On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:27:27 +0100, Pete Shew wrote:

On 16/04/2012 10:46, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:34:34 +0100, "Richard Russell"
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:48:29 +0100, Steve
wrote:

Only ******* emote about BBC Basic, it's dead, Dave.

It's OT for this thread, but for your information BBC BASIC is
currently one of the most popular languages for teaching programming
in UK schools. For example it is recommended by the OCR examining
board:

http://www.gcsecomputing.org.uk/support/index.html
http://social.ocr.org.uk/files/ocr/
GCSE_Computing_J275_Centre_Crib_Sheet_180112.doc

Any flavour of BASIC is a poor choice of language for teaching
programming IMHO.

"GOTO" ... need I say more?
Bring back APL, I say. The only "write only" programming language I've
used.

Try Whitespace.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 17/04/2012 09:09, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Because you were going on about Outlook which was not particularly
helpful in a discussion about Exchange.

I was never going on about exchange.

we realised that...

I never replied to anything about exchange.

either you were mistaken then, or you are telling porkies now...

Mike wrote - about exchange:

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid anything
to do with $exchange.

TNP replied - about exchange:

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was essentially X-400 with a bit of
TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. Butcompared with microsoft mail it was
a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No pop
clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Now it seems pretty clear to everyone that this was a conversation about
email server platforms, and Exchange server in particular.

So you pipe up with cheap stab at scoring points:

"Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file. "

Now its your choice, you could simply admit you made a mistake and we
can move on, or you can make yourself look and even bigger knob by
claiming black is white.

Remember you asked "Since when did mail servers do POP to local
files?", so I told you when Exchange will do POP to local files.

You said some other add on to exchange now does POP.

No, I said that Exchange now officially supports POP via its POP3
connector for retrieving mail from external mailboxes

However it doesn't do it to local files, it does it to the exchange
database if you want to get picky.

which it stores in files... typically locally

(are you really this obtuse, or do you practice?)

If you want it in your local file you need a client to get it and

if by "your local file" you mean on your PC vs on the server, then yes
that is correct.

exchange needs to be setup to let you have local files.

It defaults to local storage for the mail store.

You are getting your clients and severs confused...

You can argue what you like but it doesn't change the facts.

I have no need to change the facts, I was just attempting to improve
your understanding of them.

I understand fully,

If that were the case, you would not have asked the question above...

I asked the question to get an answer, you did and it was half wrong.


you are arguing for the sake of it.

The irony...

It takes more than one to argue, so far you have been wrong about most
of it.

You have never installed or used Exchange server, and evidently know sod
all about it... why not keep quiet and let us think you are ignorant,
rather than repeatedly proving it?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 17/04/2012 10:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:39:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:31:23 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 16/04/2012 10:46, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:34:34 +0100, "Richard Russell"
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:48:29 +0100, Steve

wrote:

Only ******* emote about BBC Basic, it's dead, Dave.
It's OT for this thread, but for your information BBC BASIC is
currently
one of the most popular languages for teaching programming in UK
schools.
For example it is recommended by the OCR examining board:

http://www.gcsecomputing.org.uk/support/index.html
http://social.ocr.org.uk/files/ocr/G...eet_180112.doc

Any flavour of BASIC is a poor choice of language for teaching
programming IMHO.

"GOTO" ... need I say more?
Exists in C too, but in both languages you don't need to actually
use it.
If the statement exists then the programmer can use it. In a language
used in teaching I would prefer the language would enforce good
practice by not even providing this feature.

The point is that sometimes goto IS good practice.

Hmmmmm.

Its a fine way to make a simple clear direct statement for error
handling and stuff that cuts across - and has to cut across - the
normal flow of programming.

GOTO jail. Go directly to jail, Do NOT pass go. Do NOT collect £200.

That's Monopoly, not programming. If you were progamming a board game
then such a move could be done with a simple assignment statement
anyway.

