I'm FINALLY dumping AOL. Won't take the time to rage.
My new account ) makes it
difficult (ok, impossible for my pea-brain). to get here.
How do the rest of you access this n.g.. Thanks!

-Rick

On 28 Jan 2005 16:03:53 GMT, Sbtypesetter wrote:
I'm FINALLY dumping AOL. Won't take the time to rage.
My new account ) makes it
difficult (ok, impossible for my pea-brain). to get here.
How do the rest of you access this n.g.. Thanks!

Subscribe to news.individual.net and download Forte Free Agent.
Get connectivity through charter, and config Forte to point to
news.individual.net as it's NNTP server. No muss, no fuss.

Or head to Google Groups.

I connect to it via a web interface at http://www.diybanter.com - it is reliable and easy to use.

Sbtypesetter wrote:
I'm FINALLY dumping AOL. Won't take the time to rage.
My new account ) makes it
difficult (ok, impossible for my pea-brain). to get here.
How do the rest of you access this n.g.. Thanks!
-Rick
When you joined charter.net they gave you some server settings,
probably. There should have been a POP, SMPT and NNTP (news)
servers. Not knowing what browser you'll be using, I can't tell
you the next step. In general, during your browser setup, it'll
have a place to name your NNTp/news server, put in whatever they
told you. then click on this link: news:rec.woodworking
news:rec.crafts.woodturning news:alt.binaries.pictures.furniture
news:alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking. You may not be able to
get all of them, not all ISPs carry all NGs. If the link doesn't
work and others do, that's what happened.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/

On 28 Jan 2005 16:03:53 GMT, ojunk (Sbtypesetter)
wrote:

I'm FINALLY dumping AOL. Won't take the time to rage.
My new account ) makes it
difficult (ok, impossible for my pea-brain). to get here.
How do the rest of you access this n.g.. Thanks!

You have a new account through a new ISP [Internet provider]. Ask the
people who are now taking your money how to access newsgroups
[usenet]. And go to them with any other little problem you can't
easily resolve, such as setup if you have difficulty. ... I do, and I
have LOTS of experience.

On 28 Jan 2005 16:32:01 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Subscribe to news.individual.net and download Forte Free Agent.
Get connectivity through charter, and config Forte to point to
news.individual.net as it's NNTP server. No muss, no fuss.

news.individual.net ....Who are they? What are they? Why do they
provide newsgroup access for free? I'm assuming it's for free since I
normally get mine through my own internet provider.

Thanks .

On 28 Jan 2005 08:49:35 -0800, damian penney wrote:
Or head to Google Groups.

Among the problems with google groups, is that it (apparently)
encourages people to, ahem, reply to posts without including any
context. This must be a new change there as it's just started in
the last month or so.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:49:15 -0500, Guess who wrote:
On 28 Jan 2005 16:32:01 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Subscribe to news.individual.net and download Forte Free Agent.
Get connectivity through charter, and config Forte to point to
news.individual.net as it's NNTP server. No muss, no fuss.

news.individual.net ....Who are they?

A free newsserver, which is fast, highly reliable, and aggressively
cancels obvious spam messages. No binaries groups, though, for
space reasons.

What are they?

See above. Did I mention free?

Why do they
provide newsgroup access for free?

Because the German taxpayers fund them to do so.

I'm assuming it's for free since I
normally get mine through my own internet provider.

Yup. If I was curious about them, I'd point my browser
to http://news.individual.net and click on "FAQ". Even
so, some of the paid newsservers give benefit over ISP-
provided servers, if for no other reason than a faster
more reliable feed.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 28 Jan 2005 08:49:35 -0800, damian penney wrote:
Or head to Google Groups.

Among the problems with google groups, is that it (apparently)
encourages people to, ahem, reply to posts without including any
context. This must be a new change there as it's just started in
the last month or so.

I got this from another newsgroup.


In the Google Groups format, its NOT the 'reply' at the bottom of the
message you are looking at, as you would think. This option doesn't
give you the needed text that you can cut or reply to show up in your
post. But if you choose the 'show options' next to the OP name &
message header, and you click on 'reply' as the first option listed
within, it will give you all the previous message in quoted context
that you can reply to line by line or whatever so people know who or
what you are replying to.

