Cheaters

[scuzwalla]

Well, apparently GG posts to a certain thread in a certain other
newsgroup (from any account) are now being rejected, not even silently
but with a bogus claim of having been posted successfully.

"Winning" a debate/flamewar/whatever by muzzling your opponents is not
actual winning; it is cheating.

I'd say that I hoped you felt guilty about what you've done for the
rest of your miserable lives, but I know that most of my opponents are
sociopaths and incapable of experiencing any feelings of guilt
whatsoever. So I guess I'll just wish that they all get struck by
lightning or flaming meteors or public-transit buses or suchlike and
then burn in Hell instead.

It will be too little, too late to save me from the eventual
consequences of what they've done, but at least it would prevent them
from claiming any more victims by using similar tactics.

I can also hope that their underhanded choice of tactics, and my
calling attention to same, will lower their credibility further, at
least in the eyes of some.

Or to put the above in simpler language:

Cheating is lame. Go to hell, the lot of you.

 

[zerg]

Well, apparently GG posts to a certain thread in a certain other
newsgroup (from any account) are now being rejected, not even silently
but with a bogus claim of having been posted successfully.

What the devil is this in reference to?

"Winning" a debate/flamewar/whatever by muzzling your opponents is not
actual winning; it is cheating.

That much is true.

[some sort of rant, non-Java-related]

What the ...

 

[blmblm]

Well, apparently GG posts to a certain thread in a certain other
newsgroup (from any account) are now being rejected, not even silently
but with a bogus claim of having been posted successfully.

If I know the thread and newsgroup you mean -- the news server
I use shows 21 posts made today, some by (e-mail address removed).
They don't seem to show up if I look for them with Google's
"advanced search" interface (searching both on author and group),
but apparently they did make it to at least part of the outside
world. "For the record", "just sayin'", whatever.

[ snip ]

 

[Chronic Philharmonic]

What the devil is this in reference to?


That much is true.

Up to a point. If it stops an annoying troll spewing mad-libs directed at a
particular person or persons, I would not say it's cheating, I'd say it's a
public service.

[...]

 

[Daniel Pitts]

Well, apparently GG posts to a certain thread in a certain other
newsgroup (from any account) are now being rejected, not even silently
but with a bogus claim of having been posted successfully.

If I know the thread and newsgroup you mean -- the news server
I use shows 21 posts made today, some by (e-mail address removed).
They don't seem to show up if I look for them with Google's
"advanced search" interface (searching both on author and group),
but apparently they did make it to at least part of the outside
world. "For the record", "just sayin'", whatever.

[ snip ]

For the record, Usenet is a bunch of servers with a bunch of different
settings and retentions and routes, etc... It is actually quite common
that a message can be "posted successfully", but not be seen on some, or
any, client for quite some time. Google in particular seems to have to
spend some time playing catch-up once in a while.

Scuzwalla, you *may* have been cheated, but it is much more likely that
you have only seen a hick-up in Google Groups' implementation of
Usenet<->Web interface.

 

[scuzwalla]

If I know the thread and newsgroup you mean -- the news server
I use shows 21 posts made today, some by (e-mail address removed).
They don't seem to show up if I look for them with Google's
"advanced search" interface (searching both on author and group),
but apparently they did make it to at least part of the outside
world.

Doesn't matter. Since this battle is really being fought over what
gets presented to future users of Google Groups Search, if my posts
are now being suppressed from entering Google's archive, it's all
over.

The big question is: which sore loser did this to me, Lars Enderin or
Tristram Rolph? Because it was almost certainly one of them. Nobody
else has been participating recently besides the four of us, and you
don't strike me as the cheating type. Subject-changing, insinuating
things, and other somewhat devious things, maybe, but not outright
cheating on a massive scale.

 

[scuzwalla]

Trust me -- you do not want to know.

That much is true.

Up to a point. If it stops an [insult deleted] [insult deleted] directed at a
particular person or persons, I would not say it's cheating, I'd say it's a
public service.

No, you're the troll, and the one personally attacking *me*, which
would mean that by your own reasoning it is you whose forcible
shutting-up would be a public service.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

 

[scuzwalla]

For the record, Usenet is a bunch of servers with a bunch of different
settings and retentions and routes, etc... It is actually quite common
that a message can be "posted successfully", but not be seen on some, or
any, client for quite some time.

It is quite common that a successfully posted message may take some
time to show up on servers OTHER than the one used to post it, but it
is certainly not at all common for a successfully posted message to
take any time to show up at the SAME server from which it was posted.
It is exceptionally rare for it to show up anywhere else EARLIER,
since it needs to be injected into the local news spool before it can
propagate! Which means that my messages are being successfully posted
to Google's local news spool, but are NOT making it into Google's
*archive*, and since the Groups *viewing* interface is backed by the
*archive* ...

No matter. If I am no longer capable of posting something to that
thread that actually appears in Google's archives for posterity, then
the cheater has achieved his intended goal. Unfortunately.