Error handling can be done in a structured way using things like
exceptions or simple if/then constructs. Gotos make code hard to
read, maintain and test. In over 20 years of C programming I have
never needed to use a goto.

And "C" would also be a very poor language for teaching too.
Obviously anything that is pragmatically useful and written by
engineers to actually write real life code on is useless for
academics who don't want to sully their hands with the real world,

My point is to start with a language that (as much as possible)
enforces good practice. Once the fundamentals have been learned these
can be applied using other languages.


My point is that the greatest error computer scientists made was to
believe that a computer language can enforce good practice, instead of a
proper educations and experienced programmers.

Its like having a language with no swear words. People will just kick
you instead.

Nothing wrong with having both, if when it comes to doing real stuff you
can have a version of the language that adds the swear words back in ;-)

In my day they taught Pascal as a first "proper" structured language...
in its originally conceived form it was very limited for real world
stuff, however these days I am more than happy to get down and dirty
with Delphi for example...





--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/04/2012 09:09, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Because you were going on about Outlook which was not particularly
helpful in a discussion about Exchange.

I was never going on about exchange.

we realised that...

I never replied to anything about exchange.

either you were mistaken then, or you are telling porkies now...

Mike wrote - about exchange:

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid anything
to do with $exchange.

TNP replied - about exchange:

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of
TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. Butcompared with
microsoft mail it was
a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No pop
clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Now it seems pretty clear to everyone that this was a conversation about
email server platforms, and Exchange server in particular.

Well your own quotes should tell you that you are being stupid.
I will repeat them very slowly so you can read them properly.


" No pop clients to a local mail folder."


So you pipe up with cheap stab at scoring points:

"Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file. "

Now its your choice, you could simply admit you made a mistake and we can
move on, or you can make yourself look and even bigger knob by claiming
black is white.

So since when has "No pop clients to a local mail folder." meant server?


Remember you asked "Since when did mail servers do POP to local
files?", so I told you when Exchange will do POP to local files.

You said some other add on to exchange now does POP.

No, I said that Exchange now officially supports POP via its POP3
connector for retrieving mail from external mailboxes

That is some other thing in case you are being really stupid.


However it doesn't do it to local files, it does it to the exchange
database if you want to get picky.

which it stores in files... typically locally

(are you really this obtuse, or do you practice?)

Local files is local to the user, you don't have users on a server. That's
why its called a server and not a client.


If you want it in your local file you need a client to get it and

if by "your local file" you mean on your PC vs on the server, then yes
that is correct.

Its about time you got something correct.


exchange needs to be setup to let you have local files.

It defaults to local storage for the mail store.

You are getting your clients and severs confused...

I'm not, but you appear to be.

Users run clients, they run on client PCs, they can have local files.
Servers don't (except for virtual) run clients and don't have local files
for clients.


You can argue what you like but it doesn't change the facts.

I have no need to change the facts, I was just attempting to improve
your understanding of them.

I understand fully,

If that were the case, you would not have asked the question above...

I asked the question to get an answer, you did and it was half wrong.


you are arguing for the sake of it.

The irony...

It takes more than one to argue, so far you have been wrong about most
of it.

You have never installed or used Exchange server, and evidently know sod
all about it... why not keep quiet and let us think you are ignorant,
rather than repeatedly proving it?

You are just wriggling.

On 17/04/2012 20:58, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/04/2012 09:09, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Because you were going on about Outlook which was not particularly
helpful in a discussion about Exchange.

I was never going on about exchange.

we realised that...

I never replied to anything about exchange.

either you were mistaken then, or you are telling porkies now...

Mike wrote - about exchange:

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid
anything
to do with $exchange.

TNP replied - about exchange:

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of
TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. Butcompared with
microsoft mail it was
a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No pop
clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Now it seems pretty clear to everyone that this was a conversation
about email server platforms, and Exchange server in particular.

Well your own quotes should tell you that you are being stupid.
I will repeat them very slowly so you can read them properly.


" No pop clients to a local mail folder."