Of course no one in this group was kind
enough to tell me this, rather I had to stumble around with the anal
posting police dithering on and on about how stupid blahblahblah until
I figured it out myself. Hopefully this will save a few other people
from their beratings and rantings. ;-)

Sbtypesetter wrote:

I'm FINALLY dumping AOL. Won't take the time to rage.
My new account ) makes it
difficult (ok, impossible for my pea-brain). to get here.
How do the rest of you access this n.g.. Thanks!

-Rick

I believe their news server is:

nntp.charter.net


--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

"Nova" wrote in message
...
Sbtypesetter wrote:

I'm FINALLY dumping AOL. Won't take the time to rage.
My new account ) makes it
difficult (ok, impossible for my pea-brain). to get here.
How do the rest of you access this n.g.. Thanks!

-Rick

I believe their news server is:

nntp.charter.net


I'll bet it is - it answers a ping.
--

-Mike-

Any decent news reader allows you to group messages by thread (that's
the whole point of the references tag) Google Groups, Thunderbird and
lowly Outlook Express can certainly do this. Not to mention the subject
really gives you all the context you need in this case. Personally I
don't like having to wade through gobs of context to find what the
poster actually has to say, usenet isn't email, but I don't find it
necessary to complain about those that post that way either. This whole
netiquette nannying is getting old, I've been using the net and usenet
for over a decade and frankly find it condescending it's as though some
folk think the Google Groupers are all newbies.

In article om,
damian penney wrote:

Any decent news reader allows you to group messages by thread (that's
the whole point of the references tag) Google Groups, Thunderbird and
lowly Outlook Express can certainly do this. Not to mention the subject
really gives you all the context you need in this case. Personally I
don't like having to wade through gobs of context to find what the
poster actually has to say, usenet isn't email, but I don't find it
necessary to complain about those that post that way either. This whole
netiquette nannying is getting old, I've been using the net and usenet
for over a decade and frankly find it condescending it's as though some
folk think the Google Groupers are all newbies.

Who are you talking to? And how do you make your voice *DO* that?

djb

--
"There is no hell. There is only France." -- Frank Zappa

Dave in Fairfax wrote:

servers. Not knowing what browser you'll be using, I can't tell

Browser?!

On some level, I probably knew that, but it just sunk in. You use a web
browser as a newsreader. I find that baffling for some reason. rn, Free
Agent, Agent, KNode, some other ones in between I've forgotten about...
I've always used a newsreader for reading news. Doing otherwise just
strikes me as plain silly.

Next you're going to tell me you use a newsreader for reading email too,
instead of an email program.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:24:46 -0500, Silvan
wrote:


Next you're going to tell me you use a newsreader for reading email too,
instead of an email program.


agent has a mail client built in. never used it though, so I can't say
if it's any good.

Comments aimed specifically at Lee Michaels and Dave Hinz, perhaps this
link will allow you to see things in context.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e5229f3b574bc1

"damian penney" wrote in message
oups.com...
Or head to Google Groups.


Are you having a hard time understanding how newsgroups work?

--

-Mike-

In article , Mike Marlow
wrote:

Are you having a hard time understanding how newsgroups work?

It seems so. He's either unwilling or unable to provide any context to
his posts, which suggests he believes usenet exists only on Google.

djb

--
"Modern technology has enabled us to communicate and organize with speed and
efficiency never before possible. People have gotten less competent to
compensate for this." - CW

On 29 Jan 2005 15:19:03 -0800, damian penney wrote:
Comments aimed specifically at Lee Michaels and Dave Hinz, perhaps this
link will allow you to see things in context.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e5229f3b574bc1

Wouldn't it be easier, Damian, to _include_ whatever you're answering in
your post, instead of including a 3-line URL? You know, like people in
Usenet have been doing for, er, years?

Comments aimed specifically at Lee Michaels and Dave Hinz, perhaps
this
link will allow you to see things in context.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...wse_frm/thread...

Wouldn't it be easier, Damian, to _include_ whatever you're answering
in
your post, instead of including a 3-line URL? You know, like people
in
Usenet have been doing for, er, years?

There you go. Now like I said, I personally don't like having to wade
through gobs of context to find what the poster has actually
contributed. Any decent/modern newsreader allows you to view groups in
a threaded manner so in my eyes quoting previous responses is a waste
of bandwidth. If you really needed context then in slrn esc-p will find
you the parent based on the references tag but lets face it you were
just being pedantic and knew quite well the context of my comments. I
really don't need a lesson in how to use usenet, I've been using it for
over a decade. This is my last post on the subject as quite frankly I'm
tired of the childishness that's been displayed here. Shame on you.

