Microsoft has removed 500+ groups, including 21 Windows-98 groups
in [Windows 98]
|
From: J. P. Gilliver (John) on 20 Dec 2009 20:17 In message <udgH4lbgKHA.4872(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> writes: [] >>>>> USENET FOOL. Usenet is *COMPRISED OF* peered NNTP servers, and is the [] >>>> (By the way: it's probably changing due to the frequency of it being got >>>> wrong, but the phrase "is comprised of" should really be replaced by the >>>> single word "comprises". If you feel naked without the word "of", then >>>> say "consists of".) [] > No, the intelligent will never accept depreciation to a level of >ignorance... > Any lexicographer will tell you that language _does_ change, however much we pedants would wish otherwise! >>> >>> So what next, we should all just use the common cell text "shorts"? Not >>> going to happen... >>> >> I hope not, but of course your use of the non-sentence "Not going to >> happen" suggests that you're not as immune to short-speak as you'd like >> to think you are (-:. > > Actually the three dots at the end connotation mean addition materials >are to be considered... do try to keep up. > Oh, I'm keeping up: it was the other end of the sentence where you have trimmed - using a form that is so common you haven't noticed it. What you meant was IT'S not going to happen (with dots on the end if you wish); you had trimmed the "It's". [] >>>>> And are you USENUTTERS such absolute morons you STILL don't get who >>>>> provides these MANUFACTURER and PRODUCT newsgroups AND THE SERVERS. >>>> >>>> "Provides" isn't quite correct. In the case of (most of!) the >>>> microsoft.public.* newsgroups, they may well have originated as private >>>> 'groups - or fora, or whatever - inside Microsoft's own server, and not >>>> passed to usenet in general; at some point, Microsoft opened them to >>>> usenet. Once they had done that, they could not really control what >>>> appeared in those 'groups _on usenet_; some people have claimed that MS >>>> censors the posts _as carried on its own servers_, on which I cannot >>>> comment as I'm not a user of those servers. > > That was the correct and LEGAL determination. That you fail to grasp What was: that Microsoft originally created them on their own servers? That Microsoft at some point peered them? That Microsoft censored the posts on their own servers? >that, as most USENUTTERS do, is why all the issues within Usenet abound. > Microsoft OWNS AND CONTROLS its own groups, e.g, the microsoft.public. >hierarchy. PERIOD. Usenet and/or the Services have ZERO authority to do Anyone who tries to end an argument with PERIOD is feeling insecure. (Incidentally, we don't have periods in the UK, at least not with that meaning!) Microsoft own and control their own _servers_. >anything in, as create any groups, these groups. That these are on >Usenet means nothing,,, zip,, nada. > If their being on usenet means nothing, why are you so agitated about them? You have made your opinion of usenet clear for some time, though I wonder why you bother to continue if you think it's such rubbish. [] >>> Microsoft CAN control what it owns, and it does OWN the >>> microsoft.public. hierarchy. Within its own servers, certainly. >>> >> It "owned" them while they were on its own servers. I can only rely here >> on what others have said, but apparently someone (or several someones) >> "created" them on usenet at large, some years ago, and someone (maybe or >> maybe not the same someones) cross-fertilised the inner and outer >> contents. If any claim to "ownership" is being made, it would indeed >> have been prudent for Microsoft to object when these two things first >> happened, some years ago; the fact that they did not, suggests that they >> do not make any such ownership claim. (Incidentally, I have not seen a >> claim of ownership of these 'groups by Microsoft, only by you on their >> behalf - and you have stated by implication that you are not in their >> counsel.) > > WRONG, Microsoft followed EXACTLY what was required to ensure continued >ownership. This has already been shown, why didn't you bother to read >the Law, the Microsoft documents, and everything else that applies. You I'm afraid that, despite what their lawyers would wish, Microsoft do not write the law. [] >> (This is not a loaded question, I ask out of genuine desire to know:) >> I'm not entirely sure what you are saying there. It sounds like you are >> saying the number of botnets etc. dropped briefly during the changeover, >> and has now gone much higher - is that what you are saying? If so, it >> would be interesting to know (though impossible to prove either way) >> whether the drop was related to the NT-based OSs, or just coincidental. >>>> > > It was presumed that there was a change over occurring by those in the >field. The information now available seems to indicate there was, and >not just due to the normal fluctuations. I think I know, but in that case, to what would you attribute the rise since? [] > I write they way I choose to write at that time, and which does include >the normally found errors and other; you have issues with it, you can >deal with it and keep your comments to yourself or I will respond in >kind. You were warned again, I suggest you heed that warning. > As others would say, gee I'm scared. I'll take you on on grammar any time - though it'd be kind to other readers if we didn't have that sort of fight in the win98 'group. Let's not, eh - for 2010? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar(a)T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** Is Jimi Hendrix's modem a Purple Hayes? |