Which accurately reflects the situation at the time TNP refers to. That
issue of Exchange did not support pop in any way. The clients (e.g.
outlook) interacted with the server in a way similar to the way IMAP
works today - however using proprietary protocols. Email was retained on
the server, and could not be downloaded to a file local to the remote
client. Also Exchange could not act as a POP3 client to download email
from a remote server.

So you pipe up with cheap stab at scoring points:

"Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file. "

Now its your choice, you could simply admit you made a mistake and we
can move on, or you can make yourself look and even bigger knob by
claiming black is white.

So since when has "No pop clients to a local mail folder." meant server?

When referring to the initial release of exchange that did not support
POP3 for clients, nor have the capability to pull down mail from remote
POP3 servers.

Remember you asked "Since when did mail servers do POP to local
files?", so I told you when Exchange will do POP to local files.

You said some other add on to exchange now does POP.

No, I said that Exchange now officially supports POP via its POP3
connector for retrieving mail from external mailboxes

That is some other thing in case you are being really stupid.

No, this is not "some other thing"...

However it doesn't do it to local files, it does it to the exchange
database if you want to get picky.

which it stores in files... typically locally

(are you really this obtuse, or do you practice?)

Local files is local to the user, you don't have users on a server.

No. Local files are just that - on the same machine as whatever is using
them, be it a client, server or hybrid of both.

That's why its called a server and not a client.

No its not, its called a server because it provides a service. It has
nothing to do with the location of files.

If you want it in your local file you need a client to get it and

if by "your local file" you mean on your PC vs on the server, then yes
that is correct.

Its about time you got something correct.


exchange needs to be setup to let you have local files.

It defaults to local storage for the mail store.

You are getting your clients and severs confused...

I'm not, but you appear to be.

No, you appear to think I am... a very different proposition.

Users run clients, they run on client PCs, they can have local files.

Users can also run servers. Ever used X Windows? Where is the server there?

Servers don't (except for virtual) run clients and don't have local
files for clients.

You are talking yourself round in circles and making less sense with
every pronouncement. Are you going to dig yourself in any further?

You have never installed or used Exchange server, and evidently know
sod all about it... why not keep quiet and let us think you are
ignorant, rather than repeatedly proving it?

You are just wriggling.

Are you claiming to have installed and used Exchange, or are *you* still
wiggling?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

This is pointless you just keep wriggling.
This stops here, you can wriggle on your own.
I have killed the thread.

On 17/04/2012 23:39, dennis@home wrote:

This is pointless you just keep wriggling.
This stops here, you can wriggle on your own.
I have killed the thread.


Wahay, dennis finally admits defeat, we have a first ladies and gents!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:14:28 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 17/04/2012 23:39, dennis@home wrote:

This is pointless you just keep wriggling. This stops here, you can
wriggle on your own. I have killed the thread.


Wahay, dennis finally admits defeat, we have a first ladies and gents!

YES!



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:14:28 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 17/04/2012 23:39, dennis@home wrote:

This is pointless you just keep wriggling. This stops here, you can
wriggle on your own. I have killed the thread.


Wahay, dennis finally admits defeat, we have a first ladies and gents!

YES!

No!

dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:14:28 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 17/04/2012 23:39, dennis@home wrote:

This is pointless you just keep wriggling. This stops here, you can
wriggle on your own. I have killed the thread.


Wahay, dennis finally admits defeat, we have a first ladies and gents!

YES!

No!


Dennis weasels and wriggles again...

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 18/04/2012 07:59, dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:14:28 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 17/04/2012 23:39, dennis@home wrote:

This is pointless you just keep wriggling. This stops here, you can
wriggle on your own. I have killed the thread.


Wahay, dennis finally admits defeat, we have a first ladies and gents!

YES!

No!

Strewth, we have two of them now.... the first one killed the thread
apparently, so no idea who this imposter is.

