Wow. Activity in this NG has fallen off this month. About 2 posts and/
replies a day. Last month there was about 11 posts/replies a day. Not
a big surprise with the Pads dismal performance.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:56:34 -0700 (PDT), Padredog
<padredog69@gmail.com> wrote:

>Wow. Activity in this NG has fallen off this month. About 2 posts and/
>replies a day. Last month there was about 11 posts/replies a day. Not
>a big surprise with the Pads dismal performance.

I think a lot of us also got dropped by Time Warner. I had to
subscribe to Giganews just to have the pleasure of coming here to
watch the festivities during this fine season.

On Jul 10, 11:35 am, Chris <> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:56:34 -0700 (PDT), Padredog
>
> <padredo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Wow. Activity in this NG has fallen off this month. About 2 posts and/
> >replies a day. Last month there was about 11 posts/replies a day. Not
> >a big surprise with the Pads dismal performance.
>
> I think a lot of us also got dropped by Time Warner. I had to
> subscribe to Giganews just to have the pleasure of coming here to
> watch the festivities during this fine season.

That sucks. I was aware of Time Warners (and others) dropping
newsgroups. They caved in response the the NY state attorney generals
office in their war on child pornography. So they kill off access to
sports groups along with the access for pervs who post images of
children. I see the same complaint in other teams groups. The activity
there has suddenly dropped too. I guess I can wander over to the
Padres message board on MLB.com. This does not bode well for usenet.

Don't be getting all dour and stuff! LOL

This is my first year doing Fantasy Baseball and I'm glad I did. It also
gives me a little perspective on how much they need to improve (i.e.
suck). I had Kaleel on my team, and I hung on to him as long as I could,
but I finally dumped him last week.

Padredog wrote:
> Wow. Activity in this NG has fallen off this month. About 2 posts and/
> replies a day. Last month there was about 11 posts/replies a day. Not
> a big surprise with the Pads dismal performance.

"tr" <test@test.com> wrote in message
news:aNednb-NNcqn4uvVnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@giganews.com...
> Don't be getting all dour and stuff! LOL
>
> This is my first year doing Fantasy Baseball and I'm glad I did. It also
> gives me a little perspective on how much they need to improve (i.e.
> suck). I had Kaleel on my team, and I hung on to him as long as I could,
> but I finally dumped him last week.
>

Well, if nothing else, I've helped you learn a new word. Now for my next
trick, I'll try to teach you to spell Kahlil's name correctly. Who knows,
maybe I can even convince you that San Francisco is not part of the Pacific
Northwest.

Keep LOL. : )

Go Pads !

>
> That sucks. I was aware of Time Warners (and others) dropping
> newsgroups. They caved in response the the NY state attorney generals
> office in their war on child pornography. So they kill off access to
> sports groups along with the access for pervs who post images of
> children. I see the same complaint in other teams groups. The activity
> there has suddenly dropped too. I guess I can wander over to the
> Padres message board on MLB.com. This does not bode well for usenet.

And if that doesn't work, they'll have to ban cameras.

> This does not bode well for usenet.

Usenet's death has been a foregone conclusion ever since AOL and Google
entered the picture. Usenet has already been co-opted by the internet, it's
just a matter of time before it ceases to exist altogether.

On Jul 10, 5:26 pm, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
> > This does not bode well for usenet.
>
> Usenet's death has been a foregone conclusion ever since AOL and Google
> entered the picture. Usenet has already been co-opted by the internet, it's
> just a matter of time before it ceases to exist altogether.




Not for a long, long time. It'll get smaller and smaller relative to
the internet as a whole, but it'll hang around. Usenet has a few
advantages to web based groups. The biggest is that it's unmoderated.

> Usenet has a few
advantages to web based groups.

You are aware that a majority of people access usenet groups through the
internet, aren't you? Because I know you'd never just blurt something out
without knowing what you're talking about.

