SpaceGirl wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> "I'll take proxies for $400, Alex."
>>
>> -- <-- this is a signature block
>> -bts <--
>> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck <--
>
> We have to access the Internet through our internal proxy, if I try
> use a different proxy I can't get out of the firewall

Subscribe to a dial-up service... ?

BTW, doesn't GG allow you to manually snip signature blocks, such as
that above which I have left in for demonstration?

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

On Sep 7, 1:59 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
> >> "I'll take proxies for $400, Alex."
>
> >> -- <-- this is a signature block
> >> -bts <--
> >> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck <--
>
> > We have to access the Internet through our internal proxy, if I try
> > use a different proxy I can't get out of the firewall
>
> Subscribe to a dial-up service... ?
>
> BTW, doesn't GG allow you to manually snip signature blocks, such as
> that above which I have left in for demonstration?

Because... who cares? Yeah so you have to skip over a few extra lines,
but big deal. People are WAY to precious on Usenet.

SpaceGirl wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> BTW, doesn't GG allow you to manually snip signature blocks, such as
>> that above which I have left in for demonstration?
>
> Because... who cares? Yeah so you have to skip over a few extra
> lines, but big deal. People are WAY to precious on Usenet.

I'm sorry you don't care to take two extra seconds to create an
easier-to-read post.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Sep 7, 1:59 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> <a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> BTW, doesn't GG allow you to manually snip signature blocks, such as
>> that above which I have left in for demonstration?
>
> Because... who cares? Yeah so you have to skip over a few extra lines,
> but big deal. People are WAY to precious on Usenet.

The person who cares is the person who wants their posts to be read.

Mark
--
http://mark.goodge.co.uk

And lo, SpaceGirl didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> SpaceGirl wrote:
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>
>>>> "I'll take proxies for $400, Alex."
>>>>
>>>> -- <-- this is a signature block
>>>> -bts <--
>>>> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck <--
>>>
>>> We have to access the Internet through our internal proxy, if I try
>>> use a different proxy I can't get out of the firewall
>>
>> Subscribe to a dial-up service... ?
>>
>> BTW, doesn't GG allow you to manually snip signature blocks, such as
>> that above which I have left in for demonstration?
>
> Because... who cares? Yeah so you have to skip over a few extra lines,
> but big deal. People are WAY to precious on Usenet.

Indeed, who cares? Not me. I ain't precious. I bin GG and I don't care
enough to read most of your posts. I mean, why should we care if *you*
don't?

Nothing personal.

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine

And lo, Beauregard T. Shagnasty didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:

> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>> We have to access the Internet through our internal proxy, if I try
>> use a different proxy I can't get out of the firewall
>
> Subscribe to a dial-up service... ?

A meta-comment here... My own workplace doesn't block the NNTP port,
despite the internal proxy service. Yet there was a time I could have
justified allowing the access, had it been blocked, due almost solely to
the high signal to noise ratio of work-tech-related ful posts in AWW.

These days I suspect, mostly due to GG, that particular justification
would be a great deal more tenuous.

Still, there is a lot of useful information on Usenet. You [SpaceGirl]
should really pitch opening the port to your boss as a work-related
resource. It can't hurt to ask, can it? I mean, you're already *at* work
using GG, so you'd actually be streamlining your access by using a real
client.

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine

Duke of Hazard wrote on 9/6/2007 6:45 PM:
> I notice Google Groups has become far more unreliable and buggy in the
> last few months. There is too much spam in most groups for one thing.
> Profiles often are not updated with a posters latest post. Searching
> brings up many duplicate results which it would not do before.
> Sometimes google groups is entirely down for many hours. I get the
> impression folks at Google don't care too much about it anymore, what
> do you think.
>

Google as a whole has been going down hill for a
long time. They are spreading themselves too thin,
and aren't keeping what they already have, going right.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne@WayneSallee.com

Wayne Sallee wrote:
> Duke of Hazard wrote on 9/6/2007 6:45 PM:
>> I notice Google Groups has become far more unreliable and buggy in the
>> last few months. There is too much spam in most groups for one thing.
>> Profiles often are not updated with a posters latest post. Searching
>> brings up many duplicate results which it would not do before.
>> Sometimes google groups is entirely down for many hours. I get the
>> impression folks at Google don't care too much about it anymore, what
>> do you think.
>
> Google as a whole has been going down hill for a
> long time. They are spreading themselves too thin,
> and aren't keeping what they already have, going right.

GG being "entirely down for many hours" is a feature, not a bug.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28