Go away fake dennis, give us back the real one, he was so spinning so
fast we were about to generate electricity from all that stored up hot air!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Apr 15, 12:57*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2012-04-15, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which are well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
* * * * * * * * * * * * ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.
I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid anything
to do with $exchange.

Oh, me too. By history I are a Unix & networks geek. But eventually I became
sufficiently exalted that the SmallNFloppy tenders reported to me. Fortunately,
those days also are past.

Exchange does have one thing going for it; it isn't Lotus Domino.

Ther is that...

I remember extreme pressure to put Lotus Notes on the system, because
its 'really great workflow and workgroup integration' but when I asked
what specifically it could do that was in any way actually useful, it
turned out that no one actually knew. They had just swallowed a bunch of
marketing hype.

SOunds like Sharepoint, which we have just had inflicted upon us.

MBQ

In message ], hugh ]
writes
In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message ], hugh ]
writes
In message , Bernard Peek
writes
On 10/04/12 18:20, Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?

If you want to use more than about 3.5Gb of memory then you have to
use 64-bit. Most new machines have 64-bit pre-installed.

I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?

No. You can copy any file either way between the two systems. But
some old programs will not run under 64-bit OS.
Snip
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64
bit W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike
which I am loath to give up.

AIUI version 5 is OK if you can find a back copy.

Lots of discussion on the Demon newsgroups.

regards

Yes, I'm plugged in to the Demon newsgroups. I may well go down the V5
route eventually. Of course our modus operandi is now geared to all the
facilities of V6 and unlearning it might prove a bit tricky esp for SWMBO

I think I'm right in saying that if you're using TP V6, you can't
transfer the data back into V5. Of course, you can probably keep V6 as
it is (as an archive), and start V5 again separately, with a 'clean
slate', However, you might also think about using properly supported
mail/news client which is nearly as good as - and very similar in
appearance to - TP. As I'm sure you know, Thunderbird and Forte Agent
come well recommended as good candidates. And at least you will then be
able to leave Demon without much hassle.
--
Ian

In message , mike
writes
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:42:59 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:
Just to state the obvious - but "old" software does not mean worn
out! It never wears out. Amazing.

Uh???
--
Ian

"geoff" wrote in message
...

And now he shows himself to be a liar

Being stupid again geof.
I said I was going to ignore the thread not ignore the posts.
You and ARW don't have a brain cell between you.
ARW is being ignored not killfiled.
I don't need a killfile to ignore idiots.
That is reserved for people posting handbag spam from china.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...

And now he shows himself to be a liar

Being stupid again geof.
I said I was going to ignore the thread not ignore the posts.

No, you said

"This is pointless you just keep wriggling.
This stops here, you can wriggle on your own.
I have killed the thread. "

You said you had (not will, ... had) killed (not you were going to
ignore)

You are just a liar

don't pretend that you said differently, its there for all to see and

you're a liar

just like before in several other instances (nurburgring springs to
mind) ... a liar


You and ARW don't have a brain cell between you.
ARW is being ignored not killfiled.
I don't need a killfile to ignore idiots.
That is reserved for people posting handbag spam from china.

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...

And now he shows himself to be a liar

Being stupid again geof.
I said I was going to ignore the thread not ignore the posts.

No, you said

"This is pointless you just keep wriggling.
This stops here, you can wriggle on your own.
I have killed the thread. "

You said you had (not will, ... had) killed (not you were going to ignore)

Well until the halfbaked idiots like you started to try and continue the
thread it was dead.
Now this one is too.
FOAD you moron.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...

And now he shows himself to be a liar

Being stupid again geof.
I said I was going to ignore the thread not ignore the posts.

No, you said

"This is pointless you just keep wriggling.
This stops here, you can wriggle on your own.
I have killed the thread. "

You said you had (not will, ... had) killed (not you were going to ignore)

Well until the halfbaked idiots like you started to try and continue
the thread it was dead.

You lied

And I am not a moron

I'm certainly more successful than you ever were

(I was never laid off by Marconi)



--
geoff

On 22/04/2012 20:03, dennis@home wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...

