Group: rec.travel.australia+nz
Travel Information for Australia and New Zealand.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Are Usenet charters useful?
Are Usenet charters useful?
Are Usenet charters useful?
IMHO, perhaps, if contributors aren't expected
to regard them as "unalterable laws or rules".
In the real world, views and conditions change with
the passage of time.
Many of us believe that God wrote the Ten Commandments, but
even believers interpret them differently.
Much more recently, the U.S. Constitution was written, but
shortly after the first 10 amendments were written, and many more
amendments have been added since.
Is there general agreement on the Constitution? No, its meanings
have been extensively interpreted by the courts.
In the US, there are even more frequent changes and additions
to City, County, State, and Federal laws.
The founders of Usenet groups write even more vague "charters"
and some expect them to be taken literally and not subject to
interpretation or change.
Those interested in some professional comment on the computer
security and comments on the Internet in general really should
have a look at "Quotable Spaf" at
* homes.cerias.purdue.edu/%7Espaf/quotes.html
Suggest that readers of the travel and immigration groups
read the page. It doesn't take long. At least read the material
following
"Around 1987, I formulated my three axioms of Usenet,
with corollaries:" . . .
After this, some readers might wonder who "Spaf" is. There
are links from the above site to a both a short biography
and a full C.V. as well as other links.
To provide a quick quote of the first line of the short bio:
"Eugene H. Spafford is one of the most senior and
recognized leaders in the field of computing."
----------
Were I a potential immigrant to Australia, rather than
an actual U.S. immigrant to Australia, what areas what would
I want to know about?
Well, in many ways the Australian way of life is similar to
the US, but I would be interested in the differences, and
consider most all of the following important knowledge, hence
relevant subjects for posting on the misc.immigration list.
Some would also be of interest to tourists or travelers.
The following list is not exhaustive or complete, just what
occurs to me at the moment.
------------------
attitudes towards immigrants
business opportunities
climate and weather
cost of travel, shipping
cost of living
crime rates
differences in electricity supply, etc.
economy
employment opportunities
current currency exchange rates
form of government
flora & fauna
geography
life expectancy
Medicare program
metric system
natural hazards
Pharmaceutical benefits
population density & distribution
recreation
tolerance of crime
------
Oh yes, special thanks to posts from my critic
"Kangaroo16a@g-mail" whose replies to my posts on
misc.immigration.australia+nz has motivated me to
write and post this to both groups.
Perhaps he will learn a bit more about computer security
and the usefulness of Usenet.
.....................
What chances? Well reminds me of the ancient joke where
a king sentences a slave to death. The slave begs for mercy, and
promises the king that if he is given another year of life, he
will teach the kings horse to talk. The king grants his request.
One of his friends tells him that it is a foolish wager, as
he cannot possibly teach the horse to talk.
The beggar smiles and replies "Perhaps, but a year is a long
time. In the next twelve months, I may die, the king may die,
the horse may die....and who knows, the horse may learn to talk.
..........
So what are the chances that kangaroo16a@gmail will learn
anything from this post or my earlier posts? IMHO, about the
same chance of the horse in the joke learning English.:-)
Regards,
Kangaroo16@invalid.example
Sydney,1:58 PM Wednesday
15 Jan, 2008 [GMT +11 hours]
Are Usenet charters useful?
IMHO, perhaps, if contributors aren't expected
to regard them as "unalterable laws or rules".
In the real world, views and conditions change with
the passage of time.
Many of us believe that God wrote the Ten Commandments, but
even believers interpret them differently.
Much more recently, the U.S. Constitution was written, but
shortly after the first 10 amendments were written, and many more
amendments have been added since.
Is there general agreement on the Constitution? No, its meanings
have been extensively interpreted by the courts.
In the US, there are even more frequent changes and additions
to City, County, State, and Federal laws.
The founders of Usenet groups write even more vague "charters"
and some expect them to be taken literally and not subject to
interpretation or change.
Those interested in some professional comment on the computer
security and comments on the Internet in general really should
have a look at "Quotable Spaf" at
* homes.cerias.purdue.edu/%7Espaf/quotes.html
Suggest that readers of the travel and immigration groups
read the page. It doesn't take long. At least read the material
following
"Around 1987, I formulated my three axioms of Usenet,
with corollaries:" . . .
After this, some readers might wonder who "Spaf" is. There
are links from the above site to a both a short biography
and a full C.V. as well as other links.
To provide a quick quote of the first line of the short bio:
"Eugene H. Spafford is one of the most senior and
recognized leaders in the field of computing."
----------
Were I a potential immigrant to Australia, rather than
an actual U.S. immigrant to Australia, what areas what would
I want to know about?
Well, in many ways the Australian way of life is similar to
the US, but I would be interested in the differences, and
consider most all of the following important knowledge, hence
relevant subjects for posting on the misc.immigration list.
Some would also be of interest to tourists or travelers.
The following list is not exhaustive or complete, just what
occurs to me at the moment.
------------------
attitudes towards immigrants
business opportunities
climate and weather
cost of travel, shipping
cost of living
crime rates
differences in electricity supply, etc.
economy
employment opportunities
current currency exchange rates
form of government
flora & fauna
geography
life expectancy
Medicare program
metric system
natural hazards
Pharmaceutical benefits
population density & distribution
recreation
tolerance of crime
------
Oh yes, special thanks to posts from my critic
"Kangaroo16a@g-mail" whose replies to my posts on
misc.immigration.australia+nz has motivated me to
write and post this to both groups.