On Jul 14, 7:16 am, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
> > Usenet has a few
>
> advantages to web based groups.
>
> You are aware that a majority of people access usenet groups through the
> internet, aren't you? Because I know you'd never just blurt something out
> without knowing what you're talking about.



Yep.

It's still usenet, even if one looks at it through web based browsers.

You're the one who doesn't know the difference between usenet and the
newer web based forums. You've illustrated your ignorance in another
thread. I'll expound if you like.

> You're the one who doesn't know the difference between usenet and the
newer web based forums. You've illustrated your ignorance in another
thread. I'll expound if you like.

If you've got something to say, stop acting like a bitch and fucking say it.

On Jul 14, 1:37 pm, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
> > You're the one who doesn't know the difference between usenet and the
>
> newer web based forums. You've illustrated your ignorance in another
> thread. I'll expound if you like.
>
> If you've got something to say, stop acting like a bitch and fucking say it.



OK. Since you said I didn't know what I'm talking about, I'll
illustrate your ignorance.

Usenet differs from web forums. It was created at the dawn of the
internet many, many years before the world wide web, html and all that
stuff came around. There's about a 10 year difference between the
birth of the internet, which enabled the text based communications of
email, usenet, etc. and the creation of hypertext and the WWW which
brought into being web pages accessed by the mouse based graphical
user interface.

Most web forums are run from a single server/owner. That server will
store the users, all the messages, threads, etc and the system is
managed by a single owner.

Usenet is different. It is a distributed system. No one "owns" it.
There is a network of servers which constantly communicate with each
other to see if they are missing messages which are on another server.
If so, then the formerly missing message is copied onto that server.
When a user posts a message onto usenet, in a short period of time
(theoretically) it will be on all the other usenet servers also, all
over the world. The servers which support usenet are constantly
changing as ISPs come and go. The ISP mentioned in this group decided
to stop supporting usenet because of the State of New York, and that
affects people who use that particular server, but it's no big deal
for those users to switch to another server. They've just gotta do a
little homework.

Another difference between usenet and web based forums is the front
end. Usenet traditionally has been accessed through "clients" like
FreeAgent and Windows Outlook Express, but in the age of the World
Wide Web, companies like Google have introduced web based clients
(this is where you're getting confused). That doesn't change the back
end though. It's still Usenet, a constantly changing network of
servers which no one owns.

Anyone can set up a usenet server. Even you badlands, although you've
demonstrated that you're not smart enough for the task. If one is not
technically challenged though, get the right software and you're good
to go. It isn't trivial though, from a hardware and maintenence
perspective. There's a *huge* amount of data that is continually
changing. Usenet servers earn their keep.

"You've illustrated your ignorance in another thread."

Still waiting.

On Jul 15, 7:18 am, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
> "You've illustrated your ignorance in another thread."
>
> Still waiting.


Newsgroups: alt.sports.football.pro.sd-chargers
From: "badlands420" <b...@hole.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:11:33 -0700
Local: Sun, Jun 15 2008 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: T-W/Roadrunner terminating Usenet service
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

> > "Microsoft Outlook"
>
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/outlook/
>
>
> > A lot of people use it as their newsreader.
>
>
> This is what I'm talking about. Back when I started on usenet, the only way
> to read newsgroups was with your email client. But since Google acquired
> ownership of all the usenet archives (and when AOL started having newsgroup
> service, that didn't help either), most people think it's some sort of
> glorified web board. Usenet and the internet used to be totally separate
> entities, and it was better that way.





"Usenet and the internet used to be totally separate entities"



Hahaha. Badlands, you're a fucking moron.

"Kurgan Gringioni." <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42c772aa-48bf-46fb-8cc1-d169e1da259d@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 15, 7:18 am, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
> "You've illustrated your ignorance in another thread."
>
> Still waiting.