And now he shows himself to be a liar

Being stupid again geof.
I said I was going to ignore the thread not ignore the posts.

Lol, this gets better and better...

menace said:

"I have killed the thread"

Now to most normal people the meaning of that would be clear, but we are
talking about denboi here who can manage a whole sub thread barking up
the exchange tree with a copy of outlook for company...

You and ARW don't have a brain cell between you.
ARW is being ignored not killfiled.

I don't need a killfile to ignore idiots.

You did not mention plonking the posters, or killfiles.... just killing
the thread.

How do you ignore a thread, but still real the posts in it?

more wiggling den?

That is reserved for people posting handbag spam from china.

Do you want to buy a nice Chinese handbag?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Nobody gives a toss what you, ARW, and geof think you are gaining by being
childish.
Consider this thread dead too unless you are stupid enough to post more
cr@p.

"dennis@home" wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Nobody gives a toss what you, ARW, and geof think you are gaining by being childish.
Consider this thread dead too unless you are stupid enough to post more cr@p.

Does anyone know which pram this rattle on the floor was ejected from?

On 23/04/2012 09:22, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Nobody gives a toss what you, ARW, and geof think you are gaining by
being childish.
Consider this thread dead too unless you are stupid enough to post more
cr@p.

I thought you had already killed the thread, so it must be dead by now.

Sounds like den has been watching to much star trek...

Instead of "make it so" we have "consider it dead".

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:lZudnZU2tYCQPgnSnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...

Nobody gives a toss what you, ARW, and geof think you are gaining by
being childish.
Consider this thread dead too unless you are stupid enough to post more
cr@p.


Ooer, did we say something that upset her?


--
geoff

In message

g, Steve Firth writes
"dennis@home" wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Nobody gives a toss what you, ARW, and geof think you are gaining by
being childish.
Consider this thread dead too unless you are stupid enough to post more cr@p.

Does anyone know which pram this rattle on the floor was ejected from?

You misspelt "prat" there


--
geoff

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 23/04/2012 09:22, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Nobody gives a toss what you, ARW, and geof think you are gaining by
being childish.
Consider this thread dead too unless you are stupid enough to post more
cr@p.

I thought you had already killed the thread, so it must be dead by now.

Sounds like den has been watching to much star trek...

Instead of "make it so" we have "consider it dead".

This is not the same thread unless you have a half baked reader.

On 23/04/2012 20:07, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 23/04/2012 09:22, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Nobody gives a toss what you, ARW, and geof think you are gaining by
being childish.
Consider this thread dead too unless you are stupid enough to post more
cr@p.

I thought you had already killed the thread, so it must be dead by now.

Sounds like den has been watching to much star trek...

Instead of "make it so" we have "consider it dead".

This is not the same thread unless you have a half baked reader.

You really are a pathological liar aren't you...

Shall we check... ok headers from your post above:

References:

and now from the one where you claimed to kill the thread:

References:

Oh look, what a surprise, exactly the same thread, you knob.

Want another wiggle?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/04/2012 20:07, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 23/04/2012 09:22, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Nobody gives a toss what you, ARW, and geof think you are gaining by
being childish.
Consider this thread dead too unless you are stupid enough to post more
cr@p.

I thought you had already killed the thread, so it must be dead by now.

Sounds like den has been watching to much star trek...

Instead of "make it so" we have "consider it dead".

This is not the same thread unless you have a half baked reader.

You really are a pathological liar aren't you...

Shall we check... ok headers from your post above:

References:

and now from the one where you claimed to kill the thread:

References:

Oh look, what a surprise, exactly the same thread, you knob.

Want another wiggle?

Oh look, different title.
I don't care what you think, its a new thread with a different title.

On 23/04/2012 21:40, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/04/2012 20:07, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 23/04/2012 09:22, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Nobody gives a toss what you, ARW, and geof think you are gaining by
being childish.
Consider this thread dead too unless you are stupid enough to post
more
cr@p.