Mike Marlow wrote:
"damian penney" wrote in message
oups.com...
Or head to Google Groups.


Are you having a hard time understanding how newsgroups work?

--

-Mike-


No, I'm having a hard time figuring out why you're being such petty
jackasses.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Mike Marlow
wrote:

Are you having a hard time understanding how newsgroups work?

It seems so. He's either unwilling or unable to provide any context
to
his posts, which suggests he believes usenet exists only on Google.

djb

--
"Modern technology has enabled us to communicate and organize with
speed and
efficiency never before possible. People have gotten less competent
to
compensate for this." - CW


Which suggests he believes... Oh shut the hell up, I know perfectly
well how to use Usenet, used it for over a decade, context is a waste
of bandwidth when decent newsreaders display things in a threaded
format, or don't you know how to do make it do that? The whole Ooooo he
uses Google must be a newbie lets pounce attitude is lame, it's a
decent interface and is accessabled from anywhere. Usenet isn't email
you know.

"damian penney" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mike Marlow wrote:
"damian penney" wrote in message
oups.com...
Or head to Google Groups.


Are you having a hard time understanding how newsgroups work?

--

-Mike-


No, I'm having a hard time figuring out why you're being such petty
jackasses.


Well, as you stated in another post, you've been on usenet for over a
decade - you should have figured out by now that including text is (if
nothing else) considerate to other readers. But then again I also read how
you don't seem to care about that and are off on some individual trip.
Fine. Those who are so self absorbed as you seem to be seldom have much of
value to offer.
--

-Mike-

On 31 Jan 2005 16:56:23 -0800, damian penney wrote:


Wouldn't it be easier, Damian, to _include_ whatever you're answering
in
your post, instead of including a 3-line URL? You know, like people
in
Usenet have been doing for, er, years?

There you go. Now like I said, I personally don't like having to wade
through gobs of context to find what the poster has actually
contributed.

Of course. Give a sentence or two, trim the rest. Leave in the "person
said thing" line, and you'll have it right.

Any decent/modern newsreader allows you to view groups in
a threaded manner so in my eyes quoting previous responses is a waste
of bandwidth.

Quoting the _entire_ previous message, sure. Enough to get an idea,
makes communication better.

If you really needed context then in slrn esc-p will find
you the parent based on the references tag but lets face it you were
just being pedantic and knew quite well the context of my comments.

Actually, no. Sorry, but I don't memorize the contents of every thread
I participate in and who is saying what to whom.

I
really don't need a lesson in how to use usenet, I've been using it for
over a decade. This is my last post on the subject as quite frankly I'm
tired of the childishness that's been displayed here. Shame on you.

Right, so because two of us are trying to explain to you how your posting
method interferes with people understanding _your posts_, somehow this is
our problem. Got it. The fact that you've been on usenet for more than
a decade isn't relevant; there were clueless newbies ten years ago too.

Most people would have noticed, in a decade, that replying with no context
interferes with communication.

It wasn't me who started disparaging others now was it? I offered the
original poster a solution to his problem only to be pounced on because
the solution is frowned on by certain members of this group who see it
as a lesser mechanism for accessing usenet that's only used by newbies
who don't know any better. It isn't. With regards quoting posts, you
use Outlook Express which threads posts quite nicely, show me a client
that doesn't thread posts or allow you to find the parent if need be.
You say quoting helps, I say it doesn't. Bottom line is that you
resorted to petty sniping because I suggested using Google Groups.

Mike Marlow wrote:
"damian penney" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mike Marlow wrote:
"damian penney" wrote in message
oups.com...
Or head to Google Groups.


Are you having a hard time understanding how newsgroups work?

--

-Mike-


No, I'm having a hard time figuring out why you're being such petty
jackasses.


Well, as you stated in another post, you've been on usenet for over a
decade - you should have figured out by now that including text is
(if
nothing else) considerate to other readers. But then again I also
read how
you don't seem to care about that and are off on some individual
trip.
Fine. Those who are so self absorbed as you seem to be seldom have
much of
value to offer.
--

-Mike-

On 1 Feb 2005 09:07:29 -0800, damian penney wrote:
It wasn't me who started disparaging others now was it? I offered the
original poster a solution to his problem only to be pounced on because
the solution is frowned on by certain members of this group who see it
as a lesser mechanism for accessing usenet that's only used by newbies
who don't know any better. It isn't.

