«

On Oct 5, 10:02*pm, Arse Vajhøle <a...@vajhole.dk> wrote:
> [quotes excessively without trimming]

Learn proper netiquette!

> > The big question is: which sore loser did this to me, Lars Enderin or
> > Tristram Rolph? Because it was almost certainly one of them. Nobody
> > else has been participating recently besides the four of us, and you
> > don't strike me as the cheating type. Subject-changing, insinuating
> > things, and other somewhat devious things, maybe, but not outright
> > cheating on a massive scale.
>
> Ah - another [insult deleted] account !!

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

wrote:
> On Oct 5, 10:02 pm, Arse Vajhøle <a...@vajhole.dk> wrote:
>> [quotes excessively without trimming]
>
> Learn proper netiquette!

Learn to think !

If you somebody read what you left, then they will not have a clue
what "this" mentioned below is.

I quoted correct.

You quoted wrong.

>>> The big question is: which sore loser did this to me, Lars Enderin or
>>> Tristram Rolph? Because it was almost certainly one of them. Nobody
>>> else has been participating recently besides the four of us, and you
>>> don't strike me as the cheating type. Subject-changing, insinuating
>>> things, and other somewhat devious things, maybe, but not outright
>>> cheating on a massive scale.
>> Ah - another [insult deleted] account !!
>
> No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
> are at all true.

So you are claiming that you are not twerpie and and still you use
one of his favorite sentences.

A proof I attach a copy of the wellknown twerpie simulator
(first edition).

Arne

=====================================

import java.util.Random;

public class TwerpieSimulator {
private static String STANDARD = "None of the nasty things that you
have said or implied about me are at all true";
private static String[] OTHER = { "Liar",
"Pervert",
"Moron",
"**** off",
"**** off",
"Go to hell" };
private static Random rng = new Random();
public static void main(String[] args) {
for(int i = 0; i < 1 + rng.nextInt(10); i++) {
if(rng.nextDouble() < 0.5) {
System.out.println(STANDARD);
} else {
System.out.println(OTHER[rng.nextInt(OTHER.length)]);
}
}
}
}

"Arne Vajhøj" <> wrote in message
news:48e97700$0$90275$...
> wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 10:02 pm, Arse Vajhøle <a...@vajhole.dk> wrote:
>>> [quotes excessively without trimming]
>>
>> Learn proper netiquette!
>
> Learn to think !
>
> If you somebody read what you left, then they will not have a clue
> what "this" mentioned below is.
>
> I quoted correct.
>
> You quoted wrong.

Arne, you might as well save your breath on this one. He/she/it likes to
complain about excessive quoting, as if he/she/it has a monopoly on Usenet
style, or variations for readability thereof. She/he/it then elides all
intervening text, so that if you say anything critical, you are accused of
"attacking/insulting" him/her/it without any evidence. Of course, one could
move up the thread and verify what was said, but why make the effort? Then,
he/she/it denies all the supposedly nasty things that were said or implied
(NOT!). As shown here...

[...]

>> No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
>> are at all true.
>
> So you are claiming that you are not twerpie and and still you use
> one of his favorite sentences.

You will now receive a twisted and bizarre argument, interspersed with
pseudo-reasonable points, probably reflecting whether he was on/off
his/her/its meds that day.

On Oct 5, 10:25*pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> scuzwa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 10:02 pm, Arse Vajhøle <a...@vajhole.dk> wrote:
> >> [quotes excessively without trimming]
>
> > Learn proper netiquette!
>
> [insults deleted]

No, you're the stupid one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

> >> Ah - another [insult deleted] account !!
>
> > No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
> > are at all true.
>
> So you are claiming that you are not

I am claiming nothing of the sort. I am claiming that your insulting
insinuations about me, entirely orthogonal to the question of my
identity, are false.

> [insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

> A proof I attach a copy of the wellknown [insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

> import java.util.Random;
>
> public class [insult deleted] {
> [numerous implied insults deleted]
> }

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

(Besides, your monstrosity wouldn't compile anyway, not with that line
break in the middle of a string constant. It would have needed to be
more like

private static String STANDARD = "None of the nasty things" +
" that you have said or implied about me are at all true";

to work.)

On Oct 5, 10:48*pm, "Chronic Philharmonic" <karl.uppi...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> "Arne Vajhøj" <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message
[snip]

NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!

> >> Learn proper netiquette!
>
> > [insults deleted]

No, Arne is the stupid one.

None of the nasty things that Arne has said or implied about me are at
all true.

> Arne, you might as well save your breath on this one. [multiple implied
> insults deleted, including a false accusation of dishonesty on my part]

No, you're the liar.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

The one truthful thing here was "Arne, you might as well save your
breath"; attacking me is pointless, stupid, and indeed a waste of
time, since it is not only nonconstructive and unhelpful, not to
mention off-topic, but also quite futile.

Although "bandwidth" might have been a better word choice than
"breath" given the particular communications medium.

> >> No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
> >> are at all true.
>
> > So you are claiming that you are not [insult deleted]

I didn't claim not to be any particular person. I did object to the
way Arne implicitly characterized me.

None of the nasty things that Arne has said or implied about me are at
all true.

> You will now receive [numerous implied insults deleted]

No, you're the crazy one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

<> wrote in message
news:7dedc2ac-d46d-4a85-8acd-...
> On Oct 5, 10:48 pm, "Chronic Philharmonic" <karl.uppi...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> "Arne Vajhøj" <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message
> [snip]
>
> NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!

....and yet, life goes on.