Newsgroups: alt.sports.football.pro.sd-chargers
From: "badlands420" <b...@hole.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:11:33 -0700
Local: Sun, Jun 15 2008 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: T-W/Roadrunner terminating Usenet service
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

> > "Microsoft Outlook"
>
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/outlook/
>
>
> > A lot of people use it as their newsreader.
>
>
> This is what I'm talking about. Back when I started on usenet, the only way
> to read newsgroups was with your email client. But since Google acquired
> ownership of all the usenet archives (and when AOL started having newsgroup
> service, that didn't help either), most people think it's some sort of
> glorified web board. Usenet and the internet used to be totally separate
> entities, and it was better that way.

"Usenet and the internet used to be totally separate entities"
Hahaha. Badlands, you're a fucking moron.

All the big balls I know more than you do BS aside,
with google taking on deja archives, completely
f'ing things up with their post format screwing up
outlook indents, and Free agent or other free readers
drying up...it won't be long before Google is the only
usenet server left and it will be a humongous google
run web board.
And google is so hosed. I can only laugh when they
tell me I look like a 'bot to them
and I must enter some characters to continue.

ScottW

On Jul 15, 8:59 pm, "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> All the big balls I know more than you do BS aside,
> with google taking on deja archives, completely
> f'ing things up with their post format screwing up
> outlook indents, and Free agent or other free readers
> drying up...it won't be long before Google is the only
> usenet server left




I don't think so.

For archives, sure, but not for the active stuff.

Google owning the archives is no different than Dejanews owning the
archive.

BTW, I'm this isn't about having 'big balls'. Badlands was writing
some stuff that's simply factually incorrect. I gave him the
opportunity to bow out gracefully, but, as usual, he can't admit he
made a mistake no matter how erroneous his statements were.