Perhaps he will learn a bit more about computer security
and the usefulness of Usenet.
.....................
What chances? Well reminds me of the ancient joke where
a king sentences a slave to death. The slave begs for mercy, and
promises the king that if he is given another year of life, he
will teach the kings horse to talk. The king grants his request.
One of his friends tells him that it is a foolish wager, as
he cannot possibly teach the horse to talk.
The beggar smiles and replies "Perhaps, but a year is a long
time. In the next twelve months, I may die, the king may die,
the horse may die....and who knows, the horse may learn to talk.
..........
So what are the chances that kangaroo16a@gmail will learn
anything from this post or my earlier posts? IMHO, about the
same chance of the horse in the joke learning English.:-)
Regards,
Kangaroo16@invalid.example
Sydney,1:58 PM Wednesday
15 Jan, 2008 [GMT +11 hours]
Re: Are Usenet charters useful?
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:58:29 GMT, Kangaroo16
<Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
>Are Usenet charters useful?
[balance of thread mostly irrelevant, deleted]
For someone who has previously stated they have been around Usenet for
about 10 years, you are obviously lieing i.e. you have no idea about
how Usenet newsgroups came into being i.e. CFD, RFD, vote/vote taking,
etc etc etc.
You have stated in the past in misc.immigration.australia+nz, that you
do not intend to abide by any Charter/FAQ/Rationale i.e. you intend to
make newsgroups your own personal blog, 'myspace, similar forum.
You have stated in the past that you only post to non-moderated groups
and it is easy to see why!
I doubt very much if you have been involved with Usenet newsgroups for
any length of time period.
Cath
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:58:29 GMT, Kangaroo16
<Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
>Are Usenet charters useful?
[balance of thread mostly irrelevant, deleted]
For someone who has previously stated they have been around Usenet for
about 10 years, you are obviously lieing i.e. you have no idea about
how Usenet newsgroups came into being i.e. CFD, RFD, vote/vote taking,
etc etc etc.
You have stated in the past in misc.immigration.australia+nz, that you
do not intend to abide by any Charter/FAQ/Rationale i.e. you intend to
make newsgroups your own personal blog, 'myspace, similar forum.
You have stated in the past that you only post to non-moderated groups
and it is easy to see why!
I doubt very much if you have been involved with Usenet newsgroups for
any length of time period.
Cath
Re: Are Usenet charters useful?
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:38:40 -0600,
texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit.usacom.. wrote in
<jp70p3118ef0a23a89leaplgqikeve0rbl@4ax . com > :
>On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:58:29 GMT, Kangaroo16
><Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Are Usenet charters useful?
>[balance of thread mostly irrelevant, deleted]
>
>For someone who has previously stated they have been around Usenet for
>about 10 years, you are obviously lieing
Over ten years, actually, and the word is spelled "lying".
i.e. you have no idea about
>how Usenet newsgroups came into being i.e. CFD, RFD, vote/vote taking,
>etc etc etc.
If it pleases you to believe that, why should I disillusion you?
>
>You have stated in the past in misc.immigration.australia+nz, that you
>do not intend to abide by any Charter/FAQ/Rationale i.e. you intend to
>make newsgroups your own personal blog, 'myspace, similar forum.
You used that phrase, not I.
I post what I consider to be of interest to readers. If they
don't see it as such, they need not read it.
>You have stated in the past that you only post to non-moderated groups
>and it is easy to see why!
If I said "only" will withdraw it. "Seldom" would be a better
term.
>
>I doubt very much if you have been involved with Usenet newsgroups for
>any length of time period.
You are free to doubt anything you wish to doubt. If you were to
insist that the earth was flat and there is no God I wouldn't
bother to try to convince you otherwise.
>Cath
Regards,
Kangaroo16@invalid.example
Sydney, 6:52 PM Friday
18 Jan, 2008 [GMT +11 hours]
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:38:40 -0600,
texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit.usacom.. wrote in
<jp70p3118ef0a23a89leaplgqikeve0rbl@4ax . com > :
>On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:58:29 GMT, Kangaroo16
><Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Are Usenet charters useful?
>[balance of thread mostly irrelevant, deleted]
>
>For someone who has previously stated they have been around Usenet for
>about 10 years, you are obviously lieing
Over ten years, actually, and the word is spelled "lying".
i.e. you have no idea about
>how Usenet newsgroups came into being i.e. CFD, RFD, vote/vote taking,
>etc etc etc.
If it pleases you to believe that, why should I disillusion you?
>
>You have stated in the past in misc.immigration.australia+nz, that you
>do not intend to abide by any Charter/FAQ/Rationale i.e. you intend to
>make newsgroups your own personal blog, 'myspace, similar forum.
You used that phrase, not I.
I post what I consider to be of interest to readers. If they
don't see it as such, they need not read it.
>You have stated in the past that you only post to non-moderated groups
>and it is easy to see why!
If I said "only" will withdraw it. "Seldom" would be a better
term.
>
>I doubt very much if you have been involved with Usenet newsgroups for
>any length of time period.
You are free to doubt anything you wish to doubt. If you were to
insist that the earth was flat and there is no God I wouldn't
bother to try to convince you otherwise.