I thought you had already killed the thread, so it must be dead by now.

Sounds like den has been watching to much star trek...

Instead of "make it so" we have "consider it dead".

This is not the same thread unless you have a half baked reader.

You really are a pathological liar aren't you...

Shall we check... ok headers from your post above:

References:

and now from the one where you claimed to kill the thread:

References:

Oh look, what a surprise, exactly the same thread, you knob.

Want another wiggle?

Oh look, different title.
I don't care what you think,

Never mind what I think... Lets let the facts speak for themselves.

its a new thread with a different title.

No, its the same thread with a different title. That is why it looks
like this:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/images/9/90/AUsenetThread.png

See the hierarchy, and all those References links?

Need another wiggle?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Need another wiggle?

You can claim what you like, its a different subject with a different title,
its a different thread.
Switch your read to one that threads by title and stop being stupid.
In fact carry on being stupid you are in the same class as ARW and geof and
not worth the time as you just argue over trivial stuff.

On 23/04/2012 22:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:

No, its the same thread with a different title. That is why it looks
like this:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/images/9/90/AUsenetThread.png

Oh vomit vomit - that's *revolting*

Just that sort of concentration of dennis is rather emetic. ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/04/2012 22:28, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Need another wiggle?

You can claim what you like, its a different subject with a different
title, its a different thread.

or not, as has just been demonstrated beyond any doubt...

Have a read of:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036#section-2.2.5

Hopefully you may now understand how changing the title of a message
does not start a new thread, when you create it by replying to an
existing message.

Switch your read to one that threads by title and stop being stupid.

Why would I want to break my software like that? Last thing I need is
your ramblings spewing wiggles out into pretend new threads every time a
subject line changes.

In fact carry on being stupid you are in the same class as ARW and geof
and not worth the time as you just argue over trivial stuff.

Do you get irony round your way?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Need another wiggle?

You can claim what you like, its a different subject with a different
title, its a different thread.
Switch your read to one that threads by title and stop being stupid.
In fact carry on being stupid you are in the same class as ARW and geof
and not worth the time as you just argue over trivial stuff.

No, YOU can claim what you like

Its plain for all to see that you lied

--
geoff

In message , John
Rumm writes
On 23/04/2012 22:28, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Need another wiggle?

You can claim what you like, its a different subject with a different
title, its a different thread.

or not, as has just been demonstrated beyond any doubt...

Have a read of:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036#section-2.2.5

Hopefully you may now understand how changing the title of a message
does not start a new thread, when you create it by replying to an
existing message.

Switch your read to one that threads by title and stop being stupid.

Why would I want to break my software like that? Last thing I need is
your ramblings spewing wiggles out into pretend new threads every time
a subject line changes.

In fact carry on being stupid you are in the same class as ARW and geof
and not worth the time as you just argue over trivial stuff.

Do you get irony round your way?


He's certainly going to get a comedy award at this rate

--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Need another wiggle?

You can claim what you like, its a different subject with a different
title, its a different thread.
Switch your read to one that threads by title and stop being stupid.
In fact carry on being stupid you are in the same class as ARW and geof
and not worth the time as you just argue over trivial stuff.

Using any standards compliant newsreader, if you reply to a post, no
matter what you do to the title, it is still the same thread. All decent
news servers honour this convention. To make it a new thread, you need
to start a new thread.

You didn't kill the thread, you just altered the title.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...


Using any standards compliant newsreader, if you reply to a post, no
matter what you do to the title, it is still the same thread. All decent
news servers honour this convention. To make it a new thread, you need to
start a new thread.

Any normal person uses the title as the thread indicator.
Normal people don't even have the headers and machine readable headers open
at all.

Its like its only stuffed up people that like to argue over nothing that
bother to see if a reply is actually to the header rather than to the text
quoted in the post.


You didn't kill the thread, you just altered the title.