On Jul 15, 1:29 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni." <kgringi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 15, 7:18 am, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
>
> > "You've illustrated your ignorance in another thread."
>
> > Still waiting.
>
> Newsgroups: alt.sports.football.pro.sd-chargers
> From: "badlands420" <b...@hole.com>
> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:11:33 -0700
> Local: Sun, Jun 15 2008 3:11 pm
> Subject: Re: T-W/Roadrunner terminating Usenet service
> Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
> original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
>
> > > "Microsoft Outlook"
>
> >http://www.microsoft.com/outlook/
>
> > > A lot of people use it as their newsreader.
>
> > This is what I'm talking about. Back when I started on usenet, the onlyway
> > to read newsgroups was with your email client. But since Google acquired
> > ownership of all the usenet archives (and when AOL started having newsgroup
> > service, that didn't help either), most people think it's some sort of
> > glorified web board. Usenet and the internet used to be totally separate
> > entities, and it was better that way.
>
> "Usenet and the internet used to be totally separate entities"
>
> Hahaha. Badlands, you're a fucking moron.
~~~
Looks more like you're just whining about semantics.

All he's saying is now that a lot of people use web browsers to access
their groups instead of dedicated newsreaders, it's starting to make
them regard Usenet as nothing more than a typical web board. In other
words it's not being appreciated for what it really is, and that can
be mostly attributed to mainstream internet conglomerates attempting
to participate in the service and dress it up like a spiffy website
forum.

As you said yourself, Usenet is different in that it's carried by
mulitple servers and should never be regarded as the same as a typical
web board. But that's what's happening, and I don't see why you're
having trouble comprehending it or what bads was trying to say.

On Jul 15, 9:35 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni." <kgringi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 15, 8:59 pm, "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All the big balls I know more than you do BS aside,
> > with google taking on deja archives, completely
> > f'ing things up with their post format screwing up
> > outlook indents, and Free agent or other free readers
> > drying up...it won't be long before Google is the only
> > usenet server left
>
> I don't think so.

I do. Most of the major ISPs are either droppin usenet
completely or outsourcing the server.
If they can dump it without customers bitching, they will.
Only ones who are putting up a fight are file traders
and that includes the kiddie porn and the music thieves
so they won't put up much of a fight.

>
> For archives, sure, but not for the active stuff.

Does anyone really care if you have to go to google
to read usenet vs downloading f'd up format posts
with outlook from a server that routinely says
connection denied or some such BS?

>
> Google owning the archives is no different than Dejanews owning the
> archive.

Except they want to own usenet too.
Deja didn't.

>
> BTW, I'm this isn't about having 'big balls'.

Ok, you don't have big balls. I can accept that.

ScottW

On Jul 15, 9:40 pm, PBDepot <chu...@paintball-depot.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 1:29 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni." <kgringi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 7:18 am, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
>
> > > "You've illustrated your ignorance in another thread."
>
> > > Still waiting.
>
> > Newsgroups: alt.sports.football.pro.sd-chargers
> > From: "badlands420" <b...@hole.com>
> > Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:11:33 -0700
> > Local: Sun, Jun 15 2008 3:11 pm
> > Subject: Re: T-W/Roadrunner terminating Usenet service
> > Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
> > original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
>
> > > > "Microsoft Outlook"
>
> > >http://www.microsoft.com/outlook/
>
> > > > A lot of people use it as their newsreader.
>
> > > This is what I'm talking about. Back when I started on usenet, the only way
> > > to read newsgroups was with your email client. But since Google acquired
> > > ownership of all the usenet archives (and when AOL started having newsgroup
> > > service, that didn't help either), most people think it's some sort of
> > > glorified web board. Usenet and the internet used to be totally separate
> > > entities, and it was better that way.
>
> > "Usenet and the internet used to be totally separate entities"
>
> > Hahaha. Badlands, you're a fucking moron.
>
> ~~~
> Looks more like you're just whining about semantics.
>
> All he's saying is now that a lot of people use web browsers to access
> their groups instead of dedicated newsreaders, it's starting to make
> them regard Usenet as nothing more than a typical web board.


As he does himself. He doesn't understand the difference other than
the difference between clients.


> As you said yourself, Usenet is different in that it's carried by
> mulitple servers and should never be regarded as the same as a typical
> web board. But that's what's happening, and I don't see why you're
> having trouble comprehending it or what bads was trying to say.


How about "usenet and the internet are totally separate entities"?