>Cath
Regards,
Kangaroo16@invalid.example
Sydney, 6:52 PM Friday
18 Jan, 2008 [GMT +11 hours]
Re: Are Usenet charters useful?
Cath,
Why not do what most others have already done "killfile Kangaroo16"
lack of people listening to his verbage could get rid of him.
John H
<texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit.usacom..> wrote in message
news:jp70p3118ef0a23a89leaplgqikeve0rbl@4ax . com ...
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:58:29 GMT, Kangaroo16
> <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Are Usenet charters useful?
> [balance of thread mostly irrelevant, deleted]
>
> For someone who has previously stated they have been around Usenet for
> about 10 years, you are obviously lieing i.e. you have no idea about
> how Usenet newsgroups came into being i.e. CFD, RFD, vote/vote taking,
> etc etc etc.
>
> You have stated in the past in misc.immigration.australia+nz, that you
> do not intend to abide by any Charter/FAQ/Rationale i.e. you intend to
> make newsgroups your own personal blog, 'myspace, similar forum.
>
> You have stated in the past that you only post to non-moderated groups
> and it is easy to see why!
>
> I doubt very much if you have been involved with Usenet newsgroups for
> any length of time period.
>
> Cath
>
Cath,
Why not do what most others have already done "killfile Kangaroo16"
lack of people listening to his verbage could get rid of him.
John H
<texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit.usacom..> wrote in message
news:jp70p3118ef0a23a89leaplgqikeve0rbl@4ax . com ...
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:58:29 GMT, Kangaroo16
> <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Are Usenet charters useful?
> [balance of thread mostly irrelevant, deleted]
>
> For someone who has previously stated they have been around Usenet for
> about 10 years, you are obviously lieing i.e. you have no idea about
> how Usenet newsgroups came into being i.e. CFD, RFD, vote/vote taking,
> etc etc etc.
>
> You have stated in the past in misc.immigration.australia+nz, that you
> do not intend to abide by any Charter/FAQ/Rationale i.e. you intend to
> make newsgroups your own personal blog, 'myspace, similar forum.
>
> You have stated in the past that you only post to non-moderated groups
> and it is easy to see why!
>
> I doubt very much if you have been involved with Usenet newsgroups for
> any length of time period.
>
> Cath
>
Re: Are Usenet charters useful?
On Jan 18, 8:17 pm, "John H" <JohnH4...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> Cath,
> Why not do what most others have already done "killfile Kangaroo16"
> lack of people listening to his verbage could get rid of him.
> John H<texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit.usacom..> wrote in message
>
> news:jp70p3118ef0a23a89leaplgqikeve0rbl@4ax . com ...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:58:29 GMT, Kangaroo16
> > <Kangaro...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>Are Usenet charters useful?
> > [balance of thread mostly irrelevant, deleted]
>
> > For someone who has previously stated they have been around Usenet for
> > about 10 years, you are obviously lieing i.e. you have no idea about
> > how Usenet newsgroups came into being i.e. CFD, RFD, vote/vote taking,
> > etc etc etc.
>
> > You have stated in the past in misc.immigration.australia+nz, that you
> > do not intend to abide by any Charter/FAQ/Rationale i.e. you intend to
> > make newsgroups your own personal blog, 'myspace, similar forum.
>
> > You have stated in the past that you only post to non-moderated groups
> > and it is easy to see why!
>
> > I doubt very much if you have been involved with Usenet newsgroups for
> > any length of time period.
>
> > Cath- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Usenet is old, and in this age totally irrelevant. It barely functions
like it was in the beginning and people pining for the old days should
get over it. This is an unmoderated "forum" and as such anyone can
post whatever they like, even if others don't like it. I'm surprised
"News" forums exist at all in this day, and they probably won't for
exist forever.
Greg
On Jan 18, 8:17 pm, "John H" <JohnH4...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> Cath,
> Why not do what most others have already done "killfile Kangaroo16"
> lack of people listening to his verbage could get rid of him.
> John H<texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit.usacom..> wrote in message
>
> news:jp70p3118ef0a23a89leaplgqikeve0rbl@4ax . com ...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:58:29 GMT, Kangaroo16
> > <Kangaro...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>Are Usenet charters useful?
> > [balance of thread mostly irrelevant, deleted]
>
> > For someone who has previously stated they have been around Usenet for
> > about 10 years, you are obviously lieing i.e. you have no idea about
> > how Usenet newsgroups came into being i.e. CFD, RFD, vote/vote taking,
> > etc etc etc.
>
> > You have stated in the past in misc.immigration.australia+nz, that you
> > do not intend to abide by any Charter/FAQ/Rationale i.e. you intend to
> > make newsgroups your own personal blog, 'myspace, similar forum.
>
> > You have stated in the past that you only post to non-moderated groups
> > and it is easy to see why!
>
> > I doubt very much if you have been involved with Usenet newsgroups for
> > any length of time period.
>
> > Cath- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Usenet is old, and in this age totally irrelevant. It barely functions
like it was in the beginning and people pining for the old days should
get over it. This is an unmoderated "forum" and as such anyone can
post whatever they like, even if others don't like it. I'm surprised
"News" forums exist at all in this day, and they probably won't for
exist forever.
Greg
Re: Are Usenet charters useful?
William <wgpierce@gmail . com > wrote:
[...]