Scuzwalla, you *may* have been cheated, but it is much more likely that
you have only seen a hick-up in Google Groups' implementation of
Usenet<->Web interface.

Then explain why I am able to view and post to *this* thread in real
time? I very much doubt that a generic glitch at Google would
specifically and narrowly affect one single, specific thread and not
even others with participants, Groups account use, and other features
in common with that thread.

 

[scuzwalla]

Your problem is that Google Groups is not a good interface to Usenet.

Indeed, though I seem to be stuck with it for the time being.

And one of the most awful things about it is that it's apparently not
too difficult for a sufficiently determined and unscrupulous adversary
to subvert to his advantage.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Doesn't matter. Since this battle is really being fought over what
gets presented to future users of Google Groups Search, if my posts
are now being suppressed from entering Google's archive, it's all
over.

The big question is: which sore loser did this to me, Lars Enderin or
Tristram Rolph? Because it was almost certainly one of them. Nobody
else has been participating recently besides the four of us, and you
don't strike me as the cheating type. Subject-changing, insinuating
things, and other somewhat devious things, maybe, but not outright
cheating on a massive scale.

Ah - another twerpie account !!

Arne

 

[scuzwalla]

[quotes excessively without trimming]

Learn proper netiquette!

The big question is: which sore loser did this to me, Lars Enderin or
Tristram Rolph? Because it was almost certainly one of them. Nobody
else has been participating recently besides the four of us, and you
don't strike me as the cheating type. Subject-changing, insinuating
things, and other somewhat devious things, maybe, but not outright
cheating on a massive scale.

Ah - another [insult deleted] account !!

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

[quotes excessively without trimming]

Learn proper netiquette!

Learn to think !

If you somebody read what you left, then they will not have a clue
what "this" mentioned below is.

I quoted correct.

You quoted wrong.

The big question is: which sore loser did this to me, Lars Enderin or
Tristram Rolph? Because it was almost certainly one of them. Nobody
else has been participating recently besides the four of us, and you
don't strike me as the cheating type. Subject-changing, insinuating
things, and other somewhat devious things, maybe, but not outright
cheating on a massive scale.

Ah - another [insult deleted] account !!

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

So you are claiming that you are not twerpie and and still you use
one of his favorite sentences.

A proof I attach a copy of the wellknown twerpie simulator
(first edition).

Arne

=====================================

import java.util.Random;

public class TwerpieSimulator {
private static String STANDARD = "None of the nasty things that you
have said or implied about me are at all true";
private static String[] OTHER = { "Liar",
"Pervert",
"Moron",
"**** off",
"Piss off",
"Go to hell" };
private static Random rng = new Random();
public static void main(String[] args) {
for(int i = 0; i < 1 + rng.nextInt(10); i++) {
if(rng.nextDouble() < 0.5) {
System.out.println(STANDARD);
} else {
System.out.println(OTHER[rng.nextInt(OTHER.length)]);
}
}
}
}

 

[Chronic Philharmonic]

[quotes excessively without trimming]

Learn proper netiquette!

Learn to think !

If you somebody read what you left, then they will not have a clue
what "this" mentioned below is.

I quoted correct.

You quoted wrong.

Arne, you might as well save your breath on this one. He/she/it likes to
complain about excessive quoting, as if he/she/it has a monopoly on Usenet
style, or variations for readability thereof. She/he/it then elides all
intervening text, so that if you say anything critical, you are accused of
"attacking/insulting" him/her/it without any evidence. Of course, one could
move up the thread and verify what was said, but why make the effort? Then,
he/she/it denies all the supposedly nasty things that were said or implied
(NOT!). As shown here...

[...]

So you are claiming that you are not twerpie and and still you use
one of his favorite sentences.

You will now receive a twisted and bizarre argument, interspersed with
pseudo-reasonable points, probably reflecting whether he was on/off
his/her/its meds that day.

 

[scuzwalla]

[quotes excessively without trimming]

Learn proper netiquette!

[insults deleted]

No, you're the stupid one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Ah - another [insult deleted] account !!

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

So you are claiming that you are not

I am claiming nothing of the sort. I am claiming that your insulting
insinuations about me, entirely orthogonal to the question of my
identity, are false.

[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

A proof I attach a copy of the wellknown [insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

import java.util.Random;

public class [insult deleted] {
[numerous implied insults deleted]
}

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

(Besides, your monstrosity wouldn't compile anyway, not with that line
break in the middle of a string constant. It would have needed to be
more like

private static String STANDARD = "None of the nasty things" +
" that you have said or implied about me are at all true";

to work.)

 

[scuzwalla]

"Arne Vajhøj" <[email protected]> wrote in message

[snip]

NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!

[insults deleted]

No, Arne is the stupid one.

None of the nasty things that Arne has said or implied about me are at
all true.

Arne, you might as well save your breath on this one. [multiple implied
insults deleted, including a false accusation of dishonesty on my part]

No, you're the liar.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

The one truthful thing here was "Arne, you might as well save your
breath"; attacking me is pointless, stupid, and indeed a waste of
time, since it is not only nonconstructive and unhelpful, not to
mention off-topic, but also quite futile.