On Jul 16, 10:56 am, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>   Except they want to own usenet too.
> Deja didn't.



?

If someone owns usenet, it's no longer usenet, the system with
distributed servers.

You got a cite for that?

>All he's saying is now that a lot of people use web browsers to access
>their groups instead of dedicated newsreaders, it's starting to make
>them regard Usenet as nothing more than a typical web board.

Yeah, I'm still not sure what I said that was either moronic or inaccurate.

Of course, allegations of inaccuracy should be taken with a huge grain of
salt coming from a guy who proclaims with a straight face that 80% of the
drivers on the road are drunk after 9pm.

"Kurgan Gringioni." <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:26464ac1-2549-4a6c-b3b0-17b68c9271d8@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 16, 10:56 am, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Except they want to own usenet too.
> Deja didn't.



?

:If someone owns usenet, it's no longer usenet, the system with
:distributed servers.

They don't really want to own usenet though maintaining the
archive gives 'em that for any aged post.
What they want is to be the access porthole.
Screwing up the format of posts from google so the
indents are hosed to most readers except google is
just one method.
Groups you can only access on google groups is another.

Strategy is clear.

ScottW

On Jul 16, 5:46 pm, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
> >All he's saying is now that a lot of people use web browsers to access
> >their groups instead of dedicated newsreaders, it's starting to make
> >them regard Usenet as nothing more than a typical web board.
>
> Yeah, I'm still not sure what I said that was either moronic or inaccurate.



How about "usenet and the internet are totally separate entities"?

On Jul 16, 7:51 pm, "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni." <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:26464ac1-2549-4a6c-b3b0-17b68c9271d8@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 10:56 am, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Except they want to own usenet too.
> > Deja didn't.
>
> ?
>
> :If someone owns usenet, it's no longer usenet, the system with
> :distributed servers.
>
> They don't really want to own usenet though maintaining the
> archive gives 'em that for any aged post.
> What they want is to be the access porthole.
> Screwing up the format of posts from google so the
> indents are hosed to most readers except google is
> just one method.
> Groups you can only access on google groups is another.
>
> Strategy is clear.



They've gotta be able to monetize it somehow.

Keeping all the usenet posts archived, searchable and accessible isn't
cheap.

How is it that this sense of entitlement has slowly infected our
culture? Do you really expect someone to pay for the expense of
maintaining all that information for free? There's a reason that
Dejanews went out of business.

On Jul 16, 11:27 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni." <kgringi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 16, 5:46 pm, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
>
> > >All he's saying is now that a lot of people use web browsers to access
> > >their groups instead of dedicated newsreaders, it's starting to make
> > >them regard Usenet as nothing more than a typical web board.
>
> > Yeah, I'm still not sure what I said that was either moronic or inaccurate.
>
> How about "usenet and the internet are totally separate entities"?


Also, in post #5 in this thread, you wrote:

"Usenet has already been co-opted by the internet"


lol! maybe not as much moronic as just plain ignorant. What's the
difference?

> Also, in post #5 in this thread, you wrote:

> "Usenet has already been co-opted by the internet"

> lol! maybe not as much moronic as just plain ignorant. What's the
difference?

I'm glad you find your own lack of reading comprehension skills so amusing.
PBD already explained, in easily understandable terms, what my point was.
Did you even read what he said, or were you too busy LOLing yourself?

On Jul 17, 7:23 am, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
> > Also, in post #5 in this thread, you wrote:
> > "Usenet has already been co-opted by the internet"
> > lol! maybe not as much moronic as just plain ignorant. What's the
>
> difference?
>
> I'm glad you find your own lack of reading comprehension skills so amusing.
> PBD already explained, in easily understandable terms, what my point was.
> Did you even read what he said, or were you too busy LOLing yourself?



Dude.

"Usenet has been co-opted by the internet"

is a moronic statement.

Usenet is made possible by the internet.

On Jul 17, 2:46 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni." <kgringi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 17, 7:23 am, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
>
> > > Also, in post #5 in this thread, you wrote:
> > > "Usenet has already been co-opted by the internet"
> > > lol! maybe not as much moronic as just plain ignorant. What's the
>
> > difference?
>
> > I'm glad you find your own lack of reading comprehension skills so amusing.
> > PBD already explained, in easily understandable terms, what my point was.
> > Did you even read what he said, or were you too busy LOLing yourself?
>
> Dude.
>
> "Usenet has been co-opted by the internet"
>
> is a moronic statement.
>
> Usenet is made possible by the internet.
~~~
It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