We're not saying you're not communicating well because you post from
google, we're saying you're not communicating well because first you
posted with no context, then you seemed to show a glimmering of a
clue by actually including context (but with no attribution), and now
you're freaking _top posting_.

With regards quoting posts, you
use Outlook Express which threads posts quite nicely, show me a client
that doesn't thread posts or allow you to find the parent if need be.
You say quoting helps, I say it doesn't. Bottom line is that you
resorted to petty sniping because I suggested using Google Groups.

No, you're intentionally missing his, and my, and the other Dave's point.

Actually, no. Sorry, but I don't memorize the contents of every
thread
I participate in and who is saying what to whom.


Usenet is threaded so you don't HAVE to memorize the contents of the
entire thread, replys directly reference the post that is being
responded to.


Right, so because two of us are trying to explain to you how your
posting
method interferes with people understanding _your posts_, somehow
this is
our problem. Got it. The fact that you've been on usenet for more
than
a decade isn't relevant; there were clueless newbies ten years ago
too.

Oh yes you're really trying to be ever so helpful; lets face it you
didn't like the solution I offered the original poster and jumped up on
your high horse.


Most people would have noticed, in a decade, that replying with no
context
interferes with communication.

Again, do you realise that in Usenet replies reference the post to
which they are referencing? That makes it a threaded discussion, and
the thread IS the context. I made a one line response to the original
message whose title had all the context necessary to understand what I
was referring to but because you didn't like the reply you decided to
troll.

Sbtypesetter wrote:
I'm FINALLY dumping AOL. Won't take the time to rage.
My new account ) makes it
difficult (ok, impossible for my pea-brain). to get here.
How do the rest of you access this n.g.. Thanks!

I google, just because I like to check it at lunch at work, where NNTP
is blocked. Sucks as far as checking new messages, though, and once a
thread gets too long, it's nearly impossible to respond to every
message that is replied to you, since you have to find them all.

Sbtypesetter wrote:
I'm FINALLY dumping AOL. Won't take the time to rage.
My new account ) makes it
difficult (ok, impossible for my pea-brain). to get here.
How do the rest of you access this n.g.. Thanks!

For home use, I use OCTANEWS. (www.octanews.com). The advantage of
this one is you only pay for bandwidth. If you're a text only kinda
guy, this is THE way to go. If you don't access the NG much during the
summer (like me), your balance remains and you only pay when you need
to buy more "blocks" of bandwidth.
10 gig for text can last a LONG time.

On 1 Feb 2005 09:20:21 -0800, damian penney wrote:

Actually, no. Sorry, but I don't memorize the contents of every
thread
I participate in and who is saying what to whom.


Usenet is threaded so you don't HAVE to memorize the contents of the
entire thread, replys directly reference the post that is being
responded to.

If you give context. Like you did again this time, seemingly
randomly.

Right, so because two of us are trying to explain to you how your
posting
method interferes with people understanding _your posts_, somehow
this is
our problem. Got it. The fact that you've been on usenet for more
than
a decade isn't relevant; there were clueless newbies ten years ago
too.

Oh yes you're really trying to be ever so helpful; lets face it you
didn't like the solution I offered the original poster and jumped up on
your high horse.

Actually, I've suggested groups.google.com to people as a solution,
myself. I prefer news.individual.net, but google isn't awful.

Most people would have noticed, in a decade, that replying with no
context
interferes with communication.

Again, do you realise that in Usenet replies reference the post to
which they are referencing?

I do now, because you included the context.

That makes it a threaded discussion, and
the thread IS the context. I made a one line response to the original
message whose title had all the context necessary to understand what I
was referring to but because you didn't like the reply you decided to
troll.

Not hardly. Not everyone displays a nested-threaded-message
display like you apparently do. Assuming they do, or should, is rather
arrogant on your part.

sarcasm
But, you've been doing it your way for more than a decade, so you _must_
be right. Because obviously you're so brillaint that you've figured out
what all of Usenet has failed to do in that decade. /sarcasm

Dave Hinz wrote:
now you're freaking _top posting_.

Um no i'm not actually...