To all intents and purposes to a normal person changing the title is the
same as starting a new thread. It also doesn't annoy people that have
already killed the thread.
Its just a bunch of kids looking for an argument.

Anyway this is really boring so I am not going to argue with the children
today, they can go and play with themselves.

dennis@home wrote:


Anyway this is really boring so I am not going to argue with the
children today, they can go and play with themselves.

So you are right, and everyone else is wrong.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


Anyway this is really boring so I am not going to argue with the children
today, they can go and play with themselves.

So you are right, and everyone else is wrong.

Well if you want to do it by a majority..
Most people don't even know the headers are there, so they don't use them.
I suppose they are all wrong too.


You had better sort through the readers too, you don't want ones that kill
subthreads using a menu that says kill thread.

John Williamson wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Need another wiggle?
You can claim what you like, its a different subject with a different
title, its a different thread.
Switch your read to one that threads by title and stop being stupid.
In fact carry on being stupid you are in the same class as ARW and geof
and not worth the time as you just argue over trivial stuff.

Using any standards compliant newsreader, if you reply to a post, no
matter what you do to the title, it is still the same thread. All decent
news servers honour this convention. To make it a new thread, you need to
start a new thread.

You didn't kill the thread, you just altered the title.


Not only that, but within a day of loudly claiming that he had killed the
thread dennis was posting replies.

Windows 7 32 or 64 bit ?
"dennis@home"
17/04/2012 23:39
[snip]

This is pointless you just keep wriggling. This stops here, you can wriggle
on your own. I have killed the thread.

Windows 7 32 or 64 bit ?
"dennis@home"
18/04/2012 07:59
[snip]

No!

He posted replies in the same thread after changing the title:

OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7 32 or 64 bit ?
"dennis@home"
22/04/2012 20:03

And note how it clearly is *not* a different thread as acknowledged BT
dennis when he titled it "OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7 32 or 64
bit ?" surely even denbhoi can't claim that he thought it was a different
thread?

On 24/04/2012 10:42, dennis@home wrote:


"John Williamson" wrote in message
...


Using any standards compliant newsreader, if you reply to a post, no
matter what you do to the title, it is still the same thread. All
decent news servers honour this convention. To make it a new thread,
you need to start a new thread.

Any normal person uses the title as the thread indicator.

No I think you will find most of out here in the real world use the
position in the thread, and the attributions to work out what a message
is replying to.

You see, when a message turns up as the root of a new thread, and gets
displayed at a position in the sort order that indicates its a new
thread that has just been received, then that is what helps convince us
its actually a new thread.

When some dozy muppet replies to a weeks old thread, several hundred
posts down in the depths of it, it creates a strong impression that he
just hit reply.

Normal people don't even have the headers and machine readable headers
open at all.

You don't need to see the headers when its hanging indented off the
bottom of another post to know its a reply.

Its like its only stuffed up people that like to argue over nothing that

Its takes two to argue... go on skulk away tail between your legs.

bother to see if a reply is actually to the header rather than to the
text quoted in the post.

You just can't stand being wrong can you? So you have to make a big song
and dance about it.

You didn't kill the thread, you just altered the title.

To all intents and purposes to a normal person changing the title is the
same as starting a new thread. It also doesn't annoy people that have
already killed the thread.

Just because you don't understand how a newsreader works, don't assume
we are all equally ignorant.

Not everyone in the world does it your way.

Its just a bunch of kids looking for an argument.

Ah bless.

Anyway this is really boring so I am not going to argue with the
children today, they can go and play with themselves.

Not going to argue like all those other times you claimed to have killed
the thread?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


And note how it clearly is *not* a different thread as acknowledged BT
dennis when he titled it "OT; geoffs an idiot, was: Windows 7 32 or 64
bit ?" surely even denbhoi can't claim that he thought it was a different
thread?

You know as well as I do that I can't kill a thread.
Once its out there it stays out there.
If I could I would kill all your junk.
Maybe I should run a cancel bot and see if it will cancel you?