AOL Users...

Are you having problems with the newsgroups, too? I used to see the new posts
at the end of the list; now, when I scroll to the end, there are always a
bunch of old ones mixed in with new ones. I also have my preferences set for
only viewing the last 4 days of posts and I am currently seeing posts from
1/1/05 all over the place. It's weird. I don't even see some posts for the
first time until they are 10 days old now. Anyone else?

Candace
(take the litter out before replying by e-mail)

See my cats:
http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace

"One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other
than human." (Loren Eisely)

"MacCandace" wrote in message
...
Are you having problems with the newsgroups, too? I used to see the new
posts
at the end of the list; now, when I scroll to the end, there are always a
bunch of old ones mixed in with new ones. I also have my preferences set
for
only viewing the last 4 days of posts and I am currently seeing posts from
1/1/05 all over the place. It's weird. I don't even see some posts for
the
first time until they are 10 days old now. Anyone else?

Candace - I'm not w/AOL, but... from other ngs, I know that other AOL users
have been saying - for the last week or two - that they've been having
problems w/ Usenet postings. Some have temporarily given up & are posting
through Google. Which apparently has recently been improved - esp. the
time lag problem Google had in the past.

Cathy

On 2005-01-12, Cheryl penned:

I saw that on Google's new interface. They say they are propagating in a
matter of seconds now rather than having to wait for indexers to get them
from news servers. I still can't stand their archives now, though. They
have completely ruined it. Funny thing though, in their link for "Usenet
timeline", some referenced links are threaded in frames like the old Google,
and some are no-frames like you find now when you do a search.

I used to be able to use google to browse through recent postings. Now I
can't even figure out how to just "go to a newsgroup." Seems like they've
changed it to be a search engine only, not a browser. *sigh*

--
monique, roommate of Oscar the (female) grouch
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eros was adopted! Eros has a home now! *cheer!*

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...

Including link for "interesting" reading material. lol

http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/static.py?
page=timeline.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/6wux5

Yeah - I saw this yesterday, when someone posted it on another ng.

Cathy

"Cheryl" wrote:

I saw that on Google's new interface. They say they are propagating
in a matter of seconds now rather than having to wait for indexers
to get them from news servers. I still can't stand their archives
now, though. They have completely ruined it.

My heart just bleeds for Netdicks everywhere.

"Mary" wrote in message
. com...
My heart just bleeds for Netdicks everywhere.



I use the archives a lot to look up answers to questions I know have already
been answered. This ng alone is probably blessed with me posting half as
much as I would otherwise.
I must be in the minority as I don't really mind Google Groups new
interface. Although, you can't just put in say, "rec.pets.cats" and get a
list of all the rec.pets.cats subgroups. Now it shows you all the postings
of all those groups.
--
-Kelly
kelly at farringtons dot net
"Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG

On 12 Jan 2005 02:48:08 GMT, itter (MacCandace)
wrote:

Are you having problems with the newsgroups, too? I used to see the new posts
at the end of the list; now, when I scroll to the end, there are always a
bunch of old ones mixed in with new ones. I also have my preferences set for
only viewing the last 4 days of posts and I am currently seeing posts from
1/1/05 all over the place. It's weird. I don't even see some posts for the
first time until they are 10 days old now. Anyone else?

Candace
(take the litter out before replying by e-mail)

See my cats:
http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace

"One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other
than human." (Loren Eisely)

I've read on the Earthlink groups that AOL is phasing out its
newsgroup support, in favor of its own in-house groups. I can't
verify this is accurate, but that is what I have read.

Ginger-lyn

"KellyH" wrote in message
...
"Mary" wrote in message
. com...
My heart just bleeds for Netdicks everywhere.



I use the archives a lot to look up answers to questions I know have
already
been answered. This ng alone is probably blessed with me posting half as
much as I would otherwise.
I must be in the minority as I don't really mind Google Groups new
interface. Although, you can't just put in say, "rec.pets.cats" and get a
list of all the rec.pets.cats subgroups. Now it shows you all the
postings
of all those groups.
--

I was aiming that at Cheryl, who once decided she had to know
"who I really am" and so Googled up a storm. She never did
"get anything on me" but proceeded to try to demonize me anyway,
based on the fact that her detective work did not reveal any
references to my cats by name. While I told her I had posted under
different nyms to the cat groups earlier, she decided this just cannot
be true as I would have had to refer to my cats by name in those
posts, and she just could not see someone changing their cats'
names to post to Usenet. See a flaw in this logic? Anyway,
she had just about worked up a regular cyber lynch mob
based upon this "logic."

In any case, last I heard she had decided that I am "playing"
everyone in the groups, (exact quote was "we are being
played") I think meaning that some old poster had come
back and is deceiving all the Good Usenetizens by posting
as someone else. See a flaw in that logic? Such as it is
nobody's business what name I use to post?

I never did figure out who I am supposed to be ... REALLY.
In fact, I cannot even recall the names I posted under early on,
when I had other computers and ISPs.

The larger point: Netdickdom is based on an assumption
that group regulars have some sort of proprietary rights
over Usenet and those who post to it. Pffft. A clear
sign that one might be taking it all too seriously, and
just might benefit from more time offline, IMO.

On 2005-01-12, Mary penned:

The larger point: Netdickdom is based on an assumption that group regulars
have some sort of proprietary rights over Usenet and those who post to it.
Pffft. A clear sign that one might be taking it all too seriously, and just
might benefit from more time offline, IMO.

I honestly didn't know what you meant by "netdick" when you first posted. It
could have meant a net sleuth, a net jerk, or a net sex stalker. After your
post just now, I've narrowed it down to two of the three, and only the third
one actually worries me.

Anyway, as others have mentioned, I find web archives of news postings useful.
Sometimes the above described sleuthing isn't even a bad thing -- yesterday I
looked up some of steve g's posts before following up, just to be sure I had
the right person in mind.

There's no reason not to keep archives of newsgroups around. Of course
everything has its positive and negative uses, but imo having information
available is a good thing.

--
monique, roommate of Oscar the (female) grouch
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eros was adopted! Eros has a home now! *cheer!*

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...
On 2005-01-12, Mary penned:

The larger point: Netdickdom is based on an assumption that group
regulars
have some sort of proprietary rights over Usenet and those who post to
it.
Pffft. A clear sign that one might be taking it all too seriously, and
just
might benefit from more time offline, IMO.

I honestly didn't know what you meant by "netdick" when you first posted.
It
could have meant a net sleuth, a net jerk, or a net sex stalker. After
your
post just now, I've narrowed it down to two of the three, and only the
third
one actually worries me.

Anyway, as others have mentioned, I find web archives of news postings
useful.
Sometimes the above described sleuthing isn't even a bad thing --
yesterday I
looked up some of steve g's posts before following up, just to be sure I
had
the right person in mind.

There's no reason not to keep archives of newsgroups around. Of course
everything has its positive and negative uses, but imo having information
available is a good thing.

--

Oh, I use Google all the time. My point was, a point in favor of the new
format, which makes it more difficult to use for newsgroups, is that it
thwarts the assholes who attempt to harrass/stalk people based upon
their past posts. Or lack of posts.