> Usenet is old, and in this age totally irrelevant. It barely functions
> like it was in the beginning and people pining for the old days should
> get over it. This is an unmoderated "forum" and as such anyone can
> post whatever they like, even if others don't like it. I'm surprised
> "News" forums exist at all in this day, and they probably won't for
> exist forever.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. "Death of Usenet. News at 11!". We've heard that for
decades. Still didn't happen. Guess why? Because there's nothing even
remotely like it. And *if* Usenet is "totally irrelevant", then what are
*you* doing here? Anyway, if anything is "totally irrelevant" for us
(TINU) (*and* the biggest source of Usenet *abuse*), it's Google Groups
(which you're using).
And for the record, no-one here (at least in rta+n) is "pining for the
old days", other than that we expect people too be somewhat civilized,
grown up, etc.. If that is "pining for the old days", then I'm *proud*
to be 'old fashioned'.
William <wgpierce@gmail . com > wrote:
[...]
> Usenet is old, and in this age totally irrelevant. It barely functions
> like it was in the beginning and people pining for the old days should
> get over it. This is an unmoderated "forum" and as such anyone can
> post whatever they like, even if others don't like it. I'm surprised
> "News" forums exist at all in this day, and they probably won't for
> exist forever.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. "Death of Usenet. News at 11!". We've heard that for
decades. Still didn't happen. Guess why? Because there's nothing even
remotely like it. And *if* Usenet is "totally irrelevant", then what are
*you* doing here? Anyway, if anything is "totally irrelevant" for us
(TINU) (*and* the biggest source of Usenet *abuse*), it's Google Groups
(which you're using).
And for the record, no-one here (at least in rta+n) is "pining for the
old days", other than that we expect people too be somewhat civilized,
grown up, etc.. If that is "pining for the old days", then I'm *proud*
to be 'old fashioned'.
Re: Are Usenet charters useful?
On 19 Jan 2008 11:25:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
<4791de17$0$46069$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>William <wgpierce@gmail . com > wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Usenet is old, and in this age totally irrelevant. It barely functions
>> like it was in the beginning and people pining for the old days should
>> get over it. This is an unmoderated "forum" and as such anyone can
>> post whatever they like, even if others don't like it. I'm surprised
>> "News" forums exist at all in this day, and they probably won't for
>> exist forever.
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. "Death of Usenet. News at 11!". We've heard that for
>decades. Still didn't happen. Guess why? Because there's nothing even
>remotely like it.
I agree, as it allows a wide variety of opinion on various topics
of interest to the various groups.
> And *if* Usenet is "totally irrelevant", then what are
>*you* doing here? Anyway, if anything is "totally irrelevant" for us
>(TINU)
Indeed, you are correct, Frank, "There Is No Us"! As I've
pointed out before, every human on this earth is a unique
individual, no two exactly alike, even so called "identical
twins" at birth. As they mature, they become less alike due
to their education and experience of life.
As to those of us who are not twins, we are even more individual.
Do you, for example, think that the acronym "TINU" has only
meaning? Try it in a medical environment, and you may find that
it may be interpreted as Tubulo Interstitial Nephritis with
Uveitis.
People even define common English words in different ways.
As one example, ask a group of people to write down their
definition(s) of the following "simple" English words and see
how many different definitions you get.
Go, get, put, run, set, & take.
As an alternative, just ask them how many different
definitions there are for each of these words.
You may be surprised how many each have if you consult
an unabridged English dictionary, such as O.E.D.
If you and other readers try this experiment, you should get an
idea why Usenet posts are frequently misinterpreted.
The use of abbreviations, acronyms, etc. also tend to confuse the
issue, but perhaps one of the greatest possibilities for
confusion is when writers of posts use asterisks to substitute
for letters.
I attempted to illustrate this to Cath, and other readers in the
following post in the following post. IMHO, she is one of the
worst offenders in using asterisks to conceal words that she
could have easily rendered in simple English.
------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.immigration.australia+nz
Subject: Bean-counters in hot demand
Sender: Kangaroo16@invalid.example
Message-ID: <7jvvo31bnsrtqth73nr1nsnjj550afbtk2@4ax . com >
Lines: 21
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:30:03 GMT
In the following sentence:
" In passing, I wonder if C*** will consider that this
post "conforms" to the charter of this group? :-)"
-------------------------------
In the above example the asterisks simply substitute for the
missing letters "ath".
Could "C***" mean anything else in the above question? Sure,
there are lots of four letter words that could have applied,
considering that I may not have been referring to her. Some
examples:
Cage,Cain,Cais,Cake,Calf,Call,Calm,Camp,Cant,Cane,Cape,
Caps,Card,Carp,Care,Case,Cash,Cask,Cart,Caul,Cave,Cede,
Cell,Cent,Chad,Chal,Char,Chas,Chat,Chay,Chef,Chen,
Cher,Chet,Chew,Chin,Chit,Chop,Chow,Chug,Cite,Chun,Claw,
Clay,Cage,Cain,Cais,Cake,Calf,Call,Calm,Camp,Cant,Cane,
Cape,Caps,Card,Carp,Care,Case,Cash,Cask,Cart,Caul,Cave,Cede,
Cell,Cent,Chad,Chal,Char,Chas,Chat,Chay,Chef,Chen,
Cher,Chet,Chew,Chin,Chit,Chop,Chow,Chug,Cite,Chun,Claw,Clay,
Clam,Clem,Clew,Clip,Clod,Clot,Cloy,Clue,Coal,Coco,Code,Coin,Cold,
Colm,Colt,Cone,Cook,Cool,Coop,Cord,Core,Cork,Corn,Cort,Coup,
Cove,Coye,Crab,Craw,Crew,Crib,Croc,Crow,Crux,Cube,Cuke,Cull,
Cult,Curb,Curl,Curd,Cure,Curt,Cusp,Cuss,Cute,Cyst,& Czar
Do readers now see how the use of asterisks could mislead other
readers?