[idiocy deleted]

On Oct 6, 3:12*am, "Chronic Philharmonic" <karl.uppi...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> > NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!
>
> ...and yet, life goes on.
>
> [insult deleted]

No, you're the stupid one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

In article <9d122ed4-492b-4c70-a0a5->,
<> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 6:21*pm, Daniel Pitts
> <newsgroup.spamfil...@virtualinfinity.net> wrote:
> > For the record, Usenet is a bunch of servers with a bunch of different
> > settings and retentions and routes, etc... It is actually quite common
> > that a message can be "posted successfully", but not be seen on some, or
> > any, client for quite some time.
>
> It is quite common that a successfully posted message may take some
> time to show up on servers OTHER than the one used to post it, but it
> is certainly not at all common for a successfully posted message to
> take any time to show up at the SAME server from which it was posted.
> It is exceptionally rare for it to show up anywhere else EARLIER,
> since it needs to be injected into the local news spool before it can
> propagate! Which means that my messages are being successfully posted
> to Google's local news spool, but are NOT making it into Google's
> *archive*, and since the Groups *viewing* interface is backed by the
> *archive* ...

Again for the record:

At least some of the missing posts are now being shown by Google's
interface(s), though they (and other posts made the same day by
another poster) don't seem to be properly threaded with earlier
posts. I won't even try to guess why or how the delay happened, or
whether the problems with threading will eventually be corrected.

> No matter. If I am no longer capable of posting something to that
> thread that actually appears in Google's archives for posterity, then
> the cheater has achieved his intended goal. Unfortunately.
>
> > Scuzwalla, you *may* have been cheated, but it is much more likely that
> > you have only seen a hick-up in Google Groups' implementation of
> > Usenet<->Web interface.

s/hick-up/hiccup/ ? though "hick-up" has connotations that *might*
be appropriate too ....

> Then explain why I am able to view and post to *this* thread in real
> time? I very much doubt that a generic glitch at Google would
> specifically and narrowly affect one single, specific thread and not
> even others with participants, Groups account use, and other features
> in common with that thread.

I'd say "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by
stupidity [or other error]", but -- who knows.

It *is* interesting that apparently whatever is/was wrong is/was
somewhat localized. I did notice someone complaining recently
about what sounds like a similar problem in a rec.* group where
I lurk.

--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

On Oct 6, 7:36*am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> At least some of the missing posts are now being shown by Google's
> interface(s), though they (and other posts made the same day by
> another poster) don't seem to be properly threaded with earlier
> posts. *I won't even try to guess why or how the delay happened, or
> whether the problems with threading will eventually be corrected.

Isn't it obvious? Lars (or perhaps Tristram) tried to muzzle me, but
screwed up.

This sort of incompetence is of course why the bad guys tend to keep
losing. That, and they eventually turn on each other.

> > > Scuzwalla, you *may* have been cheated, but it is much more likely that
> > > you have only seen a hick-up in Google Groups' implementation of
> > > Usenet<->Web interface.
>
> s/hick-up/hiccup/ ? *though "hick-up" has connotations that *might*
> be appropriate too ....

Nah. It's Tristram's posts, especially, that ought to make Google
"hick-up", not mine.

> > Then explain why I am able to view and post to *this* thread in real
> > time? I very much doubt that a generic glitch at Google would
> > specifically and narrowly affect one single, specific thread and not
> > even others with participants, Groups account use, and other features
> > in common with that thread.
>
> I'd say "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by
> stupidity [or other error]", but -- who knows.

The selective nature of the "hick-up" makes it difficult to explain by
stupidity. (Its failure to really keep me muzzled, on the other hand,
can easily be explained by stupidity. )

> It *is* interesting that apparently whatever is/was wrong is/was
> somewhat localized. *I did notice someone complaining recently
> about what sounds like a similar problem in a rec.* group where
> I lurk.

Where a flamewar was going on?

wrote:
> On Oct 5, 6:21 pm, Daniel Pitts
> <newsgroup.spamfil...@virtualinfinity.net> wrote:
>> For the record, Usenet is a bunch of servers with a bunch of different
>> settings and retentions and routes, etc... It is actually quite common
>> that a message can be "posted successfully", but not be seen on some, or
>> any, client for quite some time.
>
> It is quite common that a successfully posted message may take some
> time to show up on servers OTHER than the one used to post it, but it
> is certainly not at all common for a successfully posted message to
> take any time to show up at the SAME server from which it was posted.
> It is exceptionally rare for it to show up anywhere else EARLIER,
> since it needs to be injected into the local news spool before it can
> propagate! Which means that my messages are being successfully posted
> to Google's local news spool, but are NOT making it into Google's
> *archive*, and since the Groups *viewing* interface is backed by the
> *archive* ...
>
> No matter. If I am no longer capable of posting something to that
> thread that actually appears in Google's archives for posterity, then
> the cheater has achieved his intended goal. Unfortunately.
>
>> Scuzwalla, you *may* have been cheated, but it is much more likely that
>> you have only seen a hick-up in Google Groups' implementation of
>> Usenet<->Web interface.
>
> Then explain why I am able to view and post to *this* thread in real
> time? I very much doubt that a generic glitch at Google would
> specifically and narrowly affect one single, specific thread and not
> even others with participants, Groups account use, and other features
> in common with that thread.

Google likely uses a distributed system to handle the traffic loads that
it gets. It is possible that they use some sort of session affinity as
well, so that a user is more likely to reach the same cluster node
repeatedly. Given those two possibilities, it becomes possible that
posts you made within a small time-frame were all sent to one machine
that was/is overwhelmed and that the process of replicating the post to
other cluster nodes throughout google was delayed. Of course, this is
just an educated guess.

So like I said, you /may/ have been cheated, but it wouldn't be the
conclusion that I would jump to if the same events happened to me.
--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>