Sincerely,
Bill Clinton

> Usenet is made possible by the internet.

And he calls me an ignorant moron.

I think I just peed a little.

On Jul 17, 8:37 pm, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
> > Usenet is made possible by the internet.
>
> And he calls me an ignorant moron.



In this instance, you are.

> In this instance, you are.

Wow......I mean, I know you've got kind of a pathological tendency to pull
fake facts out your ass and think you know shit that you have no clue about,
but this may be your high water mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

"Usenet is one of the oldest computer network communications systems still
in widespread use. It was established in 1980, following experiments from
the previous year, over a decade before the World Wide Web was introduced
and the general public got access to the Internet."

"badlands420" <bung@hole.com> wrote in message
news:3CUfk.799$KI7.36@newsfe08.iad...
>
>> In this instance, you are.
>
> Wow......I mean, I know you've got kind of a pathological tendency to pull
> fake facts out your ass and think you know shit that you have no clue about,
> but this may be your high water mark.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

>
> "Usenet is one of the oldest computer network communications systems still in
> widespread use. It was established in 1980, following experiments from the
> previous year, over a decade before the World Wide Web was introduced and the
> general public got access to the Internet."

That was then. I remember back in college, Uof Illinois, where I had a part
time
job in their Digital Computer Lab which housed a couple big mainframes
and was the hub of a statewide network. They set up a test usenet server
on what I think was DEC PDP-11 and connected manually twice a day
to get a dump from other servers. It took days for a post to propogate
through the network. Only a half dozen or so users could connect to
the server and view posts at one time. You could get a free loaner
teletype with acoustic coupler in the dorm offices or connect in one of the
data centers with Hazeltine 1500 dumb terminals.

Anyway, that was then...this is now from wiki

"Today, almost all Usenet traffic is carried over the Internet. The current
format and transmission of Usenet articles is very similar to that of Internet
email messages. However, Usenet articles are posted for general consumption; any
Usenet user has access to all newsgroups, unlike email, which requires a list of
known recipients."

Of course like many things in Wiki this isn't exactly true.
Many servers don't carry all groups so any usenet user
doesn't always have access to all groups.
Lots of ISPs are blocking and restricting the binary
attachment groups as well.
And google groups aren't really usenet groups.

ScottW

Are we done arguing over what usenet and internet is? Does the winner
get the title "Biggest Balls" bestowed upon him? (Sigh) Fighting over
what is usenet and internet. Boys will be boys.

"Aimee Thanatogenous" <21stcenturyman@nethere.com> wrote in message
news:cb423461-bc23-476c-be22-26e84921e2b9@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Are we done arguing over what usenet and internet is?

Not since you've joined the fray, no. "We" are not done.

ScottW

> Are we done arguing over what usenet and internet is? Does the winner
> get the title "Biggest Balls" bestowed upon him?

Last time I teabagged my wife, she wound up in a neck brace for three weeks.

http://shop.cafepress.com/design/13847979

> Anyway, that was then...this is now from wiki
>
> "Today, almost all Usenet traffic is carried over the Internet.

Right. Usenet has been co-opted by the internet. That's what I said in the
first place.

On Jul 17, 9:03 pm, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
> > In this instance, you are.
>
> Wow......I mean, I know you've got kind of a pathological tendency to pull
> fake facts out your ass and think you know shit that you have no clue about,
> but this may be your high water mark.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>
> "Usenet is one of the oldest computer network communications systems still
> in widespread use. It was established in 1980, following experiments from
> the previous year, over a decade before the World Wide Web was introduced
> and the general public got access to the Internet."




Badlands, you're a fucking idiot on this topic.

The World Wide Web is not the Internet. It is a subset of the
Internet. The Internet began to exist 15 years before the World Wide
Web and half a decade before Usenet.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

<snip>

Use of the term "Internet" to describe a single global TCP/IP network
originated in December 1974 with the publication of RFC 675, the first
full specification of TCP that was written by Vinton Cerf, Yogen Dalal
and Carl Sunshine, then at Stanford University. During the next nine
years, work proceeded to refine the protocols and to implement them on
a wide range of operating systems.

<snip><end>

On Jul 18, 5:48 pm, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, that was then...this is now from wiki
>
> > "Today, almost all Usenet traffic is carried over the Internet.
>
> Right. Usenet has been co-opted by the internet. That's what I said in the
> first place.



Dude, that is so uninformed, it's incredible.

> Dude, that is so uninformed, it's incredible.

Fine, think whatever you want. I'll let you know when I start giving a fuck
about your opinion.

> Badlands, you're a fucking idiot on this topic.

Fine, think whatever you want. I'll let you know when I start giving a fuck
about your opinion.

On Jul 19, 1:46 pm, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
> > Badlands, you're a fucking idiot on this topic.
>
> Fine, think whatever you want. I'll let you know when I start giving a fuck
> about your opinion.




You are an idiot on this topic.

You're confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web.

The Internet came into being in the mid-70s. ftp servers, email, and
eventually, Usenet in 1980, came into being because of the Internet.
The World Wide Web, with it's domain names and html protocol came into
being in 1990, also using the Internet as the backbone of
communication.

The Internet is not "co-opting usenet". Usenet could not exist w/out
the Internet. The network of Usenet servers exchange information using
the Internet as their means of communication.