Do most readers of this post consider the word "alcohol" to
have a definite, easily understood, meaning?
If so, perhaps they should check the Wikipedia article on it.
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol
As both these groups have readers whose native language
is not English, it is generally better to write in plain English
rather than using obscure abbreviations, let alone using
dashes or asterisks.
In using a cell phone, common abbreviations can be useful.
However, many of us use a conventional computer keyboard in group
communication.
> And for the record, no-one here (at least in rta+n) is "pining for the
>old days", other than that we expect people too be somewhat civilized,
>grown up, etc.. If that is "pining for the old days", then I'm *proud*
>to be 'old fashioned'.
Would broadly agree with you here, Frank, as I too expect
contributors to either group to be somewhat "civilized, grown up,
etc."
Wouldn't you agree that implying or claiming that another poster
is a "liar" is offensive? Do you agree that the charter for
either group is adequate?
As William has correctly pointed out "This is an unmoderated
"forum" and as such anyone can post whatever they like, even if
others don't like it."
As I have repeatedly written, there is no obligation for anyone
to read any post that they don't think they will like, and this
especially applies to posts clearly marked as "OT".
As I have pointed out in an earlier letter, I consider any of the
following to be of interest to potential immigrants and even some
tourists.
----------------
attitudes towards immigrants
business opportunities
climate and weather
cost of living
crime rates
economy
employment opportunities
current currency exchange rate
form of government
flora & fauna
geography
life expectancy
lifestyle
Medicare program
natural hazards
pharmaceutical benefits
population density & distribution
recreation
--------------------
Yes, I realise that this information is available elsewhere on
Usenet, but it makes more sense to me to post information here
where potential immigrants and tourists can read it, and I
generally provide the source of the info as well.
Regards,
Kangaroo16@invalid.example
Sydney, 10:50 AM Sunday
20 Jan, 2008 [GMT +11 hours]
(*and* the biggest source of Usenet *abuse*), it's Google Groups
>(which you're using).
>
> And for the record, no-one here (at least in rta+n) is "pining for the
>old days", other than that we expect people too be somewhat civilized,
>grown up, etc.. If that is "pining for the old days", then I'm *proud*
>to be 'old fashioned'.
On 19 Jan 2008 11:25:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
<4791de17$0$46069$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>William <wgpierce@gmail . com > wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Usenet is old, and in this age totally irrelevant. It barely functions
>> like it was in the beginning and people pining for the old days should
>> get over it. This is an unmoderated "forum" and as such anyone can
>> post whatever they like, even if others don't like it. I'm surprised
>> "News" forums exist at all in this day, and they probably won't for
>> exist forever.
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. "Death of Usenet. News at 11!". We've heard that for
>decades. Still didn't happen. Guess why? Because there's nothing even
>remotely like it.
I agree, as it allows a wide variety of opinion on various topics
of interest to the various groups.
> And *if* Usenet is "totally irrelevant", then what are
>*you* doing here? Anyway, if anything is "totally irrelevant" for us
>(TINU)
Indeed, you are correct, Frank, "There Is No Us"! As I've
pointed out before, every human on this earth is a unique
individual, no two exactly alike, even so called "identical
twins" at birth. As they mature, they become less alike due
to their education and experience of life.
As to those of us who are not twins, we are even more individual.
Do you, for example, think that the acronym "TINU" has only
meaning? Try it in a medical environment, and you may find that
it may be interpreted as Tubulo Interstitial Nephritis with
Uveitis.
People even define common English words in different ways.
As one example, ask a group of people to write down their
definition(s) of the following "simple" English words and see
how many different definitions you get.
Go, get, put, run, set, & take.
As an alternative, just ask them how many different
definitions there are for each of these words.
You may be surprised how many each have if you consult
an unabridged English dictionary, such as O.E.D.
If you and other readers try this experiment, you should get an
idea why Usenet posts are frequently misinterpreted.
The use of abbreviations, acronyms, etc. also tend to confuse the
issue, but perhaps one of the greatest possibilities for
confusion is when writers of posts use asterisks to substitute
for letters.
I attempted to illustrate this to Cath, and other readers in the
following post in the following post. IMHO, she is one of the
worst offenders in using asterisks to conceal words that she
could have easily rendered in simple English.
------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.immigration.australia+nz
Subject: Bean-counters in hot demand
Sender: Kangaroo16@invalid.example
Message-ID: <7jvvo31bnsrtqth73nr1nsnjj550afbtk2@4ax . com >
Lines: 21
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:30:03 GMT
In the following sentence:
" In passing, I wonder if C*** will consider that this
post "conforms" to the charter of this group? :-)"
-------------------------------
In the above example the asterisks simply substitute for the
missing letters "ath".
