIOD is feeling insecure.
(Incidentally, we don't have periods in the UK, at least not with that
meaning!) Microsoft own and control their own _servers_.

anything in, as create any groups, these groups. That these are on
Usenet means nothing,,, zip,, nada.

If their being on usenet means nothing, why are you so agitated about
them? You have made your opinion of usenet clear for some time, though I
wonder why you bother to continue if you think it's such rubbish.
[]
Microsoft CAN control what it owns, and it does OWN the
microsoft.public. hierarchy.

Within its own servers, certainly.

It "owned" them while they were on its own servers. I can only rely here
on what others have said, but apparently someone (or several someones)
"created" them on usenet at large, some years ago, and someone (maybe or
maybe not the same someones) cross-fertilised the inner and outer
contents. If any claim to "ownership" is being made, it would indeed
have been prudent for Microsoft to object when these two things first
happened, some years ago; the fact that they did not, suggests that they
do not make any such ownership claim. (Incidentally, I have not seen a
claim of ownership of these 'groups by Microsoft, only by you on their
behalf - and you have stated by implication that you are not in their
counsel.)

WRONG, Microsoft followed EXACTLY what was required to ensure continued
ownership. This has already been shown, why didn't you bother to read
the Law, the Microsoft documents, and everything else that applies. You

I'm afraid that, despite what their lawyers would wish, Microsoft do not
write the law.
[]
(This is not a loaded question, I ask out of genuine desire to know
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying there. It sounds like you are
saying the number of botnets etc. dropped briefly during the changeover,
and has now gone much higher - is that what you are saying? If so, it
would be interesting to know (though impossible to prove either way)
whether the drop was related to the NT-based OSs, or just coincidental.


It was presumed that there was a change over occurring by those in the
field. The information now available seems to indicate there was, and
not just due to the normal fluctuations.

I think I know, but in that case, to what would you attribute the rise
since?
[]
I write they way I choose to write at that time, and which does include
the normally found errors and other; you have issues with it, you can
deal with it and keep your comments to yourself or I will respond in
kind. You were warned again, I suggest you heed that warning.

As others would say, gee I'm scared. I'll take you on on grammar any
time - though it'd be kind to other readers if we didn't have that sort
of fight in the win98 'group. Let's not, eh - for 2010?

Short, sweet and to the point..

If you wish the battle then it will be done.

As for the rest of your crap, ah, its crap.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

In message , MEB
writes:
[]
As others would say, gee I'm scared. I'll take you on on grammar any
time - though it'd be kind to other readers if we didn't have that sort
of fight in the win98 'group. Let's not, eh - for 2010?

Short, sweet and to the point..

If you wish the battle then it will be done.

As for the rest of your crap, ah, its crap.

Can't be bothered. Plonk.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Dictionary: Opinion presented as truth in alphabetical order. -John Ralston
Saul, essayist, novelist, and critic (1947- )

In message , MEB
writes:
[]
As others would say, gee I'm scared. I'll take you on on grammar any
time - though it'd be kind to other readers if we didn't have that sort
of fight in the win98 'group. Let's not, eh - for 2010?

Short, sweet and to the point..

If you wish the battle then it will be done.

As for the rest of your crap, ah, its crap.

Can't be bothered. Plonk.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Dictionary: Opinion presented as truth in alphabetical order. -John Ralston
Saul, essayist, novelist, and critic (1947- )

On 12/27/2009 08:50 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , MEB
writes:
[]
As others would say, gee I'm scared. I'll take you on on grammar any
time - though it'd be kind to other readers if we didn't have that sort
of fight in the win98 'group. Let's not, eh - for 2010?

Short, sweet and to the point..

If you wish the battle then it will be done.

As for the rest of your crap, ah, its crap.

Can't be bothered. Plonk.

AWWWHHH, I thought you wanted to play...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On 12/27/2009 08:50 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , MEB
writes:
[]
As others would say, gee I'm scared. I'll take you on on grammar any
time - though it'd be kind to other readers if we didn't have that sort
of fight in the win98 'group. Let's not, eh - for 2010?

Short, sweet and to the point..

If you wish the battle then it will be done.

As for the rest of your crap, ah, its crap.

Can't be bothered. Plonk.

AWWWHHH, I thought you wanted to play...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---