References:
.com

. com



Anyway, pleasant as this has been I can see continuing this is
pointless and a waste of everybodies time. You've been incredibly rude
and I hope you don't talk to folk in real life like you've expressed
yourself to me here.

On 1 Feb 2005 11:26:57 -0800, damian penney wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
now you're freaking _top posting_.

Um no i'm not actually...

Based on?
References:
s.com

.com


What the HELL does that have to do with you top-posting? You've
confused that with _threading_ now, FFS.

Anyway, pleasant as this has been I can see continuing this is
pointless and a waste of everybodies time. You've been incredibly rude
and I hope you don't talk to folk in real life like you've expressed
yourself to me here.

Whatever. plonk. Problem solved. Buh-bye now.

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:52:39 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:

Whatever. plonk. Problem solved. Buh-bye now.

Took you long enough - I did on day 2 of his appearance...

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:04:37 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:52:39 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:

Whatever. plonk. Problem solved. Buh-bye now.

Took you long enough - I did on day 2 of his appearance...

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. There seemed to be a glimmer of a clue there
for a bit, that one time where he nearly posted in a useful way.

"damian penney" wrote in message
oups.com...
It wasn't me who started disparaging others now was it? I offered the
original poster a solution to his problem only to be pounced on because
the solution is frowned on by certain members of this group who see it
as a lesser mechanism for accessing usenet that's only used by newbies
who don't know any better. It isn't. With regards quoting posts, you
use Outlook Express which threads posts quite nicely, show me a client
that doesn't thread posts or allow you to find the parent if need be.
You say quoting helps, I say it doesn't. Bottom line is that you
resorted to petty sniping because I suggested using Google Groups.


Actually... no. You should not presume why I responded with what I did, or
attempt to associate a motive that I have not articulated. You have at best
a 50/50 chance of getting it right and you didn't. I have no problem at all
with people who post from google. My comments were strictly related to not
including quoted text, which has been a usenet standard from day one. So -
your bottom line is wrong.
--

-Mike-

On 1 Feb 2005 09:20:21 -0800, "damian penney" wrote:


Actually, no. Sorry, but I don't memorize the contents of every
thread
I participate in and who is saying what to whom.


Usenet is threaded so you don't HAVE to memorize the contents of the
entire thread, replys directly reference the post that is being
responded to.


... and if you post a line or two of context, I don't have to display
*hundreds* of already read threadlines in my newsreader; I only have to
display unread postings.



Right, so because two of us are trying to explain to you how your
posting
method interferes with people understanding _your posts_, somehow
this is
our problem. Got it. The fact that you've been on usenet for more
than
a decade isn't relevant; there were clueless newbies ten years ago
too.

Oh yes you're really trying to be ever so helpful; lets face it you
didn't like the solution I offered the original poster and jumped up on
your high horse.


Because the "solution" you offered all of us for your context-free
postings is to clutter up our newsreaders with all the read title lines so
*we* can derive the context you could otherwise include in a couple (what
160 to 300 bytes?) lines of text.



Most people would have noticed, in a decade, that replying with no
context
interferes with communication.

Again, do you realise that in Usenet replies reference the post to
which they are referencing? That makes it a threaded discussion, and
the thread IS the context. I made a one line response to the original
message whose title had all the context necessary to understand what I
was referring to but because you didn't like the reply you decided to
troll.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Davey Hinz wrote:

What the HELL does that have to do with you top-posting? You've
confused that with _threading_ now, FFS.

I assumed top posting was starting a new thread which I hadn't, what is
top posting?

This is top posting. Some people are rather anal about it and treat it
as an Offense Upon Creation. I find bottom posting easier to read, but
really don't care one way or the other if appropriate context AND
snipping is given/done when someone posts in a thread.


In article .com,
damian penney wrote:

I assumed top posting was starting a new thread which I hadn't, what is
top posting?

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:30:05 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
This is top posting. Some people are rather anal about it and treat it
as an Offense Upon Creation. I find bottom posting easier to read, but
really don't care one way or the other if appropriate context AND
snipping is given/done when someone posts in a thread.

It's annoying, because now that we have context, the answer is above
the thing it's answering, rather than after as it would be in a real
conversation. But I'm suspecting he won't get it, and I really don't
care.


In article .com,
damian penney wrote:

I assumed top posting was starting a new thread which I hadn't, what is
top posting?