Could "C***" mean anything else in the above question? Sure,
there are lots of four letter words that could have applied,
considering that I may not have been referring to her. Some
examples:
Cage,Cain,Cais,Cake,Calf,Call,Calm,Camp,Cant,Cane,Cape,
Caps,Card,Carp,Care,Case,Cash,Cask,Cart,Caul,Cave,Cede,
Cell,Cent,Chad,Chal,Char,Chas,Chat,Chay,Chef,Chen,
Cher,Chet,Chew,Chin,Chit,Chop,Chow,Chug,Cite,Chun,Claw,
Clay,Cage,Cain,Cais,Cake,Calf,Call,Calm,Camp,Cant,Cane,
Cape,Caps,Card,Carp,Care,Case,Cash,Cask,Cart,Caul,Cave,Cede,
Cell,Cent,Chad,Chal,Char,Chas,Chat,Chay,Chef,Chen,
Cher,Chet,Chew,Chin,Chit,Chop,Chow,Chug,Cite,Chun,Claw,Clay,
Clam,Clem,Clew,Clip,Clod,Clot,Cloy,Clue,Coal,Coco,Code,Coin,Cold,
Colm,Colt,Cone,Cook,Cool,Coop,Cord,Core,Cork,Corn,Cort,Coup,
Cove,Coye,Crab,Craw,Crew,Crib,Croc,Crow,Crux,Cube,Cuke,Cull,
Cult,Curb,Curl,Curd,Cure,Curt,Cusp,Cuss,Cute,Cyst,& Czar
Do readers now see how the use of asterisks could mislead other
readers?
Do most readers of this post consider the word "alcohol" to
have a definite, easily understood, meaning?
If so, perhaps they should check the Wikipedia article on it.
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol
As both these groups have readers whose native language
is not English, it is generally better to write in plain English
rather than using obscure abbreviations, let alone using
dashes or asterisks.
In using a cell phone, common abbreviations can be useful.
However, many of us use a conventional computer keyboard in group
communication.
> And for the record, no-one here (at least in rta+n) is "pining for the
>old days", other than that we expect people too be somewhat civilized,
>grown up, etc.. If that is "pining for the old days", then I'm *proud*
>to be 'old fashioned'.
Would broadly agree with you here, Frank, as I too expect
contributors to either group to be somewhat "civilized, grown up,
etc."
Wouldn't you agree that implying or claiming that another poster
is a "liar" is offensive? Do you agree that the charter for
either group is adequate?
As William has correctly pointed out "This is an unmoderated
"forum" and as such anyone can post whatever they like, even if
others don't like it."
As I have repeatedly written, there is no obligation for anyone
to read any post that they don't think they will like, and this
especially applies to posts clearly marked as "OT".
As I have pointed out in an earlier letter, I consider any of the
following to be of interest to potential immigrants and even some
tourists.
----------------
attitudes towards immigrants
business opportunities
climate and weather
cost of living
crime rates
economy
employment opportunities
current currency exchange rate
form of government
flora & fauna
geography
life expectancy
lifestyle
Medicare program
natural hazards
pharmaceutical benefits
population density & distribution
recreation
--------------------
Yes, I realise that this information is available elsewhere on
Usenet, but it makes more sense to me to post information here
where potential immigrants and tourists can read it, and I
generally provide the source of the info as well.
Regards,
Kangaroo16@invalid.example
Sydney, 10:50 AM Sunday
20 Jan, 2008 [GMT +11 hours]
(*and* the biggest source of Usenet *abuse*), it's Google Groups
>(which you're using).
>
> And for the record, no-one here (at least in rta+n) is "pining for the
>old days", other than that we expect people too be somewhat civilized,
>grown up, etc.. If that is "pining for the old days", then I'm *proud*
>to be 'old fashioned'.
Re: Are Usenet charters useful?
Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> As both these groups have readers whose native language
> is not English, it is generally better to write in plain English
[...]
> In using a cell phone
A *WHAT*? :-)
Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> As both these groups have readers whose native language
> is not English, it is generally better to write in plain English
[...]
> In using a cell phone
A *WHAT*? :-)
Re: Are Usenet charters useful?
On 20 Jan 2008 14:37:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
<47935ca7$0$12140$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
>[...]
>> As both these groups have readers whose native language
>> is not English, it is generally better to write in plain English
>
>[...]
>
>> In using a cell phone
>
> A *WHAT*? :-)
Definition of: cell phone
(CELLular telePHONE) The first ubiquitous wireless telephone.
Originally analog, all new cellular systems are digital, which
has enabled the cell phone to turn into a smart phone that has
access to the Internet. . .
Cell Technology
Geographic areas are divided into a number of slightly
overlapping circular "cells." Each cell contains a base station,
which is identifiable by its transmitting and receiving antenna
located on a tower at the top of a hill or building. The base
stations connect to the land line telephone system of the
country. . . .
More at:
* w w w .pcmag . com /encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=cellphone&i=39505,00.asp
If you need further definition of any of the longer words such as
"telephone", when it was invented, what it is used for, etc.
please don't hesitate to ask, even though some would claim that
your enquiry wasn't covered by the group charter.
They are very useful in densely populated areas such as the
US and large cities here as the location can be determined
by comparing the time taken for the electromagnetic transmission
to reach the various cell sites.