It can be argued that web-based boards are coopting Usenet, but they
are not the Internet. They are a subset of the Internet. The World
Wide Web is a subset of the Internet. Usenet is a subset of the
Internet.

You are confused. The Internet is not "co-opting Usenet".

On Jul 17, 9:03 pm, "badlands420" <b...@hole.com> wrote:
> > In this instance, you are.
>
> Wow......I mean, I know you've got kind of a pathological tendency to pull
> fake facts out your ass and think you know shit that you have no clue about,
> but this may be your high water mark.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>
> "Usenet is one of the oldest computer network communications systems still
> in widespread use. It was established in 1980, following experiments from
> the previous year, over a decade before the World Wide Web was introduced
> and the general public got access to the Internet."



You are an idiot on this topic.

You're confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web.

The Internet came into being in the mid-70s. ftp servers, email, and
eventually, Usenet in 1980, came into being because of the Internet.
The World Wide Web, with it's domain names and html protocol came into
being in 1990, also using the Internet as the backbone of
communication.

The Internet is not "co-opting usenet". Usenet could not exist w/out
the Internet. The network of Usenet servers exchange information using
the Internet as their means of communication.

It can be argued that web-based boards are coopting Usenet, but they
are not the Internet. They are a subset of the Internet. The World
Wide Web is a subset of the Internet. Usenet is a subset of the
Internet.

You are confused. The Internet is not "co-opting Usenet".

http://tinyurl.com/5rf9a8

The Padres used to be worth it , when we actually cared what the Padres
did.
they are to blame for the lack of enthusiasm in this group!
Black is absolutely the worse manager I`ve seen in a long time. The
players (most of them) should be on a minor league team at best.They can
take all credit for making me and my family lose all interest in
baseball, We were fanatic fans. Watching ANY game now is agony. Thanks
Moores and your lazy over paid no talent worth less team, and that
worthless ballpark! hard to get to, impossible to be comfortable in,
overcharging families with over priced tickets , parking and food.
Our American way of life was`t ruined with 9/11. It was done in by greed
and privileged people that took advantage of the American family and
their values. All family activity has been priced over the pocketbook of
the average family.and celebrities and politicians are all multi-
millionaires handpicked by the media to shove up our noses and we have
no choice in the matter!
With that I leave you to agree, disagree and lets hope for a better year
next time around!
Padres need a high colonic !!!!!!!!

On Jul 20, 3:20 pm, barb...@webtv.net (Barb B) wrote:

<snip>

> Watching ANY game now is agony.

<snip>

> Padres need a high colonic !!!!!!!!  



Yay! Padres suck! Go Padres!

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:49:07 -0700 badlands420 said:

>http://tinyurl.com/5rf9a8

I was going to ask somebody to invoke Godwin's law (or some semblance of
it). Hopefully this will suffice.


Michael

On Jul 21, 4:39 am, Michael A. Vickers <mavick...@kings-x.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:49:07 -0700 badlands420 said:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/5rf9a8
>
> I was going to ask somebody to invoke Godwin's law (or some semblance of
> it). Hopefully this will suffice.



Why?

No one wants to talk about the Padres. I don't blame them.

"Barb B" <barb331@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11065-4883BA46-5346@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
> The Padres used to be worth it , when we actually cared what the Padres
> did.
> they are to blame for the lack of enthusiasm in this group!
> Black is absolutely the worse manager I`ve seen in a long time.

I gotta agree. I'm watching that St. Louis game that ended on a walkoff
grandslam and wondering...WTF is he walking the bases full with only 1 out and
then playing in?
Talk about putting the pitcher in a tough spot.
I say if you want to walk 1 and play in or walk 1 and play for the DP with the
outfield in...but loading 'em up makes the pitchers job really tough. He can't
afford to get behind and he can't risk not getting a call on the edges. He's
gotta throw strikes and taking away any bases to work with makes it really tough
to get hitters to chase.

ScottW