Cheaters

Discussion in 'Java' started by scuzwalla@gmail.com, Oct 5, 2008.

  1. Guest

    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.
     
    , Oct 5, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. zerg Guest

    wrote:
    > 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 ...
     
    zerg, Oct 5, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    > 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 .
    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 ]

    --
    B. L. Massingill
    ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
     
    , Oct 5, 2008
    #3
  4. "zerg" <> wrote in message news:gcapbh$653$...
    > wrote:
    >> 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.


    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.

    [...]
     
    Chronic Philharmonic, Oct 5, 2008
    #4
  5. Daniel Pitts Guest

    wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > <> wrote:
    >> 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 .
    > 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.

    --
    Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>
     
    Daniel Pitts, Oct 5, 2008
    #5
  6. Guest

    On Oct 5, 1:49 pm, <> wrote:
    > In article <..com>,
    >
    >  <> wrote:
    > > 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 .
    > 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.
     
    , Oct 6, 2008
    #6
  7. Guest

    On Oct 5, 2:20 pm, "Chronic Philharmonic" <>
    wrote:
    > "zerg" <> wrote in messagenews:gcapbh$653$...
    > > wrote:
    > >> 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?


    Trust me -- you do not want to know.

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

    >
    > > 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.
     
    , Oct 6, 2008
    #7
  8. Guest

    On Oct 5, 6:21 pm, Daniel Pitts
    <> wrote:
    > 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.
     
    , Oct 6, 2008
    #8
  9. Guest

    On Oct 5, 7:03 pm, Lew <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > 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.

    >
    > 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.
     
    , Oct 6, 2008
    #9
  10. Arne Vajhøj Guest

    wrote:
    > On Oct 5, 1:49 pm, <> wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >>> 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 .
    >> 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.


    Ah - another twerpie account !!

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Oct 6, 2008
    #10
  11. Guest

    On Oct 5, 10:02 pm, Arse Vajhøle <> wrote:
    > [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.
     
    , Oct 6, 2008
    #11
  12. Arne Vajhøj Guest

    wrote:
    > On Oct 5, 10:02 pm, Arse Vajhøle <> wrote:
    >> [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)]);
    }
    }
    }
    }
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Oct 6, 2008
    #12
  13. "Arne Vajhøj" <> wrote in message
    news:48e97700$0$90275$...
    > wrote:
    >> On Oct 5, 10:02 pm, Arse Vajhøle <> wrote:
    >>> [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...

    [...]

    >> 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.


    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.
     
    Chronic Philharmonic, Oct 6, 2008
    #13
  14. Guest

    On Oct 5, 10:25 pm, Arne Vajhøj <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > On Oct 5, 10:02 pm, Arse Vajhøle <> wrote:
    > >> [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.)
     
    , Oct 6, 2008
    #14
  15. Guest

    On Oct 5, 10:48 pm, "Chronic Philharmonic" <>
    wrote:
    > "Arne Vajhøj" <> wrote in message

    [snip]

    NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!

    > >> Learn proper netiquette!

    >
    > > [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.

    > >> 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 [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.
     
    , Oct 6, 2008
    #15
  16. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Oct 5, 10:48 pm, "Chronic Philharmonic" <>
    > wrote:
    >> "Arne Vajhøj" <> wrote in message

    > [snip]
    >
    > NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!


    ....and yet, life goes on.

    [idiocy deleted]
     
    Chronic Philharmonic, Oct 6, 2008
    #16
  17. Guest

    On Oct 6, 3:12 am, "Chronic Philharmonic" <>
    wrote:
    > > 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.
     
    , Oct 6, 2008
    #17
  18. Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    > On Oct 5, 6:21 pm, Daniel Pitts
    > <> wrote:
    > > 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* ...


    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.
    >
    > > 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.


    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.

    --
    B. L. Massingill
    ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
     
    , Oct 6, 2008
    #18
  19. Guest

    On Oct 6, 7:36 am, <> wrote:
    > 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.

    > > > 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.

    >
    > 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?
     
    , Oct 6, 2008
    #19
  20. Daniel Pitts Guest

    wrote:
    > On Oct 5, 6:21 pm, Daniel Pitts
    > <> wrote:
    >> 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.


    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.
    --
    Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>
     
    Daniel Pitts, Oct 6, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. **Group User**

    C++ cheaters

    **Group User**, Jan 22, 2010, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    413
    Ian Porter
    Jan 22, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page