Cheers,
Kangaroo16@invalid.example
3:05 AM Monday 21/Jan/08
[GMT + 11 hrs]
On 20 Jan 2008 14:37:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
<47935ca7$0$12140$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
>[...]
>> As both these groups have readers whose native language
>> is not English, it is generally better to write in plain English
>
>[...]
>
>> In using a cell phone
>
> A *WHAT*? :-)
Definition of: cell phone
(CELLular telePHONE) The first ubiquitous wireless telephone.
Originally analog, all new cellular systems are digital, which
has enabled the cell phone to turn into a smart phone that has
access to the Internet. . .
Cell Technology
Geographic areas are divided into a number of slightly
overlapping circular "cells." Each cell contains a base station,
which is identifiable by its transmitting and receiving antenna
located on a tower at the top of a hill or building. The base
stations connect to the land line telephone system of the
country. . . .
More at:
* w w w .pcmag . com /encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=cellphone&i=39505,00.asp
If you need further definition of any of the longer words such as
"telephone", when it was invented, what it is used for, etc.
please don't hesitate to ask, even though some would claim that
your enquiry wasn't covered by the group charter.
They are very useful in densely populated areas such as the
US and large cities here as the location can be determined
by comparing the time taken for the electromagnetic transmission
to reach the various cell sites.
Cheers,
Kangaroo16@invalid.example
3:05 AM Monday 21/Jan/08
[GMT + 11 hrs]
Re: Are Usenet charters useful?
Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2008 14:37:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> <47935ca7$0$12140$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> >Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
> >[...]
> >> As both these groups have readers whose native language
> >> is not English, it is generally better to write in plain English
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> In using a cell phone
> >
> > A *WHAT*? :-)
>
> Definition of: cell phone
<woosh>
The *point* is that in most parts of the world, including in the
countries which are the topic of *these groups*, it's *not* a "cell
phone".
--
Frank "Believe it or not, but my car hardly uses any gas at all!" Slootweg
Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2008 14:37:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> <47935ca7$0$12140$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> >Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
> >[...]
> >> As both these groups have readers whose native language
> >> is not English, it is generally better to write in plain English
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> In using a cell phone
> >
> > A *WHAT*? :-)
>
> Definition of: cell phone
<woosh>
The *point* is that in most parts of the world, including in the
countries which are the topic of *these groups*, it's *not* a "cell
phone".
--
Frank "Believe it or not, but my car hardly uses any gas at all!" Slootweg
Re: Are Usenet charters useful?
On 20 Jan 2008 16:34:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
<4793782a$0$48666$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20 Jan 2008 14:37:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
>> <47935ca7$0$12140$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>>
>> >Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> As both these groups have readers whose native language
>> >> is not English, it is generally better to write in plain English
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >> In using a cell phone
>> >
>> > A *WHAT*? :-)
>>
>> Definition of: cell phone
>
><woosh>
>
> The *point* is that in most parts of the world, including in the
>countries which are the topic of *these groups*, it's *not* a "cell
>phone".
AFIK, the most common name for it here in Oz, in NSW at least.
What is it called in your area of the world?
Some people call them "portable phones" or "mobile phones" but
this leads to confusion with the short range phones used from
a home handset, which usually work for less than 100 metres.
Wireless home intercoms plug into any power outlet operating not
only within the home, but also between homes operating over the
same power transformer on the same phase.
Although, if you wanted to do so, Frank, I suppose you could call
two "tin" cans connected with a stretched piece of string, wire,
or monofilament fish line a "home intercom".
Back in the days before transistors became common, radios and
amplifiers worked on what were called "vacuum tubes" in the USA.
The English & Australian term of "vacuum valve" was a better
description of their function.
Incidentally, any theories on why the USA uses a nominal mains
power supply of 120v rms at 60 Hz where most of the rest of the
world uses a nominal supply of 240 volts at 50 Hz?
Although this is not in the charter, it can be significant for
migrants from the US thinking of bothering to bring
120 volt appliances. Nor it is a good idea to bring obsolete
US NTSC T.V. sets to Australia where we use PAL.
Newsgroup charters often don't allow for such useful info, which
is why most Usenet groups pay little or no attention to them.
>Frank "Believe it or not, but my car hardly uses any gas at all!" Slootweg
Most autos here don't use "gas" at all, they use petrol. A small
percentage use propane gas, but this can be awkward to find in
the more remote areas of Oz.
Or are you referring to refrigerant gas used in your "car" air
conditioning system? If so, I hope it doesn't use Freon 12, as
that is no longer in use here.
Freon 12 has other names, of course, but its preferred chemical
name is dichlorodifluoromethane, with the formula of CCl2F2.
Unfortunately, it is a greenhouse gas and destroys the ozone
layer which protects us from all the nasty short wave U.V. light.
Still, this all may be getting a bit technical for you, so will
close.
Cheers,
Kangaroo16@invalid.example
5:05 AM Monday 21/Jan/08
[GMT + 11 hrs]
On 20 Jan 2008 16:34:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
<4793782a$0$48666$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20 Jan 2008 14:37:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
>> <47935ca7$0$12140$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>>
>> >Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> As both these groups have readers whose native language
>> >> is not English, it is generally better to write in plain English
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >> In using a cell phone
>> >
>> > A *WHAT*? :-)
>>
>> Definition of: cell phone
>
><woosh>
>
> The *point* is that in most parts of the world, including in the
>countries which are the topic of *these groups*, it's *not* a "cell
>phone".