Although "bandwidth" might have been a better word choice than
"breath" given the particular communications medium.

So you are claiming that you are not [insult deleted]

I didn't claim not to be any particular person. I did object to the
way Arne implicitly characterized me.

None of the nasty things that Arne has said or implied about me are at
all true.

You will now receive [numerous implied insults deleted]

No, you're the crazy one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

 

[Chronic Philharmonic]

"Arne Vajhøj" <[email protected]> wrote in message

[snip]

NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!

....and yet, life goes on.

[idiocy deleted]

 

[scuzwalla]

NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!

...and yet, life goes on.

[insult deleted]

No, you're the stupid one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

 

[blmblm]

It is quite common that a successfully posted message may take some
time to show up on servers OTHER than the one used to post it, but it
is certainly not at all common for a successfully posted message to
take any time to show up at the SAME server from which it was posted.
It is exceptionally rare for it to show up anywhere else EARLIER,
since it needs to be injected into the local news spool before it can
propagate! Which means that my messages are being successfully posted
to Google's local news spool, but are NOT making it into Google's
*archive*, and since the Groups *viewing* interface is backed by the
*archive* ...

Again for the record:

At least some of the missing posts are now being shown by Google's
interface(s), though they (and other posts made the same day by
another poster) don't seem to be properly threaded with earlier
posts. I won't even try to guess why or how the delay happened, or
whether the problems with threading will eventually be corrected.

No matter. If I am no longer capable of posting something to that
thread that actually appears in Google's archives for posterity, then
the cheater has achieved his intended goal. Unfortunately.

s/hick-up/hiccup/ ? though "hick-up" has connotations that *might*
be appropriate too ....

Then explain why I am able to view and post to *this* thread in real
time? I very much doubt that a generic glitch at Google would
specifically and narrowly affect one single, specific thread and not
even others with participants, Groups account use, and other features
in common with that thread.

I'd say "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by
stupidity [or other error]", but -- who knows.

It *is* interesting that apparently whatever is/was wrong is/was
somewhat localized. I did notice someone complaining recently
about what sounds like a similar problem in a rec.* group where
I lurk.

 

[scuzwalla]

At least some of the missing posts are now being shown by Google's
interface(s), though they (and other posts made the same day by
another poster) don't seem to be properly threaded with earlier
posts.  I won't even try to guess why or how the delay happened, or
whether the problems with threading will eventually be corrected.

Isn't it obvious? Lars (or perhaps Tristram) tried to muzzle me, but
screwed up.

This sort of incompetence is of course why the bad guys tend to keep
losing. That, and they eventually turn on each other.

s/hick-up/hiccup/ ?  though "hick-up" has connotations that *might*
be appropriate too ....

Nah. It's Tristram's posts, especially, that ought to make Google
"hick-up", not mine.

Then explain why I am able to view and post to *this* thread in real
time? I very much doubt that a generic glitch at Google would
specifically and narrowly affect one single, specific thread and not
even others with participants, Groups account use, and other features
in common with that thread.

I'd say "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by
stupidity [or other error]", but -- who knows.

The selective nature of the "hick-up" makes it difficult to explain by
stupidity. (Its failure to really keep me muzzled, on the other hand,
can easily be explained by stupidity. )

It *is* interesting that apparently whatever is/was wrong is/was
somewhat localized.  I did notice someone complaining recently
about what sounds like a similar problem in a rec.* group where
I lurk.

Where a flamewar was going on?

 

[Daniel Pitts]

It is quite common that a successfully posted message may take some
time to show up on servers OTHER than the one used to post it, but it
is certainly not at all common for a successfully posted message to
take any time to show up at the SAME server from which it was posted.
It is exceptionally rare for it to show up anywhere else EARLIER,
since it needs to be injected into the local news spool before it can
propagate! Which means that my messages are being successfully posted
to Google's local news spool, but are NOT making it into Google's
*archive*, and since the Groups *viewing* interface is backed by the
*archive* ...

No matter. If I am no longer capable of posting something to that
thread that actually appears in Google's archives for posterity, then
the cheater has achieved his intended goal. Unfortunately.


Then explain why I am able to view and post to *this* thread in real
time? I very much doubt that a generic glitch at Google would
specifically and narrowly affect one single, specific thread and not
even others with participants, Groups account use, and other features
in common with that thread.

Google likely uses a distributed system to handle the traffic loads that
it gets. It is possible that they use some sort of session affinity as
well, so that a user is more likely to reach the same cluster node
repeatedly. Given those two possibilities, it becomes possible that
posts you made within a small time-frame were all sent to one machine
that was/is overwhelmed and that the process of replicating the post to
other cluster nodes throughout google was delayed. Of course, this is
just an educated guess.

So like I said, you /may/ have been cheated, but it wouldn't be the
conclusion that I would jump to if the same events happened to me.