AFIK, the most common name for it here in Oz, in NSW at least.
What is it called in your area of the world?
Some people call them "portable phones" or "mobile phones" but
this leads to confusion with the short range phones used from
a home handset, which usually work for less than 100 metres.
Wireless home intercoms plug into any power outlet operating not
only within the home, but also between homes operating over the
same power transformer on the same phase.
Although, if you wanted to do so, Frank, I suppose you could call
two "tin" cans connected with a stretched piece of string, wire,
or monofilament fish line a "home intercom".
Back in the days before transistors became common, radios and
amplifiers worked on what were called "vacuum tubes" in the USA.
The English & Australian term of "vacuum valve" was a better
description of their function.
Incidentally, any theories on why the USA uses a nominal mains
power supply of 120v rms at 60 Hz where most of the rest of the
world uses a nominal supply of 240 volts at 50 Hz?
Although this is not in the charter, it can be significant for
migrants from the US thinking of bothering to bring
120 volt appliances. Nor it is a good idea to bring obsolete
US NTSC T.V. sets to Australia where we use PAL.
Newsgroup charters often don't allow for such useful info, which
is why most Usenet groups pay little or no attention to them.
>Frank "Believe it or not, but my car hardly uses any gas at all!" Slootweg
Most autos here don't use "gas" at all, they use petrol. A small
percentage use propane gas, but this can be awkward to find in
the more remote areas of Oz.
Or are you referring to refrigerant gas used in your "car" air
conditioning system? If so, I hope it doesn't use Freon 12, as
that is no longer in use here.
Freon 12 has other names, of course, but its preferred chemical
name is dichlorodifluoromethane, with the formula of CCl2F2.
Unfortunately, it is a greenhouse gas and destroys the ozone
layer which protects us from all the nasty short wave U.V. light.
Still, this all may be getting a bit technical for you, so will
close.
Cheers,
Kangaroo16@invalid.example
5:05 AM Monday 21/Jan/08
[GMT + 11 hrs]
Re: Are Usenet charters useful?
Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2008 16:34:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> <4793782a$0$48666$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> >Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 20 Jan 2008 14:37:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> >> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> >> <47935ca7$0$12140$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
> >>
> >> >Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> >[...]
> >> >> As both these groups have readers whose native language
> >> >> is not English, it is generally better to write in plain English
> >> >
> >> >[...]
> >> >
> >> >> In using a cell phone
> >> >
> >> > A *WHAT*? :-)
> >>
> >> Definition of: cell phone
> >
> ><woosh>
> >
> > The *point* is that in most parts of the world, including in the
> >countries which are the topic of *these groups*, it's *not* a "cell
> >phone".
>
> AFIK,
"AFAIK", 'As Far As I Know'.
> the most common name for it here in Oz, in NSW at least.
> What is it called in your area of the world?
>
> Some people call them "portable phones" or "mobile phones" but
> this leads to confusion with the short range phones used from
> a home handset, which usually work for less than 100 metres.
No, they *don't* call them "cell phones" in NSW or any other part of
Oz. And they *do* call them "mobile phones". Check *any* ad, shop,
website, etc., etc. for ... ummm .... mobile phones.
"cell phones" is American, i.e. *not* "plain English".
> >Frank "Believe it or not, but my car hardly uses any gas at all!" Slootweg
>
> Most autos here don't use "gas" at all, they use petrol. A small
And another
<woosh>
That's the sound of something - in this case sarchasm - going right
over your head, again, and again, and ...
And they're not "autos", they're "cars", even in the US.
[...]
> Still, this all may be getting a bit technical for you, so will
> close.
If that one didn't require a beverage alert, I don't know what *does*!
Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2008 16:34:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> <4793782a$0$48666$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> >Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 20 Jan 2008 14:37:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> >> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> >> <47935ca7$0$12140$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
> >>
> >> >Kangaroo16 <Kangaroo16@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> >[...]
> >> >> As both these groups have readers whose native language
> >> >> is not English, it is generally better to write in plain English
> >> >
> >> >[...]
> >> >
> >> >> In using a cell phone
> >> >
> >> > A *WHAT*? :-)
> >>
> >> Definition of: cell phone
> >
> ><woosh>
> >
> > The *point* is that in most parts of the world, including in the
> >countries which are the topic of *these groups*, it's *not* a "cell
> >phone".
>
> AFIK,
"AFAIK", 'As Far As I Know'.
> the most common name for it here in Oz, in NSW at least.
> What is it called in your area of the world?
>
> Some people call them "portable phones" or "mobile phones" but
> this leads to confusion with the short range phones used from
> a home handset, which usually work for less than 100 metres.
No, they *don't* call them "cell phones" in NSW or any other part of
Oz. And they *do* call them "mobile phones". Check *any* ad, shop,
website, etc., etc. for ... ummm .... mobile phones.
"cell phones" is American, i.e. *not* "plain English".
> >Frank "Believe it or not, but my car hardly uses any gas at all!" Slootweg
>
> Most autos here don't use "gas" at all, they use petrol. A small
And another
<woosh>
That's the sound of something - in this case sarchasm - going right
over your head, again, and again, and ...
And they're not "autos", they're "cars", even in the US.
[...]
> Still, this all may be getting a bit technical for you, so will
> close.
If that one didn't require a beverage alert, I don't know what *does*!
